Agree 100% Paul. Adult life truly begins at 18. 16-17 is still preparation for adulthood. 18 is the earliest age that most start to become adults….for some it takes much longer !!
All part of the dumbing down of society and the only reason for the policy is the naked partisan political self-interest of the Labour Party. If there was any sense left we'd be going in the opposite direction, restricting the vote to people who have shown they can support themselves by financing their own household independently of parental support. Any blinkered fool can support "net zero" and its crippling financial burden when they spend most of their time in their own bedroom with their parents paying all the bills and giving them lifts everywhere
Sorry Paul, disagree on one point, I think this is very much raw, naked, gerrymandering, pure and simple. I’m politically homeless nowadays, all the parties sit in what they refer to as centrist, but that’s in relative terms to themselves. Relative to the country at large, they are on a political extreme. This policy is just typical of today’s political class. They don’t want to win over the public, as they cannot given their positions, so they just look to fix the vote to keep themselves in power.
As you say: naked political opportunism based upon a presumption that the young are all 'progressive left'.
Interestingly, I think this may backfire badly; political scientists are detecting a rightward-shift in many young people, especially young, white, males. Wouldn't it be ironic if this abysmal idea actually cemented that shift?
A year older than Paul, I was one of thd youngest to be able to vote at the 92 election
We’d had the school lee ruins in 87 I was 13 my friend 12 we were the only 2 kids in a Methodist comprehensive school in Hornchurch to vote labour I note paul I. Hid book said he walked the school elections in Dagenham age 12 at a comprehensive down the road
Dunno why everyone in Dagenham voted labour no one in Hornchurch does
In the summer of 1990 age 16 the poll tax riot happened and then the Tories won the 92 election looking back I couldn’t understand why labour lost and I blamed the S@n newspaper my mum said to me the Country doesn’t deserve to have a National health service but I should be glad to live in A democracy
Had it been 2 years earlier I voted labour if allowed age 16 I’d have been to you c to understand losers consent snd probably have gone and done something stupid like throw A stone through the local Tory office window
It would also leave open 16 year olds on jury trials and them being g treated as adults in a court of law judged and treated if they’re criminals at 16 for crimes they will have in record for the test of their life harsher sentences and put through the rigmarole of facing prosecution as a adult
To say 18 is a magic cut off number so what’s the difference between 18 and 18 is irrelevant to our a child age 16 through adult jury trials would be unforgivable
Well said, Paul. I agree with your arguments wholeheartedly. Most 16 year old are still at school, and, as you say, still have many restrictions put on them. Giving them a vote at 16 is purely a political move which is advantageous to the left.
You said it all in the last paragraph, - political opportunitism...
They're locking down potential power and votes, like every such authoritarian party in the world, be it Canada's Trudeau, USA democrats, EU uniparty leftards... I'm actually surprised they haven't proposed letting the immigrants vote the moment they land... With a bag of welfare money.
Agree 100% Paul. Adult life truly begins at 18. 16-17 is still preparation for adulthood. 18 is the earliest age that most start to become adults….for some it takes much longer !!
Thank you for the voice of sanity on this issue. It is a lunatic idea that 16/17 year old are mature enough to be given this power.
They're children, after all ...
There is a better case to be made for increasing the voting age to 25 than reducing it to 16.
I feel sorry for good, competent, sincere Labour supporters who have to watch their party scratch around for cheap votes with cheap tricks.
A superb, grown-up, common sense article. Thank you!
All part of the dumbing down of society and the only reason for the policy is the naked partisan political self-interest of the Labour Party. If there was any sense left we'd be going in the opposite direction, restricting the vote to people who have shown they can support themselves by financing their own household independently of parental support. Any blinkered fool can support "net zero" and its crippling financial burden when they spend most of their time in their own bedroom with their parents paying all the bills and giving them lifts everywhere
I wish I could ‘like’ that comment more than once! Personally I think 21 is more than young enough to vote…
Sorry Paul, disagree on one point, I think this is very much raw, naked, gerrymandering, pure and simple. I’m politically homeless nowadays, all the parties sit in what they refer to as centrist, but that’s in relative terms to themselves. Relative to the country at large, they are on a political extreme. This policy is just typical of today’s political class. They don’t want to win over the public, as they cannot given their positions, so they just look to fix the vote to keep themselves in power.
All political. Nothing to do with common sense.
Paul,
As you say: naked political opportunism based upon a presumption that the young are all 'progressive left'.
Interestingly, I think this may backfire badly; political scientists are detecting a rightward-shift in many young people, especially young, white, males. Wouldn't it be ironic if this abysmal idea actually cemented that shift?
Yours
Simon
Well said
I totally agree; it's a sad and depressing move.
Thank you for the writing.
It's unwise to make political assumptions.
Devolution was thought to be the means to deny nationalist aspiration in Britain.
Overall, that didn't work to plan, did it?
You cannot understand how complex life is when you are 16, even 18 is still very young.
A year older than Paul, I was one of thd youngest to be able to vote at the 92 election
We’d had the school lee ruins in 87 I was 13 my friend 12 we were the only 2 kids in a Methodist comprehensive school in Hornchurch to vote labour I note paul I. Hid book said he walked the school elections in Dagenham age 12 at a comprehensive down the road
Dunno why everyone in Dagenham voted labour no one in Hornchurch does
In the summer of 1990 age 16 the poll tax riot happened and then the Tories won the 92 election looking back I couldn’t understand why labour lost and I blamed the S@n newspaper my mum said to me the Country doesn’t deserve to have a National health service but I should be glad to live in A democracy
Had it been 2 years earlier I voted labour if allowed age 16 I’d have been to you c to understand losers consent snd probably have gone and done something stupid like throw A stone through the local Tory office window
It would also leave open 16 year olds on jury trials and them being g treated as adults in a court of law judged and treated if they’re criminals at 16 for crimes they will have in record for the test of their life harsher sentences and put through the rigmarole of facing prosecution as a adult
To say 18 is a magic cut off number so what’s the difference between 18 and 18 is irrelevant to our a child age 16 through adult jury trials would be unforgivable
Well said, Paul. I agree with your arguments wholeheartedly. Most 16 year old are still at school, and, as you say, still have many restrictions put on them. Giving them a vote at 16 is purely a political move which is advantageous to the left.
You said it all in the last paragraph, - political opportunitism...
They're locking down potential power and votes, like every such authoritarian party in the world, be it Canada's Trudeau, USA democrats, EU uniparty leftards... I'm actually surprised they haven't proposed letting the immigrants vote the moment they land... With a bag of welfare money.