You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
OK, I'll start it, as my FB has lit up. From my point of view, it creates more issues with other age related restrictions that should or maybe should not be brought into line, but I'm not opposed to the idea.
BBC News - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c93kkg37n3kt
16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in next general election - live updates - BBC News
Our (almost 18) daughter would be eligible net time round anyway, she has sufficient about her to make a reasoned judgement to suit her moral and social ideals.
Our younger son can’t even be relied on to get dressed for school or survive if the internet drops out for more than 15 seconds. Let alone reason with himself to cast a vote.
Let alone reason with himself to cast a vote.
To be fair that applies to a large % of the voting population regardless of age......just look at how many votes reform got last time for evidence!
Sounds like a good idea...like the rest of the voting population there will be plenty with a decent idea and plenty without any clue...and plenty more without the ability to research and just follow the loudest voice in whatever sphere of influence they have.
I think it is a good idea as once the winning party are in power, then when the youths become adults their vote will be helping decide who is in power.
About bloody time.
About bloody time.
Why? Not legally adults. And another reason for not doing this is because it's been done to potentially change the outcome of the next general election by skewing the vote, something that may well backfire on the current government because some of the largest gains by the far right parties have been from the young.
Seems that Starmer is doing everything he can to hand the next election to Farage and his sidekicks.
Good news.
I don't have a problem with kids who have difficulty dressing themselves voting. That's better than a relative who needed dressing, had trouble finishing a sentence and didn't know what happened yesterday postal voting.
I think if you're old enough to work and perhaps more importantly, made to pay tax on said earnings, you should get a say.
How it may or may not pan out is another subject entirely.
To be fair that applies to a large % of the voting population regardless of age......just look at how many votes reform got last time for evidence!
You mean that people shouldn't be allowed a vote if they don't agree with your voting habits?
I say let em vote, by christ the they're the most likely to be affected by which ever way the political wind blows and depending on when their birthday might fall could be as old as 23yo before they can vote in a GE otherwise.
my initial [knee jerk] reaction is "that's too young"* - runs the risk of elections being even more decided by social media than they currently are.
What's the reasoning behind it?
* I may well be wrong.
You mean that people shouldn't be allowed a vote if they don't agree with your voting habits?
In an ideal world yes. But failing that I'll take the next best option and increase the number of people allowed to vote as much as possible.
You can't lose your vote no matter how far your mental facilities decline (assuming they were there in the first place). Therefore age shouldn't be a barrier at the other end of the scale either.
I'd let anyone who can fill in the voting form do it.
Having taught plenty of 16 & 17 year olds, yes they can be helpless and easily distracted, but as said above they are the ones with most to gain or lose from the outcome of the election.
I'd also trust the judgement of a 16 year old compared to someone who never leaves their nursing home, watches GB news and has a postal vote at the other end of the spectrum
my initial [knee jerk] reaction is "that's too young"* - runs the risk of elections being even more decided by social media than they currently are.
What's the reasoning behind it?
* I may well be wrong.
Also my knee jerk reaction, as a parent of two very capable young adults who could have reasoned a decision at 16.
But thinking about it, if the borderline capable (in terms of capacity, not just Reform voters) get to vote, why not 16 and 17 year olds? If they earn enough they'd pay tax.
It does raise a host of other issues though - old enough to vote but not old enough to buy alcohol or a lottery ticket. Get married. Can vote but not be sent to war. Or an adult prison. Or be named in legal proceedings. It does open up a host of questions around the age of majority on wider issues.
Fwiw, other bits are included in the proposals, including foreign donors to parties, but doesn't really go far enough.
It is fun watching Reform supporters on social media claiming this is Labour taking advantage of left wing indoctrination in schools and ignoring all the reports of the growth of the right among the young (especially young males)
Most of us aren't really adults 'till our mid twenties. Having different thresholds of rights, responsibilities and protections at different ages really isn't that problematic. I'd happily have another tier of driving licence (and additional test) for more powerful cars with a higher age threshold, for example. 21 perhaps? And have "kids" at 17 limited to lower powered cars. In a similar way, I've no problem with the age threshold for being able to buy addictive harmful drugs going up, while the age you can vote comes down in England... there is no real reason why they need be the same... one is about allowing youngsters to take part in democracy, the other is about improving health outcomes.
I have said it numerous times on here before. I like to use the Daily Mail Barometer. A quick glance at their comments section indicates that, as usual, their readers are furious about this. I therefore deduce that it is an excellent thing.
we’ve had 16 year olds voting here in Scotland for years now. It hasn’t resulted in any seismic shift, I think being kids engaged in politics younger is a good thing so I’m all for it.
