Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to

SystemSystem Posts: 12,650
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum

When Alex Salmond pushed through his measure to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in last September’s IndyRef in Scotland it was only a matter of time before this became an issue for the whole of the country.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    First.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum
    Rubbish.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Strong argument for 16-17 year olds with the vote...not many other places allow it, its radical, its progressive.

    Bear in mind that, kids are still in school until 18 in England and Wales. Few mature democracies have moved to lower the franchise below 18, tacit recognition that young minds haven't fully matured.

    Hilary Benn will have to come up with something a bit better than the Scottish Indy Referendum as an example. IMHO the case for is threadbare.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    16 year olds were allowed to vote in the Scotland referendum because Scottish law recognises 16 year olds as being adults. UK-wide, 18 is the accepted age of adulthood so there is absolutely no justification for including them. The case for votes at 16 is weakened even further given that all children need to stay in education until 18 now.

    It seems to me that the only people advocating this are those that want to rig the referendum in their favour by gerrymandering the electorate. If there's any problem with the proposed electorate, it's that Commonwealth citizens are included. That's an anachronism that is long out of date even for general elections, especially given the Windrush generation almost entirely have citizenship at this point.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,094
    Plato said:

    After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum
    Rubbish.
    If Labour really wanted to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, they would table a Represntation of the People Act. From making constitutional change piecemeal we have now descended to amending the electorate vote-by-vote. Ridiculous.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    edited May 2015
    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    As for Labour's views on this issue, I don't see why they should be given any creedence at all. This is a party that did everything they could to stop this referendum happening. Their big show of changing the position is worthless as it only occurred after the referendum was definitely going ahead. It's one of the most cynical political maneuvers in recent years and Labour MPs should be ashamed of themselves.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    Don't encourage them!
    JohnLilburne said:

    Plato said:

    After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum
    Rubbish.
    If Labour really wanted to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, they would table a Represntation of the People Act. From making constitutional change piecemeal we have now descended to amending the electorate vote-by-vote. Ridiculous.


  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Nah, children are not going to be allowed to vote in the referendum, and the idea that the lords would seriously try to introduce such a momentous change without an electoral mandate for it is out with the birds.

    This is just Labour pretending to have something to say, in the hope of not being totally irrelevant.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    .
    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    To add that if Labour and the SNP are going to start playing these silly games in the Commons, they will probably find lots of votes arranged for 23:00 on Thursdays or 11:00 on Mondays!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Well quite.
    Sandpit said:

    To add that if Labour and the SNP are going to start playing these silly games in the Commons, they will probably find lots of votes arranged for 23:00 on Thursdays or 11:00 on Mondays!

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    PS Should we not speak of In/Out rather than Yes/No? The meaning of Yes/No depends so much on what the actual question is (quite apart from any confusion with the Scottish one).
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    In or Out are the obvious camps IMO
    Carnyx said:

    PS Should we not speak of In/Out rather than Yes/No? The meaning of Yes/No depends so much on what the actual question is (quite apart from any confusion with the Scottish one).

  • glwglw Posts: 10,489
    Just over a fortnight ago the Labour Party were opposed to a referendum, now they want to say how it should be run, why should anybody listen to them? Mind you, many of the same people were saying 'Ed's great, our campaign is brilliant, and our policies are just what the country need' and they've changed their tune there pretty damn quickly. Labour don't half talk a lot of nonsense.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Should the over 70s be allowed to vote in this referendum? After all, they will not live with the consequences of the vote,
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    "The big risk to Cameron is that the referendum bill could get clogged up in the House of Lords where it is in the minority."

    The House of Lords has two bases of legitimacy: expertise and independence. If it blocks a democratic measure it puts at stake its very future, still more so if the measure was the centrepiece of the governing party's manifesto, still more so again if it do so off the votes of a vastly overrepresented party based on legacy appointments.

    Not that it will happen. The Lords is too sensible to push it to the brink and the Commons could use the Parliament Act anyway.

