Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to allow 16-17 year olds to take part in #EU

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited November 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to allow 16-17 year olds to take part in #EUREF

House of Lords has voted to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the upcoming referendum on EU membership #EUref

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,993
    edited November 2015
    FPT and first.
    tlg86 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    AndyJS said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour · 37s38 seconds ago
    Peers vote 293-211 to let 16 and 17 year olds vote in the European Union referendum. Government will seek to overturn in Commons.

    I just don't understand the House of Lords at the moment. They seem to be choosing the most bizarre subjects on which to take a stand against the Commons.
    The point is that they're taking a stand. In the absence of a functioning opposition in the House of Commons, they're taking it on themselves to provide one.
    Taking a stand? I'd abolish them tomorrow. This isn't the government trying to get something through that they didn't have in their manifesto. This is the losers trampling all over our democracy.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    tlg86 said:

    FPT

    tlg86 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    AndyJS said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour · 37s38 seconds ago
    Peers vote 293-211 to let 16 and 17 year olds vote in the European Union referendum. Government will seek to overturn in Commons.

    I just don't understand the House of Lords at the moment. They seem to be choosing the most bizarre subjects on which to take a stand against the Commons.
    The point is that they're taking a stand. In the absence of a functioning opposition in the House of Commons, they're taking it on themselves to provide one.
    Taking a stand? I'd abolish them tomorrow. This isn't the government trying to get something through that they didn't have in their manifesto. This is the losers trampling all over our democracy.
    No, this is our democracy.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    Shame they have no democratic mandate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour · 37s38 seconds ago
    Peers vote 293-211 to let 16 and 17 year olds vote in the European Union referendum. Government will seek to overturn in Commons.

    Right opinion to try to block it in my view, but politically it seems like the ship has sailed on that one, they might as well let it go, not worth the fight.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,020
    I think I'll be posting this a few more times this parliament

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    16 year olds mature, who are they kidding. Will the Lords let them buy cigarettes or alcohol legally at the same age?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited November 2015
    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,993
    Dave needs to be careful here. He might be happy to let this go as it will - albeit slightly - favour Remain, but it's the sort of thing that might tip some of the outers over the edge.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Danny565

    'Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.'

    No, just undemocratic..
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Given the way we infantilise young people I don't think 16 year olds require or need the vote, I don't understand how it is apparently so vital (and I thought so when I was 16 as well), and I say that despite thinking our electoral system could be greatly improved in many ways, I just don't see how this achieves that.

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,578
    Note the scale of the defeat as well - the Government probably has no way past the Lords if the numbers are as stark as this.

    I'm a long-term supporter of votes at 16, and proposed a supportive council motion which was passed by a big majority (about half the Tories against) but was interesting that night how all the comments against we're what I'd call distractions - 'the wrong time' 'not a council issue' 'not a priority' I was struck how the lack of substantive arguments against 16 year olds being ready, was a good indicator that the argument was being won nationally.

    Obviously helpful for Remain, and hopefully for politicians across the spectrum to have to take youth issues that little more seriously.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,020
    @TSEofPB: Saucer of milk for @Andrew_ComRes

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUHdG0-W4AEY2rk.jpg
  • TomTom Posts: 273
    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,298
    edited November 2015
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think I'll be posting this a few more times this parliament

    twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312

    Can I post this a few more times too? Can I? Can I? :)

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,020
    edited November 2015
    I'm assuming the Conservative's can invoke the Parliament Act? So the delay will be one year?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,993
    edited November 2015
    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Given that we want kids to stay in education until 21 I'd argue there's a case for raising the voting age back to 21. It's not until you start working and earning a living that you really start to think about things.

    The problem with this is that we can get into a bidding war for making our opponents look bad (did you see what I avoided saying there?!). You think 16 year olds deserve the vote, I say 14 year olds should.

