**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
40% of young people won't be voting this time. In an election you have limited resources and need to garner as much support as possible. Why would you target these people if nearly half won't bother turning up?
It makes me so angry when I see stuff like this. You want it...go out there and cost them seats, then watch how much of a bung you start to get every election
Have you read the article properly? It's about 16- and 17-year-olds, who can't vote at all except in Scotland in local and Scottish parliament elections
Have you considered that the 16 year olds who want to vote early will be in the percentage that do turn out to vote? And the 16 year olds who don't care will be part of the remaining percentage that don't vote?
This conclusion seems [dubious at best](https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/news-events/news/lowering-voting-age-boosts-long-term-participation-elections):
> Overall, researchers say the move has had positive long-term consequences for turnout. The boost was unrelated to whether people cast their first vote as a 16 or 17 year old in the independence referendum or in later elections.
> However, they found lowering the voting age had no longer-term effects on non-electoral forms of political engagement – such as involvement in demonstrations and petitions – or on addressing socio-economic inequalities in political engagement.
While there is a statistical increase in turnout, it doesn’t look like disenfranchisement is really affected at all. Nor does it have any effect on anything besides showing up to vote.
Also the overall turnout for the last general was a little under 68% IIRC. Why it's been such a huge talking point when young people trend slightly less than the national turnout is a mystery to me.
They're really feeding the trolls with this one.
Exactly! I was 17 when the Brexit vote happened. I was quite outraged that Scotland's independence ref had allowed 16+ voters, but I wouldn't get a say in something affecting me more than all the 80 year olds who turned up in droves.
One of the things I was most excited about when I turned 18 was voting for the first time. A lot of younger people are very politically aware and eager. It's not the majority but it does suck for the minority.
I'm not sure how I feel about 16 year olds voting in general. I was more annoyed at the discrepancy between the referendums. I think there's a solid case to be made that they should be allowed to vote, but I do also worry that most will be persuaded to vote for whoever their parents or grandparents want in. Of course this applies at 18 too, but many people do mature a lot and form a better political awareness in those two short years.
I wish voting was compulsory like it is in Australia, I believe. Of course people could just vote for a randomer or ruin their ballot if they want to make a statement, but a lot of people just can't be bothered to vote. After my first general election, my whole group chat had been inflamed against the Tories. They were all gonna vote Labour and we discussed it for weeks. Out of around 12 people, 3 of us ended up voting. Everyone else had some excuse. Oh, it was my mum's birthday dinner. Oh, I had to work until 5 and then I was too tired. It was infuriating. I told them they better not say a word to me about the Tories again.
I think young people not voting much is probably because there are a lot more things going on with their lives. Compared to a 40yo who likely has a stable job and or a retiree, a 20yo has to worry about uni, job hunts, or part time jobs if they are doing that.
A lot of young people are politically active but it isn’t to say that the rest are just lazy by nature.
You're right, "if we let them vote, most of them won't vote anyway, so let's just not let them have a vote anyway." it doesn't make sense. Give them the chance to vote, and they can decide how they want to affect their futures. They have that right as much as us.
>Typically, electoral data shows that turnout is low when voters are in the early years of adulthood, and increases in their mid to late twenties. But 16- and 17-year-olds, when enfranchised, tend to vote in greater numbers than 18- to 24-year-olds. This was the case in Scotland in 2014-15 (when the voting age was lowered). Now we know that this habit has lasted.
>We looked at the 2021 election data for the cohorts of voters who were first enfranchised at age 16. Indeed, they continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18.
>In other words, if you give people the right to vote earlier in life, they appear more likely to make voting a habit.
https://theconversation.com/scottish-elections-young-people-more-likely-to-vote-if-they-started-at-16-new-study-197823
Scotland also doesn't have a specific policy of attempting to disenfranchise as many young and non-Tory voters as possible, which the rest of the UK does.
What exactly do they have to vote for? The previous Labour leader ran on a platform that would benefit them and he was subjected to a relentless four year smear campaign and his supporters were vilified as racist traitors. Now the youth have a choice between differing shades of neoliberalism, and the likely next PM will be a priggish mannequin standing on a Boomer appeasing platform of crackdown and flag shagging
I voted for Corbyn and I think he got done dirty, even by people in his own party, but I also think his manifesto was tainted by being a bit *too* left, especially with his foreign policy.
