Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New study of the Scottish IndyRef finds that the turnout le

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited December 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New study of the Scottish IndyRef finds that the turnout level amongst 16 and 17 years olds was 75%

An explanation by Professor John Curtice of why the very youngest segment was more likely to vote is that maybe they were encouraged to do so by mum and dad who probably have less influence over older groups.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    The curse of being first !!
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    Quite good head to head on Daily Politics, Heseltine vs Carswell

    JoCo "Do you think Douglas Carswell could ever be tempted back to the Conservative Party?"
    LH "I hope not"
    DC "We agree on much, including that"
    JoCo "In terms of the Conservative Party, do you think Europe will eventually split the party?"
    LH "No. The Tory party is an immensely sophisticated political force. It is the most successful democratic organisation in human history..."
    DC "It hasn't won an election since 1992"
    LH ".. and it has an enormous sense of..."
    DC "entitlement"
    LH "...survival"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Which way did they vote?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    Interesting and indeed noteworthy that the sector with the lowest turnout was the 18-24’s. Wasn’t this group which, in the country as a whole said in 2010 that it’d vote LD, but in the event didn’t vote at all.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    isam said:

    Quite good head to head on Daily Politics, Heseltine vs Carswell

    JoCo "Do you think Douglas Carswell could ever be tempted back to the Conservative Party?"
    LH "I hope not"
    DC "We agree on much, including that"
    JoCo "In terms of the Conservative Party, do you think Europe will eventually split the party?"
    LH "No. The Tory party is an immensely sophisticated political force. It is the most successful democratic organisation in human history..."
    DC "It hasn't won an election since 1992"
    LH ".. and it has an enormous sense of..."
    DC "entitlement"
    LH "...survival"

    It's funny. Kippers here go on about how little the Tories do to make them want to go back, and here we have Carswell continually slagging off the party on who's back he was happy to ride into Parliament in the first place.

    Would he have made it into the HoC otherwise? I doubt it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited December 2014
    OldKingCole said:

    Interesting and indeed noteworthy that the sector with the lowest turnout was the 18-24’s. Wasn’t this group which, in the country as a whole said in 2010 that it’d vote LD, but in the event didn’t vote at all.

    Would you be shocked and surprised to learn that in this morning's YouGov Labour's (and the Green Proto-Communist-Fascist Party) biggest support comes from the 18-24s?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Lack on interest in the voting booth seems to coincide with [legal] access to alcohol and getting a job/going to uni/enjoying your own personal bennies. Who'd a thunk it.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    TheWatcher said:

    isam said:

    Quite good head to head on Daily Politics, Heseltine vs Carswell

    JoCo "Do you think Douglas Carswell could ever be tempted back to the Conservative Party?"
    LH "I hope not"
    DC "We agree on much, including that"
    JoCo "In terms of the Conservative Party, do you think Europe will eventually split the party?"
    LH "No. The Tory party is an immensely sophisticated political force. It is the most successful democratic organisation in human history..."
    DC "It hasn't won an election since 1992"
    LH ".. and it has an enormous sense of..."
    DC "entitlement"
    LH "...survival"

    It's funny. Kippers here go on about how little the Tories do to make them want to go back, and here we have Carswell continually slagging off the party on who's back he was happy to ride into Parliament in the first place.

    Would he have made it into the HoC otherwise? I doubt it.
    I think the difference is that Carswell isn't personally insulting people ("fat arse" "loonies" "racists" "fruitcakes" "clowns" etc) but criticising the institution
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,456
    edited December 2014
    I was not at all surprised at those figures for 16 and 17 year olds who turned out to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Like DavidL, I was initially against lowering the voting age, but I am now a firm convert after witnessing my own 17 year old and his friends all becoming so engaged in politics, and then turning out to vote in such large numbers. We gave 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to get involved with the whole political debate on the issue of Independence in Scotland, and they in turn stepped up to the plate in what really became one of the most positive aspects in a very bitterly fought Referendum campaign. They have now more than earned the right to get the vote in subsequent elections in Scotland.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Which way did they vote?

