October 12, 20177 yr 21 seems ridiculously old. Who would want to extend the age someone's considered a child and dependent? Then you would end up with people trapped longer and longer in eternal limbo like in America, not exactly healthy.
October 12, 20177 yr There's a theoretical argument for lowering it to the age of criminal responsibility (which I believe is 10 or 11?) but it's obviously way, way off. I don't see a problem with it being 16.
October 12, 20177 yr Author 21 seems ridiculously old. Who would want to extend the age someone's considered a child and dependent? Then you would end up with people trapped longer and longer in eternal limbo like in America, not exactly healthy. Presumably that was why it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1970...
October 12, 20177 yr There's a theoretical argument for lowering it to the age of criminal responsibility (which I believe is 10 or 11?) but it's obviously way, way off. I don't see a problem with it being 16. I think that age should be raised and the voting age dropped. Why 14 for voting? I had a good grasp of politics by then, and I think with unbiased civic classes most pwoplw that age could do too.
October 12, 20177 yr I think that age should be raised and the voting age dropped. Why 14 for voting? I had a good grasp of politics by then, and I think with unbiased civic classes most pwoplw that age could do too. I didn't know you were 13.
March 11, 20187 yr Author I think that age should be raised and the voting age dropped. Why 14 for voting? I had a good grasp of politics by then, and I think with unbiased civic classes most pwoplw that age could do too. Who would teach these civics classes you propose, and how could you ensure they were truly unbiased? getting back to the issue of voting age : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-54...-olds-vote.html Sixth-form colleges back campaign for 16-year-olds to get the vote as private member's bill goes through Parliament Association of Colleges wants the Government to lower the voting age from 18 This would create up to 1.5m new voters statistically more likely to vote Labour The move was put forward in a private member’s Bill by Labour MP Peter Kyle ******************** Call me cynical if you like, but I suspect Labour wouldn't be pressing for votes for 16yo's if they thought thy'd gain no advantage from it... :teresa: Edited March 11, 20187 yr by vidcapper
March 11, 20187 yr Call me cynical if you like, but I suspect Labour wouldn't be pressing for votes for 16yo's if they thought thy'd gain no advantage from it... :teresa: Well, no shit. The Conservatives will seek to block it for precisely the opposite reason, no matter the arguments for and against, both sides will be set because of what they stand to lose or gain.
March 12, 20187 yr Author Well, no shit. The Conservatives will seek to block it for precisely the opposite reason, no matter the arguments for and against, both sides will be set because of what they stand to lose or gain. But surely the case should not be contaminated by party politics - shouldn't it be based on whether 16-17yo's are mature enough, emotionally and otherwise, to make rational decisions without being overly influenced by their peers/parents/teachers, etc? :unsure: Also, the concerns of teenagers can be very different to those of their parents and grandparents, especially in financial areas. Teens rarely have to consider supporting anyone but themselves, so they have little experience in financial responsibility, which is hardly the best basis for deciding who should have that responsibility for the whole country. [apologies if that sounds too patronizing]
March 12, 20187 yr Well it shouldn't, but it will be because of how directly it correlates to numbers of votes for one side of the other. And I don't buy your line of thought. Either teens are influenced by their parents, or they have different concerns. Which is it? Is either a good argument for letting them vote or not? Because we shouldn't be basing it on what they are likely to vote, more whether it's right to give them the opportunity. The second point, that teenagers are inexperienced in life is a better point. However, some teenagers have to support themselves and consider financial responsibility, more than some adults. It's also a very good time to introduce them to politics and encourage them to start thinking about what they think is best for the country, thinking for themselves, learning how to disseminate the news, making it matter to them. Go through a couple of years of being politically aware but not being able to partake and the risk of apathy forever is much greater.
March 12, 20187 yr At least teenagers aren't braiwnashed by the Murdoch press. In that aspect, their votes are less indoctrinated anyway. Yeah, Tories SHOULD support it, but politics is corrupt af right now, all about money and the Tories trying to stay on indefinitely as a One Party State.
March 12, 20187 yr At least teenagers aren't braiwnashed by the Murdoch press. In that aspect, their votes are less indoctrinated anyway. Yeah, Tories SHOULD support it, but politics is corrupt af right now, all about money and the Tories trying to stay on indefinitely as a One Party State. citation please Age groups aren't a factor in indoctrination, and you're just opening yourself right up to Vidcapper saying that the other side brainwashes as well. I mean, doesn't everyone know the intelligent teenagers go to the left because it's so obviously correct and anyone who goes to the right is a heartless moron? In fact, what we need to do is not turn this into a left-right thing and give these prospective people the impression that politics is inherently polarised. Because it's not. It shouldn't be. It's far more nuanced than the evil Tories tosh you're spouting, however evil they may actually be. I also don't necessarily disagree with your last point but I also don't think that the Tories trying to stay in power is a corrupt move, it's sensible for them. Would you, in power, sign off on a move that has a not insignificant chance of kicking you out of power?