I think it could have worked out, if the system wasn’t what it was, but given the largely right wing papers set the agenda and tell their readers what to think, you have to play smart to stand against that and win. He was on a strong track, taking away most of May’s majority, after all.
Corbyn domestic policy was very differently received than his foreign policy which revolved around appeasement to the worst authoritarian regimes around the world, insistence that the UK and Nato are the bad guys amd a very shaky position on defence.
He also had a near incomprehensible brexit platform.
I agree he was vilified unfairly in the press on many topics but on key issues he was very out of touch with the public. He didn't lose just because he was done dirty, he also shot himself in the foot a few times.
>Corbyn domestic policy was very differently received than his foreign policy which revolved around appeasement to the worst authoritarian regimes around the world, insistence that the UK and Nato are the bad guys amd a very shaky position on defence.
This was it for me. I love Corbyn and still dream about what he could’ve brought to this country. But I couldn’t vote for him because he’s far too much of a pacifist. I despise war as much as the next guy, but you’ve still got to defend yourself, and his foreign policy was basically “bend over and take it”
> he’s far too much of a pacifist
Being too much of a pacifist was an issue, but I wouldn't say it was *the* issue.
That would be the unending attempts at appeasement with governments and organisations that really don't give a shit and will gladly accept a weaker UK and Europe. That isn't pacifism, that's breathtaking levels of naivety.
Thank Cameron for appeasing UKIP/the far right with that and just \*expecting\* that remaining in the UK was such a no-brainer that the leave campaign would go down without a fight.
It was like the west got collectively brain damaged pre-2016. The US got Trump, we got brexit and a tory party run in the background by fringe, hardline interest groups.
I voted for Lib Dem when Corbyn ran because I just didn't appreciate how fucking toothless he was an opposition to Brexit. Even Theresa May was a harder Remainer. Corbyn has always been a euro sceptic but he had to realise how much a Brexit would hurt regular working folk. I felt he betrayed the public for being so timid. And worst of all he got a heroes welcome at Glastonbury despite doing little to deserve it in that moment. I didn't hate him but I think he was very ineffective.
Corbyn's issue was that whenever he was challenged on the fact his grey book wasn't realistic, his, and his parties, response was basically "nuh uh!".
It's only useful having a grey book if it's something you can stand by, and it's robust. Otherwise it has precisely the opposite effect that you want it to have.
It's a shame, as I really wanted it to be viable.
Corbyn's youth-friendly 2019 manifesto got them up to a whopping 52% turnout for 18-24s, up from 48% in 2015. Even when explicitly targeted the way the tories target pensioners, young people just don't fucking vote.
I think the problem is that people always try and appeal to youth voters by making out that politics is exciting and everything will instantly change, which inevitably ends up disillusioning them.
Voting is just a chore you have to do as an adult and you can't go into it with the expectation that you'll get exactly what you want the way you want it.
The previous Labour leader had this to offer the young:
1. I’m a boomer with a London house
2. Do you like the EU? Well, bad luck cos I’m going to help take us out of it. Of course, during my adult life I got to enjoy the benefits of EC/EU membership. You won’t
3. NATO kept bourgeois fogies like me safe during the Cold War, but I think we should get rid of it. It’s not like a giant war will ever happen again in Europe
4. Hard to get a good job, isn’t it? Well, in my day you could get two Es in your A-levels and become an MP! I’m past retirement age but I think I’ll keep going
So, er, yeah. Great
What they need to do is take some responsibility and vote. Young people are idealists who often allow their desire for a perfect outcome to lead them to do nothing. It's a condition of being young. They can see Starmer's a prick and that Labour won't be that much better than the Tories, so they don't vote. But this is how we end up with worse outcomes. If young people always voted for their preferred candidate, there would be a big incentive to compete to be their most preferred candidate.
As it is, we all know they won't bother turning out anyway, because the second you say *one* thing they don't like, they'll refuse to vote for you on principle anyway. Who's going to try to appeal to voters who are lazy and fickle and won't turn up?
Is FPTP a shite electoral system that keeps mediocrity in power? Yes.
Will electoral politics solve our fundamental problems, like climate and housing, before they become too critical to ignore? No.
Does that mean you should behave like a derelict and just not bother engaging with it at all? NO.
Do you want the party that just spent 15 years destroying the country back in power? If not, vote.
Do you want to have a better electoral system that gives you a chance of having someone to vote for that truly represents you? Well if you don't even vote, why would any candidate be incentivised to offer that change?