For me the biggest advantage is that they will get their first voting experience when at school (assuming they will get a local election vote if they miss out on a GE vote at that age). There will be the GB News/ Reform nut jobs that will claim they will be indoctrinated by lefty staff and what schools do with them would have to be very transparent that it's neutral - but I would make a case that by compulsion of the fact that young adults that age are still in some form of education and would have to attend some form of voter preparation classes that they could be the best informed cohort of voters in the UK. Most other (left or right leaning) older voters will mostly only be exposed to confirmation bias material and rarely could give you an informed, considered and accurate explanations of their voting intention. We 'could', if we do it right, start their voting and democracy journey well and change behaviour long term.
It obviously is already happening in Scotland with significant, meaningful elections already.
More broadly, I vacillate massively from thinking the vast majority of the voting public are ignorant fools who have no place having an impact on our future decisions to wanting compulsory voting for all like Australia.
For me it's pretty clear cut, if the state expects to be able to tax you when you get a job at 16 you should be able to vote at 16.
Also, considering the vast swathes of ****less, disengaged or disorganised adults that can't be bothered get it together enough to vote I suspect strongly that there will be a big element of self-selection amongst the 16 and 17 years old who do turn out.
For me the biggest advantage is that they will get their first voting experience when at school
On one hand it opens the opportunity to engage them in stuff like fact checking and critical thinking, but it does place a significant responsibly on the teachers to keep things balanced. Exposing people to different views from whatever "the algorithm" decides they should see has to be a good thing and school is an ideal place for that to happen if it can be well supported.
Both my daughters had more political knowledge and better critical thinking at 16 than a lot of the morons who voted for Brexit and are now voting for Reform
I’d say most 16 year olds are more likely to recognise a load of made up bullshit on social media than your average boomer
Why? Not legally adults.
But at 16 you can leave the parental home, ride a moped (and drive a car at 17), buy a lottery ticket (but not gamble – ehh), give consent for sexual intercourse etc. Although, conversely, the Government increased the age at which a person can get married to 18 just a couple of years ago (likewise with increasing the legal smoking age from 16 whenever that was). I just don't think it is a clear-cut area and, at the end of the day, voting in an election at 16 carries a far lower risk to the individual than, say, buying three bottles of vodka to drink down the park.
I’d say most 16 year olds are more likely to recognise a load of made up bullshit on social media than your average boomer
Hmmm, as a dad to two 16 yr olds (who are both very mature and sensible), I am not entirely sure that is always the case.
Not sure why some in the media are getting in a tiz - there's only 1.5m of them spread over every UK constituency. It'll barely make a blip on the final results, but may actually get some of them involved in how things are run.
...you never know of of them could be running a local council at 18! 🤣
Why not, the argument over capability to understand what they are voting for doesn't apply to the rest of our population. Personally I'd like to see some threshold for being allowed to vote (not exactly democratic I know) but if 16 year olds can demonstrate they are capable crack on. Politics is bust in Western democracies, years of politicians of all hues telling the voters they can have what they want without consequences followed by failing to deliver has resulted in the mess we are in now, the population are like petulant teenagers who throw a tantrum when they can't have what they want.
I think it's a decent idea. They are going to have more to loose by poor environmental decisions than pensioners.
Just slightly bothered by how you I D them.
Inspire of me paying tax, drawing a state pension. I was apparently unidentifiable for a postal vote. I had to provide photos of a driving license or a passport (don't have one) or photos of three utility bills, most of ours are on line.
These young voters may not be eligible for a driving license, might not have a passport and probably no utility bill, tax or Ni.
Just slightly bothered by how you I D them.
That's the next stage!
A National ID Card scheme from 16 where they take your DNA, retina and face scan and micro-chip you! 😀😬
Just slightly bothered by how you I D them
You get an NI Number at 16
There was talk of allowing bank card as ID - a small step in undoing some of the damage the Tories have done to stop people who are likely to vote against them, along with the changing boundries etc...
This can only be a good idea.
the only problem is that the kind of people who are actually going to bother to vote at 16 fall into 2 categories
people that care fare too much about politics
or radicalised young andrew tate fans that are going to vote Reform coz the feminarchy are neutering them
all that said at 16 you can join the army, get married, pay taxes etc etc
you should be able to vote
I once had 80 yr old in the shop who floated the idea that if the under 18's were too lacking in life experience and too naive, then maybe the over 80's were too cynical, jaded and some not quite on top form.
