politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far punters are putting their money on an EU Referendum
Comments
-
Richard
"A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?"
........and can be barred from seeing certain films which they are considered too young to watch which I find really bizarre0 -
The UK age of majority is 18 and, reading from wikipedia, that is also the case for Scotland, but I thought it would have been lower?Dair said:0 -
Is that because you haven't managed to win any meaningful elections under the old system, so you need to come up with complex formula that improves your chances?MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Weighting votes is lunacy.
In more important news, Fallout 4 is really rather enjoyable. Much tenser than 3.0 -
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.0 -
That follows.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Should my 13 year old niece's vote be worth ~ 20ish % worth more than mine ? Absolubtely if we're going on Mike's system. I doubt she'd exercise the right, or just vote as my brother advised her to (Out I suspect) in practice.
The problem with this system is that your vote can no longer be fully nonymous. And it'd be tricky for the counters piling the votes up into age related parcels.0 -
I really don’t like the idea of a narrow REMAIN resulting in a continued hissy fit from Kippers and the like.What need is to get one with the real problems of Europe .... the effects of war in neighbouring continents, improving living standards, improving democratic accountability etcagingjb said:I can't see any good outcome whether we remain or leave. I don't want to not vote, so I'll probably spoil my vote by writing "think again" across both boxes.
If we don’t start behaving as adult members of the club I fear our exasperated partners might eventually throw us out!0 -
Yes - that's why I was disagreeing with your argument that it will be 'won or lost on immigration'. It's only one componentisam said:
Isn't that what they're doing?Charles said:
Yes, but an immigration focused campaign won't win over the swing voter.isam said:It will be won or lost on immigration.
This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised.
Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
What they need to do is to have one campaign that focuses on immigration and another that tries to present a more "reasonable" face for media/political consumption.0 -
Quite an interesting article "Looking for Nigel", written by someone who followed Farage on the election trail:isam said:One hopeful straw in the wind is that both Farage and Hitchens have been feted by Twitter (not my feed but generally) on the last two QTs
"And somewhere along the line it became strangely moving. As we visited endless locations where unemployment and austerity have ravaged people’s lives, it was a daily grind of seeing people who feel utterly let down and disenfranchised by the political system. Most aren’t inherently racist, the accusation levelled most heavily at the party for their right-wing views, but are laying their fears and sense of powerlessness at the door of immigration and the European Union.
And here he was, almost in Westminster, a leader, the man they’d been waiting for, who despite his own privileged background, makes these people feel that he understands their needs and would look out for their interests, not just those of the wealthy, the highly educated, the cosmopolitan, the middle and upper classes."
https://mousephoto.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/looking-for-nigel/
0 -
Are you forgetting the loss of in work benefits?blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.0 -
Jury Service is entirely related to voting.Richard_Tyndall said:
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?Dair said:
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.0 -
What if someone dies after they vote but before their vote is counted in this system? (I assume they are counted currently?)Pulpstar said:
That follows.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Should my 13 year old niece's vote be worth ~ 20ish % worth more than mine ? Absolubtely if we're going on Mike's system. I doubt she'd exercise the right, or just vote as my brother advised her to (Out I suspect) in practice.
The problem with this system is that your vote can no longer be fully nonymous. And it'd be tricky for the counters piling the votes up into age related parcels.0 -
Because the brain is still developingPong said:
http://nancyguberti.com/5-stages-of-human-brain-development/
Stage 3: 7 to 22 years
The neural connections or ‘grey’ matter is still pruning, wiring of brain still in progress, the fatty tissues surrounding neurons or ‘white’ matter increase and assist with speeding up electrical impulses and stabilize connections. The prefrontal cortex is the last to mature and it involves the control of impulses and decision-making.
Therefore, teenagers need to learn to control reckless, irrational and irritable behavior. Avoiding drugs, alcohol, smoking, unprotected sex and substance abuse.
0 -
How about giving under-18s (or under-16s, if you're extending the general franchise to 16+) votes that are cast by their parents? Obviously there'd be a few practicalities like divorce to consider (half-votes?)Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.0 -
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.
0 -
I'm not arguing for any restriction on 16yos getting married. Why should I have to offer an argument as to why they should not be allowed to? The law appears quite functional in this regards in my country. It would be best to bring EWNI into line.RobD said:
As you keep repeating, without addressing the point of why the restriction (regardless of whether or not it can be easily avoided) is there in the first place.Dair said:
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.RobD said:
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.Dair said:
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).0 -
No!Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
Elsa AND Anna pyjamas!0 -
No, because pay rises are not the responsibility of government, only the setting of the legal minimum wage.blackburn63 said:
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.0 -
And the singing dolls.Charles said:
No!Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
Elsa AND Anna pyjamas!0 -
I was debating with my daughter last night. She couldn't decide whether:Plato_Says said:Can I have a My Little Pony?
Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
(a) Pink was her favorite colour because Pinkie Pie is pink; or
(b) Pinkie Pie was her favorite MLP because she is pink0 -
It was raised to 18 a few years ago. I'm not aware it has made any difference if compared to smoking rates amongst, for example 14yos. I expect they've both continued to follow the same slow downward trend before and after the law changed.Pulpstar said:I'm sure I could smoke when I was 16 or 17.
Not that I did, but quite certain I could have done so legally. When was that changed ?0 -
You do realise that the whole discussion is about the current 18 year old minimum age to vote? The fact there is a requirement for parental consent for marriage, regardless of how easy it is to get around it, is relevant here.Dair said:
I'm not arguing for any restriction on 16yos getting married. Why should I have to offer an argument as to why they should not be allowed to? The law appears quite functional in this regards in my country. It would be best to bring EWNI into line.RobD said:
As you keep repeating, without addressing the point of why the restriction (regardless of whether or not it can be easily avoided) is there in the first place.Dair said:
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.RobD said:
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.Dair said:
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).0 -
The vote MUST count. We can only judge people on broad life expectancy based on age (And possibly sex), which averaged out works. Or there'll need to be a detailed medical exams for everyone (Should the cancer stricken young mother's vote be considered worthless). It's an entirely theoretical kite Mike is flying here, but life expectancy expectation based on cohort means particular for age and sex can simply be the only way without being overly intrusive into the individual.RobD said:
What if someone dies after they vote but before their vote is counted in this system? (I assume they are counted currently?)Pulpstar said:
That follows.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Should my 13 year old niece's vote be worth ~ 20ish % worth more than mine ? Absolubtely if we're going on Mike's system. I doubt she'd exercise the right, or just vote as my brother advised her to (Out I suspect) in practice.
The problem with this system is that your vote can no longer be fully nonymous. And it'd be tricky for the counters piling the votes up into age related parcels.
We already have a binary system based on your vote being worth 1 for over 18, or 0 for under. So it's merely an extension of the current system into a granular one.0 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/50/section/1RobD said:
The UK age of majority is 18 and, reading from wikipedia, that is also the case for Scotland, but I thought it would have been lower?Dair said:0 -
That's up to the employers.blackburn63 said:
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.
But for talented staff I would imagine they will need to increase, because otherwise they will lose them to competitors.
(Wage differential preservation has always been one of the strongest obsessions of the unions)0 -
The living wage is to become the min wage. Do you foresee any problems if you're currently earning £10, I'm earning £8, and as a result of govt we're now earning the same?RobD said:
No, because pay rises are not the responsibility of government, only the setting of the legal minimum wage.blackburn63 said:
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.
0 -
Under the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, a 16-year-old has the full legal capacity to enter into any legal agreement. However in Scots law, the contract is classed as a "prejudicial transaction" until they are 18.Dair said:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/50/section/1RobD said:
The UK age of majority is 18 and, reading from wikipedia, that is also the case for Scotland, but I thought it would have been lower?Dair said:
An adult.. but not quite.0 -
Damn that deficit prevention law!watford30 said:
And the singing dolls.Charles said:
No!Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
Elsa AND Anna pyjamas!0 -
-
That's a problem for the employee and the employer. If I am not earning the same as someone with far fewer responsibilities than I am, of course I would expect some increase in my salary. Whether that happens or not is another matter, but I'd suggest that there would be a high attrition rate in cases where it doesn't.blackburn63 said:
The living wage is to become the min wage. Do you foresee any problems if you're currently earning £10, I'm earning £8, and as a result of govt we're now earning the same?RobD said:
No, because pay rises are not the responsibility of government, only the setting of the legal minimum wage.blackburn63 said:
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.0 -
It is possible to link your ballot card back to your name after the fact. I think the Speaker is involved in the decision to do it somehow (off the top of my head).Pulpstar said:0 -
I look back at my 16/17 year old self and shudder at the prospect of him ever having the vote.Dair said:
Jury Service is entirely related to voting.Richard_Tyndall said:
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?Dair said:
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.
As has been pointed out down thread, the human brain is still developing throughout the teenage years (and on into early 20s). There is a sound biological case for maturity being measured by age, and if anything the case is stronger for increasing the age of enfranchisement.
0 -
All salaries in my firm are strictly confidential, though I can guess a few as I do the accountsRobD said:
That's a problem for the employee and the employer. If I am not earning the same as someone with far fewer responsibilities than I am, of course I would expect some increase in my salary. Whether that happens or not is another matter, but I'd suggest that there would be a high attrition rate in cases where it doesn't.blackburn63 said:
The living wage is to become the min wage. Do you foresee any problems if you're currently earning £10, I'm earning £8, and as a result of govt we're now earning the same?RobD said:
No, because pay rises are not the responsibility of government, only the setting of the legal minimum wage.blackburn63 said:
If I'm currently earning £8 ph I will be given a 25% pay rise taking me to the living wage of £10. Will that 25% apply to those currently earning £9 or £10 per hour?RobD said:
I don't think the idea of the policy was to give everyone 25% pay rises, so I'm not sure what your point is.blackburn63 said:Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.