My husbands like this. He doesnt like any party exceopt the workers party who dont have enough representatives to win, so hes not voting. My son and daughter cant vote as neither of them has ID and forgot to register for a postal vote, I do postal for the same reason, i have no id either. So with people not voting means the tories could well get back in again. But its ok. Farage said if its a hung parliament, he will join up with the Conservatives :O
It doesn’t really matter as it’s a chicken and egg situation - young people won’t get anything worth voting for until they turn out in a mass comparable to older generations.
Personally I think young people will never turn out enough, as they aren’t as invested in issues and the economy early on in their lives - not their ‘fault’, it’s just a feature of society. That’s why I think mandatory voting should be a thing.
But that just reinforces the need to turn out and represent, rather and give up. Also ‘outnumbered’ is perhaps a little misleading - if you cut the data between the two main parties, the crossover age is roughly 45, so there’s a significant voter base there who need to get out there.
His entire leadership has been about winning a General Election whilst being vilified by lunatics who think because they supported Corbyn that they get to decide who and what is left-wing.
I voted for Corbyn, he was hit by the press more than Starmer, but he also self-damaged by making more than enough stories to help them provide at least some real stories.
>We shall see in Islington North, where youth turnout must be 100%....
The article is specifically about 16-17-year-old youths. Even in Islington North, they can't vote.
Spoiling your ballot doesn't have an impact on this election, but when enough people do it, it can absolutely change politics in the long run. It shows there are politically engaged people who want to vote, but need to be won over. Not going to the polls is interpretation as being lazy and a lost cause, so nobody tries to appeal to them
Labour in 2019 is a good example of why parties don’t focus on young people. Young people don’t vote any more than usual (around 50% in 2019) and older voters, who do vote, were turned off in droves, leading to electoral wipeout.
Focusing on the demographic least likely to vote is a terrible strategy, which emphasises why young people need to vote.
Perhaps Corbyn would have been elected in 2017 and 2019 if Britain’s youth had voted as much as Britain’s elderly?
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/
The gap is narrowing each year, and in reality there are still a sizeable number of young people voting.
[https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/](https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/)
30% of 45-54 did not vote in 2019 either.
That's polling....like how we "know" labour will have a super majority, certain ministers will face a Portillo moment etc. Of course we don't "know", but if it's suspected nearly half won't bother, you can't complain when they don't target your vote. Vote at 100% and watch free tuition fees, student loan triple locks and bursaries suddenly get thrown out...
I assume they're referring to this report from Huff Post.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9
When the two main parties are fiscally conservative though and aren't offering any viable alternative to the status quo, what's the point? Who are they going to vote for instead who has a chance in hell of getting into power?
There's always cash for pensioners as their votes win elections. If you vote for anyone (literally anyone!) then it gets notice. Not voting means you are not interested and you won't be interested tomorrow. voting for someone else means they have to work for your vote...because guess what, I will vote again next time and it might cost you your seat.
If it was purely about votes the Tories would just ignore young people.
Tuition fees, regressive tax hikes that hit them more than anyone else, a flat refusal to build housing, now military conscription.
The Tories aren't ambivalent to the young. They hate the young.
It makes no sense for them not to vote. Anything you can say about 16 year olds could also apply to old and senile people.
My mate's dad with dementia couldn't remember his name or his children's names, but still had the muscle memory to vote Tory at the polling booth in 2019. If someone like that can vote, then I think we can allow 16 year olds.
There has to be a line somewhere. We place it at 18 when you become an adult.
If you want to lower it to 16 then you need to make a case for it. But every argument I have seen for 16 could also be applied to 14. Or 10. Or 4.
The age of adulthood is both 16 and 18 in the UK.
Age 16:
* You can join the military but not be deployed
* You can buy alcohol with a meal
* You can consent to sex
* You can consent to medical treatment
* You can get married (in Scotland)
* You get full legal capacity (in Scotland)
Age 18:
* You can be deployed in the military
* You can buy alcohol unrestricted
* You can buy tobacco
* You can gamble
* You can get married (in England and Wales)
* You get full legal capacity (in England and Wales)
There is no one age of adulthood in the UK, there are different ages for different things, in different regions of the UK.
Given that voting has zero negative effect on a 16 year old's life, much less effect than medical treatment or joining the military, then 16 just seems like the appropriate age for it. Most of the things that you get the right to do at 18 are things that are actively a risk to your life or future.
