politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to allow 16-17 year olds to take part in #EU
Comments
-
Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.0 -
I think that would prove very problematic for Cameron. Delaying a year would put him smack in the middle of French and German election campaigns and also would leave him exposed to more events beyond his control which might help Leave.TheScreamingEagles said:I'm assuming the Conservative's can invoke the Parliament Act? So the delay will be one year?
I am still hoping that the guidance from the Electoral Commission and the threat of problems with his back benchers if he ignores that guidance will mean an effective delay of at least 9 months but I think he will do everything to make sure the referendum is held in 2016 rather than 2017.0 -
Perhaps the choice of holiday destination didn't help. I suppose that it might have been worse, they could have been tasting the wines of Syria.AnneJGP said:
The child and family were fully co-operative and are hugely upset that offence has been caused.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.
Their idea of a joke, was it?0 -
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.0 -
We should view these unmaskings in a positive light.MikeK said: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
The separation of the sheep from the goats.0 -
Hells why stop at 100?TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
And I'm sure we need some official Zombie Appocalypse planning committee members.
0 -
A Jewish teacher has been stabbed in Marseilles.0
-
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
Anyhoo, who cares about this vote, we won the vote to gerrymander the boundaries, that's the most important thing.
Suck it up.0 -
Next you'll be telling us some UKIPers are working for Vote Leave and Leave.EUGeoffM said:
We should view these unmaskings in a positive light.MikeK said: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
The separation of the sheep from the goats.0 -
Or he could just stop dicking about, reform the HoL and call it a worthwhile legacyTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.0 -
@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.0 -
I was referring to P Clipp's statement re his mandate based on a percentage of some subset of voters. That is irrelevant to the fact that this government has a mandate. The HoL is part of the legislature not part of the electoral system.bigjohnowls said:
Are the Lords (2nd chamber) not part of the system we have at present?Cyclefree said:
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.PClipp said:
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!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.Richard_Nabavi said:Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
0 -
@cathynewman: Watch @KevanJonesMP & Ken Livingstone take chunks out of each other live on @Channel4News here https://t.co/0NG1vKpEhL0
-
Well done Jesse Norman, history will remember you for having two first names and hindering David Cameron.0
-
Very good article - the Left are still burying their heads in the sand.Cyclefree said: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.0 -
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
I see my favourite Tory Lord voted in favour of votes for kidsTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Lord Lansley of fookednhs!!0 -
I don't think it's a curious kind of democrat, it's clearly no kind of democrat at allRichard_Nabavi said:
I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?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.
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.
0 -
Seconded.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's because, as you always display on here, you have integrity.OldKingCole said:TBH, as a Lefty and REMAIN-er I think the voting age should stay at 18
0 -
It wasn't that I had in mind, more that I'm surprised that parents who allow their children to handle weapons like that don't get a visit from Social Services.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Ah yes, that old classic "I'm sorry you were offended".AnneJGP said:
The child and family were fully co-operative and are hugely upset that offence has been caused.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.
Their idea of a joke, was it?0 -
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
An elected House of Lords would surely be even more hostile to the Tories than the current one, anyway.Alanbrooke said:
Or he could just stop dicking about, reform the HoL and call it a worthwhile legacyTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Ultimately, there is a good reason why virtually every democracy in the world has checks and balances, and different legislative chambers, precisely so that the government of the day doesn't have untramelled power.0 -
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
As I have said on here before I am in favour of 16 year olds having the vote, at least on Yes No questions.
That does not mean that I am in favour of a bunch of has beens and never wases once again seeking to overturn our democratically elected house. The House of Lords needs to go, it really does.0 -
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
By your logic, 5 year olds will be affected even more so let's give them the vote too. NVBThe_Apocalypse said:@Richard_Nabavi Irresponsibly = disagree with Tory policies/views.
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.kle4 said:
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_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 .
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.Tom said:
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.Danny565 said:Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.
