General News Thread

[Foxdiamond]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

maybe those who are working and therefore contributing to govt funds should be entitled to vote ???

I understand the percentage of 16 and 17 age group working is quite low

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I wonder how much thought the average 16 year old gives to the subject of funding adult social care or council tax for example or should defence spending be increased

You've touched on a possible crux of a matter here. 

 

The possible problem isn't the franchise in terms of age, it's the franchise in terms of issue - or, more specifically, the degree of informed opinion on an issue that is then used in political decision making.

 

And sadly, ignorance of various important issues is not an age specific problem. 

 

To put it bluntly; I'm not sure how a 16-year old not voting for a scheme that benefits a few people (but not them personally) through ignorance is any more damaging (and therefore less conscionable) than an adult not voting for a scientific issue because of their own ignorance or because it won't benefit them directly in the short term. 

Edited 17 July 2025 by leicsmac

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, kenny said:

That could include toddlers?

 But it wouldn’t 

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

I understand the percentage of 16 and 17 age group working is quite low

Probably

i cant find a strong reason to argue that those in that position should be denied the opportunity to vote. 

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 But it wouldn’t 

Probably

i cant find a strong reason to argue that those in that position should be denied the opportunity to vote. 

If they are earning and contributing to government funds and that's the measure then why not?

 

As I said before, 16 year olds can't be MPs, perhaps this needs changing as well.

[Foxdiamond]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You've touched on a possible crux of a matter here. 

 

The possible problem isn't the franchise in terms of age, it's the franchise in terms of issue - or, more specifically, the degree of informed opinion on an issue that is then used in political decision making.

 

And sadly, ignorance of various important issues is not an age specific problem. 

 

To put it bluntly; I'm not sure how a 16-year old not voting for a scheme that benefits a few people but not them through ignorance is any more damaging (and therefore less conscionable) than an adult not voting for a scientific issue because of their own ignorance or because it won't benefit them directly in the short term. 

I just think 18 is about the right benchmark to be classed as adult enough to vote. Shame there isn't a better way but including more impressionable youngsters doesn't seem right to me

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I just think 18 is about the right benchmark to be classed as adult enough to vote. Shame there isn't a better way but including more impressionable youngsters doesn't seem right to me

From a legal and possibly medical perspective, I would agree. 

 

I'm still not seeing how policy ignorance in that age group is any more prevalent or damaging than in those old enough to vote on certain critical matters, though. 

Edited 17 July 2025 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, leicsmac said:

From a legal and possibly medical perspective, I would agree. 

 

I'm still not seeing how policy ignorance in that age group is any less prevalent or damaging than in those older on certain matters, though. 

That is is a problem with the voting public is no doubt true but I don't see extending the problem helps.

[st albans fox]

I could get behind an argument that referendums with implications that will last for many decades should allow 16/17 y o to participate. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

That is is a problem with the voting public is no doubt true but I don't see extending the problem helps.

No, it doesn't. 

 

But if we were to start taking about disenfranchising adults of voting age on certain issues, there would be an absolute firestorm of controversy, when in principle it's the same idea being (mostly) endorsed here (and one with which I sympathise); don't let those who don't really have the knowledge or experience in a matter vote on it. 

 

There needs to be even handedness on the matter either way. 

Edited 17 July 2025 by leicsmac

[The Doctor]

10 hours ago, kenny said:

I've never met him, but I bet Corbyn smells really musty. Like an old wardrobe.

nah. He's an allotment owner, 100% smells faintly of soil and real ale.

 

2 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

It’s an absolutely ludicrous decision IMO and the only reason it’s being brought in is to prolong a government left of centre. 
 

 

Some might suggest you need to actually have a left of centre government first in order to prolong it...

 

Also, is it actually likely to give labour a significant number of votes? There's a real issue with young boys being radicalised by Andrew Tate and the rest of the "manosphere", if I were to put money on where their votes would go, it's reform. The boys who haven't gotten drawn into that, the girls and the rest, maybe some will go labour but I'd expect the classic lib demming - say good stuff for teenagers and then immediately betray it (no, I don't still hold a grudge against them from 2010, what gives you that impression), then a split between the semi-engaged going the same way as their parents (which under current polling would benefit reform), and the engaged and left wing going for either the greens or Sultanas Corbyn Party

[FoxesDeb]

If my 78 year old, never worked in her life and reads the Daily Mail like it's the Bible and has an opinion on absolutely everything, especially if it concerns immigrants, 'boat people' and anyone else who doesn't look just like us, mother can vote for policies which quite frankly she may not live to see out, I'm damn sure any 16 year old should be afforded the same privilege.

 

I say this as someone who believes the tables have completely turned, too, and that the young of today are possibly more likely to vote harder right than I've seen in my lifetime. 

 

I guess we will see.

[Tommy G]

Nevermind if you’re 16, if you’re a right wing washed up old croak your vote is off the table too 

 

Maybe we should cut the vote off at 75 incase you don’t make the next GE. 

[leicsmac]

As an addendum, the ascendancy and ubiquity of digital information (or mostly misinformation) coupled with a good dose of Dunning-Kruger could well present the biggest threat to democracy ever. 

 

That goes regardless of age group.

[Foxdiamond]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No, it doesn't. 