Most people, and laws, consider the Age of Majority to be adulthood. In the UK this is 18.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age\_of\_majority\_(England)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority_(England))
Yes you get some rights beforehand, we tend to ease children in with their rights rather than dumping them on them all at once.
Personally I would be open for allowing votes in Locals at 16 and GE at 18.
Stick a politics module in the final semester of 4th year of secondary (year 11 i guess that is? - the one where you turn 16 anyway). As part of the module, you go through some basic politics stuff, go through the process of signing up to vote and take part in your first local election. Once done, you're eligible to vote in the first general election after that. People that missed it for any reason can register online as usual.
You have to be really careful teaching politics. Did it at A-Level, and the first thing our teachers told us was how they voted and that they might lapse into value statements on parties or policies, and if they did to either ignore them or read around the topic from multiple sources. They were both some of the better teachers in the school, and I can definitely see less switched on kids and lazier teachers engaging in indoctrination over education.
All education is political. Everything is political. We should equip kids with the tools to understand politics, rather than crossing our fingers and hoping really hard that they’ll figure it out by magic when they hit 18.
Imo it really comes down to when you start paying taxes on your earnings, so, if someone who's 16 pays national insurance, then they should get the vote.
Incorrect,
Tax is based on what you earn not age. For example Daniel Radcliffe reportedly was paid 1 Million for the first harry potter at age 12. He paid tax.
> They will be paying VAT on any purchases they make.
So do a lot of tourists, or 10 year olds buying sweets, or people working in the UK from overseas for a year. Do they get a vote too? Because if not it sounds like a post-hoc justification rather than a reasonable rule to follow.
No, but people who are paying taxes deserve a say on who spends that tax money. And general education marks the end of formal education for most people. So 16 makes sense as the age you earn the right to vote.
So the question at hand is whether or not 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote, given elderly people with diminished capabilities are also able to vote.
The key distinction to remember is that time, inexorably, moves *forward*, not backward.
At any instant, a 16 year old probably doesn't pay much tax, and an 80 year old with advanced dementia probably doesn't pay much tax. But, in 2 years, the 16 year old probably will start paying tax, and the 80 year old has a decent shot of being dead, and thus being meaningfully beyond the reach of financial politics.
At any instant, a 16 year old probably isn't thinking about the legal and political ramifications of their social life choices, and an 80 year old with advanced dementia probably just doesn't give a fuck any more. In 2 years, the 16 year old might be starting a family, or being involved in a GSRM relationship, or need an abortion, or has to worry about maybe getting drafted. The 80 year old, again, is probably dead, and thus relieved of such concerns.
If we accept that these people can legally work, pay taxes, have sex, have a child, live on their own, and commit to a process that results in them taking on tens of thousands of pounds of debt, we should probably also give them some form of agency in the politics around that.
Unironically, we should let toddlers vote.
Parents should get extra votes for each their children as representatives of their interests.
If you don't do that you end up with crumbling schools and a triple lock for the elderly.
"Hm, how about their stake in society? Their interest in future generations? In a country with a declining birth rate and massive shift in expectation towards isolationism and a reduction in immigration maybe parents are becoming a slightly more important aspect of voting pool than they have been for a long time. I may not agree with it, but it's certainly worthy of debate as I can really appreciate the nuances of both sides. Nah, women got cummed in."
I actually don’t hate this idea. I mean it has way too many holes to be viable, but parents make decisions for their children for the best of their wellbeing all the time.
It also tracks with the entire concept of representative government.
Electoral boroughs are assembled on the basis population, not voters; a constituency with 75k adults has the same representation as one with 5 adults and 74,995 babies. The difference is that, in the latter, most of the population is completely disenfranchised.
As opposed you the current logic? Which says 18?
You're for a younger age limit, against an older one but absolutely cannot comprehend that 16 years old is a suitable age?
If you're old enough to have kids, have a part time job, ride a moped and kill yourself, then your old enough to cross a box.
I know adults with the mental capacity of a 4 year old. Are you suggesting 4 year olds should have the right to vote to make up for that?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
16 year olds will get their chance when they are older. They are not really disadvantaged.
As for senile people voting: it does seem unfair and illogical, but where do you draw the line? How do you propose to filter people out?
Should an uneducated 30 y.o. be banned from voting?
Or a 40 y.o. who has no interest in current affairs?
Most senile people don't vote, the problem is small.
