Voting rights urged for 16 and 17 year olds in UK

[marbelladave]

I have mixed feelings about this.

You can go out and get a full-time job at 16 and leave home, therefore potentially paying income tax, National Insurance and Council Tax. Under those circumstances, it's only right that this section of society should be given the vote.

The fact is however that this demographic is shrinking with more 16 year olds staying in education for either A Levels or vocational training. Indeed it won't be long before staying in education in some form until the age of 18 becomes compulsory. Thus, the number of 16 year olds paying tax in full-time jobs will soon be tiny. Before too long, the idea of an 16/17 year old being a fully fledged taxpayer will be obsolete.

That said, more and more young people are becoming politically active. There are some 16-18 year olds who have all the political awareness of a turd, but that can be said about tens of thousands of thick feckers who subscribe to the Rupert Murdoch world view. Some of the views I hear in the pubs and clubs of Skegness from people old enough to know better are breathtaking. Against these people, there are many more 16-18 year olds who care passionately about politics. Be they in the youth parliament, on political marches or general political activism, the number of young people involved or interested in politics has grown massively.

Will their addition make a huge difference? Possibly, possibly not. Will they be too immature or ignorant to be awarded the vote? My view is that they're no more likely to vote for joke/racist/lunatic fringe parties than any number of knuckleheaded idiots who have never had their right to vote questioned.

Overall I'm in favour, but that could be because I have a lot of faith in the youth of Britain in spite of tabloid hysteria. I can understand why people might be against it though, as the thought of the less positive examples of youth being awarded with the vote is about as appealing as toothache. As I say, mixed feelings.

Some people are competent to vote, the majority (in my view) are not. It does not matter how old you are, you either have principles and vote them or you don't.

In any case it does not much matter in a system where the incompetent get to choose the Government in some sort of absurd popularity contest amongst a group of completely unrepresentative candidates chosen almost exlusively from from the (so called) 'political class'.

Choosing 600 citizens by ballot to be MPs would actually be more representative than our current dysfunctional system.

[Guest]

You can go out and get a full-time job at 16 and leave home, therefore potentially paying income tax, National Insurance and Council Tax. Under those circumstances, it's only right that this section of society should be given the vote.

That said, more and more young people are becoming politically active.

If you're under 18, have left home, and don't share a home with anyone over 18, you do not pay council tax.

As for income tax and national insurance, it can be argued that many people under the age of 18 earn lower amounts, and so their contribution is not as great. On top of this, the minimum wage increases at 18, and again at 21, showing some inference that financial responsibility increases as you get older.

As for the last comment, I disagree. I went to school with a lot of politically active students; one actively campaigned on behalf of the Labour party in the 1992 election, whilst another was an active member of a Marxist political group. I believe that increased media, such as more TV stations, and the internet especially, has given the impression that there are more politically savvy teens out there. I would be surprised if the numbers have changed at all, and there are still fewer interested in politics than are. You only have to look at the adult population! But as I say, that's my belief.

[marbelladave]

If you're under 18, have left home, and don't share a home with anyone over 18, you do not pay council tax.

As for income tax and national insurance, it can be argued that many people under the age of 18 earn lower amounts, and so their contribution is not as great. On top of this, the minimum wage increases at 18, and again at 21, showing some inference that financial responsibility increases as you get older.

As for the last comment, I disagree. I went to school with a lot of politically active students; one actively campaigned on behalf of the Labour party in the 1992 election, whilst another was an active member of a Marxist political group. I believe that increased media, such as more TV stations, and the internet especially, has given the impression that there are more politically savvy teens out there. I would be surprised if the numbers have changed at all, and there are still fewer interested in politics than are. You only have to look at the adult population! But as I say, that's my belief.

The link between taxation and the right to vote is, to me, spurious.

Paying your taxes entitles you to share in the benefits of our society, to my mind that is enough.

The right to vote is something else entirely and is so important that it should not be given out free to anyone, as I have said elsewhere in this thread, I strongly believe that the right to vote should have to be earned.

As someone who has been 'politically active', ('street' politics' and direct action, not party political nonsense) all my life, it has been my experience that when young people, teenagers and students in particular, become interested in politics they get bogged down with the theory and do not have the faintest idea of how politics affects the lives of ordinary people.

[FoxyPV]

The link between taxation and the right to vote is, to me, spurious.

Paying your taxes entitles you to share in the benefits of our society, to my mind that is enough.

The right to vote is something else entirely and is so important that it should not be given out free to anyone, as I have said elsewhere in this thread, I strongly believe that the right to vote should have to be earned.

As someone who has been 'politically active', ('street' politics' and direct action, not party political nonsense) all my life, it has been my experience that when young people, teenagers and students in particular, become interested in politics they get bogged down with the theory and do not have the faintest idea of how politics affects the lives of ordinary people.

direct action works but people are afraid of using it.

[Daggers]

As someone who has been 'politically active', ('street' politics' and direct action, not party political nonsense) all my life

Aha, now I'm confused.

You are an advocate of direct action - where you automatically make the judgement call over what is right and wrong on a unilateral basis - but have a problem with people posting opinions on a forum which may be derogatory to others.