0 -
If the electorate won;t accept your A-level gesture politics, what's the solution...??
Change the policies?
No change the electorate. Bring in the A-levellers.
You've got to love the left.0 -
Yes but there is not a restriction. There is a local law (albeit a widespread one) but as it does not impact on the Minimum Requirement (i.e. Scots Law) it is meaningless.RobD said:
You do realise that the whole discussion is about the current 18 year old minimum age to vote? The fact there is a requirement for parental consent for marriage, regardless of how easy it is to get around it, is relevant here.Dair said:
I'm not arguing for any restriction on 16yos getting married. Why should I have to offer an argument as to why they should not be allowed to? The law appears quite functional in this regards in my country. It would be best to bring EWNI into line.RobD said:
As you keep repeating, without addressing the point of why the restriction (regardless of whether or not it can be easily avoided) is there in the first place.Dair said:
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.RobD said:
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.Dair said:
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).0 -
There was a pretty good reason why it used to be 21!DaemonBarber said:
I look back at my 16/17 year old self and shudder at the prospect of him ever having the vote.Dair said:
Jury Service is entirely related to voting.Richard_Tyndall said:
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?Dair said:
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.
As has been pointed out down thread, the human brain is still developing throughout the teenage years (and on into early 20s). There is a sound biological case for maturity being measured by age, and if anything the case is stronger for increasing the age of enfranchisement.
(It's surprising, actually, how sensible a lot of the things that progressives of all parties want to change turn out to be with hindsight)0 -
But the fact that there is a restriction is the point, regardless of how easy it is to circumvent.Dair said:
Yes but there is not a restriction. There is a local law (albeit a widespread one) but as it does not impact on the Minimum Requirement (i.e. Scots Law) it is meaningless.RobD said:
You do realise that the whole discussion is about the current 18 year old minimum age to vote? The fact there is a requirement for parental consent for marriage, regardless of how easy it is to get around it, is relevant here.Dair said:
I'm not arguing for any restriction on 16yos getting married. Why should I have to offer an argument as to why they should not be allowed to? The law appears quite functional in this regards in my country. It would be best to bring EWNI into line.RobD said:
As you keep repeating, without addressing the point of why the restriction (regardless of whether or not it can be easily avoided) is there in the first place.Dair said:
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.RobD said:
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.Dair said:
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).0 -
I was 16 in 1997, I certainly wouldn't have voted for Blair.0
-
Your voting slip ID is recorded next to your name on the voters roll.Pulpstar said:0 -
Yes, that is an extremely perceptive point.antifrank said:As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up.
Alex Massie has written a very interesting article which touches on that, relating it to IndyRef:
But Hannan is right to suggest that vanishingly few folk on this blessed isle are intimately or emotionally attached to the idea of the european idea. In its warmer moments enthusiasm for the EU is tepid.
This cuts both ways, however. Just leaving the EU, while arguably sub-optimal, is not the road to hell nor is remaining a member of the european institutions the road to national perdition. It might not be ideal; it is scarcely intolerable. Or, if you prefer, the sense it is intolerable is not widely shared.
Which is why many people scratch their head when they see people like, to choose a notable example, Dan Hannan thundering on that leaving the EU is the only way to ‘restore our national independence’ or recover ‘freedoms enjoyed in recent memory’. They scratch their heads and think: what in the name of the wee man is he talking about?
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-is-not-about-identity-thats-why-it-is-easy-to-vote-to-stay-in/
0 -
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:0 -
I consider my 16/17yrs old self as being jolly sensible and I still wouldn't have given me the vote - I simply didn't have enough responsibility/life experience to make valid decision.
And my classmates were largely immature, silly and very self-centred. Maybe a small % of those pre-18s are worthy of the vote, but not enough to make it a good idea. On balance most 18yrs are despite a % acting like 12yrs olds.DaemonBarber said:
I look back at my 16/17 year old self and shudder at the prospect of him ever having the vote.Dair said:
Jury Service is entirely related to voting.Richard_Tyndall said:
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?Dair said:
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.
As has been pointed out down thread, the human brain is still developing throughout the teenage years (and on into early 20s). There is a sound biological case for maturity being measured by age, and if anything the case is stronger for increasing the age of enfranchisement.0 -
What I don't understand is how people can vote, watch this process happen where the slip number is recorded and not realise what is going on.Pulpstar said:
I guess it ain't just a river in Egypt.0 -
Exactly whose idea is it to give 16-17 years old the vote in the referendum?0
-
I was 16yrs in 1983 and would've voted Thatcher.Pulpstar said:
I was 16 in 1997, I certainly wouldn't have voted for Blair.