OK, I'll start it, as my FB has lit up. From my point of view, it creates more issues with other age related restrictions that should or maybe should not be brought into line, but I'm not opposed to the idea.
I don't think it does.
Or if it does, then pensioners should be denied a vote as the government sets their pension, just as 16 year olds should be denied the vote because the government says they cant buy cigarettes.
We all vote for governments that ultimately ban us (or others) from doing lots of things.
Just slightly bothered by how you I D them.
I'm sure that was on the BBC site recently, and compared to previous times that it has been floated as an idea most people are now in favor (or at least don't care) across the spectrum.
Reform voters think it'll crack down on immigration
Young people have grown up with the idea that the internet already knows everything about them, so why is the government having a single ID for their NI, benefits, health, driving license, and fishing rod license really a problem?
etc ....
This news has really brightened my day. It was a joy to watch the right wing extremists on GB news totally lose their shite over this.
all that said at 16... get married
You cannot get married until 18
Marriage has been 18 since 2023. Military recruitment is an odd one, basically you can be trained but not in service ‘till 18. But… so? Why should you not be able to vote before you can get married, or fight for your country? Those limits are to protect young people… why do they need protection from being included in the democratic process?
Just slightly bothered by how you I D them
They'd be the awkward, spotty ones
At least its dipping a toe in voting reform (not Reform), could open a path to PR or similar, at least these things are being considered. Whiff of dead cat though.
It's 40 years old but The Young Ones had a point...
https://www.tiktok.com/@dmc_macky/video/7251077581380816155
Military recruitment is an odd one, basically you can be trained but not in service ‘till 18
A bit like the meat trade. You can start your apprenticeship at 16, but you are not allowed to enter the main floor of an abattoir until you are 18
On balance, I think this is a good thing. Swayed by them having to deal with more consequences than those at the other end.
I've no standout concerns about them being about to make reasoned choices, well, no more than I have about those over 18 as well.
I'm going on a mooch around some corners of the internet that consider GB News a balanced an honest place to catch up on current affairs....
I think if you're old enough to work and perhaps more importantly, made to pay tax on said earnings, you should get a say.
No taxation without representation as the saying goes.
It sort of has to be one thing or the other - no vote? then it should follow that theres no liability for tax. If you're liable for tax then you've as much right to say on how money is spent as anyone else
we’ve had 16 year olds voting here in Scotland for years now.
You can actually submit your registration when your 14 if you're really keen
Interestingly voter turnout in Scotland seems to be higher amongst 16/17 year olds than it is for 18-25 year olds.
It's all a bit of storm in a teacup really because as a portion of the voting public ranging in age from 16-106 people aged 16-17 is hardly anyone - exactly how much do we imagine that group will shift the dial in any given election. And as often as not people aged 16/17 in a given year won't have any elections scheduled to actually vote in
^ Not sure why I am being quoted for saying that – it was @Flaperon that said it, I just responded to it.
It's all a bit of storm in a teacup really because as a portion of the voting public ranging in age from 16-106 people aged 16-17 is hardly anyone - exactly how much do we imagine that group will shift the dial in any given election. And as often as not people aged 16/17 in a given year won't have any elections scheduled to actually vote in
Or looking at it the other way, you're now almost twice as likely to get to vote in a general election before your 21st birthday.
Usually there's local elections somewhere in the middle too.
No taxation without representation as the saying goes.
Careful now, the non-doms will hear you.
Marriage has been 18 since 2023. Military recruitment is an odd one, basically you can be trained but not in service ‘till 18. But… so? Why should you not be able to vote before you can get married, or fight for your country? Those limits are to protect young people… why do they need protection from being included in the democratic process?
I'm ambivalent about this but I do think voting should be compulsory (like Australia), though with a "none of the above" option for those incapable of making a decision.
Making it compulsory should (my theory goes) make politics less susceptible to minority/extremist policies taking hold (or disproportionate importance) and the world should be a more balanced, happier place to be...
Failing that, Ill make myself a benevolent dictator...😉
rash mature decisions
All your examples are different kinds of decisions (some are virtually reflex, some can be formed over months/years) and have different implications. Different criteria for different situations and responsibilities is totally normal.
I think it's a daft idea for several reasons including because at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision concerning who should represent them in parliament.
I brought up in a fairly political environment taking an early interest in politics, more so than most, but whilst I would have had a basic understanding at 16 I can't say that it was a deep understanding.
Voting should be seen as a civic duty which everyone should be take a responsibility for, why should 16 year old feel pressurised to vote? Let them enjoy another couple of years of their childhoods without burdening them with the gloom of UK politics
If the answer is not to pressurise them to vote then you are not teaching them that it is a civic responsibility to do so. They will have decades of voting throughout their lives allowing to start two years early is a meaningless exercise and pointless gimmick.
