There’s plenty to 16 yo very articulate in politics, I know I was very interested from a young age so everyone’s different

I think I would be in favour of this now, but I still think political education should be given more attention in schools and colleges for this age group. Maybe I'm biased as I work with them, but the stereotype that all young people are accepting and inclusive isn't really true, they can be very immature and disengaged, some of the day to day things you hear are worrying and they would be susceptible to rage-bait. But of course as we've seen, so are some voting age adults and I wouldn't want to silence the voices of those 16 and 17 year olds that have a real interest in politics.

 

You say this like all the adults.that vote.today haven't had a similar lack of political education as well as being prone the rage bait (see Brexit and other such things).

 

Brilliant idea!!

 

Especially now that the evil Tories want to start forcing them (poor ones anyway) to do compulsary servicw, bulltinf them as they have no say.

You say this like all the adults.that vote.today haven't had a similar lack of political education as well as being prone the rage bait (see Brexit and other such things).

 

100%! I trust the 16 year olds more than home county ignorant tories so

 

I could EAISLY have voted at 14, let alone 16, and had a better grasp than people will just automatically vote foe their landed gentry overlords or for conman Boris

You say this like all the adults.that vote.today haven't had a similar lack of political education as well as being prone the rage bait (see Brexit and other such things).

 

I know, I acknowledged that in the very next sentence of the post you quoted...

 

I'm just making the point that that attitude can pass down and while that shouldn't be a reason not to lower the voting age, it's why there should be a greater emphasis on political education to ensure maximum engagement, honestly, it's not too early/late for any age group.

Fully in favour of finally dragging England kicking and screaming up to the standards of Scotland and Wales

 

 

A number of countries actually trialled letting 16/17 year olds vote at the euros this time

 

Every time it has been trialled there’s never been an issue and none of the arguments against have ever really held water. If you consider what we allow 16 year olds to do, and that this is the end of compulsory education, then I think this is also a fair place to draw the voting line.

Interestingly this has consistently been one of the worst polled policies from all the major party manifestos and certainly the worst polled of Labour's.

 

Good thing it's attached to a party that's heading for power then because typical that one of the few really good proposals in the Labour manifesto is the most unpopular.

People will forget about it once it's implemented anyway! 16 year olds ar emore than capable of voting and people will realise that. It'll also make it harder for evil right wing parties to force stuff like prison or national service on the young this way

^^ Right because its an abysmal policy and probably in a closer election it would be highlighted more and potentially a game changer an election loser. Just to respond to what Silas said.

 

Tell me why 16 is a voting age? Why is 16 the number and not 15? We need some beginning age and surely 18 an adultvis that age. Why 16? There is no logic especially when it's already 18 and we’re not starting from scratch. What basis is there to change it to 16 that you can't make for 15? Its just a nonsense. Its purely opporunistic.

 

In Scotland sure they push for this because they want independence and independence is more popular among young people. And Labour will push for this as it benefits them but where is the logic?

 

This claim that 16 yr olds can do this and that, no they can't? Most 16 yr olds aren't paying tax, most aren't paying hardly any bills. They probably don't understand the whole dynamics of bills and tax. You can't drink, you can't gamble, you can't smoke, you can't get married they recently just changed that to 18 https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/articles/leg...land-and-wales/ so 16 was too young to get married but old enough to vote on issues they have no knowledge or experience about? Its senseless. There are no good reasons at all. Some people say it will get young people into politics? First of all you should be having fun at 16 not boring yourself with politics, then its an age of followers of group think, its simply too soon. Is iitneccesary? Is it really needed? No to both. If you can join the army at 16 then change it to 18 don't use that to try and lower votes.

 

Then on a legal standing its clearly not wanted by the vast majority of people. So if we look at it as vote rigging its pretty unethical. You're changing the fabric of voting in a way that can impact everything which just so happens to benefit the party introducing it even though its against the will of the majority.

 

Something like that is also sketchy because say the Tories win next time, will they just change it back to 18? What a mess that would be if a party in power can keep altering the system.

 

If we want real democracy then certain things like this and the EU obviously should only be settled by a referendum not a party deciding how to best help themselves get re-elected. This is a huge thing that should be up for a public vote and most things should be really but especially something like this. A referendum with the result being kept for at least 20 years irregardless of who is in charge, that should be the real democratic thing to do

 

 

Also you say they introduced it to the EU votes in some places and there weren't problems but what problems could there be exactly? And 16 yr olds are always going to be more radical because you don't understand the consequences and didn't a lot if far right parties do much better?

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by Liam sota

If you can work at 16, pay taxes at 16, then you should be entitled to vote.

 

Its opposed mainly by the right wing people who don't like young, usually more left leaning people voting.

 

Thankfully though Labour are heading for a big victory and should be able to get it through parliament regardless.

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by ElectroBoy

The biggest reason behind my support of 16 year olds voting? Aging. Most parliamentary terms are 5 years, so for some unlucky people, they will be 22-23 before they get a chance to vote in a general election, well into adulthood. You can't really keep revising it down, because at say 14, getting to 19 before you get the chance is neither here nor there as you really won't have missed out on too many opportunities to affect your future. Guaranteeing the chance before you're 21, at which point you sort of 'complete' the rites of going from child to adult is much better - as younger voters will live with the decisions of an election far longer than older voters. That whole period, 16 to 21 is pretty well defined as a transition period of adolescence, so why not give people the opportunity at the start? I think it's so much better as a first step into adulthood rather than just another privilege of adulthood.