0 -
maybe but the HoL will be reformed, it's better for Cameron to control reform and do it in his image rather than wait for the opposition to win power and do it in their view.Danny565 said:
An elected House of Lords would surely be even more hostile to the Tories than the current one, anyway.Alanbrooke said:
Or he could just stop dicking about, reform the HoL and call it a worthwhile legacyTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Furthermore a revising chamber is a good thing, if we;d had one we might never have had the Blair fiascos.
0 -
What would you replace it with, if anything?DavidL said:As I have said on here before I am in favour of 16 year olds having the vote, at least on Yes No questions.
That does not mean that I am in favour of a bunch of has beens and never wases once again seeking to overturn our democratically elected house. The House of Lords needs to go, it really does.0 -
Precedent is for Labour and the Lib Dems. Conservatives should just be given everything they want. If their MPs rebel on Sunday trading, it's the SNP's fault. If they fail to reform the Lords, it's David Steel's fault. If they fail to get air strikes, it's Barack Obama's fault. Seriously, this place is amazingly, fallaciously pro-Tory sometimes.Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.0 -
Lot's of popcorn tonight - +1 channels were a fantastic invention. I don't know how long it will take, but eventually the Labour Party will split if Corbyn doesn't go.0
-
The last people who thought they had "played a blinder" with votes for 16 & 17 year olds ("game changer") were the SNP........tpfkar said:Obviously helpful for Remain, and hopefully for politicians across the spectrum to have to take youth issues that little more seriously.
0 -
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/6590228444421160960 -
So those who disagree with the Conservatives on PB aren't just stupid and wrong, but lack integrity. That's brilliant.SimonStClare said:
Seconded.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's because, as you always display on here, you have integrity.OldKingCole said:TBH, as a Lefty and REMAIN-er I think the voting age should stay at 18
0 -
Nothing. But I would look to beef up the committee stage of the HoC to allow a more detailed and careful consideration of legislation than we get from either house at the moment.Danny565 said:
What would you replace it with, if anything?DavidL said:As I have said on here before I am in favour of 16 year olds having the vote, at least on Yes No questions.
That does not mean that I am in favour of a bunch of has beens and never wases once again seeking to overturn our democratically elected house. The House of Lords needs to go, it really does.0 -
@DPJHodges: There is one upside from all this. When Corbyn goes the hard-Left are dead. For ever. The problem is, the Labour party may be as well.tlg86 said:Lot's of popcorn tonight - +1 channels were a fantastic invention. I don't know how long it will take, but eventually the Labour Party will split if Corbyn doesn't go.
0 -
Popping back on - Ken's opening is to my mind breathtaking in how brazen it was. Denying he was forced to apologize, but in a way which makes it perfectly clear he felt he had done nothing wrong, making the non forced apology at the least utterly insincere (by explaining it in a way which makes clear regret for his actions was not the reason for it). Let's see if the rest is the same.Scott_P said:@cathynewman: Watch @KevanJonesMP & Ken Livingstone take chunks out of each other live on @Channel4News here https://t.co/0NG1vKpEhL
A shame we don't credit them with that mental or emotional maturity in almost all other aspects of life. If this change happens, it must be for all elections, and we must eliminate anything else that suggests 16 year olds are not full adults.The_Apocalypse said:@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters.
Edit: charming old Youtube
This f---ng idiot has mental health problems, and he is in the House of Commons, dictating what we do? Time he was locked up weaving willow baskets, on drugs is he?0 -
UKIP as a party are united in favour of leaving. The Tories are not. All this adds to the likelihood of a Tory split if Remain win. If the Eurosceptics in the party think Cameron has allowed the party apparatus to be use for the Remain campaign their will be blood on the carpet.TheScreamingEagles said:
Next you'll be telling us some UKIPers are working for Vote Leave and Leave.EUGeoffM said:
We should view these unmaskings in a positive light.MikeK said: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
The separation of the sheep from the goats.0 -
'Envy of the World'bigjohnowls said:
I see my favourite Tory Lord voted in favour of votes for kidsTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Lord Lansley of fookednhs!!0 -
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.0 -
I'm afraid this is a tough askCyclefree said:
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.The_Apocalypse said:@Richard_Nabavi Irresponsibly = disagree with Tory policies/views.