 

But if we were to start taking about disenfranchising adults of voting age on certain issues, there would be an absolute firestorm of controversy, when in principle it's the same idea being (mostly) endorsed here (and one with which I sympathise); don't let those who don't really have the knowledge or experience in a matter vote on it. 

 

There needs to be even handedness on the matter either way. 

Perhaps it should be like serving on a jury 18-75. Of course controversial suggestion.  Bottom line for me is 16 and 17 are children still

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Perhaps it should be like serving on a jury 18-75. Of course controversial suggestion.  Bottom line for me is 16 and 17 are children still

It is a properly thorny topic, agreed. 

[Muzzy_no7]

34 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If my 78 year old, never worked in her life and reads the Daily Mail like it's the Bible and has an opinion on absolutely everything, especially if it concerns immigrants, 'boat people' and anyone else who doesn't look just like us, mother can vote for policies which quite frankly she may not live to see out, I'm damn sure any 16 year old should be afforded the same privilege.

 

I say this as someone who believes the tables have completely turned, too, and that the young of today are possibly more likely to vote harder right than I've seen in my lifetime. 

 

I guess we will see.

Your mother still has a lot more life experience than someone who’s evenings at the moment are filled with Call of Duty, FIFA and P*rnH*b

[leicsmac]

Also, on topic:

 

"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit".

 

(That goes for all ages, not just old men.)

[kenny]

39 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

nah. He's an allotment owner, 100% smells faintly of soil and real ale.

 

Some might suggest you need to actually have a left of centre government first in order to prolong it...

 

Also, is it actually likely to give labour a significant number of votes? There's a real issue with young boys being radicalised by Andrew Tate and the rest of the "manosphere", if I were to put money on where their votes would go, it's reform. The boys who haven't gotten drawn into that, the girls and the rest, maybe some will go labour but I'd expect the classic lib demming - say good stuff for teenagers and then immediately betray it (no, I don't still hold a grudge against them from 2010, what gives you that impression), then a split between the semi-engaged going the same way as their parents (which under current polling would benefit reform), and the engaged and left wing going for either the greens or Sultanas Corbyn Party

If you have met him and told me he smelled of cheddar and pickled onions sandwiches I'd start voting for him.

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, Muzzy_no7 said:

Your mother still has a lot more life experience than someone who’s evenings at the moment are filled with Call of Duty, FIFA and P*rnH*b

I know of men of middle age who spend their time similarly but we let them vote...

 

Also my mother has dementia, bought her house in the 50's for about £3.5k and has absolutely no idea what it's like these days to try to raise a family while paying for childcare and working full time. 

 

I know whose vote would represent my peers more closely, and it's not hers

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I know of men of middle age who spend their time similarly but we let them vote...

 

Also my mother has dementia, bought her house in the 50's for about £3.5k and has absolutely no idea what it's like these days to try to raise a family while paying for childcare and working full time. 

 

I know whose vote would represent my peers more closely, and it's not hers

It's such a difficult debate tbh, and it really does play into awareness of issues and policy decisions based on it regardless of age. 

 

I think Covid in particular showed some of the weaknesses of the democratic talking shop.

[Tommy G]

13 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I know of men of middle age who spend their time similarly but we let them vote...

 

Also my mother has dementia, bought her house in the 50's for about £3.5k and has absolutely no idea what it's like these days to try to raise a family while paying for childcare and working full time. 

 

I know whose vote would represent my peers more closely, and it's not hers

You could apply that middle paragraph to a few million people. Do we cast their vote aside because they had it easy buying a house? Or they have dementia? 
 

I'm in agreement its hard to pay for housing and childcare is a rip off - not sure what it has to do with who can vote. 

[FoxesDeb]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You could apply that middle paragraph to a few million people. Do we cast their vote aside because they had it easy buying a house? Or they have dementia? 
 

I'm in agreement its hard to pay for housing and childcare is a rip off - not sure what it has to do with who can 

It's the counter argument to people claiming 16 and 17 year olds aren't competent to vote, I thought I'd made that clear in my initial post but maybe I needed to spell it out even more obviously...

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You've touched on a possible crux of a matter here. 

 

The possible problem isn't the franchise in terms of age, it's the franchise in terms of issue - or, more specifically, the degree of informed opinion on an issue that is then used in political decision making.

 

And sadly, ignorance of various important issues is not an age specific problem. 

 

To put it bluntly; I'm not sure how a 16-year old not voting for a scheme that benefits a few people (but not them personally) through ignorance is any more damaging (and therefore less conscionable) than an adult not voting for a scientific issue because of their own ignorance or because it won't benefit them directly in the short term. 

At this point, I'd be interested in any take on this aspect of it all, if anyone would be interested. 

[The Doctor]

40 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Your mother still has a lot more life experience than someone who’s evenings at the moment are filled with Call of Duty, FIFA and P*rnH*b

if that's the criteria for disenfranchisement you're gonna be getting rid of a hell of a lot of 30 and 40 something's...

[reporterpenguin]

2 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Soldiers would not be in combat till 18

 

1 hour ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

This just isn’t correct, it’s 18. 

Fair enough, I did a quick Google and that was what it said. It seems you can join and train at 16, but as you say you wouldn’t see combat until 18. My bad, thank you for the correction. 
 

I’ll stand by the rest of my points, and will instead say that if we allow people to sign up for the army at 16 it probably is fair to give them a say.