0 -
I only ever remember my name being struck through, never noticed any form of identifying mark on the ballot paper, thought they were all completely fungibleDair said:
What I don't understand is how people can vote, watch this process happen where the slip number is recorded and not realise what is going on.Pulpstar said:
I guess it ain't just a river in Egypt.
. 0 -
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.0 -
-
Some interesting notes:RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00.html0 -
SeanT - in one of his more sensible and less intemperate posts - called it right IMHO when he said that Britain would narrowly vote to Remain and that shortly after the EU would start to do outrageous things. Personally, it sends a shiver down my spine - it might be even worse than if we'd never had a referendum, which is why I didn't want one until Leave had overwhelming leads.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, that is an extremely perceptive point.antifrank said:As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up.
Alex Massie has written a very interesting article which touches on that, relating it to IndyRef:
But Hannan is right to suggest that vanishingly few folk on this blessed isle are intimately or emotionally attached to the idea of the european idea. In its warmer moments enthusiasm for the EU is tepid.
This cuts both ways, however. Just leaving the EU, while arguably sub-optimal, is not the road to hell nor is remaining a member of the european institutions the road to national perdition. It might not be ideal; it is scarcely intolerable. Or, if you prefer, the sense it is intolerable is not widely shared.
Which is why many people scratch their head when they see people like, to choose a notable example, Dan Hannan thundering on that leaving the EU is the only way to ‘restore our national independence’ or recover ‘freedoms enjoyed in recent memory’. They scratch their heads and think: what in the name of the wee man is he talking about?
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-is-not-about-identity-thats-why-it-is-easy-to-vote-to-stay-in/
The line will be that the Brits whinge and moan but when push comes to shove always vote to stay, so suck it up and deal with it. In that sense, holding the referendum (and clearly losing it) might be the worst of all worlds.
If it looks like heading that way there might even be a case for reluctant Remain voters to vote tactically for Leave just to ensure that the margin of defeat isn't heavy enough to remove any lingering threat in future.0 -
Participation amongst 16/17 year olds will be very low anyway, and I doubt they'll swing quite so much for Remain as some think. Their overall contribution will be a rounding error to the result if they're in tbh.0
-
EUphiles.AndyJS said:Exactly whose idea is it to give 16-17 years old the vote in the referendum?
0 -
Compare and contrast :-)Dair said:
What I don't understand is how people can vote, watch this process happen where the slip number is recorded and not realise what is going on.Pulpstar said:
I guess it ain't just a river in Egypt.
Guardian note on secret counting of Communist voters by secret services:
http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00.html
Typical council's website on voting secrecy:
http://cms.walsall.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/elections/voting_faq.htm#73470 -
Not just that, but you will be dis-enfranchising voters in Scotland who will have voted in the Holyrood election then be disbarred from voting in the EU Referendum. And possibly the 2020 election if Westminster hasn't caught up by then or Scotland isn't free.RobD said:
Lab/LD peers.AndyJS said:Exactly whose idea is it to give 16-17 years old the vote in the referendum?
0 -
2007.Pulpstar said:I'm sure I could smoke when I was 16 or 17.
Not that I did, but quite certain I could have done so legally. When was that changed ?0 -
I believe a court can action this, if fraud is suspected.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:0 -
Technically he's correct. It has pseudo-anonymous voting.Pulpstar said:
When you vote the ballot paper number is marked on the register of electors. It would be possible (albeit extremely tedious) to go through all the ballot papers looking for a specific ballot paper number if you know the elector whose vote you want to 'check'. (Obviously there are legal restrictions against anyone doing this but in principle it's possible)
It is anonymity by obfuscation rather than real anonymity - which means that it can be 'checked' if necessary / there is a specific reason to do so.
Replicating this is one of the real difficulties with electronic voting, as by definition you remove the obfuscation of numbered paper ballots, so you either have to move to truly anonymous voting (with the associated issues of how can you check it / how do you know that your vote was counted correctly) - or you move to a more public voting (with the 'known' problems that that causes.0 -
Actually I think I described it the wrong way round.Pulpstar said:
I only ever remember my name being struck through, never noticed any form of identifying mark on the ballot paper, thought they were all completely fungibleDair said:
What I don't understand is how people can vote, watch this process happen where the slip number is recorded and not realise what is going on.Pulpstar said:
I guess it ain't just a river in Egypt..
Your ID from the Electoral Roll is written on the counterfoil of the Voter Slip book (which are like raffle tickets with the ID (now a bar code IIRC) on both parts of the booklet.