    I'm a bit suprised that for the Scotland specific VI we haven't seen demographic breakdowns of who voted Yes and No in the referendum.

    That said the Indy Ref must be a polling companies best gift when it comes to weighting the sample. The chance of false recall of vote must be pretty close to nil at the moment and I'm sure people will remember for years to come.

    I realise that I can't remember who I voted for in either the 2001 or 2005 General Election. I can do all the Holyrood elections though..
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    "An explanation by Professor John Curtice of why the very youngest segment was more likely to vote is that maybe they were encouraged to do so by mum and dad who probably have less influence over older groups."

    an assertion without any evidence, not really an explanation.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Alistair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Which way did they vote?

    I'm a bit suprised that for the Scotland specific VI we haven't seen demographic breakdowns of who voted Yes and No in the referendum.

    That said the Indy Ref must be a polling companies best gift when it comes to weighting the sample. The chance of false recall of vote must be pretty close to nil at the moment and I'm sure people will remember for years to come.

    I realise that I can't remember who I voted for in either the 2001 or 2005 General Election. I can do all the Holyrood elections though..
    I think Lord Ashcroft did an after action report. I'll dig it out in a bit
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Found it.

    Lord A found 16-24 age group voted 51/49 in favour of yes

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Referendum-day-poll-summary-1409191.pdf
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    fitalass said:

    I was not at all surprised at those figures for 16 and 17 year olds who turned out to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Like DavidL, I was initially against lowering the voting age, but I am now a firm convert after witnessing my own 17 year old and his friends all becoming so engaged in politics, and then turning out to vote in such large numbers. We gave 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to get involved with the whole political debate on the issue of Independence in Scotland, and they in turn stepped up to the plate in what really became one of the most positive aspects in a very bitterly fought Referendum campaign. They have now more than earned the right to get the vote in subsequent elections in Scotland.

    The way we treat our young people is a disgrace. We expect them to pay our debts for us and to pay our pensions (that we haven't earned). We took away their EMA. We dump unacceptable levels of debt on them for the second or third rank education we got for free.

    And then we deny them the vote. I seem to recall that the Americans didn't take kindly to that sort of treatment either.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alistair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Which way did they vote?

    I'm a bit suprised that for the Scotland specific VI we haven't seen demographic breakdowns of who voted Yes and No in the referendum.

    That said the Indy Ref must be a polling companies best gift when it comes to weighting the sample. The chance of false recall of vote must be pretty close to nil at the moment and I'm sure people will remember for years to come.

    I realise that I can't remember who I voted for in either the 2001 or 2005 General Election. I can do all the Holyrood elections though..
    I think Lord Ashcroft did an after action report. I'll dig it out in a bit
    Yeah, I've seen that one and there was one by YouGov as well I think ( which have pretty different age band results from Ashcroft - basically all but one age groups in the YouGov poll voted No wheras in Ashcroft it was all about the OAPs) but I'd have thought that given you would be getting it "for free" when you'd do a Scottish VI you may as well include it in your results.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. L, I agree entirely on debts but EMA's just daft. Paying kids to go to school is silly.

    Also, the line on voting age has to be drawn somewhere.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges 25m25 minutes ago Greenwich, London
    The Scots are drunk on constitutional arrogance and self-righteousness > Telegraph > http://tinyurl.com/m9alfyo

    Brilliant article by DH.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Jeb Bush announces he will explore possibility of running for Pres.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    John Curtice – ‘maybe they were encouraged to do so by mum and dad who probably have less influence over older groups.’

    Quite plausible IMHO - Sensible chap that Mr Curtice.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    edited December 2014
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Interesting and indeed noteworthy that the sector with the lowest turnout was the 18-24’s. Wasn’t this group which, in the country as a whole said in 2010 that it’d vote LD, but in the event didn’t vote at all.

