Fully back this, but this doesn't seem to be the right time to push this.aggi wrote:Lots of talk that one of the amendments may be to try and bring in 16 and 17 year olds.
Personally I feel that 18 is the right age but will be interesting to see if it happens.
I think the practicalities make this a no go for a ore Christmas election. I don’t think it’ll be even voted on for that reason.Lancasterclaret wrote:Fully back this, but this doesn't seem to be the right time to push this.
There has to be a GE I think or we could end up making a decision on a bad deal versus a very bad no deal
Lancasterclaret wrote:Fully back this, but this doesn't seem to be the right time to push this.
There has to be a GE I think or we could end up making a decision on a bad deal versus a very bad no deal
I think a referendum is the better solution, but not enough MPs agree so that it can happen. In the absence of a referendum the only way through the current impasse is a GE, I don’t think the french were minded to allow an extension if we’d ploughed on with more of the same.Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't understand why anyone things a GE is better than a referendum on the deal. A referendum guarantees a solution to the current problem, a general election doesn't.
A GE is dumb as **** if the intention is to solve the Brexit issue, but I don't believe for a second that's the intent.
But he will agree with or without the amendment.Burnley Ace wrote:I was taking the **** when I suggested JC wouldn’t agree unless it included 16/17 year olds and now I’ve just seen the amendment!!
What next - no agreement unless all white men Educated in the private sector are disenfranchised?
Why do you back 16/17 year olds to vote, and why the cut-off there rather than younger?Lancasterclaret wrote:Fully back this, but this doesn't seem to be the right time to push this.
There has to be a GE I think or we could end up making a decision on a bad deal versus a very bad no deal
I think 16 year olds are old enough to have a say.aggi wrote:Why do you back 16/17 year olds to vote, and why the cut-off there rather than younger?
Personally I would also remove the vote for pensioners.Burnley Ace wrote:I was taking the **** when I suggested JC wouldn’t agree unless it included 16/17 year olds and now I’ve just seen the amendment!!
What next - no agreement unless all white men Educated in the private sector are disenfranchised?
Top trollingClaret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Personally I would also remove the vote for pensioners.
they are no longer contributing to society so they shouldn't have a say in who governs it.
Plan the future when you're young, build it and live in it when you're old but then you let the next young generation decide the big issues.
16 and 17 year olds?Lancasterclaret wrote:Top trolling
You can't exclude anyone from voting.
Sorry aggi, I don't agree, 16 should be the limit. Below that is too young.aggi wrote:Why do you back 16/17 year olds to vote, and why the cut-off there rather than younger?
Nothing wrong with them having the vote.Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:16 and 17 year olds?
Beats trying to put up barriers to voting as the Tories plan to do in order to exclude certain parts of society that don't tend to vote your wayBurnley Ace wrote:So when Jeremy “won’t someone think of the students” Corbyn found out that the vast majority of University hadn’t finished for Christmas he is now concerned about EU citizens!!
Has he called for 16 year olds to get to vote as well?
Considering the amount of things you need id for nowadays, not sure why you're bashing the government for this.Devils_Advocate wrote:Beats trying to put up barriers to voting as the Tories plan to do in order to exclude certain parts of society that don't tend to vote your way
Cos there no indication that in person voter fraud is an issue at all yet there are millions of voters without ID. The only plausible explanation for the effort the Tories are putting in to this is that the barriers it will ceate will be against non tory voters.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Considering the amount of things you need id for nowadays, not sure why you're bashing the government for this.
Passports are needed for some jobs to prove right to work.
On what basis?Lancasterclaret wrote:I think 16 year olds are old enough to have a say.
Younger than that, no.
"Some" jobs.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Considering the amount of things you need id for nowadays, not sure why you're bashing the government for this.
Passports are needed for some jobs to prove right to work.
Drinking and smoking is about biology, not responsibility. But sure, reduce those if you like.aggi wrote:On what basis?
I know there is no right and wrong answer but I'd be interested in the thinking behind it. I'd say for the majority of people 18 is when they "become an adult", possibly leave home, budget, start to live an independent life.
I'd say the transition from 16-18 is fairly significant in broadening horizons, engaging critical thinking, etc but at the age of 16 when most haven't even done their GCSEs I'd say is too early to be taking responsibility for the direction of the country. If we think that 16 year olds are responsible enough to vote then we should be looking at decreasing the age for drinking, smoking, watching violent movies, etc as well.
Okay, should we compromise at 17?aggi wrote:On what basis?
I know there is no right and wrong answer but I'd be interested in the thinking behind it. I'd say for the majority of people 18 is when they "become an adult", possibly leave home, budget, start to live an independent life.
I'd say the transition from 16-18 is fairly significant in broadening horizons, engaging critical thinking, etc but at the age of 16 when most haven't even done their GCSEs I'd say is too early to be taking responsibility for the direction of the country. If we think that 16 year olds are responsible enough to vote then we should be looking at decreasing the age for drinking, smoking, watching violent movies, etc as well.