It is possible you have turned around by the time they transcribe the Roll ID into the counterfoil.0 -
How can you be disenfranchised for something you were never enfranchised for in the first place (UK-wide referenda/elections)?Dair said:
Not just that, but you will be dis-enfranchising voters in Scotland who will have voted in the Holyrood election then be disbarred from voting in the EU Referendum. And possibly the 2020 election if Westminster hasn't caught up by then or Scotland isn't free.RobD said:
Lab/LD peers.AndyJS said:Exactly whose idea is it to give 16-17 years old the vote in the referendum?
0 -
Gibraltarians should be allowed to vote since it will have an effect on them. Not sure about Commonwealth folk.Plato_Says said:0 -
Which constituency would it have been? Newcastle North maybe.Plato_Says said:I was 16yrs in 1983 and would've voted Thatcher.
Pulpstar said:I was 16 in 1997, I certainly wouldn't have voted for Blair.
0 -
Bring back that like button!taffys said:''For more politically engaged/aware people like ourselves, that isn't going to impress but we are a small minority.''
It is Germany that has allowed Leave into the game, because we are increasingly yoked it its immigration policy.
There's no bl88dy middle way in Germany. Its either world domination or self immolation.
0 -
I thought that was one of those Lib Dem principles?Charles said:
Is that because you haven't managed to win any meaningful elections under the old system, so you need to come up with complex formula that improves your chances?MikeSmithson said:
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.Casino_Royale said:
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
0 -
We are not ficus sing your irrelevant backwater. We are talking about the law as effects the vast majority of people in BritainDair said:
Jury Service is entirely related to voting.Richard_Tyndall said:
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?Dair said:
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?ThomasNashe said:
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)NickPalmer said:The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.
0 -
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
0 -
@Richard_Tyndall Better Together.0
-
The UK has no legal distinction between English, Welsh and Scottish. It could create one (as exists for Irish) but this might be politically difficult, especially in current circumstances.Richard_Tyndall said:
We are not ficus sing your irrelevant backwater. We are talking about the law as effects the vast majority of people in BritainDair said:Jury Service is entirely related to voting.
Any 16yo can enter a contract. Such is Scots Law.
Again, marriage is completely unrestricted at 16 but may require a train ticket.
The smoking and drinking stupidity has already been covered.
Maturity is and never has been the consideration. Maturity cannot be measured by age. Humans don't work that way. What we are talking about is arbitrary values. The bottom line is that Social Right prefer gerrymandering a conservative bias as much as possible and enact laws to achieve this.
Without such distinction, the Lowest Requirement applies. For marriage, this means being 16yo and does NOT require parental consent. That's how the law functions in the UK, whether or not you like it.0 -
Some of those letters in that Guardian article (I know, I know) suggest MI5 were interested.Pong said:
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.0 -
I think, on balance, it is pretty unlikely.Pong said:
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
It is also, I think, much less likely that they could do so today and get away with it than would have been the case in the past.0 -
I did notice that at my first election 38 years ago and wondered why record my ballot number on a list by my name....Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
0 -
They were just making sure you were voting for the correct candidate. The council's way of giving you a helping hand on your first time voting.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did notice that at my first election 38 years ago and wondered why record my ballot number on a list by my name....Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
0 -
Oh, I was living on Benton Road - which was in Dene Ward I think. My parents voted Tory if they bothered.AndyJS said:
Which constituency would it have been? Newcastle North maybe.Plato_Says said:I was 16yrs in 1983 and would've voted Thatcher.
Pulpstar said:I was 16 in 1997, I certainly wouldn't have voted for Blair.
0 -
IndyRef votes another matter entirely?Dair said:
I think, on balance, it is pretty unlikely.Pong said:
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
0 -
Possibly the first time in PB's history that an article from Loaded magazine has been posted.
shazia mirza: ‘girls only join isis to get cock’
Britain’s gutsiest Muslim stand up declares randiness is the unspoken ingredient in radical recruitment.
http://bit.ly/1kr1TVi0 -
The SNP has maintained a large lead over Labour in the latest TNS poll, which also shows Nicola Sturgeon riding high as the most popular political leader in Scotland, with Labour’s new leadership struggling to attract support.
In a survey of 1034 adults over 16 in Scotland, 58% of those expressing a preference said they intended to vote SNP in the constituency section of the May 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament, up two percentage points on the previous month. Labour gained three points to stand at 24%, with the Conservatives on 12% (unchanged) and the Liberal Democrats on 4% (-2).