    EDIT: What's interesting about the change in 1969 is that it didn't help Labour stay in power.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    With respect, I would suggest that you have a long look for countries where the franchise is extended to the over 16s. Very few mature democracies have been prepared to do so, must be something to with intellectual and emotional development of teenagers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,194
    16 and 17 year olds will likely vote as heavily In as they did Yes in Scotland so this boosts Remain
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    kle4 said:

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.

    But that was in a small country which has always been out of step with the rest of the world on the age of majority. That's no reason for children to be given the vote in the UK as a whole.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    TBH, as a Lefty and REMAIN-er I think the voting age should stay at 18
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    kle4 said:

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.

    But that was in a small country which has always been out of step with the rest of the world on the age of majority. That's no reason for children to be given the vote in the UK as a whole.
    If we accepted as ok for such an important vote in one part of our nation, I disagree with that decision but find it hard to recommend to the Tories they expend political capital trying to prevent it in the restr of the nation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    I would have said it was a bit unfair to describe the Liberals of 1918, the only party to consistently oppose votes for women, as 'backwoodsmen.'
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited November 2015
    @MarkSenior

    'If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .


    Was the extension of the franchise in 1918 & 1969 approved by a democratically elected government or unelected backwoodsmen in the House of Lords ?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,993
    kle4 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    kle4 said:

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.

    But that was in a small country which has always been out of step with the rest of the world on the age of majority. That's no reason for children to be given the vote in the UK as a whole.
    If we accepted as ok for such an important vote in one part of our nation, I disagree with that decision but find it hard to recommend to the Tories they expend political capital trying to prevent it in the restr of the nation.
    Maybe 16-17 year olds should be able to vote in Scotland but not elsewhere?

    I think it's fair to say that maybe the Tories should have fought against it in the Indy Ref, but no way should that be a precedent for future votes.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited November 2015
    kle4 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    kle4 said:

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.

    But that was in a small country which has always been out of step with the rest of the world on the age of majority. That's no reason for children to be given the vote in the UK as a whole.
    If we accepted as ok for such an important vote in one part of our nation, I disagree with that decision but find it hard to recommend to the Tories they expend political capital trying to prevent it in the restr of the nation.
    We let them them decide - that's different from accepting it.

    In any case there are two principles here - the Lords trying to create constitutional change with no democratic mandate to do so, and the issue itself. Very few serious democracies (just Austria and a couple of third-world countries) give votes to children.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    This article - http://noramulready.com/2015/11/17/islamism-the-left-and-a-plea-to-labour-mps/ - that someone (apologies, cannot remember who it was) is very good indeed.

    It says in essence no more than what many of us on this forum have been saying for some time now and, given the state Labour and the Left have got themselves into, will no doubt have to continue saying.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited November 2015
    Sky: Honduras detains five Syrians travelling on stolen Greek passports who were attempting to enter the USA...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,020
    @faisalislam: "when Bill returns to elected Chamber [Government] will seek to overturn this [16/17yo] amendment from Lords." says Minister John Penrose
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2015
    Extended argument between Kevan Jones and Ken Livingstone, live on Channel 4 News. Cathy Newman in the middle.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Tom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
    Completely agreed. This is why this whole idea the right are the new barons of equality is also laughable. It feels like since the election result PB has become right-wing; more conservative; and much more sensitive to anyone who questions the government, its polices, and especially Cameron. I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Good call. Know plenty of 16/17 year olds with more knowledge and judgement than many adults. Worked well in Scotland. Clearly have the biggest stake in vote as they will have to live it longest.

    Can't see why Tories object.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    AndyJS said:

    Extended argument between Kevan Jones and Ken Livingstone, live on Channel 4 News. Cathy Newman in the middle.

    The apology went well, I take it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,194
    Jonathan said:

    Good call. Know plenty of 16/17 year olds with more knowledge and judgement than many adults. Worked well in Scotland. Clearly have the biggest stake in vote as they will have to live it longest.

    Can't see why Tories object.