    What the Lords might try to do is include 16/17 year-olds but I'm not convinced of the measure: voting rights are a right that come with the responsibility of adulthood. Unless we propose dropping the age of adult responsibility to 16 then there's no case for it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT watching Heyday TV about Pink Floyd. They've done some superb retrospective music docus if you're into such shows
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    RCS Ridiculous..someone aged 71 could easily live another ten to twenty years..are you saying the process would take that long..
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Worth noting that EU citizens are already marked in the registers whereas not all 16/17 year-olds are.

    Daft that Commonwealth citizens will be allowed a say though.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,094
    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Banning EU citizens and under-18s is quite simply the status quo: the franchise for national elections. EU citizens can only vote in local elections.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    richardDodd said:

    RCS Ridiculous..someone aged 71 could easily live another ten to twenty years..are you saying the process would take that long..

    I suspect rcs is having a gentle troll.

    I was tempted to suggest banning Lib Dems on a similar basis.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    Earlier this year a teacher was convicted of having sex with a 16 year old pupil:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11344673/Teacher-groomed-by-pupil-he-had-sex-with-is-spared-jail.html

    He was spared jail as the judge considered the girl to have 'groomed' him. This topic came up on question time and there was quite a heated discussion as David Starkey said that the word groomed was not inappropriate.

    One of the other panelists was Lib Dem President Sal Brinton and she was very much of the view that the judge had got it wrong and that this girl was just a child.

    Clearly the teacher was wrong to have done what he did, but it was a shame that no one thought to point out to Sal Brinton that her party wants to give the vote to such 16 year olds who, on that night's Question Time at least, she considered to be just a child.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    edited May 2015
    david_herdson said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Worth noting that EU citizens are already marked in the registers whereas not all 16/17 year-olds are.

    Daft that Commonwealth citizens will be allowed a say though.
    Presumably, also, UK citizens living outwith the country but in the EU etc. will also be absent the registers, especially after the recent revision, as they are not resident in any constituency for parliaments, assemblies or local government. An interesting practical issue, presumably adding to the burden on the Passport Office and the In and Out get out the vote operations.

    Edit: the 16/17s will be marked, but only in Scotland (obviously).

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    tlg86 said:

    Earlier this year a teacher was convicted of having sex with a 16 year old pupil:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11344673/Teacher-groomed-by-pupil-he-had-sex-with-is-spared-jail.html

    He was spared jail as the judge considered the girl to have 'groomed' him. This topic came up on question time and there was quite a heated discussion as David Starkey said that the word groomed was not inappropriate.

    One of the other panelists was Lib Dem President Sal Brinton and she was very much of the view that the judge had got it wrong and that this girl was just a child.

    Clearly the teacher was wrong to have done what he did, but it was a shame that no one thought to point out to Sal Brinton that her party wants to give the vote to such 16 year olds who, on that night's Question Time at least, she considered to be just a child.

    Actually, she does have a point there because the law does distinguish in cases of 'relationships' where one figure is in a position of authority over the other. Had the student been 18, the legal case against him would not have been substantially different.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    DH I thought he might be... but one never knows..
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    rcs1000 said:

    Should the over 70s be allowed to vote in this referendum? After all, they will not live with the consequences of the vote,

    Unless I'm very much mistaken Robert Smithson is proposing the disenfranchisement of his father.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    JohnLilburne said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Banning EU citizens and under-18s is quite simply the status quo: the franchise for national elections. EU citizens can only vote in local elections.

    But the local election franchise is precisely the one used for referenda, is it not?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,736
    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    edited May 2015
    Carnyx said:

    david_herdson said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Worth noting that EU citizens are already marked in the registers whereas not all 16/17 year-olds are.

    Daft that Commonwealth citizens will be allowed a say though.
    Presumably, also, UK citizens living outwith the country but in the EU etc. will also be absent the registers, especially after the recent revision, as they are not resident in any constituency for parliaments, assemblies or local government. An interesting practical issue, presumably adding to the burden on the Passport Office and the In and Out get out the vote operations.

    Edit: the 16/17s will be marked, but only in Scotland (obviously).

    UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU can vote in the constituency representing the residence they last lived in for up to 15 years.

    I have a friend from schooldays who now lives in the Czech Republic who sent his back by DHL (he only posted it on the Wednesday before) in order to have his input to Welwyn Hatfield. Got to admire his enthusiasm but not sure it made a material difference there.