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.kle4 said:
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_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 .
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.Tom said:
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.Danny565 said:Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.
0 -
I think there's some truth in that. The problem for Labour is that they are putting on display everything that they've been able to hide for 30 years. It was bad enough that idiot Brown being given the top job while they were in power - but voters will have in the back of their mind that next time it could be someone like Corbyn that the party inflicts upon the country.Scott_P said:
@DPJHodges: There is one upside from all this. When Corbyn goes the hard-Left are dead. For ever. The problem is, the Labour party may be as well.tlg86 said:Lot's of popcorn tonight - +1 channels were a fantastic invention. I don't know how long it will take, but eventually the Labour Party will split if Corbyn doesn't go.
0 -
@Danny565
'That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is)'
The huge constitutional change happened to-day with the unelected House of Lords deciding 16 year old's should have the vote.0 -
Whereas lobbing another few hundred dick heads into the HoL will make it work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.
Bollocks
reform and get on with it. If the Tories don't reform it someone else will so it will be pointless wihinging when Jezza and Ken run the place.0 -
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
Isn't that where the US often find themselves.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.0 -
Something which was within the Lords' defined constitutional powers.john_zims said:@Danny565
'That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is)'
The huge constitutional change happened to-day with the unelected House of Lords deciding 16 year old's should have the vote.
However, when we're talking about the Queen doing a unilateral action (creating loads of new peers to fundamentally alter the Lords and make it easier for the Tories to get their legislation passed), that is only done in exceptional circumstances and, historically, only done when it's been explicitly endorsed by the public in a general election.0 -
AJE News @AJENews 48s48 seconds ago
ISIL says it has killed one Norwegian and one Chinese captive. http://aje.io/smmu0 -
AnneJGP said:
The child and family were fully co-operative and are hugely upset that offence has been caused.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.
Their idea of a joke, was it?
From a brief scan of the article it looks like the picture with the gun was posted in August.
Then he updated his profile with the French flag overlaying it - as many are doing - to show solidarity with the French.
Then someone saw his picture holding a AK47 with the French flag and put 2 + 2 together to make ...
0 -
I know, it is a terrible situation.DaemonBarber said:
Isn't that where the US often find themselves.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.0 -
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.The_Apocalypse said:@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.0 -
Not only unelected, but packed to the gunnels by a democracy warping party who's MP's got less than 8% of the vote at the General Election in May.john_zims said:@Danny565
'That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is)'
The huge constitutional change happened to-day with the unelected House of Lords deciding 16 year old's should have the vote.
0 -
Govt is NOT paralysed.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.0 -
Only as a temporary measure, the other alternative is to make every bill a finance bill.Alanbrooke said:
Whereas lobbing another few hundred dick heads into the HoL will make it work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.
Bollocks
reform and get on with it. If the Tories don't reform it someone else will so it will be pointless wihinging when Jezza and Ken run the place.0 -
You're far too sensible. F off to conservative home or something.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
LOL but then Osborne will screw them all up.TheScreamingEagles said:
Only as a temporary measure, the other alternative is to make every bill a finance bill.Alanbrooke said:
Whereas lobbing another few hundred dick heads into the HoL will make it work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.
Bollocks
reform and get on with it. If the Tories don't reform it someone else will so it will be pointless wihinging when Jezza and Ken run the place.0 -
Such a huge Constitutional change happened today?john_zims said:@Danny565
'That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is)'
The huge constitutional change happened to-day with the unelected House of Lords deciding 16 year old's should have the vote.
Why is todays vote a change to our Constitution?0 -
A Jewish man has been stabbed in Paris by three supporters of ISIS:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/620416/Jewish-teacher-stabbed-in-Marseille-by-three-ISIS-supporters0 -
Oh to be young and so confident in such utter toshThe_Apocalypse said:@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.0 -
That lot could give a decent economic boost.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
You keep on misunderestimating George. Is there some history been the Brookes and Osbornes on Emerald Isle?Alanbrooke said:
LOL but then Osborne will screw them all up.TheScreamingEagles said:
Only as a temporary measure, the other alternative is to make every bill a finance bill.Alanbrooke said:
Whereas lobbing another few hundred dick heads into the HoL will make it work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.