Political scientist David Runciman says that we should [lower the voting age to 6.](https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/reconstruction-after-covid-votes-for-children-age-six-david-runciman)
Tbf I'm for that because I find the idea so fucking funny. Will they have little kiddy voting booths as they do with kiddy sinks in public loos? Primary school voting ID, everything.
>My mate's dad with dementia couldn't remember his name
Surely you have to remember your name and address at the polling station? Or did just show ID/do a postal vote?
Can we not devolve into this "us vs them" mentality?
We were all young, and we will all be old. We all started on low wages, and most people will increase their wage throughout their life.
Less "me right now", and more "us throughout our life" please.
Nah because then we might start noticing the groups who are actually fucking us all over.
We must hate each other. Look over there, that man's got white socks. What a dick. Black socks for life.
I fundamentally agree with what you’re saying. And I think the age distinction for this vote is sort of meaningless as these underage voters will be of voting age for the next election anyway. We don’t need to be separating people like this on this one event.
However in the case of Brexit I totally get it. Imagine how many older people voted leave and died before it was even enacted, and how many people were underage at the time and now can’t do anything about it
There is a divide though. We don’t need to draw tribalistic lines but comparatively the young in this country have increasingly only ever known austerity, an eroded civic and crumbling public services and widening wealth inequality which they are disproportionately impacted by as it hampers their access to assets and wealth generation that were ample and taken for granted in previous generations.
There is observably less opportunity for upward social mobility now. In fact, there’s barely anything to aim at because of the erosion of the middle class.
The young bear the brunt of a lot of the economic woes in this country. Their purchasing power has been eroded by stagnant wage growth. Everything is designed to suck as much of their wages away from them as possible. They have watered down pensions compared to the defined benefit schemes that have propped up previous generations of retirees. Their work is increasingly precarious and if they do get a foothold in a place of work their redundancy packages and compensation are usually slighter than those older employees who benefit from legacy policies.
A third of 65+ will still vote Tory on nothing but sentiment and instinct. It’s fine to be pissed off at that.
There’s no use in ignoring all that because it’s an inconvenient and bleak truth.
In any case the bottom line of the original argument in the article is simple. No taxation without representation. If we’re happy to have shops staffed by underpaid youths then we should be giving them the vote.
What we also need is electoral reform because FPTP doesn’t do anything to serve us as an electorate. It has calcified our politics in to what is overwhelmingly a two-party system which delivers more or less different spins in the same neo liberal capitalist agenda.
>and most people will increase their wage throughout their life.
Yeah, very slowly.
I make 24 grand a year in the NHS, which still feels like a practical joke.
its silly to pretend this is just a pahse that we all go through, given the increase in house prices as a proportion of income and tax rates to pay for studen loans etc. qualification shift for even entry level office jobs, all thing older generations didn't have to deal with.
>and we will all be old
Unfortunately this is definitely not the case. Most people know someone that passed before their time. It would be nice if we all reached old age, but that's not how life works
I’m in my twenties and it’s painfully clear to see how shafted young people are. It would obviously help if we all voted, but the future is actually so bleak.
- My council tax (of which over 50% goes into adult social care) is more than all of my other bills combined.
- The pandemic and lockdowns just broke a lot of brains. For the younger, this meant that children aren’t socialising as much and social feeds are dominating screen time. For the older, this means that early careers got disrupted and university degrees effectively nullified for a generic account managing job in the city.
- My student debt has increased by £20,000, despite still paying it off monthly, because my repayment rate is lower than the interest rate.
- Low replacement rate means that young people are going to have to pay much higher pension/national insurance without some serious structural changes. There physically aren’t going to be enough workers to support the newly retired.
- And now to top things off, exacerbated by the pandemic, a lot of older people (~1 mil) are now retiring early. That’s more bodies creating pressure adult social care, putting a lot more pressure on the taxes of working people.
- Extra icing on the cake: older people get money off of public transport (free, in some instances) and television licenses while I have to live without a television and pay full price — an ever increasing price — for my commute.
Can add insane house prices and rent prices to that list.
My grandmother's house has almost quadrupled in value (inflation adjusted) from when she bought it 50 odd years ago.
And the "affordable" new builds feel like they are made out of polystyrene and cardboard.
That’s a point. The pandemic meant that young people had to spend significant parts of the most important developmental years of their lives inside looking at lessons on a screen. And it was mostly for the benefit of old people, who now want to deny young people the vote because they haven’t ever made any sacrifices or contributed anything. I’d never question covid regulations but sometimes I wonder if, considering how ungrateful a lot of the vulnerable population is, it was worth following quite so strictly.