In the regional vote, 52% backed the SNP (unchanged) with 25% for Labour (+2), 11% for the Conservatives (unchanged), 5% for the Liberal Democrats (-1) and 5% for the Greens (unchanged).
http://bit.ly/1MCVkJy0 -
I think the Security Services were too busy ballot stuffing.RobD said:
IndyRef votes another matter entirely?Dair said:
I think, on balance, it is pretty unlikely.Pong said:
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
After manufacturing that many postal ballots they probably needed a wee holiday.0 -
TouchéDair said:
I think the Security Services were too busy ballot stuffing.RobD said:
IndyRef votes another matter entirely?Dair said:
I think, on balance, it is pretty unlikely.Pong said:
I don't disagree that it seems theoretically possible, but do you seriously believe GCHQ are monitoring & recording who people voted for?Dair said:
I think it's the responsibility of the Returning Officer, who I guess is operating under Letters Patent from the Speaker? So the Speaker delegating to a subordinate.RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.0 -
I had just archived a long missive pondering what would actually change, and my conclusion was very little for most things, perhaps a small underlying bump for the economy, quite a bit but not enough to allay concerns on immigration and a 'who knows' wildcard award for Scotland.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, that is an extremely perceptive point.antifrank said:As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up.
Alex Massie has written a very interesting article which touches on that, relating it to IndyRef:
But Hannan is right to suggest that vanishingly few folk on this blessed isle are intimately or emotionally attached to the idea of the european idea. In its warmer moments enthusiasm for the EU is tepid.
This cuts both ways, however. Just leaving the EU, while arguably sub-optimal, is not the road to hell nor is remaining a member of the european institutions the road to national perdition. It might not be ideal; it is scarcely intolerable. Or, if you prefer, the sense it is intolerable is not widely shared.
Which is why many people scratch their head when they see people like, to choose a notable example, Dan Hannan thundering on that leaving the EU is the only way to ‘restore our national independence’ or recover ‘freedoms enjoyed in recent memory’. They scratch their heads and think: what in the name of the wee man is he talking about?
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-is-not-about-identity-thats-why-it-is-easy-to-vote-to-stay-in/
For instance, of the £14 billion sent to the EU, how much might we realistically SAVE? I assume the cost for either accessing EEA services or for repatriating functions and having a rutting season of the quangos is going to be non-zero.
Once again we are going to have to a referendum in shouty hyperbole rather than level headed facts, but where as in Scotland the choice in question lacked credible facts but merited the level of passion, for EUref many of the electorate are just going to go 'really???', roll their eyes and disengage.0 -
Bloody Nora, 58%.TheScreamingEagles said:The SNP has maintained a large lead over Labour in the latest TNS poll, which also shows Nicola Sturgeon riding high as the most popular political leader in Scotland, with Labour’s new leadership struggling to attract support.
In a survey of 1034 adults over 16 in Scotland, 58% of those expressing a preference said they intended to vote SNP in the constituency section of the May 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament, up two percentage points on the previous month. Labour gained three points to stand at 24%, with the Conservatives on 12% (unchanged) and the Liberal Democrats on 4% (-2).
In the regional vote, 52% backed the SNP (unchanged) with 25% for Labour (+2), 11% for the Conservatives (unchanged), 5% for the Liberal Democrats (-1) and 5% for the Greens (unchanged).
http://bit.ly/1MCVkJy
Let me just imagine the Tories on 58% in a poll...... *faints*
(I also note the fact that there is no Tory surge in this poll, so it must be a rogue)0 -
Best bit : -TheScreamingEagles said:The SNP has maintained a large lead over Labour in the latest TNS poll, which also shows Nicola Sturgeon riding high as the most popular political leader in Scotland, with Labour’s new leadership struggling to attract support.
In a survey of 1034 adults over 16 in Scotland, 58% of those expressing a preference said they intended to vote SNP in the constituency section of the May 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament, up two percentage points on the previous month. Labour gained three points to stand at 24%, with the Conservatives on 12% (unchanged) and the Liberal Democrats on 4% (-2).
In the regional vote, 52% backed the SNP (unchanged) with 25% for Labour (+2), 11% for the Conservatives (unchanged), 5% for the Liberal Democrats (-1) and 5% for the Greens (unchanged).
http://bit.ly/1MCVkJy
Sturgeon emerged as the favourite, with 44% saying they like her (scoring between 7 and 10) while 25% disliked her (scoring 1-4). The SNP leader is held in high regard by SNP supporters (82% like her) and is the most popular party leader among undecided voters (liked by 28%). She is also liked by more Labour supporters (32%) than Dugdale (25%).0 -
I was supporting independencePulpstar said:@Richard_Tyndall Better Together.
0 -
The highest I can remember the Tories were on in the history of PB was 52% with Ipsos Mori in September 2008, with a stonking 28% lead over LaboourRobD said:
Bloody Nora, 58%.TheScreamingEagles said:The SNP has maintained a large lead over Labour in the latest TNS poll, which also shows Nicola Sturgeon riding high as the most popular political leader in Scotland, with Labour’s new leadership struggling to attract support.