Bollocks
reform and get on with it. If the Tories don't reform it someone else will so it will be pointless wihinging when Jezza and Ken run the place.
Did the Osbornes have a victory over you lot and then proceeded to walk past your house every year or something?0 -
They are at war against the World...dr_spyn said:AJE News @AJENews 48s48 seconds ago
ISIL says it has killed one Norwegian and one Chinese captive. http://aje.io/smmu0 -
16 year old's used to be able to buy fireworks too.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
0 -
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
Things appear to be on the up since you retired. Coincidence?bigjohnowls said:
I see my favourite Tory Lord voted in favour of votes for kidsTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Lord Lansley of fookednhs!!
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2015/01/29/nhs-satisfaction-levels-rise/0 -
Wonder how much the insurance would be for a 16yo driver?Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Only as a temporary measure, the other alternative is to make every bill a finance bill.
Since everything, one way or another, relates to finance, that might actually work.
0 -
Osborne is Irish for gobshite.TheScreamingEagles said:
You keep on misunderestimating George. Is there some history been the Brookes and Osbornes on Emerald Isle?Alanbrooke said:
LOL but then Osborne will screw them all up.TheScreamingEagles said:
Only as a temporary measure, the other alternative is to make every bill a finance bill.Alanbrooke said:
Whereas lobbing another few hundred dick heads into the HoL will make it work.TheScreamingEagles said:
Honestly, I believe we're the only place in the world, apart from Iran, that has unelected Clergy in their parliament.Alanbrooke said:
You're going back to dictator modeTheScreamingEagles said:
God no. The people get their say once every five years. That's enough.Alanbrooke said:
so not trust the people then ?TheScreamingEagles said:
No but it gives Dave the cover to cull the Lib Dem and Lab peers.Danny565 said:
That's not the kind of explicit pledge to create hundreds of new Tory peers that the Queen would require to make such a huge constitutional change (if she were to follow precedent, and not allow herself to be accused of being politically-partisan, that is).TheScreamingEagles said:
Is already in the Tory manifesto of 2015Danny565 said:
But that would need the Queen's permission, and if she were to follow correct precedent (set in the early 20th century Lords crisis), she would only agree to do it if Cameron won a new election with Lords reform as part of his manifesto.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/659022844442116096
Abolish the House of Lords.
Let us say we have an elected Lords, and the Commons proposes one thing, and the Lords rejects it.
Eff all happens, government is paralysed.
Bollocks
reform and get on with it. If the Tories don't reform it someone else will so it will be pointless wihinging when Jezza and Ken run the place.
Did the Osbornes have a victory over you lot and then proceeded to walk past your house every year or something?
The man's 4king useless. I'll buy him a ticket to Switzerland.0 -
You think 16 years olds can understand complex political matters. Well it's a POV, I suppose. Mind you there are 66 year olds who can't, as we are seeing.The_Apocalypse said:@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
That wasn't the basis for you saying that they should get the vote though, was it. It was based o the fact that they would have to live longest with the consequences. Should that principle be extended elsewhere in relation to the franchise?
If mental maturity and capability are the basis for granting the vote, how is this to be measured? Should those who don't have it not get the vote?
0 -
Seconded.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Edit: to answer the question, the only real argument is that they're more europhile and will help Remain.0 -
@DPJHodges: Gets better. Just been told Corbyn is now going to move against Labour general secretary Iain McNicol in "revenge" for Fisher suspension.0
-
ISTR that women had to put up a fight to get back down the mines as mining engineers .....Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
16 year old's used to be able to buy fireworks too.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?0 -
Thanks.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
It's not a rhetorical series of questions. Many medieval societies would have answered Yes to all those questions (including voting for borough representatives).0 -
Has your campaign to raise the minimum age to 18 for a provisional driving licence been going for long?Sean_F said:
Drive??0 -
Or, as is often demonstrated in the USA, hardly any power at all.Danny565 said:
An elected House of Lords would surely be even more hostile to the Tories than the current one, anyway.Alanbrooke said:
Or he could just stop dicking about, reform the HoL and call it a worthwhile legacyTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Ultimately, there is a good reason why virtually every democracy in the world has checks and balances, and different legislative chambers, precisely so that the government of the day doesn't have untramelled power.0 -
Nah - there's been no move in this direction since IndyRef as these are all separate. The one you haven't mentioned is taxation - on the principle of no taxation without representation it does make sense to lower, although then you are left wondering why 16. Is there a minimum age you're liable for tax?ReggieCide said:
What other concessions follow? Drinking, smoking, leaving school, driving, minimum ages for all gender and age related military rules .....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.
