Voting At 16? A New Source Of Labour Voter....?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24229366
It's well known that youngsters are left wing whilst Daddy is paying the bills, they later change their tune when they have to survive in the real world. I think the voting should be raised if anything.

[youngmafbog]

It is clearly labour after voters who have little skills to think.

Well, what more can I say ?

[LazyGun]

Being 16 does not necessarily mean you are intellectually incapable of understanding the various political arguments. Hardly an objective observation of yours though, was it, 3T? I think it an incorrect observation, personally. What does tend to change with increasing age is the tendency to accumulate wealth and material items, coupled with greater use of the filter of vested self-interest when reading about matters political.

What I do wonder is whether at age 16 they have sufficient life experience and emotional development to be considered competent to cast a vote.

But the laws surrounding legal majority in this country are blurred anyway, as they are in many countries. At 16, you are technically able to have sex and marry and have children, but not legally able to buy alcohol or cigarettes or drive.

Judging by your OP and YMBs reponse, you both would be perfectly happy with lowering the voting age if you thought that all 16 year olds were true blue tory rather than this notion of yours that they are all budding Che Guevaras, which comes over as being a little hypocritical, don't you think?

[modeller]

It was Labour who brought down the age for voting from 21 to 18.
They are following the Jesuit belief of " give me the child until he is 7 and I will give you the man " i.e the earlier the indoctrination the more effective it is. Young people are more left wing and so it makes sense to get people voting earlier and earlier.

[LazyGun]

@ Modeller I think you and 3T are wrong; I do not think that kids are more left wing. They may tend to be more idealistic, less pragmatic or cynical, but the 2 are not automatically the same thing.

And why should we view idealism with such disdain anyway?

Fact is, studies have shown that your political predisposition is much more heavily influenced by family/parents views and class etc than naive idealism. That's where the indoctrination comes in. That's where pretty much all indoctrination comes in. The Jesuits were right; Your notion that lowering the voting age from 21-18 to maybe 16 does not equate.

And whilst we are at it, can you elaborate on how precisely you imagine the labour party will be "indoctrinating" these new young voters? Political officer in each comprehensive school perhaps? :)

[jno]

giving people the vote is indoctrinating them?

Doesn't seem to have worked with adults...

[ludwig]

They've done a survey that says more 16 year olds support Labour than the Tories, so they want to give them the vote. It's not rocket science.

[Svejk]

LG, you must be arguing for arguments sake. Its always been the case, for a variety of reasons, that young people start off on the left of the political spectrum and gradually veer to the right.
Some have arrested development and stay on the left. Not sure why, though I've got one or two theories.

[LazyGun]

@Svrjk I argue where I think people are wrong or incorrect. Just because you guys say that all young kids start off left wing does not make it so. They tend to be more idealistic, those who think about it at all.

And your notions about "arrested development" of "left wing ideology" and all of that are just as facile as those others who have made essentially the same observation - borne out of a partisan and biased view, rather than objective observation.

[emmie]

better to leave the voting age as it is, 16 year olds have enough to worry about with exams, and what to do with the rest of their life....

[ludwig]

// Its always been the case, for a variety of reasons, that young people start off on the left of the political spectrum and gradually veer to the right. //

"He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain."

Exists in different variations, this one attributed to Otto von Bismarck

[jim360]

It has to be said that denying people the vote because they might vote in a way you don't want is the worst way of conducting democracy. So what if sixteen-year-olds, and young people in general, are mostly left-wing? That is still a legitimate political opinion and if you don't want to hear it then tough. One could equally well say that the older people have been corrupted by life experiences that make them blind to issues beyond their own doorsteps, so we should stop people voting beyond the age of 50... I don't think this is true, but the point is that once you establish the principle that age influences how you vote then it can work equally well both ways as an argument for allowing people to vote or not.

Actually I'm not a fan of lowering the voting age because I don't think that most children are politically aware enough to be able to cast a vote that reflects their true opinions. Then again, are most adults able to cast such votes, or do so having carefully weighed up all the issues?

[Kromovaracun]

"It's well known that youngsters are left wing "

This really depends where you go. It was certainly not the case at my school, where people were overwhelmingly right wing. And among the young people I know (which I'd take a guess at being considerably more than you do), there is a genuine mix of political views. Lazy gun is right - they tend to be more idealistic, but it's perfectly possible to be that on either end of the political spectrum.

[Kromovaracun]

"Its always been the case, for a variety of reasons, that young people start off on the left of the political spectrum and gradually veer to the right. "

Rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Kromovaracun]

As for the issue itself - it's possible for a 16 year old to join the army, have sex, or pay tax if they work. It seems entirely appropriate they should have the right to vote.

[dave50]

At 16 they are unlikely to be paying taxes and national insurance, if that's the case why should they get the vote? Hardly fair if they' aren't paying in they should get a say in how other people's money is spent. There is an argument for applying this theory through all age groups.

[emmie]

most 16 years wouldn't likely be earning enough to pay tax, isn't the allowance up to 8 grand, whilst that doesn't sound a lot, what kind of work would most 16 year olds be doing.... part time if they are still also doing some form of school work,

[emmie]

allowance for tax is just over 8 grand, gives the details here, i wouldn't consider giving the vote to 16 year olds.

http://www.connexions-tw.co.uk/national-insurance-and-income-tax/

[Kromovaracun]

If I'm not mistaken, they have the same personal allowance that everyone else born in the last 60 years does. I don't think whether they exceed it or not is necessarily important - they're still eligible to pay tax, join the army, etc.

[Kromovaracun]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/shortcuts/2013/apr/23/british-armed-forces-16-year-olds

///Of 14,185 recruits into the army last year, 3,630 or over 25%, joined under the age of 18. Those who join the army at this age are required to make a longer commitment than those joining as adults. Sixteen year olds joining the army are required to serve for six years, while 18 year olds commit themselves to four years. After a six month ‘cooling-off’ period there is no right to leave.///

I am not one of those ABers who gets teary-eyed or patriotic over anything to do with soldiers, but it does seem a bit wrong to me that these young people are denied the right to vote.