So it's OK for you to act how you feel but not for others? Is that not being hypocritically superior?

Because of course, you are superior...

[Guest Bilo]

As for the last comment, I disagree. I went to school with a lot of politically active students; one actively campaigned on behalf of the Labour party in the 1992 election, whilst another was an active member of a Marxist political group. I believe that increased media, such as more TV stations, and the internet especially, has given the impression that there are more politically savvy teens out there. I would be surprised if the numbers have changed at all, and there are still fewer interested in politics than are. You only have to look at the adult population! But as I say, that's my belief.

My opinion is that the introduction of Citizenship education, and all the moves towards democracy in schools that it has brought, has increased political activism among young people. Be it student councils, discussions of contemporary issues or the Youth Parliament, interest in politics and democracy is something that has been strongly encouraged over the past ten years. All this has only been a part of the National Curriculum since 2000, so it's still fairly early days. That probably accounts for the amount of widespread ignorance and apathy about politics among adults, the education simply hasn't been there for very long.

Those people you mention were politically active in spite of the educational policies of a Tory government that were actually quite hostile to democratic schools, and that's an attitude that hasn't entirely gone away considering the way the right-wing tabloids present Citizenship as a non-subject. Against that backdrop, it would have been hypocritical to lower the voting age when political activism had been discouraged by the government. In my opinion, it's equally contradictory not to lower the age when political activism has been encouraged. Surely lowering the voting age to 16 when democracy has been a fact of life for five years in school would tackle political apathy?

[marbelladave]

Aha, now I'm confused.

You are an advocate of direct action - where you automatically make the judgement call over what is right and wrong on a unilateral basis - but have a problem with people posting opinions on a forum which may be derogatory to others.

So it's OK for you to act how you feel but not for others? Is that not being hypocritically superior?

Direct action taken by one person only is either a joke or terrorism.

Demonstrating with a group of like minded people, up to 1,000,000 in the anti-war demonstration, is simply an attempt to put a widely held set of views in front of a largely uncaring government.

Most of my 'political' efforts in the 70s and 80s, were in the main opposing racism and homophobia. I really do not think that I was the first person to make that "judgement call".

As I have said elsewhere, it is perfectly possible to make you views known without going out out of your way to verbally abuse someone. I enjoy a bit of back and forth banter as much as anyone but nothing you can say will persuade me that verbally abusing a fellow Fox's fan is remotely defensible.

[Guest]

My opinion is that the introduction of Citizenship education, and all the moves towards democracy in schools that it has brought, has increased political activism among young people. Be it student councils, discussions of contemporary issues or the Youth Parliament, interest in politics and democracy is something that has been strongly encouraged over the past ten years. All this has only been a part of the National Curriculum since 2000, so it's still fairly early days. That probably accounts for the amount of widespread ignorance and apathy about politics among adults, the education simply hasn't been there for very long.

Those people you mention were politically active in spite of the educational policies of a Tory government that were actually quite hostile to democratic schools, and that's an attitude that hasn't entirely gone away considering the way the right-wing tabloids present Citizenship as a non-subject. Against that backdrop, it would have been hypocritical to lower the voting age when political activism had been discouraged by the government. In my opinion, it's equally contradictory not to lower the age when political activism has been encouraged. Surely lowering the voting age to 16 when democracy has been a fact of life for five years in school would tackle political apathy?

Again, I disagree. Do you not think that we had lessons like that back in the day? Or have Youth Parliaments? Or political debates? Because we certainly did at my school, we just called them different names. The youths I see and overhear on the local buses don't seem to have a clue what's going on, and is it really wise to allow them to vote, when I personally don't trust most adults in this country?

I also go back to the points that if you are under 18, you are a child, and you are treated like a child in many situations. If you think it's ok to vote at 16, I assume that you think it's ok for 16 year olds to go to adult prisons, to face trial in adult courts with no special measures in place, for local authorities to have no duty to accommodate 16 year old homeless people, and to go and see active service in Iraq/Afghanistan?

[Guest Bilo]

Again, I disagree. Do you not think that we had lessons like that back in the day? Or have Youth Parliaments? Or political debates? Because we certainly did at my school, we just called them different names. The youths I see and overhear on the local buses don't seem to have a clue what's going on, and is it really wise to allow them to vote, when I personally don't trust most adults in this country?

I also go back to the points that if you are under 18, you are a child, and you are treated like a child in many situations. If you think it's ok to vote at 16, I assume that you think it's ok for 16 year olds to go to adult prisons, to face trial in adult courts with no special measures in place, for local authorities to have no duty to accommodate 16 year old homeless people, and to go and see active service in Iraq/Afghanistan?

I personally didn't have Citizenship lessons in my school and only took an interest in politics in my own free time. We had political debates and democratic elections of form captains etc but they were on a more ad hoc basis than you see in schools today, and didn't really have a great deal of power. In fact, because Citizenship and related subjects weren't really taught, they became more of a popularity contest than anything else. It's fair to say that there a lot of youths who know bugger all about politics, but that's probably due to poor teaching as Citizenship is still a new subject and teacher training in it is still in its infancy and the fact that some pupils still see it as a bit of a doss.