3 other thoughts from the thread:
1- I'd agree with several posters that just because young people are affected 'more' by the referendum decision is a rubbish reason for votes at 16. Who says they'll be affected more? If it's right to change, then it should be because 16 and 17 year olds are ready to have their say.
2- IndyRef blew apart the argument that 16/17 year olds didn't want the vote, higher turnout than 19-24 year olds.
3-no-one will persuaded by the spin on 2012 Lords Reform now, on either side. My real frustration, as a Lib Dem hoping for change, was that there was no real debate on the function of the Lords. It just went straight on to composition, and no surprise it floundered. Big strategic mistake, this was a once in a generation opportunity, and the Lib Dems (and reformers from other parties) weren't up to it when the chance came.
0 -
Thirded. And the last people who thought they had secured advantage in a referendum with votes for 16 and 17 year olds were the SNP.Casino_Royale said:
Seconded.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Edit: to answer the question, the only real argument is that they're more europhile and will help Remain.
These limits are by necessity arbitrary - there are some 16 year olds easily mature enough to come to a considered decision, some 25 year olds not.....0 -
Sean_F said:
Thanks.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
It's not a rhetorical series of questions. Many medieval societies would have answered Yes to all those questions (including voting for borough representatives).
People live longer today, and have a longer childhood education and development.
If anything the voting age should be going up, not down.
0 -
Drive PSV. Happy now?Theuniondivvie said:
Has your campaign to raise the minimum age to 18 for a provisional driving licence been going for long?Sean_F said:
Drive??0 -
They're looking for that full security council vote aren't they.RodCrosby said:
They are at war against the World...dr_spyn said:AJE News @AJENews 48s48 seconds ago
ISIL says it has killed one Norwegian and one Chinese captive. http://aje.io/smmu0 -
@TheEconomist: Labour's moderates must start thinking about actively unseating Jeremy Corbyn https://t.co/FVinuYJgeC https://t.co/Zg1zMInLnp0
-
Game of Labour thrones.Scott_P said:@DPJHodges: Gets better. Just been told Corbyn is now going to move against Labour general secretary Iain McNicol in "revenge" for Fisher suspension.
0 -
The Crossbench vote was almost exactly the same each way. Most of them abstained.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 - 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
They knew it was a highly partisan vote.0 -
@RuthDavidsonMSP: And with his scimitar-sharp sarcasm, the novelist cuts to the truth of a day a fiction-writer couldn't pen. #Labour https://t.co/vdWOaWgVVc0
-
I am open-minded for now and look forward to voting in the next Conservative leadership election.Sean_F said:
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.Cyclefree said:
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.PClipp said:
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!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.Richard_Nabavi said:Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
I don't know where I will be in five years. It depends if the party just evolves into just a fiscally dry New Labour, or not.
My problem is that I'm an economic and social conservative.
I'm not sure I'll have a home in future.0 -
Conversely, there are 13 year olds who are politically aware. Should we give them the vote?Cyclefree said:
You think 16 years olds can understand complex political matters. Well it's a POV, I suppose. Mind you there are 66 year olds who can't, as we are seeing.The_Apocalypse said:@kle4 and @Cyclefree
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
That wasn't the basis for you saying that they should get the vote though, was it. It was based o the fact that they would have to live longest with the consequences. Should that principle be extended elsewhere in relation to the franchise?