A cheap as well as pointless gimmick of course and that is probably the main attraction for the government.
If we really want to do something to enhance the lives of kids in the UK how about doing something a bit more meaningful such as tackling the the scandal of child poverty? 41% of 15-19 year olds in the UK's capital city live in households that are in poverty.
Or is that too radical? Is cheap, pointless, gimmicks, is all that the 6th wealthiest nation on Earth can afford?
Voting should be seen as a civic duty which everyone should be take a responsibility for
While we’re at it… we should let Ernie vote in UK general elections as well.
ir was in the manifesto tho Ernie, so i presume you voted for it?
The youngsters aren't going to override the votes of the apparent nutters looking to make Farage PM.
We prevent people under 18 marrying, drinking and volunteering to go to war because we believe (as in society believes) at 16 or 17 you are too likely to make rash or impulsive or immature decisions -
That nicely portrays the elderly too. I fear I'm heading that way.
at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision
I hate to break it to you Ernie, but age is irrelevant there - you can probably swap 16 for 25, 40 or 80.
I think it's a daft idea for several reasons including because at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision concerning who should represent them in parliament.
Hardly anyone thinks about it that much. I know you think about it loads Ernie but lets face it you're not typical of the voting public. there's a pretty low bar for being able to vote - being over 18 (or over 16) and not dead - thats pretty much it. No serious thinking about consequences required - not even capacity for reasoned thought - if you're old enough to vote you can vote. Thats it. It would be difficult to vote, in practical terms if you were in a coma, or persistent vegetative state or in the middle of some major psychotic breakdown, etc but theres nothing barring you from doing so that I'm aware of. In the UK the only exception I'm aware of are for incarcerated criminals (but only criminals serving the custodial part of a sentence) but thats by accident rather than design as theres no credible rationale behind that and if Brexit hadn't have happened along we'd probably have to have changed that by now.
Having just taken a look at one GB News is actually News corner of the internet. All yoof have been brainwashed by the "wokerati", and a whole bunch of racist wailing.
double post
I've worked with a lot of folk I wouldn't trust to tie my shoe laces.
If they can vote so to can a 16 year old.
there's a pretty low bar for being able to vote - being over 18 (or over 16) and not dead - thats pretty much it. No serious thinking about consequences required - not even capacity for reasoned thought - if you're old enough to vote you can vote. Thats it
Well yes, I fully understand the point being made with regards to many people not making carefully thought-out informed decisions when it comes to voting.
But I don't think you can deal with that issue by basically throwing the towel in and saying "we might as well let kids vote too".
We need to project voting as a grown-up responsible civic duty which requires careful thought, lowering the bar any lower than it already is isn't likely to enhance the belief that voting is actually quite a serious business.
I don't see the problem with telling a 16 year old that they will have to wait 24 months before they can vote. Well in fact there isn't one actually - kids that are 16 years old now will have to wait 48 months before they can vote in a general election, I don't think that is causing anyone any huge problems.
I think it's all a distraction from real issues that currently confront adolescents imo.
Yes please, then can we have a referendum on rejoining the EU please?
Youth vote might swing it!
I think it's all a distraction from real issues that currently confront adolescents imo.
Given that when it comes to it a lot of people don't vote beyond the end of their own noses, who's going to force parties to prioritise issues confronting adolescents. We've already seen enough GB News type response to the idea that isn't far away from 'woke teenagers don't know what's good for them, bring back the cane, it never harmed me' - why would anyone think they're going to back parties with strong policy ideas that benefit teenagers.
So yes, allow them a say in who's elected and maybe then you'll get parties committed to addressing these issues.
We've already seen enough GB News type response to the idea that isn't far away from 'woke teenagers don't know what's good for them, bring back the cane, it never harmed me' -
That sounds very much like a reactive response and backing a proposal because you believe it pisses off the sort of people that you don't like, which is hardly the most grown-up way to deal with electoral reform!
Apart from pissing off a certain category of people and maintaining the woefully low bar when it comes to political discourse among the voting population, what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote, and why it should be a priority over a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments? I am genuinely open to suggestions.
Failing that, Ill make myself a benevolent dictator...
Username checks out....
All the FB comments I'm seeing on this seem to include a very high proportion of folk very fixated on naming under 18s convicted of offences. The bots have odd priorities.
what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote
It makes it less advantageous for politicians to ignore the needs of young people if they can vote. The importance of the aged vote at elections is growing, and the effects of politicians having to listen to them more than young people is pretty clear for all to see.
