Voting age may be reduced to 16 apparently. Good idea?

[Nanny0gg]

As it says in the title. Labour still seems keen on this idea. Personally I think it's bonkers - I look at my DGC and they are just not old enough yet.

AIBU?

It wouldn’t cost anything. It’s just adding more names to the electoral register.

It would cost something somewhere. Someone has to be paid to do the promoting, the adding to the register blah . You know that.

It’s interesting because in Scotland the voting are is 16 (for our elections ) because young people have been deemed responsible enough to decide who runs the country.
YET they’ve largely stopped giving custodial sentences to under 23s because their brains aren’t considered mature enough to be responsible for their actions- impulse control and all that.
It can’t be both. So which is it?

Someone who’s already working for the Electoral Commission and local authorities. Not everything costs more. It’s simply a slight amplification to existing jobs. I bet introducing voter ID cost more.

And thus 16 years olds doing jury service.

Don't underestimate how politically engaged a generation betrayed by Brexit, infantilised by an inability to get on the housing ladder and a cost of living / related mental health crisis would be

Easy to exempt them. I’ve managed to be on the electoral register for 52 years and never be called for jury service - much to my sorrow.

Why would you allow them to vote but not serve on a jury ?

I wouldn’t but you seemed to take exception to it.

No at all. Just the mention of the electoral roll reminded me.

No the poster is right. There would of course be costs. The communications alone to entice the 16 year olds to vote at all would be considerable. Lots of social content to be created for starters. Plus posting out the voting cards It wouldn’t be free.

im still not opposed to it generally though.

The comms would be done as part of existing jobs, just like the comms round voter ID was. Voting cards for 16 year olds would be posted to addresses where they’re already being sent for their parents and 18 year old siblings. There may be many valid objections to this but cost isn’t one of them.

ive never seen all voting cards in one envelope. There are costs for running campaigns on social media.

And printing ballot slips.
In NZ the cost of this to local councils was estimated to be 1.05million dollars when the subject was broached
No costings available here though

Not if they’re part of an existing job.

Of course there will be the cost of posting them too.

I’m really confused why you don’t think there are costs for printing and posting ballot papers or paying instagram / Tim Tok for running targeted campaigns as well as cost of videography and editing..? Comms teams need marketing budgets to do this.

You don't need it explaining. We disagree that he was 'on the money' and that comment alone sealed his fate at the general election, although plenty of other factors didn't help.

I was just having a conversation with someone on the alottment about this, so wondered if there's a Mumsnet thread.
I've not thought about this issue much before. But, I think on balance 16-year-olds probably should have the vote. They've got much more future ahead than older adults, and they'll be spending much of the five-year term as adults over 18.
I felt very sorry for 16-18s during the EU referendum, as it affects them and their future so much, and they weren't allowed a day. Much older people made a decision for them on the whole.
Also, young people paid such a high price during the pandemic. Their educations disrupted; and with university fees, impossible rents and house prices, it's a challenging time to be a young adult, which is just around the corner for 16/17 year olds.
The allotment guy disagreed with me, as he felt you don't have enough real life experience at that age. But, I actually think many people of all ages feel confused about who to vote for. Some young people are much more clued up than older people.
Having said all this, I'm personally glad I didn't have a vote at 16, as I'd probably just have voted the way my parents did. By 18 I'd formed my own opinions more. But, that's just me personally. Everyone's different.

It makes no sense which is why I need to have it explained. Your reluctance to do so indicates to me that it makes none to you either. You seriously underestimate the intelligence of the electorate if you think an off the cuff - and accurate - comment lost Brown an election in which there was no outright winner.

There’s Plenty of uninformed people of all ages…not just ‘older’ people.
Why do ‘older’ people….whatever that means….get such a hard press?
People in their 30’s are ‘older’ than people in their 20’s…older is very subjective.

I think it’s really clear that the person meant “older than sixteen”…

Ok, which part specifically of my post do you need explaining? Which bit is illogical to you? The bit about GB wanting to re-introduce National Service or the bit about him calling a Labour voter a bigot for worrying about the impact of Freedom of Movement?

And if you don't think GB's remark about Gillian Duffy played a significant part in Labour losing that election, what exactly is it that you think did?

My, but Tory voters are fitting over this move.

I smell fear. And Karma?

I don’t think it’s that clear. Most people refer to older as past pension age or thereabouts. Perhaps the pp will come back and clarify.