    Edit: re your edit, 16/17 year-old will be marked in Scotland now but will that still be the case in 2017, or will it be back to being like the rest of the UK by then?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    edited May 2015
    Carnyx said:

    PS Should we not speak of In/Out rather than Yes/No? The meaning of Yes/No depends so much on what the actual question is (quite apart from any confusion with the Scottish one).

    To talk about Yes and No before we know the question is wrong - although common sense says that the answer Yes will be for the proposed change, with No being against.

    The Electoral Commission will approve the precise wording of the question to be put, as they did with the AV and Scotland referendums.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    For @foxinsoxuk and @Gasman

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3093137/The-remarkable-story-surgeon-removed-appendix-Russian-doctor-stranded-Antarctic-used-mirror-lamp-barely-anaesthetic.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited May 2015
    Are Labour repeating the mistakes of post GE2010 by rushing into pouring their energies and the ear of the electorate into petty politicking against the Govt? They would be far better to slowly re-group, truly learn the lessons from defeat and then select a new Leader. But why interupt the enemy when it is making mistakes, said Napoleon.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    There are signs that this particular manifesto commitment might not have been fully elaborated: some of the details left unfinalised. Thank heaven our electoral process left policies undebated, allowing voters to concentrate on the serious business of stone-carved platitudes and bacon sandwiches.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    The Political Class, taken as a whole, strongly favours remaining in the EU. Accordingly a "Yes" vote will framed around the status quo without doubt.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Are Labour repeating the mistakes of post GE2010 by rushing into pouring their energies and the ear of the electorate into petty politicking against the Govt? They would be far better to slowly re-group, truly learn the lessons from defeat and then select a new Leader. But why interupt the enemy when it is making mistakes, said Napoleon.

    Yep, and they wonder why they just lost the election.

    For all his many faults the Speaker is right when he says that the public expect to see their elected representatives behaving like adults.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OT BBC2 tonight has a documentary on the 1945 election and Churchill's defeat.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    peter_from_putney said:

    The Political Class, taken as a whole, strongly favours remaining in the EU. Accordingly a "Yes" vote will framed around the status quo without doubt.

    An interesting thought, although the last two such questions had Yes as being for the change and No for the status quo.

    Anyone know what was the 1975 question?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Absolutely not. The franchise is at 18 plus, just as it was this month for the General Election. If the EU Referendum goes to 16 then under the logic used its going to be hard not to set it to 16 for elections too.

    The notion that the young are affected so should be able to participate is perfectly valid. It applies to issues like education where by the time someone votes in an election for the first time they could already be 22 and out of education altogether. But we have to draw the line somewhere, fourteen year olds are affected so should they not get the vote? What about eleven year olds? Or nine?

    A line has to be somewhere, its currently set to being an adult which is 18, same as drinking, smoking, gambling and getting a credit card.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    david_herdson said:

    Carnyx said:

    david_herdson said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.

    Referendum franchises are set by UK law and are never the same as GEs anyway (for reasons that escape me at the moment), as became clear in the runup to indyref - the only change the Scottish Government was allowed to make from the situation specified in UK law was to have the 16 and 17 year olds vote, and that was by prior agreement with London (the Edinburgh Agreement).

    I'm actually surprised this thread header doesn't mention the speculation about the other change (to bar European incomers), or has that been dropped? Not to make the change to include 16/17yos but then exclude European incomers from voting would be a decidedly odd decision.

    Worth noting that EU citizens are already marked in the registers whereas not all 16/17 year-olds are.

    Daft that Commonwealth citizens will be allowed a say though.
    Presumably, also, UK citizens living outwith the country but in the EU etc. will also be absent the registers, especially after the recent revision, as they are not resident in any constituency for parliaments, assemblies or local government. An interesting practical issue, presumably adding to the burden on the Passport Office and the In and Out get out the vote operations.

    Edit: the 16/17s will be marked, but only in Scotland (obviously).

    UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU can vote in the constituency representing the residence they last lived in for up to 15 years.

    I have a friend from schooldays who now lives in the Czech Republic who sent his back by DHL (he only posted it on the Wednesday before) in order to have his input to Welwyn Hatfield. Got to admire his enthusiasm but not sure it made a material difference there.

