Why would anyone think 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote?

[MsAmerica]

Be honest - think back to when you were 16. Did you have an understanding of a broad range of issues? Did you pay serious attention to national news? Okay, even many adults may lapse on the score, but still, it seems crazy to me.

In the U.S., voting age had been 21 and the only reason it was lowered to 18 was that teens were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and it was felt as unfair for them to have no say.

That’s the intention from Labour. It may not work out that way.

To add you’re correct on who younger people more like to vote left @dottiehensit just might not be for Labour if there’s a new party. And some who could vote Reform.

However, postal voting also allows an abuser to steal a vulnerable persons vote too.

And no one has provided a scintilla of reliable statistical proof to help square this circle.

I am very wary of making changes to any system without the framework of a "before" and "after" metric. I know such rigour is very much frowned upon these days, where it's all about "da feelz". However call me a fuddy-duddy if you will.

Also squabbling over the relative trivialities like postal voting: is it a thing? does rather ignore the elephant in the room which is regardless of how a vote is cast, what does it actually do ? The suggestion of a discussion over what wood the deckchairs on the Titanic should have been made of seems apt.

Plenty of people now regret their vote in 2016, they were older than 16 when they voted but the impact of their vote affects the now 16 year olds

Hitchens razor can kill 99% of all known bullshit dead.

The choice of permitted forms of ID by the Tories was absolutely intended to favour the old and hinder the young, and they have admitted that. Horse, mouth.

Yet the Tories pushed through voter ID reform, which really was an attempt to make it more difficult for the young to vote.....

Bus Pass ok
Student ID not ok.

No one can tell how a 12yo today, will vote in 4 years time, if at all.

https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-id-is-a-gerrymandering-scheme-admits-jacob-rees-mogg/

Th UK has a long and proud tradition of stealing votes by the thousands with no comeback.

People should celebrate this attempt to redress the balance.

I’m not saying I agree with the PP on everything, but it’s this odd attitude of Labour supporters that I think people find offputting and has put Reform odds on next Government . You asked PP for evidence that education tax will cause pupils to move from private to public sector and close schools, they provided it including a quote from the treasury saying they expected it to close 100 schools. It’s a fact that the tax is doing this. You then dismissed it all because they didn’t put ‘private’ in front of ‘education tax’ and accused them of not posting in good faith. This is the description of the tax:
‘VAT applies to education, research, vocational training, examination services and goods and services connected with these activities.’ Are HMRC acting on bad faith not putting private in front of each word or is it blindingly obvious?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130#:~:text=1.-,Overview,services%20provided%20by%20private%20schools.

Engage with the facts and you might actually learn something.

But the new tax introduced is VAT on private education. Pp was posting in such a way as to make it seem all education including state schools would be taxed, with every parent affected. Challenging overt dishonesty is not (I hope) something only Labour voters do.

The number of students moving to state schools is NOT as great as the doomsayers' projections - evidence to support this contention has been supplied. Again, a matter of honesty.

Private schools have admitted that VAT on them is not the only factor in their decline; this is also a fact.

Wanting an honest and nuanced response is not a political thing.

ETA your link makes it very clear that providers of education who charge are subject to VAT. The situation around universities is murky, but posts on this thread have been about the change in terms of primary and secondary schools. And that VAT change applies to only 7% of children. To.imply otherwise, persistently, by referring to the change as an 'education tax' remains dishonest.

The document contains a whole list of educational institutions that are not required to pay VAT

‘But the new tax introduced is VAT on private education. Pp was posting in such a way as to make it seem all education including state schools would be taxed, with every parent affected. Challenging overt dishonesty is not (I hope) something only Labour voters do’

and they did this by calling the ‘education and vocational training tax’ an ‘education tax’? Are you aware what private means in this context? Do you think the PP was implying a 20% tax on 0 when provided by the state? How does this not affect all parents, they’ve all lost access to a tax free non state education for their children.

’The number of students moving to state schools is NOT as great as the doomsayers' projections - evidence to support this contention has been supplied. Again, a matter of honesty.’

Are you referring to PP or some general doom sayer? Are you now accepting that the tax is causing pupils to move into state sector and schools to close, but just not by as much as ‘some doomsayers’?

it’s ok to admit you were wrong,

Nobody is denying that some people are affected by the VAT.

And state schools close too.

How does this not affect all parents, they’ve all lost access to a tax free non state education for their children.

Most people have never had access to it, tax free or not.

But I am not wrong.

Private education is a luxury. Luxuries incur VAT. Parents who use state education aren't affected by this change.

Nobody claimed that the change would not cause some parents to have to move their children - but the apocalyptic scenarios presented by those opposed haven't come to pass because school rolls are falling due to low birthrate.

I do think SEN schools should have been exempt, but for the rest of it, private schooling is a luxury which buys privilege. Why shouldn't it be taxed in the same way other luxuries are?

SEN schools should be state schools imo

I get the feeling the switch in subject from education tax is not forcing pupils into the state sector and closing schools to education is a luxury that should be taxed (I’m not even getting into that one with you) is the closest I’ll get to an admission you were wrong. I’ll take that.

Private school is a luxury, education isn't and therefore isn't taxed.

You have provided the evidence.

Everyone had access to tax free not state education options for children aged between 4 and 18 until January the 1st 2025. Now nobody does. You may think losing this access is good, I would not agree with you, but it is a fact.

are you saying non state provided education isn’t education? What are you saying?

But they didn’t. Only those who could afford it did.

According to a PP it is indocrination rather than education.

Ofcourse I have not said that state education isn't education, I have pointed out that there is no VAT on state education. And if it was, 20% of £0 =?

If you read again you’ll see that I asked ‘are you saying non state provided education isn’t education?’

No, I haven't said that, hth