In a survey of 1034 adults over 16 in Scotland, 58% of those expressing a preference said they intended to vote SNP in the constituency section of the May 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament, up two percentage points on the previous month. Labour gained three points to stand at 24%, with the Conservatives on 12% (unchanged) and the Liberal Democrats on 4% (-2).
In the regional vote, 52% backed the SNP (unchanged) with 25% for Labour (+2), 11% for the Conservatives (unchanged), 5% for the Liberal Democrats (-1) and 5% for the Greens (unchanged).
http://bit.ly/1MCVkJy
Let me just imagine the Tories on 58% in a poll...... *faints*
(I also note the fact that there is no Tory surge in this poll, so it must be a rogue)0 -
It's not really a question of 'how much do you save' but how can you deploy the funds available in the most effective way.Pro_Rata said:
I had just archived a long missive pondering what would actually change, and my conclusion was very little for most things, perhaps a small underlying bump for the economy, quite a bit but not enough to allay concerns on immigration and a 'who knows' wildcard award for Scotland.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, that is an extremely perceptive point.antifrank said:As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up.
Alex Massie has written a very interesting article which touches on that, relating it to IndyRef:
But Hannan is right to suggest that vanishingly few folk on this blessed isle are intimately or emotionally attached to the idea of the european idea. In its warmer moments enthusiasm for the EU is tepid.
This cuts both ways, however. Just leaving the EU, while arguably sub-optimal, is not the road to hell nor is remaining a member of the european institutions the road to national perdition. It might not be ideal; it is scarcely intolerable. Or, if you prefer, the sense it is intolerable is not widely shared.
Which is why many people scratch their head when they see people like, to choose a notable example, Dan Hannan thundering on that leaving the EU is the only way to ‘restore our national independence’ or recover ‘freedoms enjoyed in recent memory’. They scratch their heads and think: what in the name of the wee man is he talking about?
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-is-not-about-identity-thats-why-it-is-easy-to-vote-to-stay-in/
For instance, of the £14 billion sent to the EU, how much might we realistically SAVE? I assume the cost for either accessing EEA services or for repatriating functions and having a rutting season of the quangos is going to be non-zero.
Once again we are going to have to a referendum in shouty hyperbole rather than level headed facts, but where as in Scotland the choice in question lacked credible facts but merited the level of passion, for EUref many of the electorate are just going to go 'really???', roll their eyes and disengage.
For instance, a big component of our contribution to the EU is to cover agricultural subsidies.
Assuming, for instance, that we want to maintain agricultural subsidies at a similar level (which we may choose not to) then I would imagine we would design a structure that is optimised for British farmers - and perhaps targeted at those in need (e.g. hill farmers rather than agribusinesses) - rather than one which is structured for French small-holders.0 -
On topic, from last night, I reckon this is a game changer in Leave's favour
This will move quite a few to Leave, the French want us in the EU.
@GerardAraud: #Brexit. Yes we want Britain in the EU but it is a crisis by the British for the British, that no other EU member considers as necessary.
Gerard Araud est de l'Ambassadeur de France aux Etats-Unis0 -
Dair said:RobD said:
Probably to trace vote fraud. Not sure how often it is done (and I'm not sure if the Speaker is involved, just have a vague recollection is all!)DaemonBarber said:
It's always done, for all elections in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of trust that your vote is not recorded by GCHQ.
GCHQ deals with electronic communication, not paper. If you're going all 'tin foil hat', at least get the basic facts right.0 -
Just back from my walk and catching up. Two thoughts
1. Regarding the recording of voter number against the number on the voting slip. I am very surprised that on a site full of politically aware people who are so full of their knowledge and who are prepared to comment on election matters that so few understand the procedure that is carried out to prevent electoral fraud and the protections that are built in to preserve the secret ballot.
2. Mr. Nabavi you talk of Dan Hannan "thundering on", have you met him? A more gentle, thoughtful, considerate man you could not wish to meet. He speaks well, he speaks fluently, he makes a good, logical, consistent case but, I should think is, incapable of "thundering on" about anything.0 -
Looking at the polling, TNS is in the upper 50s consistently now, Yougov in the low 50s consistently and the less frequent polls from other companies in the middle.RobD said:
Bloody Nora, 58%.TheScreamingEagles said:The SNP has maintained a large lead over Labour in the latest TNS poll, which also shows Nicola Sturgeon riding high as the most popular political leader in Scotland, with Labour’s new leadership struggling to attract support.
In a survey of 1034 adults over 16 in Scotland, 58% of those expressing a preference said they intended to vote SNP in the constituency section of the May 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament, up two percentage points on the previous month. Labour gained three points to stand at 24%, with the Conservatives on 12% (unchanged) and the Liberal Democrats on 4% (-2).
