16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote

[Whereishenow]

Just seen this announcement on BBC now. Amazing news!!! Now we just need to try and get youngsters out USING those votes.

Actually 16 year olds ARE entitled to the minimum wage (£7.55) and also ARE entitled to claim child allowance if they need to. There is a higher level (£10 p/h) those aged 18-20 and then it goes up again at 21.

Not saying I agree with the new policy but just fact checking…

In all honesty I think 80 is quite a low cut-off.

In some ways I'd say that's often when people are at their wisest provided there are no dementia type issues.

Its tricky because I suspect the cut off at that end is more to do with personal cognitive health. But I'm not against the odea of exploring a cut-off at both ends of life.

to be fair - at 16 if you want to join any of the Armed Forces you can only do so with the consent of your parent or guardian

There's a huge difference between "can" do these things and actually doing them.

If you want a criteria such as "have paid more than 1000 income tax in any of the last 5 years" then I'd support you.

It's at least an objective measure and means that they have a voice over how their contributions to society are allocated.

Another flawed argument.

Personally I don't have a low opinion of anyone who lacks experience and knowledge to make decisions - they may lack that experience for a whole host of different reasons. Maybe you would ?

I wouldn't want that person making decisions for me, but that's an entirely different issue.

I can make good decisions on things that I have experience in. Other people who don't have that experience can't. I don't look down on people because of it.

The same applies to me in reverse, and I don't expect someone to look down on me for example because I can't pick a cat up.

Maybe but 16 and 17 might be more interested in peers and on SM following a party already.

They are a child until 18 years of age - Children Act 1989. This is a terrible step. Perhaps I’m being a bit tin foil hat but I have spidey senses of us going in the direction of reducing ages for certain permissions/ages of consent with this lark.

Just noticed you said child support not allowance - and actually I would imagine that does vary due to each circumstance. Sorry I miss read your post!

A 16 year old child can still be taken into care.

A 16 year old child can not own property or drive a car.

So now, a 16 year old child in care who isn't allowed to buy a house or drive a car even if they somehow had the funds to do that can vote?

This is lunacy.

The 13-16 year olds I know would vote Reform.
They hate Starmer and think the Tories have done so much damage any new party who haven't had a go should get the chance on the grounds that anything is better than those two parties.

I can't see any argument for not letting 16 and 17 years vote that isn't a flawed one also.

This is a terrible idea.
Anyone under 18 is classed as a child.
You have your whole life to vote (and many people don't bother then).

Shows the desperation of this useless labour govt as it tries to stay in power. Personally, I think the age is fine where it is.

How did young people in the past grow up into politically active adults then? We didn't have the vote at 16.
And an 87 year old has seen a lot of change, different government styles, period when their view point was represented or wasn't.
They probably have children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren and they have some perspective on time.

16 and 17 year olds already make many rational decisions. They choose A levels or technical qualifications linked to their skills and career interests. They may be thinking about university; and have some awareness of the high cost involved. They will have experienced GCSEs and will have views on how well the education system is functioning. They may have used health services; and have views particulary on adolescent health services. They may be in part time employment. They might find that essential public services; such as being able to book a driving test; are not functioning; and may have views on all of the above which could shape how they vote

Is your argument that older people are more likely to make rational choices that benefit the whole of society and that young people will vote for whoever is giving out the most money? Many older people live; as you put it 'on someone else's dime'; and consistently vote for policies that benefit them as a group. Thats how democracy works; but they arent a universally altrisitc group.

I think part of the issue is that they can still participate. So they have the ability to influence the outcome and use their experience in the debate.

But not to actually vote.

It's a bit harder in the UK electoral system because although you could claim if you stopped 80+ from voting they could still participate in the discussion, their influence over the outcome and their ability to engage and influence in the debate would be much less than say an 80 year old in the conclave.

Ummmm, how about...

• the 16yo can be expected to live with the implications of policies and major decisions for approximately 70 years
• the 87yo can be expected to live with the implications of policies and major decisions for a few more years

I find it amazing that a forum that basically exists out of the fundamental premise of helping us be better parents - and therefore giving our children the best future possible - is so against actually letting those children have a say in their future.

I’m a left wing voter and I think it’s a terrible idea.

A 16yr old could still be in actual school, not even college. A schoolchild should not be given the chance to influence political strategy. They simply don’t have the breadth of knowledge or life experience, and their brains are still developing. They are far more likely to be influenced by extreme ideology - lots of teens are very idealistic.

I dont believe a 16 yr old child can properly vote on the subjects set out on a manifesto, and I don’t think they have the critical thinking skills to properly scrutinise claims - which in the modern day of Trumpian politics, is essential.

I agree that many adults lack these skills but there has to be a cut off somewhere. And I think excluding children from voting is where the line should be drawn.

My instinct was that this should (hopefully) ruin any chance of a Reform victory but possibly I’m just within an echo chamber.

I think it’s a shame that Labour didn’t introduce proper electoral change such as proportional representation.

And yet they can have sex legally and procreate at 16.

My DD, then 16yo said to her Grandad in 2016 "If you & the country vote leave, i wont be able to easily live in Europe like you & granny did"

His reply was "Thats not my concern, i've already done my travelling, you'll be fine"
She and i were gobsmacked.

Many 87yo's, probably the majority, will have varying degrees of impairment.

We keep being told that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until 25. This is evidently particularly true of men (and is a genius way of letting them off their behaviour and giving excuses). This goes against that, so perhaps it’s just rubbish?

No doubt that Labour would think this will bring them votes and given the current issues with young people not working and claiming benefits, they are probably right. Historically young people are more likely vote Labour, many of them still believing in the magic money tree.

This is not a good idea imo and I think there will be many unintended consequences. If the vote age is reduced then frankly age related rights and laws need to be overhauled. It’s all over the place.

Exactly and we all know that once they turn 18 they're mysteriously and suddenly overnight, mature and able to vote sensibly!!

I see it as a subjective rather than objective question and therefore no opinion on what age people should be allowed to vote at can be flawed, although some arguments are obviously stronger than others (there are few people if any who would argue 2 year olds should be given the vote for example).

If it were objective then we wouldn't even be having the discussion and the voting age would already be 16.

Lol. My mum said something similar to me 😂Though she did vote remain (I think). Something how she lived in France and it wasn't that great so we aren't missing out

Conversely we allow people who don't pay tax to have a vote.

Kids can have babies at 12, 13, 14 - should they be allowed to vote just because of biology and potentially bad decision making.

The only consideration should be whether they can be held accountable for decisions they make.

If so, treat them as adults in all respects - no requirement to continue education or training after 16th birthday, and try them as adults in the courts, allow them to serve on the front line in wars etc, allow them to stand as ma's

If not, then treat them as young adults with special dispensation and limited responsibilities.

You cant have it both ways.

Why are so many sure young people will vote labour? Why are so many scared of labour?