You're allowed to start a family at 15 as well.Imploding Turtle wrote:Drinking and smoking is about biology, not responsibility. But sure, reduce those if you like.
As i've said before, at 16 you're allowed to start a family. Someone else made the point that you're allowed to decide to give your life for this country by joining the military at 16. How can you be responsible enough to do both those things, but can't be trusted to be responsible enough with a vote on your representation?
I needed a birth certificate or passport for a job 15 years ago..Imploding Turtle wrote:"Some" jobs.
The kind of voter fraud that Voter ID prevents - in-person voter fraud - is not a problem we have. As in America, the only purpose of Voter ID laws here would be to disenfranchise certain groups of people that the right-wing parties find it hard to convince to vote for them.
I do believe there is a legal impediment to the necessary biological process by which someone of that age may completely legally choose and consent to begin a family.dsr wrote:You're allowed to start a family at 15 as well.
GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I needed a birth certificate or passport for a job 15 years ago..
As for the comparison with the Yanks, why didn't you use Canada who also require ID to vote?
Or another country?
Don't they also suit your agenda?
For something as important as selecting an MP/ruling party I'm not really sure why some of you are dead against ID checks.
Plus barely half the country vote in GE's when id isn't required, so they're hardly going to be suddenly disenfranchised if the rules are tightened
ID has been required since 2007 in Canada and they don't appear to have a major issue with that.Imploding Turtle wrote:The reason i didn't use canada is because i'm more familiar with the voter ID implementation in the US, and how clearly it is designed to disenfranchise. Republican politicians have literally admitted it.
But if you want to talk about Canada, then by all means we can talk about Canada because that suits me just fine too.
In 2015, 172,000 electors could not exercise their right to vote because they did not have accepted proof of identity and/or address. How many allegations of voter fraud in the UK do you believe are required for it to be acceptable for that many people to be denied the ability to vote? (And bear in mind that 172k is people who turned up, it doesn't include those who knew they didn't have required ID and so instead chose to remain home)
Lancasterclaret wrote:I think 16 year olds are old enough to have a say.
Younger than that, no.
GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:If 16yr olds get the vote can I also stop paying child maintenance if my lad decides to stay in education at 16?
That's funny. It's literally the same document i saw but somehow missed the very next bullet point.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:ID has been required since 2007 in Canada and they don't appear to have a major issue with that.
Your fact is also wrong about 172k, who turned up, it was actually 50k and I'm a little surprised you didn't check that.
172k didn't vote because they didn't have the required ID.
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?s ... dex&lang=e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In regards to UK figures, I do know it's a very low figure which you use to justify why you think we shouldn't need ID to vote, however I fully believe that in this day and age ID should be a requirement to vote in the UK and I find it odd that it isn't.
We need ID for all sorts of lesser things but not to pick an MP/government..... clearly makes sense to someone like you.
That's not a bold prediction. There are currently 81 MPs from parties other than Labour and Tories, and that doesn't count the 35 independents (or perhaps only 25 now). So with those 81, plus a few independents, and the SNP must have a good chance of hoovering up most of the 24 non-SNP seats in Scotland, it would be a major surprise of there weren't over 100 non-Tory or Labour MPs after the election.Spijed wrote:Theo Usherwood
✔
@theousherwood
Prof John Curtice’s election prediction: Tories beware.
Election will return more than a 100 MPs not from Labour or Conservatives.
And whilst Corbyn can do a deal with another party to stop Brexit, Johnson cannot to do a deal to deliver Brexit. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... rediction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
It’s bonkers 16, most are still sporting bum fluff on the chin, should be 18 the very minimum age.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:If 16yr olds get the vote can I also stop paying child maintenance if my lad decides to stay in education at 16?
Ah, finally a good reason to prevent 16 year olds from voting. They can't grow proper beards.Jakubclaret wrote:It’s bonkers 16, most are still sporting bum fluff on the chin, should be 18 the very minimum age.
Touché, have I hit a raw nerve.Imploding Turtle wrote:Ah, finally a good reason to prevent 16 year olds from voting. They can't grow proper beards.
I missed this in all the excitement.If it be your will wrote:It is reasonable to suppose we wouldn't need the same volume of workers. We don't know what the impact on wages would be without the pool of EU labour to draw on. If the effect was a substantial, then the cost of productivity enhancing machinery/robotics might be less than the new wages would be, and then fewer workers would be required for the same output. If the effect was minimal, then us leavers were wrong all along.
I'm not saying this is definitely right, because I have no evidence, but it is widely postulated that one of the reasons for the truly abysmal productivity growth in the last 15 years is because of the ready supply of cheap labour (yes, there are lots of other theories for our weak productivity growth). It has not been cost-effective to upgrade to latest technology. If wages ballooned without cheap EU labour, it would be. The problem we might have is finding the available credit to upgrade from commercial banks, which is where Labour's NIB plan comes in.
