1 minute ago, Liam Sota said:

Most people think that since they’re children.

Yet you've got a 19 year old in charge of council wards who can barely run a bath, let alone a council ward.

2 minutes ago, Liam Sota said:

Most people think that since they’re children.

Yet a 19-year-old can be put in charge of a £2bn budget? Oh, BTW, do you have a source for your assertion?

4 minutes ago, Rooney said:

Yet you've got a 19 year old in charge of council wards who can barely run a bath, let alone a council ward.

I don’t see why an intelligent 19 yr old wouldn’t be capable. Not like the previous people were doing a great job.

3 minutes ago, Suedehead2 said:

Yet a 19-year-old can be put in charge of a £2bn budget? Oh, BTW, do you have a source for your assertion?

Teenage years are not like 20’s or 30’s you grow a lot in a short space. How would anyone feel if we lowered the age of consent two years for example? We have an age of which you’re an adult and that should be the baseline for most things.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/07/17/32a3f/2

I mean, it is good that young people get positions in the political process (and anyone with any consistency would have that belief alongside votes for 16-year olds but I digress, pointing out hypocrisy is far less important than the impact of any policy)

In this specific case the more egregious thing is him being voted leader, that is likely beyond what his experience level should allow for, giving he's managing important council budgets for an entire unitary authority, also not the best place to showcase age-specific ideas given how hamstrung most councils are with their spending. Suspect most likely outcome is that he tries to break things, then finds out why they were done that way and reverts - Kent Council have been going through that process too.

51 minutes ago, Liam Sota said:

Most people think that since they’re children.

Only people who have forgotten being 16 and 17 think that.

Honestly, it boggles the mind that people think 16/17 year olds will catastrophically destroy the country because they’re a few months younger than someone who turns 18 on the day of the election.

We’ve had Brexit, we’ve had 14 years of Tories, and we’ve currently got this Labour shower. Over 18s get it wrong all the time.

1 hour ago, Liam Sota said:

Most people think that since they’re children.

What an Americentric view. Until very recently it was normal for 16 year-olds to leave school and start working. My father left school at 15. In scotland students leave school and go to university at 17.

6 minutes ago, T Boy said:

Only people who have forgotten being 16 and 17 think that.

Honestly, it boggles the mind that people think 16/17 year olds will catastrophically destroy the country because they’re a few months younger than someone who turns 18 on the day of the election.

We’ve had Brexit, we’ve had 14 years of Tories, and we’ve currently got this Labour shower. Over 18s get it wrong all the time.

It’s one of them ideas for the ‘progressives’ it’s like how do-gooders never really do any good. What progress has society made? We now know neuroscience on a big level. We know younger people are easily influenced and manipulated and haven’t fully developed critical thinking skills. We know better ways to spot groomers and protect children from predators. People use to marry 15 yr olds, there were 16 yr olds on page 3 of newspapers and now we recently made the age 18 to get married. All progress has been in that direction. So it’s just turning it on its head to claim a 16 yr old will be a suitable voting age. Just a pointless measure and one 16-17 yr olds themselves barely support. But if you ask those who support it they’d probably give the vote to someone here on a year visa too. I guess they’re paying tax too right? So yeah it’s no wonder the Tories kept winning when that’s the kind of crap Labour do when in power.

36 minutes ago, Liam Sota said:

It’s one of them ideas for the ‘progressives’ it’s like how do-gooders never really do any good. What progress has society made? We now know neuroscience on a big level. We know younger people are easily influenced and manipulated and haven’t fully developed critical thinking skills. We know better ways to spot groomers and protect children from predators. People use to marry 15 yr olds, there were 16 yr olds on page 3 of newspapers and now we recently made the age 18 to get married. All progress has been in that direction. So it’s just turning it on its head to claim a 16 yr old will be a suitable voting age. Just a pointless measure and one 16-17 yr olds themselves barely support. But if you ask those who support it they’d probably give the vote to someone here on a year visa too. I guess they’re paying tax too right? So yeah it’s no wonder the Tories kept winning when that’s the kind of crap Labour do when in power.

What a complete load of nonsense. Half of the country will be duped in to voting for Reform which then bankrupting the country on their stupid cost negligence policies.

Yes young people pay tax, presumably as they buy products including VAT and most likely have some form of part time job.

