I would partially agree with this. I think, between the ages of 16 and 21, the right to vote should depend on whether you have a job, and pay tax from your wages. So a 16 year old straight out from school into a job would be able to vote. But a 20 year old University student would not. (By the way, I would scrap University fees. University places should be funded from central government. Loading up young people with £40,000 of debt that will hang around their necks for most of their lives is actually an obscene idea) Basically, between 16 and 21 the rule should be no taxation, no representation.
Young people will have to face the consequences of global warming. The floods oop north confirm my view that this should be at the centre of the election.
Can't disagree with that. Those floods are terrible. People's lives all but destroyed. It will take some of them a decade to get their homes back to the way they were before, and all the time knowing that one more bad weather front could ruin their hard work all over again. But there are no quick political answers. The Green Party are rampant Marxists whose policies would make Pol Pot look like a nice bloke. If they ever gained power they'd wreck the entire country as effectively as a biblical flood. The same goes for Extinction Rebellion, God Forbid they ever decide to run for political office. Climate change cannot be tackled by one country, one government. If ever there was a real purpose for the United Nations, this is it. NATO has kept the peace for 75 years, not the UN. Greta Thunberg was right to shame them personally. It's about time all those delegates started really saving the planet, or they will go down in future history (what there is of it) as being as useless as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations.
The U.N. is a wonderful organisation in theory, but in practice it seldom works, since it only needs one country to veto any proposal. Ever since the scientists told us about global warming 35 years ago the idea of taking action has been poo-pooed as a leftie fantasy, we love the benefits of fossil fuel too much, and don't like higher taxes. We also like having lots of children, and when for instance Prince Harry says he'll only have 2 he gets a barrage of criticism. Evolution has equipped the human race with the power of self-deception, and it seems to be increasing globally. Anyone who watched Attenborough will have seen the our future in the plight of the walruses.
6 year olds will have to face up to Global Warming for 10 years longer (on Average) than 16 year olds so should 6 year olds be able to vote?
It's a bit worrying to find I agree with so many of the recent posts. I certainly think 16-17 year olds should get a vote - they are eligible to join the army and theoretically die for their country so they should have a vote. I agree in part with Lardi as well that maybe they should be paying taxes too. I left school and got a job and went to university two years later, so I'd have been a bit miffed to have a vote for two years and then lose it because I was studying. I certainly agree with FFS that we badly need some electoral reform in the UK, and the House of Lords is political absurdity. Also some sort of constitution would be handy given some of the antics we've seen in parliament lately. also agree with Lardi that the laying of wreathes for remembrance sunday should have been clear of political sniping. This is an occasion to remember people who gave their lives, and the idea of turning it into a political sideshow is frankly nauseating. Sadly the Uk political scene is fast following the USA down the route of TV soundbites and a general view that anything goes, which ties quite badly with the so called dignity of parliament. On another level, I'd be interested to see why Farage thought Boris's deal was the second worst in history behind the one May bought back, but is now okay - sadly I think they will be manouevreing to get no deal later on down the line. Probably a selection of the worst political leaders in the history of the UK all come together at a crucial time. It's painfull to watch.
The point I am trying to make is where do you draw the line? 16 or 15 or 14 or lower?? Why pick an arbitrary figure of 16?... because you can join the Army at 16?... because you can leave school at 16? …. if you are going to reduce the voting age to 16 then why not allow 16 year olds to drive? Why not reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 16? Do you want to see 16 year olds in prison? Some Parties want the voting age reduced to 16 (Labour/SNP/Greens) simply because they think this age group is more likely to vote for them … simple as that.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I find that the young people I know, who may not be representative, are more environmentally aware, so giving them the vote (globally) would make aspiring politicians move environmental concerns up the agenda.
Remainers are twice as likely as Leave voters to fall out with their friends and family over Brexit, a poll has revealed YouGov Poll
Turns out that the very serious cyber attack on the Labour Party was just a bog standard DDoS (Denial of Service) attack that Commercial Companies suffer quite often and not an attempt to subvert British democracy. Annoying for Labour but not the Russian/Tory plot that had been suggested.
But surely the people they fall out with are leavers? So the numbers are equal. A bit like the survey which showed that men have sex with women more often than women have sex with men.