    Would you be shocked and surprised to learn that in this morning's YouGov Labour's (and the Green Proto-Communist-Fascist Party) biggest support comes from the 18-24s?
    Shocked; no, I've got to a stage in life where I'm not often shocked. Somewhat surprised, though, given that they are a segment which has been to some extent demonised and certainly significantly messed about by the current government.
    And, they ought to be the people who really, really want "their turn" and change.
    To misquote: if a man is not a revolutionary at twenty he has no heart; if he is still one at forty, he has no head!
  • Jolo13Jolo13 Posts: 1
    the young tend to vote against the status quo which is why Salmond gave them the vote..Ed Miliband is doing the same for the same reason..
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    One person - one vote, with parents exercising it jointly on the child's behalf up to the age of 16.

    This might go some way to changing the skew on public policy towards the elderly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. L, I agree entirely on debts but EMA's just daft. Paying kids to go to school is silly.

    Also, the line on voting age has to be drawn somewhere.

    I actually agreed with the abolition of the EMA but what I don't agree with is a situation where those affected by such decisions have no say.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    MarkSenior said:

    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .

    Very good point.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,736
    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    DavidL said:

    fitalass said:

    I was not at all surprised at those figures for 16 and 17 year olds who turned out to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Like DavidL, I was initially against lowering the voting age, but I am now a firm convert after witnessing my own 17 year old and his friends all becoming so engaged in politics, and then turning out to vote in such large numbers. We gave 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to get involved with the whole political debate on the issue of Independence in Scotland, and they in turn stepped up to the plate in what really became one of the most positive aspects in a very bitterly fought Referendum campaign. They have now more than earned the right to get the vote in subsequent elections in Scotland.

    The way we treat our young people is a disgrace. We expect them to pay our debts for us and to pay our pensions (that we haven't earned). We took away their EMA. We dump unacceptable levels of debt on them for the second or third rank education we got for free.

    And then we deny them the vote. I seem to recall that the Americans didn't take kindly to that sort of treatment either.

    But surely the 2nd or 3rd rate education is the issue. We currently have the most witless, feckless generation seen in the modern era -not their fault; it's how they've been raised. I don't see how giving the vote to them two years earlier can possibly be a good thing.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited December 2014
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    We currently have the most witless, feckless generation seen in the modern era

    At least they're not prone to baseless sweeping assertions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    The Scottish referendum was what we all believed at the time was going to be a unique event (rather than some biannual or whatever the current theory is). I very much doubt that 16-17 year olds would vote in such numbers in a GE, let alone in LG elections. But that does not mean that they should not have a right to.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MarkSenior said:

    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .

    But surely the polls ask them whether they voted at all and not whether they voted in all the places they were eligible to vote?

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    There will probably be a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16 in the Republic of Ireland on the same day as the gay marriage referendum and a variety of other polls. Expected sometime before April 2015.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    DavidL said:

    fitalass said:

    I was not at all surprised at those figures for 16 and 17 year olds who turned out to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Like DavidL, I was initially against lowering the voting age, but I am now a firm convert after witnessing my own 17 year old and his friends all becoming so engaged in politics, and then turning out to vote in such large numbers. We gave 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to get involved with the whole political debate on the issue of Independence in Scotland, and they in turn stepped up to the plate in what really became one of the most positive aspects in a very bitterly fought Referendum campaign. They have now more than earned the right to get the vote in subsequent elections in Scotland.

    The way we treat our young people is a disgrace. We expect them to pay our debts for us and to pay our pensions (that we haven't earned). We took away their EMA. We dump unacceptable levels of debt on them for the second or third rank education we got for free.

    And then we deny them the vote. I seem to recall that the Americans didn't take kindly to that sort of treatment either.

    You say "took away their EMA" as if they had some sort of right to it. If I give people a bribe to do something, and then stop paying that bribe, it's hardly them being exploited. What nonsense. The "debt" that is being left to them doesn't even have to be paid off unless they benefit hugely from it.

    Oh, and British universities are some of the best in the world. In global university rankings, it's the Americans and us, and no-one else comes close.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,470
    edited December 2014
    Off topic, but quite interesting.

