Local Elections 2023

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, an tha said:

Lowering the age they can to 16 would be a start - after that it certainly isn't easy but itbis very clear at present their votes are not wanted by those in power.

What about the driving age? Or drinking?

[an tha]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

What about the driving age? Or drinking?

17 to drive.

 

18 to drink.

 

 

[Mudface]

3 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

Told my parents to book emergency flights out the country. 
 

An Tha and Jairzinho’s hit team could be round any minute.

 

Putting them up at that lovely Dignitas hotel in Switzerland was a thoughtful touch.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, an tha said:

17 to drive.

 

18 to drink.

 

 

Yes, I know - why should the right to vote - arguably far more important to everyone else in society be lower?

 

I notice this has become solely about lowering the age - including EU based workers in a general is far more interesting.

[SasaS]

If you are protected as a minor, it means society thinks there is a reason for it, as in, your brain not being fully formed etc. Although it is often just a cultural thing.

[Mudface]

It's looking like Khan has easily won the London mayoral election. Fuck knows what all that fuss was about last night.

 

[Mudface]

Ah, it looks like Kuntberg amplified some dodgy rumours. She's trying to row back now- dodgy as fuck, her.

 

 

[TD_LFC]

How do the Tories get 28 votes in Liverpool let alone 28,000.

[Rushies tash]

You can get a job and pay tax at 16, but you can't have a say in how your taxes are spent?

[Bruce Spanner]

 

[tokyojoe]

39 minutes ago, an tha said:

17 to drive.

 

18 to drink.

 

 

Raise the school leaving age to 43.

 

Copyright Monty Python.

[an tha]

31 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

You can get a job and pay tax at 16, but you can't have a say in how your taxes are spent?

Exactly

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

If you are protected as a minor, it means society thinks there is a reason for it, as in, your brain not being fully formed etc. Although it is often just a cultural thing.

In the UK, at 16 you're allowed to work as an adult, you just won't necessarily get paid the same as one.

[SilverSong]

1 hour ago, Kepler-186 said:

And the Wirralite golf club set. 

Heyyyy, I'm from Wirral and Labour all the way. However I most certainly dont play golf, so your statement probably holds true.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Ah - got it. Are there a number of 16 year olds making 14k a year? That would be full time work at that level I would think - if it was me I would be more concerned as to why that is the case - something which you seem to have with 14 year olds.

 

There are plenty of 16 and 17 year-olds in full-time work.  Mandatory full-time education ends at 16, so, yeah, I would have a problem with children being taken out of school and put to work.

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

In the UK, at 16 you're allowed to work as an adult, you just won't necessarily get paid the same as one.

 

And you probably won't be fully criminally responsible as an adult.

[Kepler-186]

10 minutes ago, SilverSong said:

Heyyyy, I'm from Wirral and Labour all the way. However I most certainly dont play golf, so your statement probably holds true.

The future is bright, the future is Birkenhead lad. 

[Mudface]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

And you probably won't be fully criminally responsible as an adult.

 

Yes, details here https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

 

So you're accountable from the age of 10 or 12 in Scotland, and will be tried as an adult from 18 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

[TD_LFC]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

winning doesn't seem very on brand.

[Rushies tash]

And the drinking age of 18 only applies if you're buying it yourself. You can drink with a meal at a pub from 16 and if you're at home, you can legally drink from the age of 5. Not that I'd condone that sort of thing, mind.

 

You suspect that the reluctance to give the vote to 16 year olds doesn't really stem from anything other than the fact that barely any of them would end up voting Tory.

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

And the drinking age of 18 only applies if you're buying it yourself. You can drink with a meal at a pub from 16 and if you're at home, you can legally drink from the age of 5. Not that I'd condone that sort of thing, mind.

 

You suspect that the reluctance to give the vote to 16 year olds doesn't really stem from anything other than the fact that barely any of them would end up voting Tory.

 

And vice versa. Since they don't vote in most, Tory-less countries.

[redinblack]

2 hours ago, an tha said:

Right you've had your say and called me out vociferously and that is fine, it is your opinion, like my opinion is mine.

 

My point was made without context, so let me provide some.

 

The people who vote should be as best as possible  representative of the population as a whole......IMO with people living longer that scale is getting more and more unbalanced.

 

The average age in the UK is now around 40 I believe the average voting age is around 52.

 

Capping the voting age would bring us back a lot closer towards the average of the population.

 

My call to cap the voting age is largely about rebalancing the scale.....Because currently for me the views of the elderly are being overrepresented and there is an unfairness at play.

 

Politicans are bending over backwards all the time to please the elderly - knowing they make up the majority of the voter base, while people of working age are in comparison neglected..... And the youngest the most so.

 

16 year olds have no voice...

 

People at any stage of life being left behind economically will have long-term effects in fucking up society. Effects we are already seeing today.