March 13, 20187 yr There has always been a discrepancy between the votes of the over-65s and the under-25s, but that difference is now extraordinarily large. Isn't that something all parties should be concerned about?
March 13, 20187 yr Author The second point, that teenagers are inexperienced in life is a better point. However, some teenagers have to support themselves and consider financial responsibility, more than some adults. It's also a very good time to introduce them to politics and encourage them to start thinking about what they think is best for the country, thinking for themselves, learning how to disseminate the news, making it matter to them. Go through a couple of years of being politically aware but not being able to partake and the risk of apathy forever is much greater. There's also the issue of turnout - the younger voters are, the lower it tends to be, and that is likely to be even more the case of 16-17yo's. That isn't a case for not letting them vote, of course - but it does weaken the argument. At least teenagers aren't braiwnashed by the Murdoch press. In that aspect, their votes are less indoctrinated anyway. Yeah, Tories SHOULD support it, but politics is corrupt af right now, all about money and the Tories trying to stay on indefinitely as a One Party State. I doubt any of us really want to get into which is more brainwashy - Murdoch-owned media or political correctness... ;) citation please Age groups aren't a factor in indoctrination, and you're just opening yourself right up to Vidcapper saying that the other side brainwashes as well. I mean, doesn't everyone know the intelligent teenagers go to the left because it's so obviously correct and anyone who goes to the right is a heartless moron? In fact, what we need to do is not turn this into a left-right thing and give these prospective people the impression that politics is inherently polarised. Because it's not. It shouldn't be. It's far more nuanced than the evil Tories tosh you're spouting, however evil they may actually be. No-one disputes that younger voters are more left-leaning, but the idea that only older voters are susceptible to media brainwashing is just absurd - history suggests just the opposite, in fact. There has always been a discrepancy between the votes of the over-65s and the under-25s, but that difference is now extraordinarily large. Isn't that something all parties should be concerned about? Well, if both sides would stop making unrealistic promises in the manifestos, that would help...
March 13, 20187 yr citation please Age groups aren't a factor in indoctrination, and you're just opening yourself right up to Vidcapper saying that the other side brainwashes as well. I mean, doesn't everyone know the intelligent teenagers go to the left because it's so obviously correct and anyone who goes to the right is a heartless moron? In fact, what we need to do is not turn this into a left-right thing and give these prospective people the impression that politics is inherently polarised. Because it's not. It shouldn't be. It's far more nuanced than the evil Tories tosh you're spouting, however evil they may actually be. I also don't necessarily disagree with your last point but I also don't think that the Tories trying to stay in power is a corrupt move, it's sensible for them. Would you, in power, sign off on a move that has a not insignificant chance of kicking you out of power? Check the studies. The youth do not consume the Murdoch print media like the older generations. Murdoch's print empire is failing, and the Sun and Daily Mail are always bleating on about millennials because of that (and because we don't trust a word printed by them). The only consumption is passive headline reading, but with falling circulation, that's not a large factor; the BBC always reports on the right wing papers to disseminate them, however. It does NOT offer a fair counterbalance by ever mentioning that there are more right-wing owned papers, or by reporting on smaller, left wing papers, of course. So what I'm saying is teenagers not being affected by this brainwashing, as much, and because the left is actually morally superior, let's not deny it here, then teenagers are not going to flock to the right. Vidcapper, when Labour is privatising the NHS BY STEALTH, cutting benefits, being completely incompetent and unscrupulously for the rich, in bed with the rich, accepting millions from Russian oligarchs then being surprised when Russia does something so brazen on UK soil - well, accept their money and put the country up for sale! - then you can say 'lesser of two evils'. But as it happens, there is only one evil. It's the alt right. No, not necessarily. The Tories are master manipulators - they have an attack-dog press waiting and ready to promote them at every opportunity, spread lies, spread defamation, all in bed together. Tories are also thinking about compulsory ID voting - VILE. This is what Republicans do to restrict access to the vote. That is not democratic. Anyone who suggests the idea does not believe in democracy. Or in the last election, when POSTAL VOTES in some key marginals with a lot of students went missing? Hmm. Or like in Newcastle, where some students who went to polling stations were TURNED AWAY. That looks less like politics as usual and more like One Party State politics. It would help if the Tories even BOTHERED to make a manifesto that isn't just simpering sound bites for the press with 0 figures and stuff like 'fox hunting!' 'rich people!' 'yeah!' It's like a page taken out from the right wing oligarch's playbook.