    Ironically if Cameron leads the Remain campaign he could benefit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Tom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
    Completely agreed. This is why this whole idea the right are the new barons of equality is also laughable. It feels like since the election result PB has become right-wing; more conservative; and much more sensitive to anyone who questions the government, its polices, and especially Cameron. I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
    Oh I would agree criticism of the Lords has gone markedly up since they started doling out more defeats, but for all PB may have gone more Right since the election (the left are a bit quieter, for obvious reasons), I don't see a 16/17 year old voting issue as left or right, or even liberalism. 16 year olds are still treated like children (yes, even though they can join the army - though not fight), in fact even older people are treated like they are children, so I don't see the logic in giving them the vote when the same people treat them like that.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    edited November 2015
    I do think the key is the size of the defeat though - bypassing the Lords would look like the only way to win on this issue, and that's a big step. I suppose the Tories might consider the state of the elected opposition makes this a perfect time to raise the stakes elsewhere and take the risks that come with that, but it will cost them, I suspect it is very easy to sway opinion in favour of the Lords' action.

    It's funny what can quickly become seen as the 'obviously correct and fair' thing to do when few people cared previously. Why don't the public swing behind my pet political preferment of changing from FPTP?

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The great Terry-thomas has it.


    Labour = ebsoloot shaaaaaarrrrr
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    MikeSmithson said:

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.

    I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?

    In any case, what has that got to do with anything? It's a curious kind of democrat who thinks the unelected Lords should try to change the constitution against the wishes of the democratically elected government.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2015
    @Richard_Nabavi Irresponsibly = disagree with Tory policies/views.
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Tom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
    Completely agreed. This is why this whole idea the right are the new barons of equality is also laughable. It feels like since the election result PB has become right-wing; more conservative; and much more sensitive to anyone who questions the government, its polices, and especially Cameron. I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
    Oh I would agree criticism of the Lords has gone markedly up since they started doling out more defeats, but for all PB may have gone more Right since the election (the left are a bit quieter, for obvious reasons), I don't see a 16/17 year old voting issue as left or right, or even liberalism. 16 year olds are still treated like children (yes, even though they can join the army - though not fight), in fact even older people are treated like they are children, so I don't see the logic in giving them the vote when the same people treat them like that.
    The EU referendum result will be felt by 16-17 year olds more than any other age group in the long-term. I don't really see the issue with giving them a vote, tbh.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,908
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    kle4 said:

    Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.

    But that was in a small country which has always been out of step with the rest of the world on the age of majority. That's no reason for children to be given the vote in the UK as a whole.
    If we accepted as ok for such an important vote in one part of our nation, I disagree with that decision but find it hard to recommend to the Tories they expend political capital trying to prevent it in the restr of the nation.
    Maybe 16-17 year olds should be able to vote in Scotland but not elsewhere?
    There is an argument for that, apparently Scottish law doesn't unequivocally set the age of majority at 18 as does English law.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Giving children the vote.
    Aye, some 16 year old children show a lot more sense than some adults, but frankly most do not. The teenage brain is very much still developing, teens are not a group I would trust to make sensible decisions for themselves, let alone the country.

    That said, it is unlikely that most teens would bother to vote except those that do show some thought, interest and maturity.

    On the whole this isn't a battle worth fighting.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    The Conservatives didn't block Lords reform.
    There was a vote to discuss it properly at length and not rush it through.
    And you know that.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Haven't all opinion polls shown the public are against votes at 16 by a very wide margin?

    Nobody seems to even be mentioning that.

    So not only have we got unelected Lords over-riding the wishes of the Commons - they are also over-riding the wishes of the general public.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Yes the Lords include all those misogynist Lib Dem peers that thought Rennard was a fit person to sit on the Lib Dem Federal Executive. What a shower.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,484
    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    So I assume you believe we should also remove all the other restrictions on 16 year olds as well?

    Buying alcohol and tobacco.
    Driving
    Marrying without parents consent.
    Fighting (and dying) on the front line.
    Signing legal contracts.
    Serving on Juries.
    Getting credit.
    Gambling.
    Being tried as adults without reporting restrictions.
    Serving time in adult jails.

    Or is it just voting that you hold in such disdain that you think the age of responsibility should be changed?

