to think that lowering the voting age to 16 is a stupid idea?

[CrystalTipsandAlista1r]

in fact, I'd rather it was raised to 25.

@gussyfinknottle I paid income tax when I was 17 and working full time / studying part time.

One wouldn't want too many people capable of reading a novel to have the vote though, Agnes. That would be asking for trouble

A bit freaked by a film? Hand over your ballot paper, loser
So your quite happy potentially resting the governing of our United Kingdom in the hands of someone that we dont deem responsible enough to watch scary films?

Maybe we could hand responsibility for issuing ballot papers to the BBFC.

Yanbu

Julie in all seriousness, what harm would be done to democracy or to 16 and 17 yos if the voting age was reduced?

in all seriousness, what harm would be done to democracy or to 16 and 17 yos if the voting age was reduced?

Because they could vote for who ever is promising to allow chips every day in the school canteen (or what ever junk food is in vogue).

Or because a playground bully could be pressuring people to vote for vote for legalising alcohol at 16 without any sensible experience of drinking at all.

Or because they have limited experience of life outside a sheltered school environment and vote for policies that cost lot of money without the experience of knowing the consequences.

Or worst of all they are 'brainwashed' by social media because they have young vulnerable minds. (because no one would ever do that would they?)

@gussyfinknottle Children under 16 have to pay income tax if their income is over the personal allowance, but they don’t have to pay National Insurance. Granted, that’s probably only an issue for a few children (some actors / models?) but it means you can’t use paying income tax as a proxy for being able to vote - I’m sure no-one wants to give 2 / 5 / 12 year olds the vote!

www.gov.uk/child-employment/paying

(You also can’t use liability for National Insurance unless the vote is taken away from pensioners, as they also don’t have to pay it)

Because they could vote for who ever is promising to allow chips every day in the school canteen (or what ever junk food is in vogue).

Or because a playground bully could be pressuring people to vote for vote for legalising alcohol at 16 without any sensible experience of drinking at all.

Or because they have limited experience of life outside a sheltered school environment and vote for policies that cost lot of money without the experience of knowing the consequences.

Or worst of all they are 'brainwashed' by social media because they have young vulnerable minds. (because no one would ever do that would they?)

All of which apply to adult voters.

They can and do vote for the someone standing in front of a big red bus dangling a carrot in front of them.

They can be pressured by employers to vote for reducing employment legislation red tape. ("What's good for the business is good for you/what's bad for the business is bad for you.")

Adults with life experience vote for batshit policies all the time. Literally every election.

And the last one? Sigh. Does that even need a response? You really shold have come to the conclusion on your own that millions of adults are unduly swayed by both social and print media. "I'm not voting for Ed Milliband cos he can't eat a bacon butty innit?!" "I'm not voting for Corbyn cos he didn't bow at the cenotaph!!!" "I'm voting for Brexit to get rid of the Muslims!!!"

I think a lower voting age is a great idea. We have been infantilising older teens for too long, now. They already have political views and, in some cases, are far more engaged than some adults.

Yes, they do not have the maturity or experience and nor do they pay taxes. On the other hand many 16 year olds will pay taxes within the parliament that they vote for, so should have a say over their representatives.

They may be, on average, naive but older people are, on average, cynical, so it balances out.

Well I read that the age of adultness (if you can put a fixed age on it) is rising. So one could argue that if anything it should be going up not down.

Dad,

That is a chicken and egg thing. We infantilise teens these days and they respond accordingly. I think they actually respond far better when they are given responsibility and treated in a more adult way.

Obviously left-wingers want this.

It might be their only hope in England.

The thought of political education of children by teachers like the ones described here by this Labour- voting yet candid and objective teacher isn’t a great prospect:
www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/jun/24/secret-teacher-school-echo-chamber-leftwing-views-labour

larrygrylls I completely agree we do infantilise. But maybe we should work on all the other areas of education, development and the way we treat them before we give them the vote? Giving the vote to younger people before we've stopped infantilising them seem to be putting the cart before the horse to me.

I don't agree with lowering the voting age. Young people are still less likely to vote so I can't see the benefit of the exercise. What we should do is to have a much more democratic system in place where all votes would actually count.

It should stay at 18. I could have seen a case for it been lowered to 16 at one time (30 or 40 years ago) when many 16 year olds did live life as adults, but that simply isn't the case now. Very few 16/17 year olds work full time, pay rent, get married or have children (a good thing, obviously). If childhood is being extended then the voting age should reflect that.

The only reason it's being touted is because labour are desperate

It's worrying me how many of you think....
You don't pay tax until 16, income tax is payable for your entire life, no starting age and no finishing date.
You can fight for your country at 16, wrong you can join the forces but can't fight til 18.
You can get a job at 16, true but it has to involve education.
These are just 3 examples of people's arguments for lowering the age to 16 and despite numerous posts saying they are incorrect other posters keep using them. Please if you want to quote facts make sure they are facts and not what you believe is true due to being to lazy to do research

You can get a job at 16, true but it has to involve education

Well that itself isn't entirely true. At 16 my DD was in sixth form full time doing A levels - and she also had a job.

only that first example is used by people opposed to lowering the voting age, their (erroneous) argument being that 16 year olds don't pay tax so they shouldn't get the vote

As if fiscal policy is all elections are about anyway

LineySt then she is still in education
iBiscuit In this thread I keep seeing they can pay tax at 16 so vote, by that logic so can a 1 year old

Abra1de I'm fairly left wing, although I vehemently oppose Corbyn and believe he and his cronies are destroying the party, to the detriment of us all. They did a horrendous hatchet job on the Lib Dems and fucked up on the Scottish and EU referendums, effectively guaranteeing a Conservative win. All governments of whatever hue need a decent opposition, but thanks to Corbyn and thanks to voter apathy we have none.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than what I said earlier - 16 and 17yos votes will barely make a dent in election results, but by catching them early we might get more people politically engaged longer term. That's got to be a good thing.

LineySt then she is still in education

Well, yes, obviously - but equally at 16 she was economically active and had a job. Being 16 didn't mean that her job somehow wasn't a job. She worked; she was paid for her labour. It's specious to suggest otherwise.

Anyway the 'youthquake' didn't even happen. The surge to Labour in the last General Election was down to the 30-40 year old age group, some recent research showed.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/corbyn-s-2017-electoral-youthquake-didn-t-happen-study-finds

Link