If mental maturity and capability are the basis for granting the vote, how is this to be measured? Should those who don't have it not get the vote?0 -
How many votes did the house of Lords get and can we kick them out if we disagree with them?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.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
0 -
@tombradby: Plus Ken Livingstone says sorry. We think. But possibly the worst political apology in modern history. @NewsAtTen0
-
Lansley cutting out the deadwood.saddened said:
Things appear to be on the up since you retired. Coincidence?bigjohnowls said:
I see my favourite Tory Lord voted in favour of votes for kidsTheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option to appoint 100 new peers.
I think he shouldn't go for ex politicians but go for the likes of charismatic bloggers with an excellent taste in fashion.
Lord Lansley of fookednhs!!
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2015/01/29/nhs-satisfaction-levels-rise/0 -
I've commented before that I could be persuaded of value in 16 - 18 year olds having the vote as part of a considered addition to the curriculum.Sean_F said:
Thanks.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
It's not a rhetorical series of questions. Many medieval societies would have answered Yes to all those questions (including voting for borough representatives).
But we do need to think through the consequences of politicians pitching explicitly for the child vote.0 -
The Lib Dems do have strange ideas sometimes don't they.Richard_Nabavi said:
I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?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.
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.
I mean they sign meaningless pledges, break them and then blame others when they get monstered.
Break other promises but expect no comeback.
Refuse to give back money they receive from tainted sources.
Sex scandals and bullying
Dog whistle politics here in Colchester when they realised how much trouble Sir Bob was in
Then they claim they are different
0 -
ISIL or the Labour leadership?RodCrosby said:
They are at war against the World...dr_spyn said:AJE News @AJENews 48s48 seconds ago
ISIL says it has killed one Norwegian and one Chinese captive. http://aje.io/smmu0 -
The ghastly Diane Abbott was on PM on R4 this evening, slithering like a snake about Livingstone's comments. Caroline Flint however called a spade a spade, and had no truck with Abbott's slithering..
How long can Labour go on like this?. Its not funny anymore, they are supposed to be HM loyal opposition.
They are neither loyal nor opposing.0 -
Russian Ambassodor calls on Britain to join in air strikes against Daesh:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/2a9ca42c-a0d0-4ea5-958a-b3f0122c4b3a0 -
Not completely true. Those loyal to Corbyn oppose the others.SquareRoot said:The ghastly Diane Abbott was on PM on R4 this evening, slithering like a snake about Livingstone's comments. Caroline Flint however called a spade a spade, and had no truck with Abbott's slithering..
How long can Labour go on like this?. Its not funny anymore, they are supposed to be HM loyal opposition.
They are neither loyal nor opposing.0 -
Fortunately they won't turn out.Casino_Royale said:
Seconded.rcs1000 said:
Post of the day.Sean_F said:
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?ThreeQuidder said:
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?kle4 said:i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Edit: to answer the question, the only real argument is that they're more europhile and will help Remain.0 -
The comments below the line are quite funny.Scott_P said:@TheEconomist: Labour's moderates must start thinking about actively unseating Jeremy Corbyn https://t.co/FVinuYJgeC https://t.co/Zg1zMInLnp
0 -
We should keep out of Syria. Chuck a few TLAMs at them, but avoid their airspace.CarlottaVance said:Russian Ambassodor calls on Britain to join in air strikes against Daesh:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/2a9ca42c-a0d0-4ea5-958a-b3f0122c4b3a
Remember what the death cult loons did to that Jordanian pilot?
Imagine what they'd do if a Tonka crew came down.
-1 -
It took me until 10:01 to realise the LibDems were in trouble in Colchester.Floater said:
The Lib Dems do have strange ideas sometimes don't they.Richard_Nabavi said:
I'm not sure the Conservatives did block lords reform, actually. Didn't Labour have something to do with it?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.
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.
I mean they sign meaningless pledges, break them and then blame others when they get monstered.
Break other promises but expect no comeback.
Refuse to give back money they receive from tainted sources.
Sex scandals and bullying
Dog whistle politics here in Colchester when they realised how much trouble Sir Bob was in
Then they claim they are different
What do you make of Quince?0