    Of course you are a Lib Dem and they don't really like democracy after what happened at the last election.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    ydoethur said:

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    I would have said it was a bit unfair to describe the Liberals of 1918, the only party to consistently oppose votes for women, as 'backwoodsmen.'
    The Lib Dem peers of 2015 think Rennard is their best representative.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    This is not true. Tory backbencher wanted to vote for more discussion so Clegg withdrew the proposal rather than let it be subject to more discussion.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    AndyJS said:

    Extended argument between Kevan Jones and Ken Livingstone, live on Channel 4 News. Cathy Newman in the middle.

    The BBC claims Livingstone made an ‘unreserved ‘ apology. – Was it not accepted ? - or are they continuing their ‘discussion’ regarding the Labour defence review?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    The_Apocalypse said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Irresponsibly = disagree with Tory policies/views.

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Tom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
    Compst.
    Oh I woo I don't see the logic in giving them the vote when the same people treat them like that.
    The EU referendum result will be felt by 16-17 year olds more than any other age group in the long-term. I don't really see the issue with giving them a vote, tbh.
    But as the kneejerk response to that shows, those even younger will be even more affected, why not include them considering they too are not legally adults? It's not, for me, a question of who is most affected by the consequences of a vote - opening that door seems like it raises many more questions than answers - it's should people of that age be granted the right to take those sorts of decisions, is it appropriate for those we have until now deemed children in most ways (accepting it is not entirely, given they can work and so on - i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)

    Personally, and as a view I've held since I was that age, I don't think we equip people of that age to take those sorts of decisions, and the patronising way we treat them makes not doing so for this one issue even odder. However, though I note the points some have made about Scotland and the decisions their not necessarily being applicable, I continue to see the permitting of it there as fatally undermining the continued refusal here. I think it's the wrong decision, I think 'young people are to be more affected' is a weak argument for such an important change, but the defence of the status quo is harder now.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    I dare say all those Lib Dems are totally cut up about the fact that, based on any form of proportional representation, or indeed any electoral system at all, they shouldn't be there.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm assuming the Conservative's can invoke the Parliament Act? So the delay will be one year?

    Parliament act can only invoked after 2 years, which would mean the referendum couldn't be held until 2018. The Tories have already promised to hold it by 2017
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    Compared to the Lib Dems, who got how much support?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything! ''

    Goodness knows where that puts the legitimacy of the lib dem lords.

    Anyway lets see how much patience the voters have with bien pensent liberals in the real world.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    ThreeQuidder said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    This is not true. Tory backbencher wanted to vote for more discussion so Clegg withdrew the proposal rather than let it be subject to more discussion.
    "More discussion" would have shown the idea up for being the steaming pile of bollocks that it was. Clegg took the very sensible route of withdrawing it and not exposing it to the cold light of day in open debate.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    john_zims said:

    @Danny565

    'Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.'

    No, just undemocratic..

    Undemocratic to extend democracy
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.

    I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?

    In any case, what has that got to do with anything? It's a curious kind of democrat who thinks the unelected Lords should try to change the constitution against the wishes of the democratically elected government.
    The unelected brake the the HoL provides is an excellent way of preventing populist but unwise legislation being passed.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    So I assume you believe we should also remove all the other restrictions on 16 year olds as well?

    Buying alcohol and tobacco.
    Driving
    Marrying without parents consent.
    Fighting (and dying) on the front line.
    Signing legal contracts.
    Serving on Juries.
    Getting credit.
    Gambling.
    Being tried as adults without reporting restrictions.
    Serving time in adult jails.

    Or is it just voting that you hold in such disdain that you think the age of responsibility should be changed?

    Of course you are a Lib Dem and they don't really like democracy after what happened at the last election.
    Well put.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    edited November 2015
    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    He had the greatest claim to a mandate that is on offer. I don't like the voting system either, I think it does weaken the mandate claims of our governments not just this one, but the mandate argument against the government is weaker than the mandate argument for the government, as we cannot presume everyone else exists as some hypothetical, homogenous anti-government mass on every issue, whereas although not all those who voted Tory will support them on every issue, it is more reasonable to assume generalised support for its actions by those who did vote for them, as they made a positive choice to do so specifically for(or at least accepting of) the programme they offered and principles they stood for, when we cannot even be certain in that general fashion for those who opposed them (of which, I might add, I was one - I am one of the 7.9%)
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Lefties have form on lowering the age of consent. 14!