This poll is interesting, it's a year old but I think we can safely say that the only significant change which has occurred in the last 12 months is that support for Reform UK has massively increased whilst support for Labour has fallen considerably.
https://twitter.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1808111523195167158
It's interesting to note how the lads appear to have quite a liking for Farage/Reform compared to the girls. I reckon Farage needs to find a female influencer equivalent to Andrew Tate to draw in female support.
I believe that far-right support is a growing phenomenon throughout much of Europe. And that's hardly surprising they do after all provide simple solutions for the political naive and they also claim to be anti-establishment, so you can understand the appeal that might have among naive rebellious youth.
On the other hand radical left support is also likely to increase if perhaps not quite as much. A real "centrist" nightmare I would imagine
As the father of three who have enthusiastically voted in Scotland twice since 16, I'm all for it.
In my experience they are more questioning of the political parties and vote based on what they want for the future. And they are more inclusive and tolerant than many older folk we know.
If you are expected to work and pay taxes, you can have a vote.
what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote,
If you want parties to develop policies addressing the needs of young people, then give young people a say in who's subsequently elected. When push comes to shove a lot of people vote with self interest front and centre, so franchise the young, and make parties work for their votes.
why it should be a priority over a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments? I am genuinely open to suggestions.
Unless I missed something, is it an either / or?
It makes it less advantageous for politicians to ignore the needs of young people if they can vote.
That is a fair and I reckon valid point, although I wouldn't want to exaggerate how much politicians are attentive to the needs of voters in general, and 16-17 year olds who actually turn out to vote are likely to be a really tiny percentage of the electorate.
Unless I missed something, is it an either / or?
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
It's a distraction away from the need for real electoral reform, including PR, and real issues affecting 16-17 year old such as poverty, IMHO.
I see quite a few disadvantages and so far only one possible tangible benefit.
I am very much in favour of politicalising young people btw, and helping them to have a greater understanding of politics, but I doubt that the government or the establishment wants that at all, nor do I believe that giving them a vote 2 years before their 18th is necessary to achieve that.
For me it's a fundamental question of fairness.. Of its fair to tax someone, they should be able to vote.
I'd happily forfiet my vote if it meant I didn't have to pay any tax, I'd be a millionaire, lol!
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
This needs doing well before any general election. Rushing the change in with just months to go would look very dodgy. The other changes you suggest will likely need to be a known and complete proposal at the next election (as this one was at the last).
I'd happily forfiet my vote if it meant I didn't have to pay any tax, I'd be a millionaire, lol!
I don't suppose many 16 and 17 year olds pay income tax, approximately 94% are in education or training so I doubt that many go beyond the personal allowance threshold.
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
Equally we're not talking about PR, or getting rid of the king and becoming a republic, or any other change to the political structure of the UK. But they're not currently talking points in UK politics, which makes me think that 16/17 year olds voting is not an either/or.
But why isn't PR a talking point in UK politics? It would probably be just as easy and cheap to introduce as lowering the voting age by two years. If we can talk about giving 16 year olds the vote we can certainly talk about PR.
Obviously abolishing the monarchy and establishing a republic would be highly time consuming and quite expensive, and it isn't contained in the many party manifestos.
Introducing PR in the next 4 years is perfectly feasible, abolition of the monarchy not quite so much
Let alone reason with himself to cast a vote.
To be fair that applies to a large % of the voting population regardless of age......just look at how many votes reform got last time for evidence!
There’s a significant portion of the British electorate I wouldn’t trust to tie their own shoelaces unaided, let alone put a cross with a crayon on a piece of paper!
Marriage has been 18 since 2023.
I must have been asleep at the time, I hadn’t realised that the age limit had been raised! 🤷🏼♂️
The biggest change needed would be to prevent any body not on the electoral register from not being able to make political donations, and that would mean companies etc would not be able to make political donations, and to cap the allowed amount of donation, I would suggest at £500 per year.
Allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote, making the 2nd chamber democratic and PR are good things, but it is really political finance that is distorting democracy to a point where it is really only a façade of democracy, these other changes are just window dressing to avoid the big issue.
Equally we're not talking about PR, or getting rid of the king and becoming a republic, or any other change to the political structure of the UK. But they're not currently talking points in UK politics, which makes me think that 16/17 year olds voting is not an either/or.
Wouldn't this need Lib Dems and Reform to be the two leading parties at the next election? (For PR)
It's not that unlikely especially if the SNP regain ground from Labour.