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.

It's to get votes specifically for the Labour party.

If it isn't misdirection, how has it actually answered the question ?

The answer is, it hasn't. It's just a feeble attempt to widen the debate without addressing the actual issue.

There may well be an inconsistency with what old people can and can't do as well. But it's a different issue and a different debate.

Sure, although I don't think those things matter half as much, to be honest.

The fact that they can live independently, work, earn, and raise a family, are much more important and they should have a say in how the country is governed.

Eh? Every right wing comment I have seen is saying bring it on, the 16 year olds are all swinging towards Reform. Seeing a bit of flapping and screeching from people who aren't happy with that though.

There may well be an inconsistency with what old people can and can't do as well. But it's a different issue and a different debate.

It's not a different debate. There are loads of inconsistencies, it would be against the norm to have none for one age groups.

It answers the question 100%. It demonstrates that there is no correlation between eligibility for juries and the right to vote.

Given that teachers have always taught 18 year olds they clearly didn't think their comments through.

It's to get votes specifically for the Labour party.

I thought all the youngsters were right wing Reformers?

Initially I’d say yes, when manifesto was created. Now there are newer parties it may not work out for them.

I think there are some on this thread who would be quite keen to get the vote removed from the elderly. They always forget, however, that age creeps up all too quickly and will apply to them before long!

A few years ago I thought someone in their 50s was dead - now… prime of life 😁

I think the next GE will be interesting… there are predicted to be upwards of 30 Muslim-interest MPs (being in cities). Their platforms and electorate’s wishes may well be at odds with general foreign policy and women’s rights. The women do not get a free vote (postal) and I can see similar with the 16-17-year-olds.

Even if all the votes are for the Reform party I still think they should be allowed to vote. It's not for me to decide who they should be allowed to vote for. And at least they may learn the consequences of said votes, as those frontal lobes are still developing. We may end up with a more educated, informed voter base. It can't get any worse...

Exactly. Voting rights shouldn't be given (or taken away) based on who someone might vote for. Should be entirely irrelevant whichever way you think the 16yos will swing.

I think there are some on this thread who would be quite keen to get the vote removed from the elderly. They always forget, however, that age creeps up all too quickly and will apply to them before long!

The argument's for why younger people shouldn't vote can equally be used against older people. Debating parity is not the same as saying older people shouldn't vote.

Well, as these newer parties have been around for a while now, certainly pre policy announcement, your logic doesn't follow.

Labour wouldn't have announced this change, if you re correct and it was all, originally, designed to get votes for the left...

I just don't understand why so many on the right, have such a poor opinion of younger people, almost contemptable.

Maybe it demonstrates someone thinks there should be no correlation between eligibility for juries and the right to vote.

I don't think that that should actually true though.

I think the answer to the question might actually be quite illuminating, if a good one exists. Because to me the same critical thinking skills you might expect someone might need to act effectively on a jury are probably similar to the ones you might expect someone to need to vote.

The fact that there appears to be no good answer to the question (all someone has tried to do so far is misdirect the question onto what old people can or cannot do) pretty much confirms what I think. That there is no good and clear answer as to why. Of course someone could always actually come up with one.

You could cut the electorate by over 50% if you removed the vote from stupid people.

Deal with the inconsistencies with joined up and coherent policy then.

Or just create more with knee jerk policy designed to attempt to win yourself votes.

Mental health? What has that got to do with voting?

Deal with the inconsistencies with joined up and coherent policy then.

Which is a different issue and debate, but I'm sure you can kickstart a campaign!

When inconsistencies already exist you can't hold them against one section of society, it's a weak argument.

Yep let people vote for whom they want. I have no issue and there’s the possibility 16 to 17 won’t want established parties as much.

If they get the message of hope from further left then great, similarly they might want to protest the current system via a vote.

You could cut the electorate by over 50% if you removed the vote from stupid people.

I think that's optimistic!

I don’t know ask the posters you’re referring to. Quote who you mean.

16 to 17 are great. Ime

Yep let people vote for whom they want. I have no issue and there’s the possibility 16 to 17 won’t want established parties as much.

@EasternStandard no issue with what? I thought you did have an issue with them getting the vote in the first place?

You might be thinking of another poster. I’m for it. But with a broader range of parties including further left.

I think it’ll be good for the age group to vote for that or the opposite end of spectrum. I’m looking forward to a shake up of the parties.

Wow!
Must be a first that you don't support the Cons..... and another that we agree.... thats even more remarkable!!!