I’m inclined to agree with Timmy on this one. Children of sixteen lack the maturity to make decisions on such matters as which bunch of thieving cunts will lord it over us. Which, perhaps, is why those very same thieving cunts are keen on the idea.
Young people see a disparity between law and logic, with it being legal for 16-year-olds to have and raise a child, yet have no say in what sort of a country it is that that child will grow up in. If nothing else, the change would encourage young people to be able to express their views with the confidence that they will be taken seriously and have even a minor impact. This is necessary in order to increase interest and discussion around political debate and create a buzz about the change that could be achieved.
The likely outcome being a socialist dystopia where those of us who have spent decades working have even more money stolen from us to support these sixteen-year olds raising their families. No, thanks.
In relation to the other groups in society, young people often fall short in terms of respect and attention paid to them when presenting ideas of how to make change.
You earn respect. It is not a gift, nor a right. Go out into the world, work and earn, then come back in a few decades and you might – just might, mind you – earn my respect . Until then, none is deserved and none granted. I don’t care what you think about politics. You have not paid in. You have not had half your income lifted from your wallet and pissed up the wall for decade after decade. So far all you have done is receive. When you have given, then you get a voice. Eighteen is quite early enough.
I wonder what the stance of the votes at 16 crowd is to treating under 18s as children when it comes to the criminal justice system…
Their stance is hypocritical – much like the rest of what they spout.
“socialist dystopia where those of us who have spent decades working have even more money stolen from us to support these sixteen-year olds raising their families.”
I’m generally not in favour of it either, but that argument is just weak. State spending over the past several years has been increasingly targeted towards the older and affluent sections of the populace, whereas spending on young people is declining.
Furthermore, the current over 50’s are set to be the biggest beneficiaries of state spending in history – largely at the expense of the under 40’s.
I for one would welcome electoral reform that discourages governments from throwing money at older, key voters.
The young, having been used to living off someone else, will happily vote for more of other peoples money. The old have earned it, having paid in over a lifetime, so that one doesn’t hold up. They are merely getting back a small pittance of the thousands of pounds they have contributed over decades.
The alternative is to let us opt out of NI contributions and look after ourselves.
I’m over fifty and I get no benefit from the state. I am still working my fingers off. As with the rest of my working life, I am a nett contributor. This is going to continue for at least fifteen to twenty years. There is nothing in the pot that I have paid into to give me a pension. NI is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and I, like many older people have been suckered. So, pah! Frankly.
We don’t give the vote to 18-year-olds because they’re 18, or because they’re mature, or because they pay income tax, we give the vote to 18-year-olds because they are legally adults. If and only if 16-year-olds are made legal adults, and lose all and every right and protection of being a child, then 16-year-olds can have the vote.
“Furthermore, the current over 50’s are set to be the biggest beneficiaries of state spending in history – largely at the expense of the under 40’s.”
Utter shite!
I’m 57, I have worked for over forty years during which the state has helped itself to half of my income. Everything that I own I have worked and paid for myself, I have neither asked for nor received any help from the state. How dare you accuse me of being a parasite?
Lowering the voting age by 2 years means that less than half will have the chance to vote in a general election anyway as there won’t be one during the time most kids are 16-18. Most 18 year olds can’t be arsed to vote as it is (and fewer still in council elections) so I can’t see much of a desperate need for change in normal circumstances.
I suspect the people who are pushing for this change now are most interested in extra europhile votes in an EU referendum (or referenda if we vote the “wrong” way the first time).
Events are quickly moving against that plan though. The few extra naive kids who would vote to stay in the EU might now of course be rendered insignificant by the effects of the immigration crisis/Islamic terrorism.
Personally, I’d put it back at 21
The “Youth Parliament” has voted to make racism & religious discrimination their priority for next year. I think that shows the level of their reasoning and comprehension of reality.
Unless of course, they’re aiming to make Muslim grooming gangs one of their priorities, and the waging of jihad on “filthy kuffars” another.
“Teen voters, the younger the better, are exactly what the left is looking for. They know no history; they base all of their decisions on emotion; they have no real world experience in terms of what works and what does not. They haven’t the slightest idea of discipline or delayed gratification. They live in a world of fantasy and wish fulfillment; they make demands that cannot be met but they’re willing to settle for an ice-cream cone. They are utterly dependent on others; they’re desperate to conform to the cultural norm, and in general they are the perfect, pliable, ignorant, utterly emotional, reason-free, easily-manipulated vote farm that the progressives need for their power grab.”
H/T Bill Whittle. But lost the link, sorry Bill.
“When you have given, then you get a voice.”
No representation without taxation? ;-P