    The Scottish government produced forecasts of oil revenues for an independent Scotland. They came up with six scenarios. Their main price forecast was for $110 per barrel. So anyway I wondered what their most pessimistic forecast was, as obviously you need to consider the worst case scenario. I've looked that up, it is $107 falling to $99 per barrel. That's a scenario derived from OBR figures that YES flatly rejected as ludicrously pessimistic. Brent Crude is currently $59.

    In fact none of the organisations that the Scottish and UK governments consulted forecast figures as low as they are now, $85 was the lowest from the 22 forecasters the OBR used.

    I think it's fair to say that at the current price the Scottish economic miracle that YES were promising would be up the proverbial creek.

    If this current fall had coincided with the referendum it might not have been as close as it was.

    Oh and production forecasts might also be way off with such low prices.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    Back to votes for landowners only, eh. If you don't own the country, why should you vote on it?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    They can be parents, join the army......
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good afternoon:
    Whats in a name? Shakespere answered the question and Douglas Murray tries to.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4949/mohammed-boy-name
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    DavidL said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. L, I agree entirely on debts but EMA's just daft. Paying kids to go to school is silly.

    Also, the line on voting age has to be drawn somewhere.

    I actually agreed with the abolition of the EMA but what I don't agree with is a situation where those affected by such decisions have no say.
    So you would expect by your logic to let babies have the vote as they are affected by decisions on housing? :-)
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over 80 years of other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, have barely 10 years left.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    54 % is pathetic turnout for such an important once-in-a-lifetime vote, so much for the festival of democracy touted by the fat loser.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    MarkSenior said:

    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .

    An excellent technical point which is central to the whole debate.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Tissue_Price said:

    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over 80 years of other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, have barely 10 years left.
    Now, now, enough of that Mr.Tissue, you must leave to us greybeards to know what's best, after all we have the experience. We don't want some snotty schoolboys putting their nursery claws in things.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited December 2014
    Having a baby and/or joining the Army at 16 would suggest that they have no commonsense at all
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    Indeed. Bizarre.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    richardDodd said:

    Having a baby and/or joining the Army at 16 would suggest that they have on commonsense at all

    That's sorted - give the vote to anyone aged 16 to 18 who has not had a baby or joined the army then.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Neil said:

    richardDodd said:

    Having a baby and/or joining the Army at 16 would suggest that they have on commonsense at all

    That's sorted - give the vote to anyone aged 16 to 18 who has not had a baby or joined the army then.

    Should we deny the vote to all squaddies too ?

    I mean - that is the logical conclusion of Mr Dodd's analysis.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited December 2014
    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's all perspective @Bobajob. When I was 16 I thought I knew everything and how I wanted the vote. It turns out that I knew nothing worth knowing and with respect that would be the position todays 16 year olds would find themselves in.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited December 2014
    Anorak said:

    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    Back to votes for landowners only, eh. If you don't own the country, why should you vote on it?
    Don't forget to give Uniersity graduates a second vote for their university constituency too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_constituency

    During the AV referendum when people wanked on about the unalterable, timeless, principle of one man one vote I did wonder how stupid and ignorant of history they were. The fact they used STV and the like was even funnier.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    Neil said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    We currently have the most witless, feckless generation seen in the modern era

    At least they're not prone to baseless sweeping assertions.
    They couldn't spell baseless sweeping assertions.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited December 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    richardDodd said:

    Having a baby and/or joining the Army at 16 would suggest that they have on commonsense at all

    That's sorted - give the vote to anyone aged 16 to 18 who has not had a baby or joined the army then.

    Should we deny the vote to all squaddies too ?

    I mean - that is the logical conclusion of Mr Dodd's analysis.
    I would have thought that a 16yo living here had more of a case for a vote in a UK GE than a 76yo living in Italy but I bet Richard and Moniker disagree.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I believe you have to be 18 to be a Squaddie..and having a baby at 16 displays massive stupidity...but thats ok because we older taxpayers will look after its every need.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,486
    surbiton said:

    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    They can be parents, join the army......
    The army argument is spurious. Whilst you can join at 16 you cannot serve in an active theatre until you are 18. So in fact at that point it is just like joining any other apprenticeship/job.