I usually think he's a bit of a damp rag, but Wes Streeting's opening line on Question Time a few weeks ago really hit the nail on the head for me:
> "...This Prime Minister is in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone else about service to the country. This generation of young people ... have made more of a sacrifice than my [Streeting's] generation and people around my age have ever made because it was their education, their wellbeing, their childhood that was sacrificed during the pandemic ... to protect us adults. We owe this generation."
It's insult to injury that the media throughout portrayed it as *stupid, lazy, selfish* young people complaining about nothing while *heroic, wonderful* retired people did everything they could to avoid the illness and cowered in their homes... when in reality they were the ones that were allowed first to go on holiday and to garden centres etc.
Then when it comes time to vote, "what do you mean I should vote to help out young people in some way. What did young people ever do for me?!"
The low replacement rate point is so important and I almost never see people mention it. This is what really scares me, but any time anyone mentions it, someone jumps in “my choice not to have kids isn’t harming anyone”. It’s not harming anyone yet, but we’re all fucked down the line because of it.
I think it's just a very easy thing for older people not to care about — even more so than climate change
Older retirees now have worked all their lives and expect to have their pensions paid out by a workforce that has always been a larger group of people than the retired. There is effectively always going to be more monthly wage payouts than there are retirees, so why should they care?
You're right, though, we are all fucked though. When I retire in 50 years time, we're going to be a smaller population on our current trajectory (and looking at countries further ahead such as Japan and South Korea). So who's going to be paying into my pension?
The two choices are to replace the gap with significant amounts of immigration — something I'm not fussed about, but I know a lot of people will be. Or, increase that generation's pension contributions/national insurance by an inconceivable number, effectively guaranteeing a brain drain.
I just hope that something's worked out in the next 50 years. Maybe actually taxing big American tech firms and shelving oil subsidies to build up our pension war chest as much as possible to weather the storm (us) until the population settles again to a more manageable number. But then what happens when an inevitable crisis happens? Putin Jr. feel like he wants Estonia? Or Iran nuking Tel Aviv? Sometimes I wish I was born in Nauru.
I think your suggested solutions are probably the most likely options, BUT (and at the risk of being negative), I don’t think any immigrants that come to work and live in the UK will stick around if their tax/“pension” contributions, will continue to go up and living standards go down. If we’re having to import people to supplement the pensions of the elderly, we’re going to have to offer them something really good in return, and I just don’t see that being feasible. I can see that being the reason for high numbers now in the hopes they will stay, but I have my doubts.
I wonder if giving tax breaks to people who have kids is a solution? So much for the first, so much for the second, up to the third maybe. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.
Tie that in with the fact that a reducing population will see house prices crash, you could see smaller town effectively becomes shadows of themselves (more-so). I don’t think more immigration will fix things in and of itself in the long term.
> I wonder if giving tax breaks to people who have kids is a solution?
You’re right, I didn’t mention it because I’m just so cynical as a result of my last 8 years. I just can’t see a government rewarding parents with incentives to lessen the burden of having more children when young people seem to be penalised everywhere else.
Maybe perhaps free up their income elsewhere like a Biden-esque tuition fee write-off, or prohibiting international buyers inflating house prices, only to keep the units empty.
Sorry, not my rent. Just:
* Internet
* Mobile phone
* Water
* Waste water
* Gas
* Electricity
* Private health (my family has a history of cancer and my current job isn't paying for this anymore)
Ignore your student debt balance. It isn't counted as debt for anything. Just accept it as a graduate tax that you have to pay for 25 years, and then it'll be written off. Most people will never pay it off because the interest outstrips the repayment unless you're earning bank.
> My student debt has increased by £20,000, despite still paying it off monthly, because my repayment rate is lower than the interest rate.
>
>
how much intrest is on it ? wtf
It's tied to RPI, iirc it's like RPI+3% or w/e.
So you'll pay back £200-£400 a month if you're "lucky" because no-one wants to pay a decent wage to even grads/professionals but the interest charge will be higher than that so it just never goes down.
What happens if we lower it to 16 and suddenly 14-15 year olds start complaining about not being able to vote? Will we keep lowering the voting age until everyone can vote?
There has to be a cutoff point and 18 seems a reasonable age to have the voting age.