March 13, 20187 yr Check the studies. The youth do not consume the Murdoch print media like the older generations. Murdoch's print empire is failing, and the Sun and Daily Mail are always bleating on about millennials because of that (and because we don't trust a word printed by them). The only consumption is passive headline reading, but with falling circulation, that's not a large factor; the BBC always reports on the right wing papers to disseminate them, however. It does NOT offer a fair counterbalance by ever mentioning that there are more right-wing owned papers, or by reporting on smaller, left wing papers, of course. So what I'm saying is teenagers not being affected by this brainwashing, as much, and because the left is actually morally superior, let's not deny it here, then teenagers are not going to flock to the right. Two things. People generally read what supports their own views no matter their age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias A lot of teenagers *are* flocking to the right. According to a study published this week by The Gild, today’s 14- and 15-year-olds are more socially conservative than the generations above them. By a distance, too. In the study, people of various ages were asked to describe their views on a range of social issues, ranging from illegal drug use to tattoos. More than 80 per cent of both Generation Y (born 1980-2000) and Generation X (born 1965-1979) described their views as either “quite liberal” or “very liberal”. Yet the majority of teenagers from the new Generation Z – 59 per cent – described their views as “conservative”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09...arents-by-bein/
March 13, 20187 yr From what I heard, that study was flawed. The culture war has been won. The oldest generation Zs went for Hillary Clinton in record numbers, but were part of the bread and butter supporting Sanders. Like I said, that ONE study is demonstrably flawed by it not reflecting reality. They are more conservative in the sense of being risk adverse, alcohol, tobacco, but in everything else they are MORE liberal than my (so far the MOST LIBERAL EVER and most socially developed EVER) generation. In America, Gen Z is EVEN LESS CHRISTIAN THAN MILLENNIALS and the most non-Christian demographic YET. That removes them from pulpit politics. However, those few youth who move towards the right, which is becoming more and more alt right anyway, do so due to 'cool' right-wing figures ONLINE, not due to the Murdoch press. Confirmation bias. 1. This is affected by the preponderance of right wing propaganda pieces, i.e the press. 2. Without the background brainwashing from the right, there would be less confirmation bias in the first place.
March 14, 20187 yr Author Check the studies. The youth do not consume the Murdoch print media like the older generations. Murdoch's print empire is failing, and the Sun and Daily Mail are always bleating on about millennials because of that (and because we don't trust a word printed by them). The only consumption is passive headline reading, but with falling circulation, that's not a large factor; the BBC always reports on the right wing papers to disseminate them, however. It does NOT offer a fair counterbalance by ever mentioning that there are more right-wing owned papers, or by reporting on smaller, left wing papers, of course. So what I'm saying is teenagers not being affected by this brainwashing, as much, and because the left is actually morally superior Oh yeah, Joseph Stalin was a real saint... :rolleyes: It would help if the Tories even BOTHERED to make a manifesto that isn't just simpering sound bites for the press with 0 figures and stuff like 'fox hunting!' 'rich people!' 'yeah!' It's like a page taken out from the right wing oligarch's playbook. To be fair, the Tories know who their supporters are, so why wouldn't they create a manifesto that appeals to them?
May 31, 20187 yr Author Interesting article in the Guardian... Teenagers’ brains not ready for GCSEs, says neuroscientist https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/...-neuroscientist ***************** Not ready for exams at 16, but ready to *vote* at 16, or so some people claim... :thinking:
May 31, 20187 yr Interesting article in the Guardian... Teenagers’ brains not ready for GCSEs, says neuroscientist https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/...-neuroscientist ***************** Not ready for exams at 16, but ready to *vote* at 16, or so some people claim... :thinking: I would argue 60 years of examples of teens passing GCSE's kind of refutes any claims to the contrary by one man flogging a book. But hey good of you to suggest it as an excuse to discredit and suggest they dont get the vote at 16. Almost as if you're afraid of something.....
May 31, 20187 yr Author I would argue 60 years of examples of teens passing GCSE's kind of refutes any claims to the contrary by one man flogging a book. But hey good of you to suggest it as an excuse to discredit and suggest they dont get the vote at 16. Almost as if you're afraid of something..... I'm not suggesting it, I am saying it outright - I don't think 16-17yo's should be allowed to vote - IMO they can be too easily swayed by parental/peer/media pressure at that age.
Create an account or sign in to comment