School Kids To Strike For The 5Th Time Of Friday

[Bobbisox1]

The debate on Jeremy Vine is
Should the voting age be lowered to 16 as these young people are the future of the planet
They can join the army
They can get married

But are they well equipped to know exactly what there voting for?

[jim360]

Are all 18+-year-olds equipped to know what they are voting for? I should imagine not, if nothing else because we clearly don't magically gain insight between the age of 17 years, 364 days and the day after.

Being "well-equipped to vote" is a red herring. The age at which you vote is therefore completely arbitrary, and should only be tied to other considerations.

[teacake44]

Ya, but joining the army, and getting married are two stupid things to do, there both deadly at that age. :)

[Bobbisox1]

I know what my view is and it's a one similar to that of yours t cake , I think knowledge of politics at home ,there's a big difference between 16-18 of fully understanding it

[teacake44]

They can't even make the bed at that age, or 18 or 20 or 23, how they going to make the future?

[ummmm]

It depends on the person and their level of interest in politics. I would have gave my youngest son the vote at 16 but not his older siblings.

[ummmm]

Can't even make the bed? What?

[jim360]

I should add that I don't particularly have any strong views one way or the other. But it's manifestly wrong to insist that the voting age is 18 because that's when people are "well-equipped to know what there [sic] voting for". Since 18 is currently when people are legally recognised as adults in most other ways (even at 16 you cannot get married without consent of parent/guardian), I don't think it's unreasonable to say that 18 is when you can vote.

But you could tie voting age to when people are no longer in compulsory education, which is 16 currently (I think) and be just as correct.

[ummmm]

Education is 18 now.

[jim360]

I actually thought it was 18, but hesitated at the last second and plumped for 16 instead. Thanks for the correction Ummm.

As I say, though, it's nothing to do with how well-equipped or not you are to vote. The only test is what age you are.

[ToraToraTora]

the purpose of a strike is to withdraw something that people need. Instead of striking they should study history.

[davebro]

Give em the vote - under the present system it's pointless in 90% of constituencies anyway!

[Jordyboy9]

Make the voting age 26 then maybe by that time they will have moved on from game boy and other rubbish,
Most of them can’t hold a conversation,no eye contact ,
I have 5 grandchildren and only 1 would I trust to vote sensible,not a good average.

[spathiphyllum]

No. Keep it at 18.

[pixie374]

Jim, education is 18 in England now, but not Scotland or Wales. I suspect most 16 year olds nowadays are well aware of politics, due to constant access, definitely far more than I was at 18 (or even now...).
Maybe 16 should be the "adult" age for everything now.

[naomi24]

The people who are encouraging them to 'strike' should be ashamed of themselves.

No, children of 16 aren't equipped to know what they're voting for. They're usually idealistic - and idealism is irrational.

[pixie374]

Tbf, Jordy, "voting sensible," is probably a personal judgement more than age...
Would you say most "adults" vote sensibly? People usually seem to vote for what is best for them personally, rather than what they think the country needs. I remember being quite surprised about that, when i realised as a child.

[Bobbisox1]

And they've be likely to vote left wing with the empty promises they've been given like scrapping university fees in the UK

[Bobbisox1]

Oops I mean England of course , do Wales pay uni fees? I'm not quite sure

[spathiphyllum]

People at the age of 16 will vote one way because it's more popular in their school or class.

We need not for politics to be a popularity contest but instead about the political changes each party will make with their term.

[ummmm]

You really think that, Spath?