    "There have been various suggestions to lower the age of consent to 14 - in 1998 the New Labour government proposed this, but despite some Left wing and Youth support this had been dropped by early 2003 as lacking support, a decade later in early 2013 the suggestion by civil servants to lower the age of consent to 14 was rejected by the Conservative led coalition"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#History_30
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    But your definition of "acting irresponsibly" is "doing things that I personally don't like".

    In reality, the Lords has caused trouble for many governments in the past, quite rightly. Did you object when they blocked the 42-day detention proposal by the last Labour government, for example?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    john_zims said:

    @MarkSenior

    'If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .


    Was the extension of the franchise in 1918 & 1969 approved by a democratically elected government or unelected backwoodsmen in the House of Lords ?

    Both, presumably, or the legislation wouldn't have passed.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    kle4 said:

    i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)

    Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?

    And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    News from Oldham - kid with AK 17 on Facebook.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-18/police-called-to-school-after-pupil-poses-with-ak-47-on-facebook/

    Don't worry he's not old enough to vote.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The Ken Livingstone Kevan Jones spat on Ch4 news was extraordinary
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    GeoffM said:

    ThreeQuidder said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    This is not true. Tory backbencher wanted to vote for more discussion so Clegg withdrew the proposal rather than let it be subject to more discussion.
    "More discussion" would have shown the idea up for being the steaming pile of bollocks that it was. Clegg took the very sensible route of withdrawing it and not exposing it to the cold light of day in open debate.
    As may be. To claim that Tories blocked it is an untruth.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited November 2015
    not_on_fire said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm assuming the Conservative's can invoke the Parliament Act? So the delay will be one year?

    Parliament act can only invoked after 2 years, which would mean the referendum couldn't be held until 2018. The Tories have already promised to hold it by 2017
    Don't think that's right.

    Lords can only delay one year under Parliament Act 1949 - though I'm unclear precisely how the year is measured - ie what is start date?

    Link implies that end of session may be key.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Ken Livingstone can't get the name of Labour's defence spokesman right. And he's in charge of drawing up Labour's nuclear defence policy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    The_Apocalypse said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Irresponsibly = disagree with Tory policies/views.

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    Tom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.

    Indeed. We want an unfair electoral system but only if it is unfair in our favour, and an undemocratic second chamber provided it is undemocratic in our favour. The timeless majesty of Britain's organic constitution seems to have gone out of the window for a while.
    Completely agreed. This is why this whole idea the right are the new barons of equality is also laughable. It feels like since the election result PB has become right-wing; more conservative; and much more sensitive to anyone who questions the government, its polices, and especially Cameron. I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
    Oh I would agree criticism of the Lords has gone markedly up since they started doling out more defeats, but for all PB may have gone more Right since the election (the left are a bit quieter, for obvious reasons), I don't see a 16/17 year old voting issue as left or right, or even liberalism. 16 year olds are still treated like children (yes, even though they can join the army - though not fight), in fact even older people are treated like they are children, so I don't see the logic in giving them the vote when the same people treat them like that.
    The EU referendum result will be felt by 16-17 year olds more than any other age group in the long-term. I don't really see the issue with giving them a vote, tbh.
    Try and understand what the consequences might be of establishing a principle whereby the grant of the vote is on the basis of the consequences of that vote for the person (or category of persons) in question.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    He had the greatest claim to a mandate that is on offer. I don't like the voting system either, I think it does weaken the mandate claims of our governments not just this one, but the mandate argument against the government is weaker than the mandate argument for the government, as we cannot presume everyone else exists as some hypothetical, homogenous anti-government mass on every issue.
    I agree on this: whatever the merits of the rules, the rules are still the rules, and under those rules the Tories won fair and square.