Though we could equally say that there are ignorant morons of all ages, I work in a bookies during my breaks from uni and can't remember the last intelligent conversation I heard about politics. It all seems to focus on Gordon Brown being a willy puller and how we should send all the immigrants back because they're taking British jobs. This is true of people my age and younger, people old enough to be my parents and people old enough to have babysat for Jesus of Nazareth. Anyone of any age can be an ignorant sod, but at least our education system is making an effort now to better equip pupils for the political world.

I don't really feel qualified to comment on the other issues you've raised, but suffice to say I don't agree with any 16 year old being put in any of those situations. I do however think that allowing them the vote in no way puts them in anything like as risky a situation as those do, partly because they've now had far better preparation than any time before.

[Guest]

I don't really feel qualified to comment on the other issues you've raised, but suffice to say I don't agree with any 16 year old being put in any of those situations. I do however think that allowing them the vote in no way puts them in anything like as risky a situation as those do, partly because they've now had far better preparation than any time before.

What I'm trying to say is that if 16 year olds want to vote, then I think that they have to also lose the privileges and protection that they get for being under 18. Basically, lowering the age of majority.

[Houdini Logic]

Terrible idea - most 25 year olds don't think coherently when it comes to politics.

Yeah because that's how a democracy works - only let the people who you believe 'think coherently' have a vote

[Houdini Logic]

What I'm trying to say is that if 16 year olds want to vote, then I think that they have to also lose the privileges and protection that they get for being under 18. Basically, lowering the age of majority.

Which priveledges/protection and why should they lose them?

[FoxyPV]

Yeah because that's how a democracy works - only let the people who you believe 'think coherently' have a vote

Democracy doesn't work and I would love to have the power to stop people I thought were wrong from voting then I could possibly get a government that I agree with but c'est la vie.

I would love everyone to be fully involved in politics and political thought but we don't have a culture of it and hopefully this will change. I live in a highly politicised society (NI) and even here most teenagers don't have an interest in politics (unless it involves singing songs at 4am).

I was going to say teenagers are more prone to knee jerk reactions but that's not any more true than with the general populous. I think the general fear is that politicians will try and capture this new and frankly quite large vote by appealing for things that will only benefit teenagers (not that doesn't apply to every other part of the electorate) and this will be seen as frivilous and unbeneficial.

I personally don't want 16 year olds to get the vote as it will polemicise politics over here even more than it already is (based on my 16 year old self).

[Daggers]

Direct action taken by one person only is either a joke or terrorism.

Demonstrating with a group of like minded people, up to 1,000,000 in the anti-war demonstration, is simply an attempt to put a widely held set of views in front of a largely uncaring government.

A 'march' is not 'direct action'.

[Guest]

Which priveledges/protection and why should they lose them?

I hope that you're trying to be funny.

[Houdini Logic]

I hope that you're trying to be funny.

Nope - I just like to get involved in the detail.

I don't see what priviledges/protection a 16 year old will lose by being able to vote (though I'm not saying they don't exist).

I'd like you to explain your comments further so I can make up my mind...

[davieG]

Nope - I just like to get involved in the detail.

I don't see what priviledges/protection a 16 year old will lose by being able to vote (though I'm not saying they don't exist).

I'd like you to explain your comments further so I can make up my mind...

Perhaps a glance at post 58 might clarify the situation.

[Houdini Logic]

Perhaps a glance at post 58 might clarify the situation.

Exactly what I was looking for to be honest - three examples I didn't think of off the top of my head.

Very interesting...

[Sir Fynwy]

Exactly what I was looking for to be honest - three examples I didn't think of off the top of my head.

Very interesting...

Adults also don't get free education or some forms of healthcare (dentistry, prescriptions etc.) so if we start treating 16 year olds as adults they should start paying for these. There are major differences in the way this country treats a 16-17 year old and an 18 year old.

[lou]

A 'march' is not 'direct action'.

Is a Sexy Protest direct action?

[Daggers]

Is a Sexy Protest direct action?

Absolutely.

And very sexy.

[Guest]

Is a Sexy Protest direct action?

Please tell me you didn't post that....

[Richard]

I'm 15 and think this would be a bad idea. Just walking around my school there's BNP graffited on walls and desks and things. These kids don't know who and why to vote for someone, they just hear somebody say something and they follow suit. Don't get me wrong, i don't have the slightest clue about politics and wouldn't vote even if i was allowed. But there's some morons who would vote for BNP because they think it might be cool thing to do. We're still kids at the end of the day and we'll still believe whatever we're told.

[Fosse Boy]

I'm 15 and think this would be a bad idea. Just walking around my school there's BNP graffited on walls and desks and things. These kids don't know who and why to vote for someone, they just hear somebody say something and they follow suit. Don't get me wrong, i don't have the slightest clue about politics and wouldn't vote even if i was allowed. But there's some morons who would vote for BNP because they think it might be cool thing to do. We're still kids at the end of the day and we'll still believe whatever we're told.

If it's any consolation those types of kids are probably too thick to even register in the first place.

[Richard]

If it's any consolation those types of kids are probably too thick to even register in the first place.

Fair point