Off Topic OLOF's political thread

Old enough for all that,dbc, but still with a lot of growing up to do. Have you seen the way some of those sixteen year olds drive?[/QUOTE]
Quite apart from the fact that you have to be 17 to drive over here, have you seen the way most, I repeat most, old people drive?

As for the 16yo's, they can be responsible for bringing up children, which is probably the biggest responsibility you can ever have in your life, yet they are not considered mature enough to vote? Ridiculous.

 

Looks like Aussies living in the UK would be able to vote - ripper

 

How much do you pay them?

 

Quite apart from the fact that you have to be 17 to drive over here, have you seen the way most, I repeat most, old people drive?

As for the 16yo's, they can be responsible for bringing up children, which is probably the biggest responsibility you can ever have in your life, yet they are not considered mature enough to vote? Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen the way some of these sixteen year olds bring up their children? If they haven't got a TV to baby sit them, they leave them to go feral. If they are immature enough to have children at sixteen then, no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. And I'll have you know I could teach Stirling Moss a thing or two about driving. I was a boy racer, i was!!

 

As for the 16yo's, they can be responsible for bringing up children, which is probably the biggest responsibility you can ever have in your life, yet they are not considered mature enough to vote? Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear, probably an even worse argument than old enough to join the army. Anyone so irresponsible as to have children at 16 should not be allowed anywhere near a ballot paper.

 

Oh dear, probably an even worse argument than old enough to join the army. Anyone so irresponsible as to have children at 16 should not be allowed anywhere near a ballot paper.[/QUOTE]

while i get your point xbpod, what WJ is saying is there is a mismatch between ages where certain responsibilities are given/legal, which is probably true. You can leave home at 16 with parental consent, work (and pay taxes), join the forces. At 17 you can drive a car. However you are still considered a child until 18 and that's the legal voting age (same for most of the western world). As per my previous post, I don't have a strong opinion either way.

As for responsibility... if acting responsibly was a filter for having the vote, we wouldn't have much of a turnout.

 

while i get your point xbpod, what WJ is saying is there is a mismatch between ages where certain responsibilities are given/legal, which is probably true. You can leave home at 16 with parental consent, work (and pay taxes), join the forces. At 17 you can drive a car. However you are still considered a child until 18 and that's the legal voting age (same for most of the western world). As per my previous post, I don't have a strong opinion either way.

As for responsibility... if acting responsibly was a filter for having the vote, we wouldn't have much of a turnout.[/QUOTE]

I would be happy for all those things to be moved up in line with being 18, rather than move voting down to 16.

 

re 'intelligence' and education. My personal opinion is it's down to how you judge intelligence. There is a difference between being academic and streetwise. The most academic girl at our school went to Cambridge... you weren't going to beat her in a maths exam, but we managed to convince her that they'd taken the word 'gullible' out of the chambers english dictionary. It's different skill sets.

Whether you go on to further education is part academic ability and part circumstance. My parents were teachers so I went to university, if my dad had been a miner, i'd likely have gone down a pit. That's just how it is. I certainly don't judge people based on their academic achievements unless it's directly related to credibility on a particular subject matter. Some of the smartest people i've met left school at 16, some have PHDs.

For me, the first degree was purely an opportunity for a three year piss up. I did a further degree a few years later purely for career advancement. Whether i'm an idiot or not? You can make your minds up about that, but i'd suggest either way, it's unrelated to my education.

 

I would be happy for all those things to be moved up in line with being 18, rather than move voting down to 16.[/QUOTE]

You advocating full time education until 18 for everyone?

I'd like to see a more practical element to education that you could bring in at that age - some proper life skills about how sh*t works. Bank accounts, mortgages/rents, loans, bills, budgeting, communications, people skills, phone skills, managing people, working in teams, project management, time management etc. People get chucked out into the working world with none of these.

 

They shouldn’t be anywhere near being in Government either, as in the case of Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner.

Rayner left secondary school aged 16 whilst pregnant and without any recognised qualifications.

She comes across as being thick as **** as well.

What a great example to set, and typical loony left Labour.

 

You advocating full time education until 18 for everyone?