    Edit: re your edit, 16/17 year-old will be marked in Scotland now but will that still be the case in 2017, or will it be back to being like the rest of the UK by then?
    Ah, thanks. Re the latter, the plan is already to bring in the lower age limit for Holyrood Pmt votes anyway, so they will no doubt maintain the lists accordingly. Caveat: This does depend on Westminster as it's not a devolved issue, though there is provisional agreement.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/15/scotland-voting-age-lowered-16-17
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,027
    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You'd disenfranchise people who turned 18 in 2016 ?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    david_herdson said:

    tlg86 said:

    Earlier this year a teacher was convicted of having sex with a 16 year old pupil:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11344673/Teacher-groomed-by-pupil-he-had-sex-with-is-spared-jail.html

    He was spared jail as the judge considered the girl to have 'groomed' him. This topic came up on question time and there was quite a heated discussion as David Starkey said that the word groomed was not inappropriate.

    One of the other panelists was Lib Dem President Sal Brinton and she was very much of the view that the judge had got it wrong and that this girl was just a child.

    Clearly the teacher was wrong to have done what he did, but it was a shame that no one thought to point out to Sal Brinton that her party wants to give the vote to such 16 year olds who, on that night's Question Time at least, she considered to be just a child.

    Actually, she does have a point there because the law does distinguish in cases of 'relationships' where one figure is in a position of authority over the other. Had the student been 18, the legal case against him would not have been substantially different.
    I suspect if it had been an 18 year old sixth former we wouldn't have heard about the story. It wasn't so much about the legal view of the relationship - that was clear, it was illegal - it was more about the emotive language used by the judge in deciding that there were mitigating circumstances. It annoyed me that night because it was typical lefty grand standing against men and seemed to be at odds with the high regard that the Lib Dems have for 16 year olds.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    Genuine question: did the Tories say, in their manifesto, that they would change the franchise for the referendum from that currently set out in law?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Pulpstar said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You'd disenfranchise people who turned 18 in 2016 ?
    And enfrachuse those who die this year...
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    peter_from_putney said:

    The Political Class, taken as a whole, strongly favours remaining in the EU. Accordingly a "Yes" vote will framed around the status quo without doubt.

    Not sure if the Westminster establishment getting behind an IN campaign would help their cause. Politicians are not the most popular/trusted of people.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Polls have shown huge opposition to giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote (in UK as a whole, not sure about Scotland).

    So it's surprising such a big deal is made of the issue.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    Commonwealth issue?

    https://twitter.com/georgewpotter/status/602839859024306177
    https://twitter.com/polleetickle/status/602840492942983168
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?

    Adelaide 2006 unfortunately.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,151
    Pulpstar said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You'd disenfranchise people who turned 18 in 2016 ?
    Question is, where do you stop on that basis? It's not hard to imagine that some fourteen year olds would have a better grasp of certain issues and more sense of responsibility than say, Alistair Carmichael...

    Should we let five year olds vote, on the basis that some of them are better behaved and more mature than MPs as seen at PMQs every week?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    MikeL said:

    Polls have shown huge opposition to giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote (in UK as a whole, not sure about Scotland).

    So it's surprising such a big deal is made of the issue.

    IIRC, our Scottish PB Tories (if I may, for want of a better word), were bitter about it in indyref - accusing the SNP of gerrymandering. But they came round - or some of them - very markedly and were very positive about it in the end.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment. Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You know, I sometimes get the impression that Marquee Mark belongs to the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I half-agree with the article.

    The notion of allowing 16-17 year olds was bound to be raised. And it's still not legitimate. Why not extend it to people who are 15? Or 14?

    Those who are 2 will be even more affected.

    The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the electorate for the General Election is the best basis.

    Gerrymander it in one regard, and the door's opened to allowing more exemptions.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?

    Not going too well for the Smoggies either. Mind you visiting Fox jr for an away game in Norwich may be fun.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I'm in favour of extending the franchise, but I think this is an underhand way to go about doing it. Let's just use the general election franchise. Labour's manifesto had a commitment for votes at 16, and it lost.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    tlg86 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?