In the regional vote, 52% backed the SNP (unchanged) with 25% for Labour (+2), 11% for the Conservatives (unchanged), 5% for the Liberal Democrats (-1) and 5% for the Greens (unchanged).
http://bit.ly/1MCVkJy
Let me just imagine the Tories on 58% in a poll...... *faints*
(I also note the fact that there is no Tory surge in this poll, so it must be a rogue)
Given the media's talking up of Labour, Dugdale, Corbyn, the nonsense about Police, Education and Health, I think it's necessary to accept that there is no possibility of an SNP slide before May (or even long after it).
It looks like we are in a pretty settled position with the SNP sitting at 55% for the constituency vote and 50% on the List.
The Tories are the exact opposite, low on TNS, high on Yougov and middle with the others, while Labour, Liberals and Greens are pretty much set on all the polls. I'd expect the true Tory figure to be around 14%, Labour on 21% and the Liberals and Greens on 5% each.0 -
No I don't talk of him 'thundering on'. Alex Massie does,HurstLlama said:2. Mr. Nabavi you talk of Dan Hannan "thundering on", have you met him?
And yes I have met him, and, yes I agree he is very persuasive, engaging, and thundereth not. He does however eloquently make the point which Alex Massie says he makes.0 -
Just noticed the last paragraph on the TNS article.
“One crumb of comfort for Labour may be that, asked the same question two years ago, the then Labour leader Johann Lamont was liked by 7% of electors and 41% did not know who she was – these are similar figures to Dugdale’s but Lamont had been Scottish Labour leader for about two years by then, while Dugdale is just starting out.”
If THAT is your "crumb of comfort", you really are screwed.0 -
Someone's going to the gulag for this.
@dats: On Oldham by-election, shadow cabinet source suggests a loss cd speed up change at the top: "I wonder if it might be better if we lost..."0 -
I like a Britain comfortable with all races, creeds, sexual orientation etc but I don't associate that principally with the EU frankly. For me, the issue is the fundamentally undemocratic bureaucratic top-down approach of the EU which risks damaging exactly this sort of open relaxed society. And the question of self-government matters, it seems to me, if you value democracy.Roger said:antifrank Cont....
It comes down to whether we want to live in the country that Britain has become. Comfortable with all races creeds sexual orientation etc or whether we prefer a narrow nationalism. Even if that's not how it should be seen be I'm sure that that's how the argument will eventually break down.
It will be framed as a battle against 'little englanders' and as I said before the country has moved on
Put it this way I do not want the laws of this country to be determined by countries who have elected Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Gianfranco Fini etc as their leaders. [Edited] And I know they haven't, but they are leaders of parties and that tells you something about the political culture of those countries. That may be fine for France, Italy etc but it's not the political culture that I want in the UK nor do I really want it to determine, for instance, our criminal justice system or our approach to the balance between security and privacy.
Europe has had and still has a dark underbelly and a dark history. Democracy and liberalism are not the default, historically or culturally, for most of Continental Europe. My fear is that in pushing a "European project" ahead of the European demos and without the full-hearted consent of European peoples those who do so will be more likely to reanimate those dark currents.0 -
lol. By contrast, we adults always vote on careful consideration, devoid of self-interest. Don't we?Pong said:
lol.LucyJones said:
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/ken-clarke-laments-impossible-constraint-placed-upon-chancellors
By the way, have we discussed the Cameron/Boris effect reported here?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/12/no-10-row-vote-leave-right-lead-anti-eu-campaign
I'm a bit wary of polls that ask "If X happened, how would you vote?" because it gives a weight to X which the voter may in the heat of multiple effects not assign to it in practice (I think that's why the "How would you vote if you think about local candidates?" polls proved to overstate LibDem incumbency bonus.) But it shows again that Cameron's blessing is very important, and Boris's curse would be helpful to Out if not necessarily decisive.
0 -
@JamesDMorris: EU ref looks like a battle between the young middle class and the older working class. Blog: https://t.co/lPeMr4E6l6 https://t.co/0xyWcXd12X0
-
I doubt it will move many votes at all. It ought to but it won't.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, from last night, I reckon this is a game changer in Leave's favour
This will move quite a few to Leave, the French want us in the EU.
@GerardAraud: #Brexit. Yes we want Britain in the EU but it is a crisis by the British for the British, that no other EU member considers as necessary.
Gerard Araud est de l'Ambassadeur de France aux Etats-Unis
If the French want us to do something then 1000 years of history teaches us that our national interest will be best served by doing something else if not, always, the opposite. However, very few people will hear of the remarks and of those that do and who are not already committed to leaving the majority will think themselves far too clever and sophisticated to learn from history.0 -
Those Scottish figures appear to be showing a slight rise in the Labour share at the expense of the Greens. Could we see people voting SNP for the constituency and Labour for the list?0