    As for having babies. You can have them at 13 or younger unfortunately. The fact that we legally recognise the inevitable at 16 does not mean we should be encouraging it.

    And the age at which parental responsibility legally ends is 18. So to my mind that should also be the age at which people should be able to vote.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    Why not 15 then ?

  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    The fact that people are still at school when they vote is a good thing - it makes citizenship and politics classes all the more real and engaging.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Bobajob_ said:

    The fact that people are still at school when they vote is a good thing - it makes citizenship and politics classes all the more real and engaging.

    Its a true sign the economy is fixed, there is no crisis in the NHS or Education and that spending cuts are not having any real impact if the left want to waste parly time tinkering with this nonsense.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Does anyone know how the population of Scotland breaks down within those age ranges?

    Looks to me like the decision to give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds has been thoroughly vindicated. Maybe if the 18 to 24 year olds had been given the vote earlier they might have become more interested in getting involved.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I feel we still need a thread specifically discussing the polling on spending cuts. Aside from immigration, I really can't recall an issue where the Westminster parties' consensus and public opinion have been so dramatically far apart.

    From ComRes yesterday:

    There should be a legal requirement to eliminate the deficit by a specific date
    Agree 36%
    Disagree 59%


    Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared
    Agree 30%
    Disagree 66%
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Mike EVFEL is being presented today by William Hague I believe. Maybe a thread tomorrow?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The fact that people are still at school when they vote is a good thing - it makes citizenship and politics classes all the more real and engaging.

    Its a true sign the economy is fixed, there is no crisis in the NHS or Education and that spending cuts are not having any real impact if the left want to waste parly time tinkering with this nonsense.

    Whereas the Tories just want to waste parly time giving people who havent lived in the UK since the 16yo's in question were born a vote.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/11068438/Tories-pledge-to-give-vote-back-to-all-expats.html
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Note the Rouble has collapsed so fast today there are no buyers. Literally. And the market looks suspended. (Every time someone sells Roubles someone must be buying - but if there are genuinely no buyers then there is no market and you close it). Kinell! A major currency. Russia. Nobody.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

    As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

    In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

    In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kanbe expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

    During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    TGOHF
    A tired argument that has been since time immemorial to resist any wise liberalising measure, from gay sex to gay marriage. It's either right or wrong. The parly time argument is a stinker.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,784
    TGOHF said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    Why not 15 then ?


    Why not fractions of a vote, increasing gradually until you are old enough to exercise it properly - say 1/60 of a vote at five, increasing by a tenth per year until you reach maturity at 65?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Bobajob_ said:

    Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.

    I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.

    I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Bobajob_ said:

    TGOHF
    A tired argument that has been since time immemorial to resist any wise liberalising measure, from gay sex to gay marriage. It's either right or wrong. The parly time argument is a stinker.

    Who brought in gay marriage ? Before it happened in Scotland too.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    They can be parents, join the army......
    The army argument is spurious. Whilst you can join at 16 you cannot serve in an active theatre until you are 18. So in fact at that point it is just like joining any other apprenticeship/job.

    As for having babies. You can have them at 13 or younger unfortunately. The fact that we legally recognise the inevitable at 16 does not mean we should be encouraging it.

    And the age at which parental responsibility legally ends is 18. So to my mind that should also be the age at which people should be able to vote.
    This seems to make broad sense. Certainly there is no discrimination in not allowing voting at 16 which is an age when you are, by act of being in school, still learning. I do not particularly see that the Scottish referendum experience makes a jot of difference or that some 16yr olds may make good voters. There needs to be an age limit and broadly limiting it to people who will be affected by and pay for the choices seems sensible.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    MarkSenior said:

    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .

    Good point.

    So a 54% turnout suggests 4% illegally voted twice. Except some students live at home and not all 18-24 year olds are students. But I don't think there are any cross checks to stop a student voting where they live (by post?) and where they study.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Anorak said:

    Socrates said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Perhaps the youngest group felt that as it was a special concession to let them vote, they ought to take it up?

    Like DavidL I don't think we treat young people well, but I have to say that young voters who I meet seem pretty nonchalant about it, i.e. they tend not to vote. There are both causes and effects mixed in there.