 

Values change over generations. If you take the oldest generation as one end of the scale, the youngest generation as the other extreme of it and those in between as the middle ground, in a society were all three are represented equally  it will all roughly even out. But in a society were the oldest generation is overrepresented, the middle and younger generations are potentially stuck living under outdated views/what the elders wanted.

 

There is as we all know a minimum age to be able to vote - I feel a maximum age too is entirely reasonable.

 

I'll start by saying that in hindsight suggesting it should be 65 was setting it too low - I'd probably suggest maybe 75 would be a more suitable age.

 

It is IMO no secret at all It’s no secret that elderly voters wield the most power in puvlic votes. For example In the 2016 Brexit referendum, 90% of over 65's turned out to vote; they are our most enfranchised demographic.

 

According to a survey carried out by Tory pollster Lord Ashcroft - of 12,369 people on the day of that referendum - three quarters of 18-24 year olds (73 per cent) voted to remain. Older voters, meanwhile, largely voted to Leave, including 60 per cent of people over the age of 65.

 

 

 

I'm lifting the next part of this post (the bits in quotation marks) from an article I read on the subject as it words things better than I am able to - but I agree with it totally.

 

"The elderly will not have to live with the consequences of their vote as long as young people. This is especially pertinent to the Brexit vote, whose consequences young people will be experiencing 60 years down the line. Sad as it may be, it is still the case that much of the UK’s older population will not live to see the long-term consequences of their vote. Older people are more likely to vote solely in their own interests, whereas young people vote with a wider perspective, as pensions and healthcare will eventually affect them further down the line. Older people have no reason to vote with education or the working sector in mind because, for the most part, these policies will not ever affect them directly.

 

Record numbers of people are living in poverty, relying on food banks, and homelessness is on the rise. The UK’s political system does not serve the population as it should. The vote share is weighted heavily towards the elderly, and it is not because young people are not interested. We need to try something new. Japan has been investigating a weighted voting system, where the voters who will be impacted the most have the most weight to their vote. This seems, on the surface at least, to be a far more productive way of voting in general.

It would mean more referendums regarding issues pertinent to each age demographic: pensions, education, healthcare and taxes. But having a more meaningful vote about the policies that affect you the most appears to be a better way of having your voice heard compared to the current system."

 

Turnout amongt the elderly is much, much higher than all the other age groups. Here is a graph from last 3 GE's:

 

 

And that much, much higher turnout seen in those elderly groups votes overwhelmingly Tory.

 

 

 

The political system favours the elderly. There are fewer than 6m people aged 18 to 24 in Britain, but more than 11m aged 65 or older....

 

I've read articles that quote this "no taxation without representation" argument....

 

Lifting from an article again below:

 

“No taxation without representation” are said to be watchwords of democracy. Perhaps the formulation should be reversed — no representation without paying taxes. Why should those who no longer make a contribution to the state be allowed a disproportionate role in choosing governments"

 

I feel it is more sensible to make an explicit connection between working and voting (while recognising the needs of the working-age sick and disabled and stay-at-home mothers). A decent society is one in which those responsible for compassionate actions, such as pensions or healthcare, are those who pay for them.

 

I  am also of the view that given the higher levels of cognitive impairment and decline seen in the elderly that capping the age at which people can vote would lead to a more 'informed' overall picture.

 

I've put a lot of time and thought and effort into presenting my argument and I'd appreciate you knocked off the insulting remarks like "fascist" etc....I am not a particularly educated feller and trying to write down my thoughts on this is not easy, so as I say considerable effort has gone into trying to get what I mean across. Disagreeing is of course no problem - I'd just appreciate doing so in a more reasoned fashion than you have so far...Ta!

 

 

 

You made a call to disenfranchise a swathe of population. In the same way you might think some people might not be able to vote as their cognitive abilities were not up to scratch, I could put it to you that people who watch Ant & Dec or Love Island should be similarly treated. I'm just using your reasoning there. You can't expect civility when you make a call like that. I'm 61 by the way so in your reasoning the next election would be the last I'm eligible for. I've always voted Labour, and will do so reluctantly at the next one for the expedient of evicting the current bunch of thieves, I've never dodged my taxes and I believe that a good society means we all do ok. Does that mean I get a pass when I'm 67?

[TheHowieLama]

Out on a limb with the opinion that if you can't get 1 in 3 to participate in these democratic elections currently there may be a legitimacy issue at the root and adding 16 to 18 year olds not only does not address but exacerbates it.

[Captain Howdy]

16 year olds should get the vote, taking the vote away from 65 year olds is sinister beyond belief, try and justify the indefensible all you like pal, people nodding along as well, fucking staggering. Right you’ve worked all your life, paid your taxes but you might not vote how I like so off you fuck. Fuck…..right…..off