I'd like to see a more practical element to education that you could bring in at that age - some proper life skills about how sh*t works. Bank accounts, mortgages/rents, loans, bills, budgeting, communications, people skills, phone skills, managing people, working in teams, project management, time management etc. People get chucked out into the working world with none of these.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of that, I know that when my eldest left school for uni the only thing she seemed to have been taught was how to pass exams, she had very little knowledge of the subjects outside of what the exam questions were likely to be.

 

My wife is pretty cluey (why she married me remains a mystery) and she was very good at her job as assistant PA to the head of one our government departments. The senior PA couldn't spell, couldn't type a letter without numerous mistakes, constantly typed in the wrong date. Consequently her work was full of Typex. She went to Uni, part time, and got a degree and left for a better paying job. Everyone was very happy for...........to go.

 

She was probably good at providing her boss with services of another sort (the senior PA, not your missus )

 

I agree with most of that, I know that when my eldest left school for uni the only thing she seemed to have been taught was how to pass exams, she had very little knowledge of the subjects outside of what the exam questions were likely to be.[/QUOTE]

Yeh that’s a separate issue but an issue nonetheless. You ‘reward’ and judge schools on performance. Although OFSTED may take a lot of things into consideration - schools and staff are ultimately judged on exam results. So you teach kids how to pass exams - which is a very different thing to teaching them ‘the subject’

 

I agree with most of that, I know that when my eldest left school for uni the only thing she seemed to have been taught was how to pass exams, she had very little knowledge of the subjects outside of what the exam questions were likely to be.[/QUOTE]

I was told before I went that that was going to be the main difference between school and university. At school you are taught about subjects where as at university you are expected to teach your tutors about the subject. As they would say don't write about what I've just told you I want your opinion and your research and your take on the subject.

As a result there was quite a few croppers at university who had been 'taught' how to prep and pass an exam but didn't posses much independent 'intelligence'.

 

I quoted for a job a couple of years back for a then member of the opposition party in our government. It was a distance away so asked him for a rough measurement of what he needed. He came back with a reply of 8ft 14 inches long. When I asked him did he mean 9ft 2inches, he replied probably as he was no good with measurements. He's still in the job earning 100k+ a year and will be a Government minister next year if his party is in power

 

I would be happy for all those things to be moved up in line with being 18, rather than move voting down to 16.[/QUOTE]
And yet children these days mature far more early than our generation did. And we matured much more early than our parents generation did. There is a sophistication about 16yo's these days that I could never have imagined happening, far less my parents. Their development and maturity covers so many fields.

I remember an old teacher minding our study class, where I took the opportunity to do some calculus homework. She was horrified. She had never heard of calculus until she went to university and discovered it in her final year, just before she got her 1st class maths degree at Cambridge.

I had a look at my grandson's primary school english homework & was horrified that I had no idea that so many different terms existed in grammar. Even my wife who was a primary teacher, until recently, was stunned.

There are loads of examples, but I think many people prefer not to accept it. Perhaps it makes them realise how immature & gullible they were at 16. Would a 16yo of 40 years ago fit in with today's 16yo's? Nope. Might even struggle with the 12yo's.

 

Rubbish sniper that! Aiming at some random bloke's eye! Perhaps he's only 16?

 

And yet children these days mature far more early than our generation did. And we matured much more early than our parents generation did. There is a sophistication about 16yo's these days that I could never have imagined happening, far less my parents. Their development and maturity covers so many fields.

I remember an old teacher minding our study class, where I took the opportunity to do some calculus homework. She was horrified. She had never heard of calculus until she went to university and discovered it in her final year, just before she got her 1st class maths degree at Cambridge.

I had a look at my grandson's primary school english homework & was horrified that I had no idea that so many different terms existed in grammar. Even my wife who was a primary teacher, until recently, was stunned.

There are loads of examples, but I think many people prefer not to accept it. Perhaps it makes them realise how immature & gullible they were at 16. Would a 16yo of 40 years ago fit in with today's 16yo's? Nope. Might even struggle with the 12yo's. [/QUOTE]

Two completely different things, I learnt calculus and differentiation at secondary school as a 15 year old, but no way was I mature enough to vote.