    Frankly it's ridiculous to give the power of control over other people's lives to a group of people who, on the whole, don't run their own lives.
    Back to votes for landowners only, eh. If you don't own the country, why should you vote on it?
    As pretty stupid analogies go that's a pretty stupid analogy.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,498
    Breakdown of the last Scottish Yougov which has some relevance to this thread. Interesting that the SNP lead lead over Labour crosses all groupings.
    Hat tip to Scottish Skier on the site that can't be linked to.

    Yougov results by age, sex and socio-economic grouping.

    By age:

    18-24
    47% SNP, 22% Lab, 13% Con, 4% Lib

    25-39
    56% SNP, 21% Lab, 13% Con, 3% Lib

    40-59
    46% SNP, 31% Lab, 14% Con, 2% Lib

    60+
    42% SNP, 29% Lab, 20% Con, 3% Lib

    By sex:

    Male:
    49% SNP, 26% Lab, 16% Con, 3% Lib

    Female
    46% SNP, 28% Lab, 15% Con, 2% Lib

    By socio-economic group:

    ABC1
    47% SNP, 24% Lab, 20% Con, 4% Lib

    C2DE
    46% SNP, 30% Lab, 12% Con, 2% Lib
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    TGOHF said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    Why not 15 then ?


    Why not fractions of a vote, increasing gradually until you are old enough to exercise it properly - say 1/60 of a vote at five, increasing by a tenth per year until you reach maturity at 65?
    Right idea, but wrong direction, PtP. I'm afraid you qualify for -20% of a vote next year. Why not use it on UKIP? Jack's -70% of a vote will doubtless be going on the yellow peril.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    David_Evershed said:

    MarkSenior said:

    Turnout will always be lowest amongst 18-24 year olds as this group contains students at UNI who will be registered to vote in 2 areas and can only cast 1 vote ( legally ) .

    Good point.

    So a 54% turnout suggests 4% illegally voted twice. Except some students live at home and not all 18-24 year olds are students. But I don't think there are any cross checks to stop a student voting where they live (by post?) and where they study.
    The turnout figure by age was produced by an ICM poll. I doubt they recorded university students who said they voted as half a vote.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    TGOHF said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    Why not 15 then ?


    Why not fractions of a vote, increasing gradually until you are old enough to exercise it properly - say 1/60 of a vote at five, increasing by a tenth per year until you reach maturity at 65?
    And then reducing from the age of 65 back to zero at one hundred.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    FPT

    "Since Nov 10 all polls bar YouGov’s have had LAB leads"

    Not true if you include the Opinium "poll that never was" on 17th Nov
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Danny565 said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.

    But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
    £40 Bn and rising in interest payments would suggest otherwise.

    Think what could be done with that - massive lovely tax cuts for all.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
    Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited December 2014
    DE As long as they reduce the tax take at the same time..at 74 I am still paying more in tax than I get in pension and all the other freebies and I live abroad so don't use any of the services in the UK.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Danny565 said:

    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
    Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
    There's no "except".

    If your fantasy of 10%+ deficits in perpetuity was stated government policy there would be no lending and no money for benefits or public services. Granted noone is going to be crazy enough to actually implement your desired policy to show you what would happen but I would have thought it's been explained often enough and clearly enough for you to understand by now.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Danny565 said:

    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
    Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
    Have you heard of interest ? You have to pay it on borrowing.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    glw said:

    Off topic, but quite interesting.

    The Scottish government produced forecasts of oil revenues for an independent Scotland. They came up with six scenarios. Their main price forecast was for $110 per barrel. So anyway I wondered what their most pessimistic forecast was, as obviously you need to consider the worst case scenario. I've looked that up, it is $107 falling to $99 per barrel. That's a scenario derived from OBR figures that YES flatly rejected as ludicrously pessimistic. Brent Crude is currently $59.

    In fact none of the organisations that the Scottish and UK governments consulted forecast figures as low as they are now, $85 was the lowest from the 22 forecasters the OBR used.