    Adelaide 2006 unfortunately.
    Thank you for reminding me!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015
    Carnyx said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    Genuine question: did the Tories say, in their manifesto, that they would change the franchise for the referendum from that currently set out in law?
    According to Wikipedia (!) the Franchise for the AV referendum excluded the EU citizens.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    OblitusSumMe said:

    I'm in favour of extending the franchise, but I think this is an underhand way to go about doing it. Let's just use the general election franchise. Labour's manifesto had a commitment for votes at 16, and it lost.

    The trouble I have with this notion - logical as it is - is that the law sets out a different franchise for referenda, and the more changes Mr Cameron proposes to make, the more opportunity UKIP, for instance, have to complain about the legitimacy of the process (with some justice, it must be said).
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    "After the IndyRef experience it’s going to be harder not to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum"

    No, it really insn't you know..!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. Carnyx, does it? The only change, so far as I know, was for the Scottish vote because the SNP tried to fiddle it to their advantage.

    It's an especially obtuse perspective to criticise the same electorate being eligible for the referendum as can vote in the General Election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    Carnyx said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment.

    Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    Genuine question: did the Tories say, in their manifesto, that they would change the franchise for the referendum from that currently set out in law?
    There's no specific wording about the franchise for the referendum in the manifesto. Take that to mean what you may!
    Page 72.
    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    As a film man, that seems highly unlikely. He also is mates with Russell Brand.

    You do talk partisan cobblers on here.
    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment. Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You know, I sometimes get the impression that Marquee Mark belongs to the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    rcs1000 said:

    Should the over 70s be allowed to vote in this referendum? After all, they will not live with the consequences of the vote,

    Anyone over the age of ~60 in 2017 will have been able to vote in the last Europe referendum, so perhaps they shouldn't be given a second go.. ;-)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    richardDodd said:

    RCS Ridiculous..someone aged 71 could easily live another ten to twenty years..are you saying the process would take that long..

    Good point: weight votes by expected years of life remaining? That would seem most fair, as those who would live longest with the consequence of the vote would have the most say.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. 1000, you tinker, you.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Sandpit said:

    Disagree. The franchise should be the same as for the General Election. Labour's motives in talking this up now are entirely irrelevant to the question itself, rather how much political mischief they can make against the government by saying they support the concept but trying to change all the details.

    The Lords will surely come up against the Salisbury Convention if they try and hold it up unreasonably, it was a clear manifesto commitment from the party with a majority in the Commons.


    Agree with every word of that. - expect to see this nonsense repeated ad nauseam.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    In 2010, the Greens wanted HMG to have a unit in charge of the unborn. Really.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I half-agree with the article.

    The notion of allowing 16-17 year olds was bound to be raised. And it's still not legitimate. Why not extend it to people who are 15? Or 14?

    Those who are 2 will be even more affected.

    The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the electorate for the General Election is the best basis.

    Gerrymander it in one regard, and the door's opened to allowing more exemptions.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    OT, but I really hope Labour aren't moronic enough to make campaigning to stay in the EU one of their main priorities over the next couple of years. Nothing could make them look more disconnected from their voters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?

    Cricinfo says it's happened 13 times in history, NZ's record losing score is 433.
    The problem is that we need to get the other 5 wickets, and this is England we are talking about!
    38 overs minimum, although I guess they can add half an hour if we're only a couple short at the end?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Miss Plato, the Greens are madder than Mad Jack McMad.

    Mind you, don't forget Blair wanted to intervene in the lives of troubled children, including 'pre-birth', if necessary.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Carnyx said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I'm in favour of extending the franchise, but I think this is an underhand way to go about doing it. Let's just use the general election franchise. Labour's manifesto had a commitment for votes at 16, and it lost.

    The trouble I have with this notion - logical as it is - is that the law sets out a different franchise for referenda, and the more changes Mr Cameron proposes to make, the more opportunity UKIP, for instance, have to complain about the legitimacy of the process (with some justice, it must be said).
    I didn't know that the law did that. Colour me surprised.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I honestly think Labour should ask you to join their policy unit. You're very clear on ideology and accept that it doesn't come for free. That sort of realism is very rare and quite noble.
    Danny565 said:

    OT, but I really hope Labour aren't moronic enough to make campaigning to stay in the EU one of their main priorities over the next couple of years. Nothing could make them look more disconnected from their voters.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. 1000, you tinker, you.