    HOWEVER, the other side of that coin is, the same rules/system that makes the Tories the majority on just 37% of the vote, is the exact same system which has ALWAYS had the "undemocratic" House of Lords capable of standing up to the Commons. So essentially, the Tories can't defend their 37% mandate purely on a "dem's the rules, the principles don't matter" basis, yet then turn around and start saying the Lords are acting out of turn when they equally are acting within the same set of rules/systems.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    bigjohnowls said:

    john_zims said:

    @Danny565

    'Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.'

    No, just undemocratic..

    Undemocratic to extend democracy
    How very British
    ThreeQuidder said:

    kle4 said:

    i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)

    Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?
    Hence my confusion as to why lowering the age is now the seemingly more accepted 'correct and fair' position given the direction of travel elsewhere, but that appears to be the case - the case for lowering the age barrier seems to be gaining in popularity (though that is just my gut, I do not know what the polls, if trustworthy, say on the matter)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Matt was watching CH4 news...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12004369&cc=11971107
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,993
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MarkSenior said:

    If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .

    So I assume you believe we should also remove all the other restrictions on 16 year olds as well?

    Buying alcohol and tobacco.
    Driving
    Marrying without parents consent.
    Fighting (and dying) on the front line.
    Signing legal contracts.
    Serving on Juries.
    Getting credit.
    Gambling.
    Being tried as adults without reporting restrictions.
    Serving time in adult jails.

    Or is it just voting that you hold in such disdain that you think the age of responsibility should be changed?

    Of course you are a Lib Dem and they don't really like democracy after what happened at the last election.
    Well said Richard.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    Yes he does. His government was properly elected under the system we have at present. There isn't some secondary layer he has to go through dependant on selective use of statistics.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Scott_P said:

    The Ken Livingstone Kevan Jones spat on Ch4 news was extraordinary

    is it online anywhere?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Re: who opposed Lords reform. Any one heard of this chap?
    "The Liberal Democrat grandee Lord Steel has launched the strongest attack yet on Nick Clegg's plans to reform the House of Lords.
    The peer, a former leader of the Liberal party, claimed Clegg's radical reforms were a distraction from the evolutionary changes that needed to be made to the second chamber."
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/05/david-steel-attacks-cleggs-lord-reform-bill
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    not_on_fire said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.

    I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?

    In any case, what has that got to do with anything? It's a curious kind of democrat who thinks the unelected Lords should try to change the constitution against the wishes of the democratically elected government.
    The unelected brake the the HoL provides is an excellent way of preventing populist but unwise legislation being passed.
    That was true under the hereditaries who were mostly non-partisan and sensible even when they wore party colours. You are thinking back to a better pre-Blair era.

    If it still worked that way then there would be a good case for the survival of the HoL. But like so many other botched 'reforms' Blair simply broke it and moved on.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    MikeL said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm assuming the Conservative's can invoke the Parliament Act? So the delay will be one year?

    Parliament act can only invoked after 2 years, which would mean the referendum couldn't be held until 2018. The Tories have already promised to hold it by 2017
    Don't think that's right.

    Lords can only delay one year under Parliament Act 1949 - though I'm unclear precisely how the year is measured - ie what is start date?

    Link implies that end of session may be key.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/
    IIRC a bill can't be blocked in two consecutive sessions.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,775
    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
    But your definition of "acting irresponsibly" is "doing things that I personally don't like".

    In reality, the Lords has caused trouble for many governments in the past, quite rightly. Did you object when they blocked the 42-day detention proposal by the last Labour government, for example?
    One thing to block proposed changes. Quite another to ram through a big change.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''In reality, the Lords has caused trouble for many governments in the past, quite rightly. Did you object when they blocked the 42-day detention proposal by the last Labour government, for example? ''

    True, but I doubt there has ever been as flagrant an abuse of the system as that being committed by the lib dem lords.

