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?

😂 true. Not many women are predatory though. Not many women want to do men’s sports. Not many women kill men. Not many women rape men. I could go on. But you know all this.

As soon as Labour let men ‘self id’ (by the back door) as women, there is no guarantee of any single biological sex anything.

In fact women as we know them cease to exist. Because according to Labour some women have penises and anyone with a penis could legally call themselves a woman.

So men (legally calling themselves a woman) could enter any sports competition , any changing room with little girls , any domestic violence refuge, any rape help centre, any beauty salon, any toilets, any intimate care, and women’s work awards, etc. Any biological female space.

All crime statistics referring to biological sex would be meaningless. Any statistics referring to biological sex would be meaningless.

Girls colleges, schools, health care, swimming sessions, yoga anything only for women wouldn’t exist anymore.

And we (the old fashioned cunty women) would not be able to challenge the men pretending to be women, legally.

We would be the problem as far as Labour are concerned. Horrific.

VolvoFan · Today 14:13
@MrsSkylerWhite what's Brexit got to do with teenagers voting? How is being out of the EU affecting teenagers? Oh don't tell me... freedom of movement. Because nobody can up sticks now and go and live and work in mainland Europe without a little extra bureaucracy, can they? Bless their poor widdle hard-done by souls.

You're embarrassing yourself. Brexit has been disastrous for each and every age group in the UK.

If you don’t understand that by now , you’re as ill-informed as you were in 2016 and not worth engaging with.

Children don't generally pay school fees..parents do

It may also be regarded "embarrassing" when posters are highly selective about quoting other posters. Like cutting most of posts out and pretending they said something different. But I don't need to explain this to you.

You could argue that a 16 yr old electing a government of 5 years has more skin in the game than an 85 yr old who statistically is unlikely to last the 5 years…

Maybe what’d be better is some sort of basic intelligence test before you’re allowed in the polling station!

ResisterRex
**
It may also be regarded "embarrassing" when posters are highly selective about quoting other posters. Like cutting most of posts out and pretending they said something different. But I don't need to explain this to you”

What did you say that was different? Do you believe that 16 year olds ought to be qualified to vote. No, is what your post told me. Very happy to apologise if I’m wrong.

Anything else you said was superfluous.

@MrsSkylerWhite I gave cogent examples of why this is flawed and how it conflicts with safeguarding. I could have reported your selective quoting for NITS. But tbh I think it says more about you and your disregard for reading skills and respectful engagement with serious matters like protecting under-18s so I thought it better to stay as it was.

Do they send 16 year-olds into combat?

Don't' think they do

Tricky one. Some 16-17 y.o. are quite sensible, and brighter and more clued up than some 18-21 y.o (and some people even older!) But it does seem a bit young.

It won't happen though. Labour will promise it but won't deliver. I am 99% sure of that.

Oh mate, calm down.

Safeguarding? WTAF has that to do with voting rights?

Our 16 year olds were bright, politically engaged young people. I’m very sorry that yours seemingly weren’t/arent.

Frankly though, that’s your problem. Most 16 year olds ;in our experience) are politically engaged.

15 year olds voted in the Tory leadership contest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183.amp

I live in Wales and 16 year olds can vote here but in my area the turnout was spectacularly low. I know it might be different in other parts of Wales but I live in an area which is classed as deprived and they just don't have any interest in politics.

I think it's just a gimmick and realistically not many 16 year olds would turn out to vote if it happened nationwide.

I was teaching a year 11 class during the last general election (at least a quarter would have been 16). Not a single child in the class knew which political parties we had in the country, let alone what they stood for. Mumsnet kids are not representative of the population and this is a daft idea. To be fair, in my more militant moments, I think that everyone should have to take some sort of test to show that they understand what they are voting for.

I disagree with that. Whilst some 16-21 y.o are bright and intelligent, I know loads and LOADS of people who were not just under 21, but under 25 when the Brexit vote came along, who didn't even know what the European Union was. They included reasonably bright people/people at university. Not dumb people! But they knew very little about the European Union!

Some thought if we left it, we were leaving EUROPE, and would not be allowed back in. They also knew nothing about the fact that we paid £350 million a week into it, and that the majority of the countries in it paid nothing in, or they took more out than they paid in.