 

They're also within a formal education system at this point, so have the opportunity to engage critically with teachers and parents and get a firsthand understanding of politics from responsible people who want the best for them - if they never do this, they're far more likely to graduate into political apathy. Which you don't need voting for, but it helps. If they're preparing to take part in society as adults, they should be treated as such.

 

16's already a huge age in the UK, consent, (starting to) work, no taxation without representation etc. 18 is if anything more arbitrary.

 

If you view politics as a poisonous negative whirlwind of indoctrination, then sure, it doesn't look very pretty to expose 16-year olds to it. But it doesn't have to be that. If we're going to give them a future, then being optimistic and letting them vote at the earliest realistic opportunity, much more likely to get them involved and aware about how they can help change society for the better.

Then on a legal standing its clearly not wanted by the vast majority of people. So if we look at it as vote rigging its pretty unethical. You're changing the fabric of voting in a way that can impact everything which just so happens to benefit the party introducing it even though its against the will of the majority.

 

Something like that is also sketchy because say the Tories win next time, will they just change it back to 18? What a mess that would be if a party in power can keep altering the system.

 

If we want real democracy then certain things like this and the EU obviously should only be settled by a referendum not a party deciding how to best help themselves get re-elected. This is a huge thing that should be up for a public vote and most things should be really but especially something like this. A referendum with the result being kept for at least 20 years irregardless of who is in charge, that should be the real democratic thing to do

 

Also for all of this your problem is not in fact with this policy but with the first-past-the-post & Westminster parliamentary system giving the winning party with a majority a dictator-like hold over politics for the next 5 years. Politicians use scare tactics like 'handing a blank cheque' against their opponents but every election the winning party is handled a blank cheque. Winning parties always end up eventually having some policies that are unpopular with the public because, well, the public aren't always right about everything. Yeah Labour will adjust it to 16 but it will, like voter ID, end up being one of those policies that's hard to reverse even if technically the Tories could if they win again.

 

We don't want direct democracy either, we've experienced how divisive binary referenda can be, let's avoid those if we can.

Exactly! The system isn't even designed to support referenda.

 

Also rumblings amongst some in Labour that they will repela the horifically draconian and unnecessary voter id laws.

Also, how does a referendum EXLCUDING THE PEOPLE IT'S ABOUT supposed to be democratic? It is very very rare that referenda throughout history have been used to grant rights. The general public is usually behind the government on such things.

you should be having fun at 16 not boring yourself with politics

...is exactly the kind of mentality that encourages political illiteracy/herd mentality among young people which in turn informs these same people to make uneducated voting decisions when they do eventually turn 18 :rolleyes:

 

a 16 year old can conceivably 'have fun' (ie: grow in social maturity) and inform themselves on worldly issues (congruent with the aforementioned) at the same time...

The experience during IndyRef showed that on the whole, younger voters were vastly more informed on the intricacies of the vote and its consequences than the OAPs who got their info from the mail…

 

 

And you can get married at 16 in Scotland

The experience during IndyRef showed that on the whole, younger voters were vastly more informed on the intricacies of the vote and its consequences than the OAPs who got their info from the mail…

And you can get married at 16 in Scotland

ikr I was going to say, I’d trust an average 16 year old’s political judgements a damn sight more than I would an 86 year olds :,000

I don't usually post about anything that's not related to music, but I had an interesting conversation today with someone in their 20s which is relevant to this topic.

 

They told me they were at university during the last general election and neither they nor their friends had idea who to vote for so just ticked a random box. They say their better informed this time around. I suspect the younger you go, the more you get of that sort of thing. When I was at school we had mock elections at the time of a general election and it was always the novelty parties that won them. The oldest of those at school would have been 18 and old enough to vote in the real thing.

 

I'm not going to give my own political opinions on here, but what I will say is that now I'm in my forties they've changed quite considerably in some respects compared to those I had when I was 18. It would be naive to think all the youngsters who strongly disagree with the views of older people aren't going to change their mind when they get older themselves.

 

When I was young, people spoke of dinosaurs with outdated views who would be dead soon and the world would be a much better place once us youngsters took it over. Now we still have dinosaurs with outdated views, the only difference is these dinosaurs are now people my age.

It doesn’t mean that they should not get to vote while younger with perhaps different opinions! And it doesn’t mean people at 40 all have those opinions either or change!

Edited June 20, 20241 yr by Steve201

It doesn’t mean that they should not get to vote while younger with perhaps different opinions! And it doesn’t mean people at 40 all have those opinions either or change!

 

I'm not saying young people shouldn't vote because they might change their mind when they're older. I do think those who are 18+ should have the right to vote even if some don't take it very seriously.

 

However it seems like a lot of people who think 16/17 year old's should vote think that because they're more likely to vote different to the older voters they don't agree with. Yes not all people change their views when they get older but from my own personal experience I know that many do.