to think if EU citizens can vote in local elections if they live here and if Commonwealth Citizens can vote in General Elections,

[cakeorwine]

then what's the issue with EU citizens who live here, pay taxes here etc voting in General Elections?

I don't here people complaining about EU citizens voting in local elections.

But the proposal for EU citizens to vote in general elections seems to have upset the Tories. For some reason.

Who can vote in UK elections? - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

Keir Starmer to hand vote to millions of EU nationals if Labour wins next election | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Under the plans, migrants who live permanently and pay taxes in the UK would be able to vote in general elections for the first time.
The move is expected to enfranchise around 3.4 million EU nationals who have "settled status" in Britain
Meanwhile, 1.4 million 16 and 17-year-olds would also be able to go to the ballot box in line with Scotland and Wales.

But commonwealth citizens can vote in GE here? as that is the case & they are not showing the commitment you want, would you support withdrawing their right to vote here?

If they hadn't had the right to vote here then I wouldn't advocate them having it now. I'm not sure they should ever have had it. But obviously they do, which is tied to historical links. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking an existing right away.

People who move abroad, can still vote here, so i don't think voting is tied to "commitment", so Sunak paid his taxes in the USA yet could vote in the UK... not much commitment to the UK.

That is the rules with green card status. I believe he has given it up now, and no I don't think a UK prime minister having a green card shows permanent commitment.

imho if you are a citizen of another country, have lived here for say 5 years plus & pay taxes here, you should get a vote, what other countries do, is neither here nor there.

Well that is your opinion. But in the countries opinion, you shouldn't.

Definitely extend to 16/17yo's, they are our future and are expected to be taking exams that will determine their entire future and be making plans to take on extremely high student loans, yet are apparently too immature to vote.

They are too immature to vote.

He could switch that over and it would help the U.K. more than prioritising future Labour success. Too late now though.

It doesn't feel very trustworthy when he's not in power, people already don't feel confident on labours stance on many things, yet he tries to secure the future vote without even waiting to try and show they are fit to lead this country.

They are too immature to vote

Are they too immature to vote in Scotland and Wales in their elections?

Schoolchildren should not be voting in a general election, the very idea is ridiculous. Voting isn't just a right, it's a responsibility and a duty. What next, they can drink, smoke, get a tattoo and go to a adult prison at 16 too? Labour politicians mustn't like the answers they're getting from focus groups, they've resorted to asking their kids what they'd like. I'm more in favour of raising everything to 21.

Only UK citizens should be allowed to vote in general elections. Nobody should be able to vote in 2 countries. The taxation argument doesn't stand up in the slightest because I very much doubt anyone is arguing for voting rights for corporations.

Many many years ago I moved to Australia, not planning to move back here.
Yet I could still have voted in UK elections - but I am not sure which constituency I could have picked to vote in.

I must have missed this in 2021

Long-term expats 'to get vote in UK elections' - BBC News

Successive governments have promised to change the law, passed in 2002, which removes people living abroad for more than 15 years from the electoral roll.

But paragraph 2.41 of the Treasury Red Book, which sets out government's planned spending in detail, says: "Overseas Electors - the government is providing an additional £2.5m to remove the limit preventing British citizens who live overseas from voting after 15 years."
A Treasury spokesman said legislation would be laid before Parliament later this year to bring about the reform.
This follows a long campaign by Harry Shindler, an expat WWII veteran who moved to Italy around 40 years ago.
He told the BBC in 2011: "There was a war to bring the vote to the people of Europe. We won the war, but some of the people who took part in the war, me included, are not allowed to vote themselves."
Mr Shindler lost a number of court battles over the years and in 2012 threatened to take his case to the United Nations, saying that the law was in contravention of the "universal" right of "manhood suffrage".
On hearing of his campaign victory, he tweeted: "It's very good news that the UK's 15 year voting rule is ending as part of #Budget2021.
"We fought to defend our right to vote in WW2 and now we will get to use it. This is an important day for freedom."
At the 2019 general election there were a record 233,000 registered overseas voters.

Why should people who are from the UK but who have lived overseas for many years have a say in UK elections but not people who are from overseas but who lived in the UK for many years?

And last year

Britons living overseas for 15 years to get right to vote in UK elections | UK news | The Guardian

3 MILLION BRITONS retired or living abroad have the right to vote in UK elections.

Why?

"Some peers said it would be unfair that some Britons who lived abroad for many decades would get to vote in British general elections while many foreign nationals living and paying tax in the UK could not.
Paul Scriven, a Liberal Democrat life peer, said: “Can the minister explain how that would be perceived as fair and a good platform for our electoral process? People who have not lived here for 50 years will have the right to vote and influence government policy, even though it does not directly affect them.”
William Wallace, also for the Lib Dems, said the government did not go far enough to rationalise “the tangle of voting rights left by imperial history” that gave voting rights to some foreign nationals such as Commonwealth citizens but not others."

School children? err you can leave school and be in work aged 16/17.
..and what magic line is crossed between 17 and 18 that makes someone "responsible" ? so one can become, legally, a parent in the UK aged 16, join the military.

Fair enough argument to make voting only for UK citizens, so you would support removing voting rights from commonwealth citizens.

Rise voting age to 21? why not make voting only for those with property, in work, above a certain income.. heck make it for males only, after all, us women have tiny brains!

Yes.

@Jonei If voting is to be decided on "maturity" then surely there should be a voting test to prove this maturity?

Some 14yo 's have far more maturity than many 20yo's and women, generally speaking, are more mature than males.

This is the problem with having blanket ages for anything based on maturity... we are all very different.

Btw i'm not advocating a Voting test, just that the notion a magic line is crossed between 17 and 18 is hardly rational.