A 17 year old can’t vote but a 19 year old can run a council. I’ve heard some laughs Liam, but this is a brilliant one.

2 hours ago, Rooney said:

What a complete load of nonsense. Half of the country will be duped in to voting for Reform which then bankrupting the country on their stupid cost negligence policies.

Yes young people pay tax, presumably as they buy products including VAT and most likely have some form of part time job.

A 17 year old can’t vote but a 19 year old can run a council. I’ve heard some laughs Liam, but this is a brilliant one.

You and T boy are both making silly arguments by referring to adults voting certain ways. Just because an adult can be duped doesn’t mean you give a 7 yr old the vote. That’s just a bizarre way of thinking. It’s a literal fact that kids are more easily manipulated. We have restrictions for under 18’s on various things for a reason. We don’t say lower the age limit for alcohol because some adults can’t handle their drink. Tons of people have no independence at that age also and live with parents and often are influenced or even controlled by parents.

Yes a 17 old is a child mate. A 19 yr old is an adult. Clubs, bars, casinos, movies have age limits for a reason.

I assure you guys it’s much more ridiculous you want to give the vote to people who can’t even watch certain movies and maybe have never had a bill to pay in their life.

3 hours ago, J00prstar said:

What an Americentric view. Until very recently it was normal for 16 year-olds to leave school and start working. My father left school at 15. In scotland students leave school and go to university at 17.

Does that mean they’re not children? If something negative happened like a police officer breaking a 16 yr olds nose he’d be referred to as a child. And nobody would have an issue with it whether he was at college or working. That age is still a child. Yes we’ve had kids working in coal mines in the past but as you recently we extended education to 18. We also raised the age of marriage to 18.

What’s the arguments for votes at 16?

It’s their future? It’ll be their future in a few years when they can vote too

They pay tax? So does a 7 yr old if they buy something. So does an overseas worker. Exempt 16-17 yr olds from tax?

It’s good to get them engaged in politics?

Is it? I don’t think kids should be immersed in politics but hey you can be engaged without voting

Anything else? I don’t think there is much more. Nobody asked for it or needed it. It’s unpopular, unwanted and most people 16-17 aren’t that interested. What was the point? Who is it for? Also why is the limit 16? Why the need to change from 18 to 16 why not 15? What is the actual logic? I really don’t see any. Should we start letting 16 yr olds go on jury duty too? Absurd

4 hours ago, Liam Sota said:

You and T boy are both making silly arguments by referring to adults voting certain ways. Just because an adult can be duped doesn’t mean you give a 7 yr old the vote. That’s just a bizarre way of thinking. It’s a literal fact that kids are more easily manipulated. We have restrictions for under 18’s on various things for a reason. We don’t say lower the age limit for alcohol because some adults can’t handle their drink. Tons of people have no independence at that age also and live with parents and often are influenced or even controlled by parents.

Yes a 17 old is a child mate. A 19 yr old is an adult. Clubs, bars, casinos, movies have age limits for a reason.

I assure you guys it’s much more ridiculous you want to give the vote to people who can’t even watch certain movies and maybe have never had a bill to pay in their life.

What a daft argument to make. I completely get the 16-17 year old controversy. But you’re advocating it’s great for a 19 year old to run a council, which is a recipe for disaster.

There’s a real lack of life experience depths to your post. By your own mantra they’re basically a child, yet you’re advocating for them to run a government body. I can assure you if a 19 year old ran my company, 1) they’d be utterly useless as they don’t have the experience 2) they’d make tons of mistakes, which is natural 3) someone with a lot more workplace political nous would set them up to fail

All in all utter disaster waiting to happen.

I find that the people that make 'teenagers are immature and stupid' argument are more often than not projecting.

Personally I think its ludicrous that people with dementia and who can't logically reason get a vote.

Why don’t we want 16/17 year olds interested in politics? Surely telling people they’re too young to engage in it is why we have a lot of adults who still can’t engage properly with it because they were never encouraged?

Liam please answer this direct question: what are your concerns about lowering the voting age? What is the worst that will happen?

I like that Liam just provided the correct arguments for voting at 16 (their future which they have a stake in and getting them interested in politics) and didn't properly refute them, just shrugged them off and said afterwards that there is no logic for allowing them the vote. Though what can you expect from someone criticising it as "one of them ideas for the ‘progressives’", he's clearly made up his mind and the debate doesn't matter.