    Their party and their policies were eviscerated at a very recent election, and yet they are still trying to impose both on an electorate that clearly rejected them.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Re: who opposed Lords reform. Any one heard of this chap?
    "The Liberal Democrat grandee Lord Steel has launched the strongest attack yet on Nick Clegg's plans to reform the House of Lords.
    The peer, a former leader of the Liberal party, claimed Clegg's radical reforms were a distraction from the evolutionary changes that needed to be made to the second chamber."
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/05/david-steel-attacks-cleggs-lord-reform-bill

    Ssssh! Don't let the truth get in the way of the LibDem rewriting of history.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Ken Livingstone Kevan Jones spat on Ch4 news was extraordinary

    is it online anywhere?
    I am sure it will be, or it's on C4+1 in 15 minutes
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    GeoffM said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.

    I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?

    In any case, what has that got to do with anything? It's a curious kind of democrat who thinks the unelected Lords should try to change the constitution against the wishes of the democratically elected government.
    The unelected brake the the HoL provides is an excellent way of preventing populist but unwise legislation being passed.
    That was true under the hereditaries who were mostly non-partisan and sensible even when they wore party colours. You are thinking back to a better pre-Blair era.

    If it still worked that way then there would be a good case for the survival of the HoL. But like so many other botched 'reforms' Blair simply broke it and moved on.
    This.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited November 2015
    @DPJHodges: Just spoke to shadow cabinet minister. Corbyn office brokering deal with NEC to let Andrew Fisher back into party with NEC warning.

    @DPJHodges: At same time several "disloyal" Labour MPs will also be issued with NEC warnings.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    He had the greatest claim to a mandate that is on offer. I don't like the voting system either, I think it does weaken the mandate claims of our governments not just this one, but the mandate argument against the government is weaker than the mandate argument for the government, as we cannot presume everyone else exists as some hypothetical, homogenous anti-government mass on every issue.
    I agree on this: whatever the merits of the rules, the rules are still the rules, and under those rules the Tories won fair and square.

    HOWEVER, the other side of that coin is, the same rules/system that makes the Tories the majority on just 37% of the vote, is the exact same system which has ALWAYS had the "undemocratic" House of Lords capable of standing up to the Commons. So essentially, the Tories can't defend their 37% mandate purely on a "dem's the rules, the principles don't matter" basis, yet then turn around and start saying the Lords are acting out of turn when they equally are acting within the same set of rules/systems.
    I would accept that - I do think the Lords can act of turn by pushing their actions too far from convention, but the level of condemnation noticeably increasing in response to specific issues makes me question how much outrage at constitutional issues that our, let us say unconventional system, creates is longstanding principle. More than some people suspect, I would suggest, but not as much as others claim, perhaps.

    But I actually now have to get some work done, so people will be spared my repeating myself further on the matter.

    Good night all.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,775
    dr_spyn said:

    News from Oldham - kid with AK 17 on Facebook.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-18/police-called-to-school-after-pupil-poses-with-ak-47-on-facebook/

    Don't worry he's not old enough to vote.

    The child and family were fully co-operative and are hugely upset that offence has been caused.

    Their idea of a joke, was it?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Scott_P said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Ken Livingstone Kevan Jones spat on Ch4 news was extraordinary

    is it online anywhere?
    I am sure it will be, or it's on C4+1 in 15 minutes
    I don't have a TV licence, I'm pretty certain +1 is not allowed.

    I'll wait for the upload!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,245
    Cyclefree said:

    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    Yes he does. His government was properly elected under the system we have at present. There isn't some secondary layer he has to go through dependant on selective use of statistics.
    I didn't vote for the Conservatives in the general election (I did in the locals). And you know what? The Conservatives won fair and square under the current system. They have a mandate to hold an EU referendum in accordance with the current franchise. For the Lords to try and alter the franchise for this referendum is gerrymandering, pure and simple.

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    tpfkar said:

    Note the scale of the defeat as well - the Government probably has no way past the Lords if the numbers are as stark as this.