Why should people who are from the UK but who have lived overseas for many years have a say in UK elections but not people who are from overseas but who lived in the UK for many years

It's not ideal that people who have lived out of the country for years, should have a say.

And I'm happy for people living in the UK to get the vote....as long as they apply for citizenship.

Well it is true that my young teenager is considerably more sensible than many young adults. (And older adults for that matter). And many adults aren't very sensible / mature at all. But there needs to be a cut off somewhere and unfortunately we can't remove the right to vote from adults that aren't mature and sensible. I don't think this means we should therefore extend it to children on that rationale.

Majority on these threads are likely Labour voters whatever but previously Starmer was trying to secure Brexit voters

I know from pp it's not a popular POV, but personally I reckon if you are overseas but paying UK taxes, possibly UK NI and/or possibly dependent on UK pensions which are subject to UK Gov policy then just maybe as a UK citizen you should retain the right to vote, or at least get some say.

It's interesting to do a compare and contrast between those countries who do value their citizens as a national asset regardless of time away. Those countries usually give a permanent right to vote and often go out of their way to facilitate voting overseas, including setting up polling stations at Embassies/Consulates.

OTOH there are the "don't let the door hit your arse" countries, others where, for example even if you retain a temporary right to remote voting you're lucky if your postal ballot arrives in time.

Morning @Jonei, I see you're up and at 'em early today but still not answered my original Q. Are you now ignoring me?

Anyway, for the 6th time now....

Can you explain why you think that Labour considering some proposals to extend voting rights to more of those who live in the UK (and have a right to be here) is worse than the tories actually implementing measures that, they now admit, were designed to manipulate election results to favour them?

and for the 3rd time....

If you knew that citizens of 81 foreign countries could vote in all/some UK elections already, why are you so bothered about extending that right further so that anyone who has a right to be in, and contribute to the UK, can have a voice, regardless of nationality?

Not holding my breathe for an answer but I did promise to keep asking

Not holding my breathe for an answer but I did promise to keep asking

Yes I am ignoring you. Your behaviour is quite argumentative and bordering on stalkerish. I'm sure there's plenty of other people who would be delighted to engage with you here. But I'm not one of them.

It's more than that. Every person pays tax. Not always income tax but there are loads of taxes that are not direct taxes, like taxes on every insurance and savings policy, most purchases particularly fuel, motor tax, local taxes, buying a property tax, tax on professional fees, TV license, etc etc. Nobody operates in any country of residence without paying tax to the government. So if they take cash off you and you live there, why shouldn't you have a say in who makes the policies to take your money.
Ireland and UK, as the original freedom of movement and trade between sovereign states, well before the EU tried it, have this agreement for their Nationals and the sky hasn't fallen in in either Country with regard to their elections. British citizens can not vote to change the Irish constitution, as it should be, but fine to vote in GE if resident here.

So if they take cash off you and you live there, why shouldn't you have a say in who makes the policies to take your money.

There is a mechanism for people to do this though, if they really want to...

Yes i agree with your first part but again, why the cut off age at 18? what is so unique about this age?

You don't want to remove voting from the immature adults we all know but will not extend it to mature 16/17 yo's.

I also think the use of language is interesting too, 18yo's can and do be referred to as children, certainly CB extends to the 18 yo plus cohort.

Aside, Labours ideas, are just that, they are not in their manifesto (yet to be published) its a leaked review and i hope they extend this thinking to PR, no country in Europe uses FPTP (apart from Belarus) and with v good reason, ignoring the majority of the voting electorate is hardly conducive to a united country - almost all UK Govt's are elcted by approx 44% of the voting electorate.

As for gerrymandering, we have voter ID and boundary changes from the Tories.

If 16 year olds can vote, they will have reached the age of majority and will have to be treated as such.

So, will they be allowed to drink in pubs and clubs?
Will they be able to marry?
Will they be able to drive?
Will they be able to take out loans/tenancy agreements,HP agreements/mortgages?
Will they be sent to adult prisons?
Will they serve on juries?
Be interviewed by police without an adult present?
Be publicly named when convicted of a crime
Be able to watch and participate in legal pornography?

If not, why not. If they can vote then no one by one these things will have to be allowed because they will have reached the age of majority.

Just more muddled thinking from s man who can only win if he widens the electorate pool.

Undoubtedly the majority on MN will be Labour voters, as MN is skewed towards working age parents for obvious reasons. Labour has strong majority support amongst young people and middle-aged people.

This story is a big distraction from the real issues - today we learn food prices have doubled while the Tories waffle on about tackling 'woke' (which is made up by them in the first place) culture.

Similar to me in the EU country I'm living in as a Brit.

Same in a country I lived in (non-EU) before.

Lots of countries tax you but don't allow voting in general elections.

Incidentally, as I'm not resident in the UK i actually can't vote anywhere. I've got virtually no democratic rights. Rarely discussed issue.

at man who can only win if he widens the electorate pool

Labour is ahead in national, GE-focused opinion polls by double digits and has just won the local elections by 9%. He is winning under the current system.

Just more muddled thinking from s man who can only win if he widens the electorate pool

mmm i think the muddled thinking is from you? as Starmer cannot change the voting age unless he wins... under the current 18yo voting min age.

Its a leaked review, it is NOT policy

And there is no evidence that non British Nationals who are active in the workplace with the legal status to be in UK and registered to vote are inclined to vote for left of center parties. If anything, the evidence is that they hold quite Conservative values. Those without proper status or going through different legal processes or working in shadow economy, who are most likely to identify with more social protection and investment in services, are unlikely to be even registered to vote.
So there is no reason for the Torries to be worried about this one.