    Shhhh.. Nothing wrong with a bit of bank holiday trolling...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Very Minority Report
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, the Greens are madder than Mad Jack McMad.

    Mind you, don't forget Blair wanted to intervene in the lives of troubled children, including 'pre-birth', if necessary.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited May 2015
    Plato said:

    I honestly think Labour should ask you to join their policy unit. You're very clear on ideology and accept that it doesn't come for free. That sort of realism is very rare and quite noble.

    Danny565 said:

    OT, but I really hope Labour aren't moronic enough to make campaigning to stay in the EU one of their main priorities over the next couple of years. Nothing could make them look more disconnected from their voters.

    I feel this was kind of a backhanded compliment, but thank you all the same! :D xx
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. 1000, it's bravery beyond foolishness to tug a morris dancer's wiffle stick.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    edited May 2015
    Sandpit said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    NZ look set to lose the Lord's Test after scoring > 500 runs in their 1st Innings. I wonder whether this has ever happened before?

    Cricinfo says it's happened 13 times in history, NZ's record losing score is 433.
    The problem is that we need to get the other 5 wickets, and this is England we are talking about!
    38 overs minimum, although I guess they can add half an hour if we're only a couple short at the end?
    Statsguru reckons six:

    Australia 586 v England Sydney 1894-5
    Australia 556 v India Adelaide 2003-4
    England 551/6d v Australia Adelaide 2006-7
    West Indies 526/7d v England Port of Spain 1967-8
    Australia 520 v South Africa Melbourne 1952-3
    England 519 v Australia Melbourne 1928-9

    Edit: but for one run, this would be the record:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/535999.html
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Golly. Not backhanded at all. You strike me as someone who gets Old Labour and isn't trying to dress it in Tony Clothes. That's very distinctive.
    Danny565 said:

    Plato said:

    I honestly think Labour should ask you to join their policy unit. You're very clear on ideology and accept that it doesn't come for free. That sort of realism is very rare and quite noble.

    Danny565 said:

    OT, but I really hope Labour aren't moronic enough to make campaigning to stay in the EU one of their main priorities over the next couple of years. Nothing could make them look more disconnected from their voters.

    I feel this was kind of a backhanded compliment, but thank you all the same! :D xx
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    edited May 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Carnyx, does it? The only change, so far as I know, was for the Scottish vote because the SNP tried to fiddle it to their advantage.

    It's an especially obtuse perspective to criticise the same electorate being eligible for the referendum as can vote in the General Election.

    Afternoon, Mr D. No, it's because it became clear during indyref that the franchise was quite different from that for Westminster (geographical restriction allowed for). However, on further checking it seems that this is because the indyref was formally a devolved matter - and therefore using the franchise used for devolution and local gmt.

    IANAL but that does seem to be the root of why the indyref had a different franchise, excepting 16 and 17yos, from UK ones such as, as Dr Foxinsox pointed out, the AV referendum.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    OblitusSumMe said:

    Carnyx said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I'm in favour of extending the franchise, but I think this is an underhand way to go about doing it. Let's just use the general election franchise. Labour's manifesto had a commitment for votes at 16, and it lost.

    The trouble I have with this notion - logical as it is - is that the law sets out a different franchise for referenda, and the more changes Mr Cameron proposes to make, the more opportunity UKIP, for instance, have to complain about the legitimacy of the process (with some justice, it must be said).
    I didn't know that the law did that. Colour me surprised.
    Quite so. See my reply to Morris Dancer. Depends what sort of referendum, on checking. Ignore that comment, except insofar as changes are made ...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,736
    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment. Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.

    You know, I sometimes get the impression that Marquee Mark belongs to the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party.
    I am a man of very moderate views, which I pursue most vehemently......
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    edited May 2015
    Humza Yousaf, SNP chap, tweets thus:
    "Not giving EU citizens vote EU referendum is perverse & discriminatory. Disenfranchising those who may be impacted most is utterly illogical"

    Illogical? I'm not sure that word means what he thinks it means.