Most people over 26-30-ish knew this, but many people 25 and under didn't. And most under 21s were utterly clueless about the European Union and what it was. Some say that over 65s should not have been allowed to vote as they were not going to be affected by it long-term, but IMO, people under 21 should not have been allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum either, because most of them were so clueless about what the European Union was.

Terrible idea.

My DCs are early 20s, and it's only recently that they've actually started to pay attention to politics and make informed choices. Even at 18 they weren't that engaged.

The majority of 16 year olds are not nearly mature enough.

21:19
MrsSkylerWhite · Today 11:50

Yes, if they’re working.

Brexit would not have happened if 16/17 year olds had had their say: which they should have.
I disagree with that. Whilst some 16-21 y.o are bright and intelligent, I know loads and LOADS of people who were not just under 21, but under 25 when the Brexit vote came along, who didn't even know what the European Union was. They included reasonably bright people/people at university. Not dumb people! But they knew very little about the European Union!
**
Some thought if we left it, we were leaving EUROPE, and would not be allowed back in. They also knew nothing about the fact that we paid £350 million a week into it, and that the majority of the countries in it paid nothing in, or they took more out than they paid in.
**
Most people over 26-30-ish knew this, but many people 25 and under didn't. And most under 21s were utterly clueless about the European Union and what it was. Some say that over 65s should not have been allowed to vote as they were not going to be affected by it long-term, but IMO, people under 21 should not have been allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum either, because most of them were so clueless about what the European Union was.”

Thank you for that alternative, insightful opinion. I don’t agree with you because that’s not the experience we have had .

CointreauVersial · Today 21:23
Terrible idea.

My DCs are early 20s, and it's only recently that they've actually started to pay attention to politics and make informed choices. Even at 18 they weren't that engaged.
**
The majority of 16 year olds are not nearly mature enough”

I'm sorry but that’s you’re failing. Most senior school children are politically engaged. Children are bright and know what’s right and what’s wrong.
Our 16 year olds were politically engaged. (13 and 6 years ago)

Posted further up thread that the SNP done it but it also came with bribery policies.
Free stuff from the magic SNP money tree.

My son had just turned 18 at the last GE and took a very keen interest as he would actually get a say this time. He and his friends did extensive research including attending local hustings in torrential rain before making a decision. Several of his classmates who were not yet 18 also attended as they were interested in how they would vote if they were a few moths older.

The way to get teenagers politically engaged is to give them the vote.

Exactly. Voting could be covered in PSHE for those still in school/college in a who are you actually going to vote for not just in a mock election. My teens are engaged in discussing politics, have been for years. My 17yr old will be affected by the outcome of the general election until the next one when they are 22. That is four years when they will be contributing as an adult to society but without having had a vote for the government.

Calling the election during university holidays mean that the dispersal of students will probably reduce further the engagement in politics. Many will be away or recently moved and not reregistered. If in term time some might have gone to the polls with others from their flat/ halls but at home if their parents don't bother voting they also might not.

If they have voted while in sixth form when there is a positive encouragement to consider the issues, discuss the implications even if their parents are not bothering they will have the experience of making those decisions. Discussing in assembly/PSHE might actually mean that people discuss different views from their parents, understand the perception of others and don't just vote for X because our family have always voted for X.

And yes following my logic that my 17 year old will be affected by decisions in adulthood made by this parliament I would be quite happy for my and other 14 year olds to vote too and express their views on national service. Yes many 17 and 14 year olds will not critically appraise the issues sufficiently, but many older people will not either.

They are old enough to join the Conservative party and vote for the prime minister as the link up thread demonstrates.

It is covered in PSHE, its part of the compulsory citizenship curriculum

Yes!

We had Brexit. That's evidence enough. I rest my case.

I don’t really think that there is a moral or ethical argument either way. We have different ages for different responsibilities already (sex, alcohol, voting, medical decisions, ability to work for a salary, driving etc …).

Labour is obviously very keen as the vast majority of young people are left wing.

I think that it is probably a good idea. Ultimately, getting people politically involved young will hopefully make them more interested and invested throughout their lives.