    I think it's fair to say that at the current price the Scottish economic miracle that YES were promising would be up the proverbial creek.

    If this current fall had coincided with the referendum it might not have been as close as it was.

    Oh and production forecasts might also be way off with such low prices.

    its not just that the price is now so low its that even assuming it rose again there is no guarantee it could not fall again. The volatility makes an independent Scotland subject to these whims. The North Sea oil is on a downward track anyway so its going to be a chunk less income available long term. Notions of wealth funds seem far away now.

    Overall I'm grateful for the gas and oil available from fracking and have no problem with sharing it nationwide.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
    Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
    There's no "except".

    If your fantasy of 10%+ deficits in perpetuity was stated government policy there would be no lending and no money for benefits or public services. Granted noone is going to be crazy enough to actually implement your desired policy to show you what would happen but I would have thought it's been explained often enough and clearly enough for you to understand by now.

    Then why can we easily get money for lending now?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited December 2014
    Danny565 said:

    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.

    If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
    Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
    There's no "except".

    If your fantasy of 10%+ deficits in perpetuity was stated government policy there would be no lending and no money for benefits or public services. Granted noone is going to be crazy enough to actually implement your desired policy to show you what would happen but I would have thought it's been explained often enough and clearly enough for you to understand by now.

    Then why can we easily get money for lending now?
    Because policy isnt to run a 10%+ deficit in perpetuity. This isnt that difficult. You really should have grasped it by now.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...

    I'd have thought you would be glad to spare them the agonising injustice of FPTP until they were old enough to cope with the mental torture..
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Danny565 said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.

    I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.

    I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
    Mr. 565, you repeatedly post on this same subject and are repeatedly told that in this vale of tears nobody will lend money without getting something back in return - it is called interest. The more one borrows the more one has to pay in interest. As Mr. Ghost has pointed out the UK is currently paying £40bn a year just in interest payments, and that will over the next few years increase to more than £60 billion a year even at best estimates.

    Now, please, before you again post that it would be a good idea for HMG to borrow even more than it does already, please, please explain what you think the long term effects of such borrowing will be.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
    Why not 18 then ?

    You could argue that anyone who will be 18 during the next 5 year parly should have a vote - so make it 13 ?

    My arbitrary limiti is better than yours etc etc. They all get a vote in the end and for 70+ years - why the big deal.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
    Why not 12?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:


    My arbitrary limiti is better than yours etc etc. They all get a vote in the end and for 70+ years - why the big deal.

    The extent of the franchise has always been a fundamentally important issue in democracies.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    HurstLlama said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
    Why not 12?
    Why 12?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    My arbitrary limiti is better than yours etc etc. They all get a vote in the end and for 70+ years - why the big deal.

    The extent of the franchise has always been a fundamentally important issue in democracies.
    Why not 21 ?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    My arbitrary limiti is better than yours etc etc. They all get a vote in the end and for 70+ years - why the big deal.

    The extent of the franchise has always been a fundamentally important issue in democracies.
    Why not 21 ?
    Why 21?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    My arbitrary limiti is better than yours etc etc. They all get a vote in the end and for 70+ years - why the big deal.

    The extent of the franchise has always been a fundamentally important issue in democracies.
    Why not 21 ?
    Why 21?
    You can't drive a taxi until you are 25. A bigger injustice than voting at 16 frankly.


  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Neil said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
    Why not 12?
    Why 12?

    Why not 12? It makes as much sense as 16. Perhaps 8 would be better.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    HurstLlama said:

    Neil said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.

    It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
    Why not 15yrs and 364 days then

    363 ?

    Etc...
    That there has to be a cut off somewhere isnt an argument in favour of voting at 18 rather than 16.
    Why not 12?
    Why 12?

    Why not 12? It makes as much sense as 16. Perhaps 8 would be better.
    Old enough not to be aborted - old enough to vote ..
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    edited December 2014
    Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?

    Or even an excellent attendance record at school
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?

    Or weight vote by IQ ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?

    Or weight vote by IQ ?
    There's probably already a strong correlation between IQ and propensity to vote. It would be interesting to see some research on the subject.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025