    Edited extra bit: It does make me wonder if some of the Yes persons might actually vote for the UK to leave, on the basis that if we do leave, a second Scottish referendum could be one result.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,577
    Just because the SNP government in Scotland decided to fix their try and fix their referendum because they thought more 16 and 17 year old's would vote for Independence, is certainly no reason to allow the same to happen in the EU referendum.

    The voting age is 18 for good reason and we should not be changing it - and that goes for all elections not just the Referendum.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    More from the same chaps:
    "The SNP's Humza Yousaf said excluding other EU citizens risked entering "into the rhetoric of division"."

    I think he's being a silly sausage. Does he know his party had a referendum on breaking up the UK last year?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32872211
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    rcs1000 said:

    Should the over 70s be allowed to vote in this referendum? After all, they will not live with the consequences of the vote,

    I'll have you know that I will live to see 125.. in 58 years time..So will be alive with the consequences longer than you have lived to date.. whippersnapper:-)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,027
    Morris_Dancer said:

    More from the same chaps:
    "The SNP's Humza Yousaf said excluding other EU citizens risked entering "into the rhetoric of division"."

    I think he's being a silly sausage. Does he know his party had a referendum on breaking up the UK last year?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32872211

    Hah, that is pretty amusing from Yousaf :P
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. Pulpstar, indeed, but is it knowing silliness, or a lack of self-awareness matched only by Jon Simpson on the news at ten last night bemoaning that the Iraqi Government was bad at getting good news (such as a recently recaptured oil town) out to people, neglecting the fact that Simpson is a bloody journalist and it's his job to report on such things, even if the Iraqis don't give him a handy press release.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    Morris_Dancer said:

    More from the same chaps:
    "The SNP's Humza Yousaf said excluding other EU citizens risked entering "into the rhetoric of division"."

    I think he's being a silly sausage. Does he know his party had a referendum on breaking up the UK last year?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32872211

    They don't do irony very well, do they?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,388
    Mr Me,

    "Anyone over the age of ~60 in 2017 will have been able to vote in the last Europe referendum, so perhaps they shouldn't be given a second go.."

    That's fine as long as we can be excluded from the EU. You're welcome to federalise if you want to.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Some naughty pot-stirring here.

    "And most presume David Miliband is settled with his family in New York.

    But, in a fascinating development, I learn that the elder and less fanatically socialist Miliband brother — chosen political son and heir of Tony Blair — could be available in three years’ time.

    I’m told he has a break clause in his contract at the International Rescue charity in New York, which he joined in 2013 after he was defeated by Red Ed in the race for the leadership.

    Part of the deal David negotiated when he took up the £300,000-a-year post — what humble types these charity bosses are! — was that if he wanted he could head back to the UK in 2018.

    Surely it’s news which will have many in the Labour Party dreaming of a triumphant return for the wandering leader they never had."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3095576/ANDREW-PIERCE-Miliband-elder-lead-Labour.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    Clock is ticking now at Lord's. 30 overs for 5 wickets, and NZ have put on 100 since the last man was out.
    They say that disappointments come in threes, well as a fan of Lewis Hamilton and Liverpool FC I'm expecting England to disappoint me once again!!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. Rentool, you could reverse that just as easily.

    Those arguing to fiddle the electorate are generally pro-EU and on the left.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Rentool, you could reverse that just as easily.

    Those arguing to fiddle the electorate are generally pro-EU and on the left.

    You spin it your way and I'll spin it mine!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,863
    Mr. Rentool, reminds me of an old religious joke on varying rituals:
    You do it in your way, and we'll do it in God's.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,932
    Danny565 About 60% of Labour voters want to stay in the EU according to most polls, Tories are split about 40-45% Out, 35-40% In
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    I'm a strong proponent of reducing the franchise to those who are net contributors to the exchequer, those who have retired and have made a contribution to the exchequer over a lifetime, higher rate tax payers, those who own property and those who have testicles.

    The fact all of those groups overwhelming vote Tory is a felicitous happenstance.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ***Betting Post***

    Nigel Owens has been named ref for the Guinness Pro 12 Final.

    I would pile on Munster
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Alistair said:

    ***Betting Post***

    Nigel Owens has been named ref for the Guinness Pro 12 Final.

    I would pile on Munster

    Worst ref in the world.

    I'd rather have Steve Walsh ref an England match.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ON THE BALL CITY
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025