    I'm a long-term supporter of votes at 16, and proposed a supportive council motion which was passed by a big majority (about half the Tories against) but was interesting that night how all the comments against we're what I'd call distractions - 'the wrong time' 'not a council issue' 'not a priority' I was struck how the lack of substantive arguments against 16 year olds being ready, was a good indicator that the argument was being won nationally.

    Obviously helpful for Remain, and hopefully for politicians across the spectrum to have to take youth issues that little more seriously.

    What other concessions follow? Drinking, smoking, leaving school, driving, minimum ages for all gender and age related military rules .....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    Cyclefree said:

    PClipp said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.

    It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
    It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!

    Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
    Yes he does. His government was properly elected under the system we have at present. There isn't some secondary layer he has to go through dependant on selective use of statistics.
    Are the Lords (2nd chamber) not part of the system we have at present?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited November 2015
    Here's the detailed result on Votes at 16 in EU ref:

    FOR:
    Conservative - 1
    Crossbench - 36
    Labour - 155
    Liberal Democrat - 91
    Other - 10
    TOTAL - 293

    AGAINST:
    Bishops - 1
    Conservative - 172
    Crossbench - 28
    Labour - 1
    Other - 9
    TOTAL - 211

    So neither Con nor Lab pulled out all the stops today - indeed Con turnout even worse than Lab (as % of Party Peers).

    Looks as if Con being discerning - ie only making huge effort when it really matters.

    In contrast - very, very high LD turnout - they had 12 more Peers present than for the key vote on Individual Voter Registration - whereas Con had 36 less (and 44 less than they had for Tax Credits).

    Having said all that - even if they do pull out all the stops Con cannot win without a substantial net contribution from Crossbenchers - and they lost the Crossbenchers today.

    When it comes back again if they go all out Con could probably cut the margin of defeat to between 40 and 50 - beyond that they have to move Crossbenchers - so to win it I reckon they must win the Crossbenchers by about 35.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Nov-18&itemId=1&session=2015-May-18
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,494
    Richard_Nabavi said:



    We let them them decide

    Thanks.
    *tugs forelock*
  • TomTom Posts: 273
    I'm guessing Dick Leninspart getting Kevan Jones name wrong on C4 was deliberate so he can continue to pretend he hadn't heard of him and the 'depression' jibe was a co-incidence
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The mind boggles at the thought of a 16 year old actually wanting to vote in an EU referendum.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    AnneJGP said:

    dr_spyn said:

    News from Oldham - kid with AK 17 on Facebook.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-18/police-called-to-school-after-pupil-poses-with-ak-47-on-facebook/

    Don't worry he's not old enough to vote.

    The child and family were fully co-operative and are hugely upset that offence has been caused.

    Their idea of a joke, was it?
    Ah yes, that old classic "I'm sorry you were offended".

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The top Tories are now actively working for Britain Stronger in Europe (BSIE) campaign.
    Top Tory Stephen Gilbert joins pro-EU polling firm.
    All the worms are coming out of the woodwork.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34862235
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    MikeL said:

    Here's the detailed result on Votes at 16 in EU ref:

    FOR:
    Conservative - 1
    Crossbench - 36
    Labour - 155
    Liberal Democrat - 91
    Other - 10
    TOTAL - 293

    AGAINST:
    Bishops - 1
    Conservative - 172
    Crossbench - 28
    Labour - 1
    Other - 9
    TOTAL - 211

    So neither Con nor Lab pulled out all the stops today - indeed Con turnout even worse than Lab (as % of Party Peers).

    Looks as if Con being discerning - ie only making huge effort when it really matters.

    In contrast - very, very high LD turnout - they had 12 more peers present than for the key vote on Individual Voter registration - whereas Con had 36 less (and 44 less than they had for Tax credits).

    Having said all that - even if they do pull out all the stops Con cannot win without a substantial net contribution from Crossbenchers.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Nov-18&itemId=1&session=2015-May-18

    100% turnout for UKIP lords.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,484
    OldKingCole said:

    TBH, as a Lefty and REMAIN-er I think the voting age should stay at 18

    That's because, as you always display on here, you have integrity.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025