Either way, there would be an increased cost to employers overall. I suppose it's a question what sort of society we actually want 20 years from now - a highly automated one or one reliant on low wages. Both have issues if not done properly.
In terms of the military you're not actually allowed a front line role until 18 so that doesn't apply in terms of giving your life (and you also need parental permission). As for starting a family, technically I'd say that's 16 and three quarters.Imploding Turtle wrote:Drinking and smoking is about biology, not responsibility. But sure, reduce those if you like.
As i've said before, at 16 you're allowed to start a family. Someone else made the point that you're allowed to decide to give your life for this country by joining the military at 16. How can you be responsible enough to do both those things, but can't be trusted to be responsible enough with a vote on your representation?
At 16 you can join, that is the point at which you're deciding to give your life if it's necessary. There's a DAOR period during which you can leave (i can't remember how long, but it's a few months) and then you're locked in for your contract. But the decision and responsibility is taken at 16aggi wrote:In terms of the military you're not actually allowed a front line role until 18 so that doesn't apply in terms of giving your life (and you also need parental permission). As for starting a family, technically I'd say that's 16 and three quarters.
On the other hand there are plenty of areas which suggest that a 16 year old is still legally a child with things such as needing the parents' permission to get married or leave home, still be in education . The UN defines those under 18 as a child
Well you still need parental permission to join the army under the age of 18 so a 16 year old isn't viewed as legally responsible enough to make that decision. The DAOR applies until you're 18 so you're not locked in until you're 18.Imploding Turtle wrote:At 16 you can join, that is the point at which you're deciding to give your life if it's necessary. There's a DAOR period during which you can leave (i can't remember how long, but it's a few months) and then you're locked in for your contract. But the decision and responsibility is taken at 16
Likewise with deciding to have a child. You're not making the decision when you're giving birth, you're making the decision at conception, or when you find out you're pregnant. Legally that can be on your 16th birthday.
So, again, how is it that a 16 year old can be legally responsible enough to make those decisions, but not legally responsible enough to decide who represents you in parliament?
Quick question....Imploding Turtle wrote:At 16 you can join, that is the point at which you're deciding to give your life if it's necessary. There's a DAOR period during which you can leave (i can't remember how long, but it's a few months) and then you're locked in for your contract. But the decision and responsibility is taken at 16
Likewise with deciding to have a child. You're not making the decision when you're giving birth, you're making the decision at conception, or when you find out you're pregnant. Legally that can be on your 16th birthday.
So, again, how is it that a 16 year old can be legally responsible enough to make those decisions, but not legally responsible enough to decide who represents you in parliament?
You are aware that you can have sex without intending to start a family, right? There are products you can buy that inhibit conception.aggi wrote:Well you still need parental permission to join the army under the age of 18 so a 16 year old isn't viewed as legally responsible enough to make that decision. The DAOR applies until you're 18 so you're not locked in until you're 18.
If your only argument is that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote at 16 because they're allowed to have sex then it seems pretty weak.
"labour in the UK is far more expensive than many other, more productive territories" I'm not quite sure on the productive territories you are referring to? It's disingenuous to not recognise the correlation for this reason, the cost of living is far higher here than the cheaper labour productive territories, it's the only way the economy could function here, unless you are suggesting we widen the gap between the rich & the poor & drop our standards of living & work for pittance. A post brexit scenerio is more likely to increase wages if there's a shortage of a low skilled workforce.aggi wrote:I missed this in all the excitement.
It is possible that Brexit could provide the impetus to update, upgrade, etc. Wouldn't that just shift the issue from foreigners causing the problem to robots causing it.
Also, thinking about it, I'm not really on board with the underlying premise. With our minimum wage the labour in the UK is far more expensive than many other, more productive, territories. Surely the incentive has already been there to upgrade compared to other countries with a much cheaper labour pool?
Where your view is interesting is that obviously most people are foreseeing a Britain with deregulation, more capitalist, etc post-Brexit but you're hoping it will be the impetus for a swing in the other direction. Who knows what we'll end up with.
claret_in_exile wrote:By law, a person becomes an adult at 18. The only reason the political parties are wanting the age to be changed to 16 is because they'll get more votes.
If everyone agrees that a person is an adult at 16, then fine. But that might be a shock for those depending on child support and certain tax breaks.
I don't think a GE would solve the Brexit issue either, I think it's more remainers who want a GE because they realise it's more likely than a 2nd referendum & there's a chance in a GE of further delaying the exit date again & again or a slim chance of removing the tories from power, all a GE will do is frustrate & unsettle Brexit & further delay & try to get people onside with the remain perspective. Anything to basically thwart brexit is the mission.Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't understand why anyone things a GE is better than a referendum on the deal. A referendum guarantees a solution to the current problem, a general election doesn't.
A GE is dumb as **** if the intention is to solve the Brexit issue, but I don't believe for a second that's the intent.