I'd expand on getting them interested in politics at an young age, because it's the same argument for wanting more young people in politics like this Reform lad, make them feel like they have a stake earlier and they participate, and the best age to do that is the first age where we start allowing adult things - not all of them - but some. That age is 16, not 18. We want more young people in general voting, I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone who didn't, and research shows that if people do not vote at the first time of asking, they are much less likely to vote in the future - if we ensure that most people are in some form of education or training when the first opportunity comes up to vote, they can then be encouraged to go through with it.

On 23/07/2025 at 03:38, Liam Sota said:

You and T boy are both making silly arguments by referring to adults voting certain ways. Just because an adult can be duped doesn’t mean you give a 7 yr old the vote. That’s just a bizarre way of thinking. It’s a literal fact that kids are more easily manipulated. We have restrictions for under 18’s on various things for a reason. We don’t say lower the age limit for alcohol because some adults can’t handle their drink. Tons of people have no independence at that age also and live with parents and often are influenced or even controlled by parents.

Yes a 17 old is a child mate. A 19 yr old is an adult. Clubs, bars, casinos, movies have age limits for a reason.

I assure you guys it’s much more ridiculous you want to give the vote to people who can’t even watch certain movies and maybe have never had a bill to pay in their life.

Does that mean they’re not children? If something negative happened like a police officer breaking a 16 yr olds nose he’d be referred to as a child. And nobody would have an issue with it whether he was at college or working. That age is still a child. Yes we’ve had kids working in coal mines in the past but as you recently we extended education to 18. We also raised the age of marriage to 18.

What’s the arguments for votes at 16?

It’s their future? It’ll be their future in a few years when they can vote too

They pay tax? So does a 7 yr old if they buy something. So does an overseas worker. Exempt 16-17 yr olds from tax?

It’s good to get them engaged in politics?

Is it? I don’t think kids should be immersed in politics but hey you can be engaged without voting

Anything else? I don’t think there is much more. Nobody asked for it or needed it. It’s unpopular, unwanted and most people 16-17 aren’t that interested. What was the point? Who is it for? Also why is the limit 16? Why the need to change from 18 to 16 why not 15? What is the actual logic? I really don’t see any. Should we start letting 16 yr olds go on jury duty too? Absurd

I’ve been interested in politics since a very young age prob around 12/13 yo but I’m from N.Ireland so it comes east with the surroundings.

Nadine Dorries defects to Reform. 😂

I wonder if this sort of stuff will ultimately be negative for Reform. In Farage's midst to make the party more electable, they essentially become the Tories.

Farage is very angry that as a party leader he hasn't got an invite from the Palace to the Trump Windsor State Banquet in a fortnight. Not all party leaders do though such as Greens leader, SNP etc. Ed Davey has turned down his invitation. Not a fan of Trump.

This is what I don't get about Reform and their supporters. They bang on about how the tories and labour are both the same and a full of useless incompetent liars etc. and there's some justification in that. Yet not only are the most useless and incompetent of those liars accepted into the party, they're actively celebrated, and then try to sell themselves as somehow being different. There's always been the argument of "stick a red/blue rosette on a donkey and X constituency will always vote that colour" but they're no different - you can put a turquoise tie on any old moron and every Reform supporter will come out to bat for them

So since the person the Epping protesters were protesing has now been found guilty and removed from the hotel, I take it they will all be packing up and going home?

Given that they were protesting this situation and the situation has resolved itself, it woud surely be in violation of those claims if they stayed there and kept protesting everyone else in the hotel?

As I alluded, the reshuffle has cut the wings out of the conference speech, but Farage has said he thinks a 2027 election is on the cards, attempting to manifest it by way of media pressure no doubt, as well as reminded everyone just how batshit insane their policies are.

'Judeo-Christian' showing their sponsors and importing of MAGA politics, as well as the standard right-wing playbook of 'attack the schools, they're making children smart enough to see through our bullshit'.

We pledge to destroy the climate because of... uh... certainly not our ties to oil and gas interests.

Entirely Trumpian rhetoric, built to disguise those horrific policies above.

This party must never be allowed near power.