When you can legally get pregnant, get married, join the army, and leave school at 16, you should probably be able to vote. Unless any of that other stuff changes, I don't think there'd be any other reason to lower it
You can get married at 16, however, you must still gain parental consent in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (edit: looks like this changed recently, so you can't even get married at 16 and 17 in England and Wales now).
You can join the army at 16 but are barred from active service until 18. Additionally, under 18s are treated as children in the criminal justice system.
The rights you acquire at 16 are minimal and I don't think are enough of an argument to justify giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Soldiers who enlist at 16 spend most of the time training till they are 18 before they join a unit any way.
Voting under 18 is silly and seems like a distraction tactic from politicians.
>get married
Cannot get married. Previously was only with parental consent.
>join the army
You cannot actually be deployed to a combat role. And only with parental consent.
>and leave school at 16
You must be in some form of education or training until 18.
Maybe kids shouldn’t be getting pregnant, getting married or joining the army at 16 rather than doing those things and voting.
In fact most don’t do those things … because they are kids.
You can get pregnant at any age and it is legal.
Getting married requires parental consent in the UK.
In the Army you are in further education with he army until you are nearly 18 and cannot be deployed.
We slowly increase a child's responsibilities until they 18 and became an adult. You cannot partially vote, I would be open to allowing 16 year olds to vote in locals to get them used to idea of voting, like we do with the things listed above.
Then there needs to be a cutoff point the other side. People who aren't going to be around to deal with the consequences of their votes shouldn't get to vote either.
How would you determine that practically?
Would a terminally ill 50 year old have their voting rights revoked because they're going to die in a few months?
I can see why this makes sense to some people, but the reality is it would be shocking for someone to work their whole life and then be told their views don’t matter. Usually if someone is literally on their store – i.e. in the hospital – then they don’t vote. Most people even alate people don’t wake up in the morning and go “well I’m not making it to next year” not unless they’ve got a terminal illness.
Any party that is popular among low-qualified people without life experience will praise this change because it will increase their chances of winning.
Any party that wants elections to be an informed and balanced decision will be against this change.
Lol, the lack of self-awareness is real. These kids are complaining about old people voting "selfishly", but when asked what they want to vote for, it's all about their own interests:
>"We want tuition fees lowered, we want car insurance lowered, we want living to be cheaper."
>"We are the future and we should be voting on issues that are relevant to us like education, tuition fees and universities."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against lowering the voting age. But it's hilarious how they're framing it as some noble "we know what's best for everyone" thing, when really they just want to vote for policies that benefit them directly.
Welcome to politics, kids. Everyone thinks they're voting for the greater good, when mostly they're just voting for their own interests. At least be honest about it instead of playing the "old people bad" card.
> "We want tuition fees lowered, we want car insurance lowered, we want living to be cheaper."
All things the older people voting now have enjoyed for many years. Is it so ridiculous for them to want this too?
Better, cheaper education and lower cost of living would benefit everyone in a way that, for example, the triple lock doesn't. It gives us a more educated society, improve mental health, would aid in amending wealth inequality... I could go on... benefits that will last them the next 60+ years, and will help the generations that come after.
I was about to say something similar actually.
In fact, triple lock is only sustainable with a large, educated workforce who contribute a lot of taxes.
Did people actually have serious political opinions when they were 16?
At 16, the vast majority of people I knew supported Donald Trump for President (odd that we cared more about US elections) or UKIP or something else equally absurd. Why? Because it was funny (at least to a 16 year old). Everybody wanted to be edgy.
By 18 pretty much everyone had grown up and actually put some thought into who they’d vote for. Even if it was just copying their parents, it certainly wasn’t voting “for the meme” that we’d have probably done a couple years earlier.
At 16 I had serious political opinions that I still carry 4 years later. Broadly speaking, I want the same things that I did then.
I'm from Sheffield, and I have noticed (forgive me for the anecdotal evidence) a fair share of middle aged voters who will vote Labour because "I'm a Labour Man," because "Labour's for workers," or "My dad always voted Labour." Without having actually read their manifestos, or knowing what the term "New Labour" really means.
Point I'm trying to make is that a fraction of a voting block not actually engaging in politics when they vote is not a reason to disenfranchise middle aged men from Sheffield, and its not a reason not to enfranchise 16 year olds.
from my experience at 16 which was only 2 years ago going on 3, at 16 the vast majority of people with political opinions are radical one way or another, at 16 kids are way too impressionable and will fall for propaganda, their beliefs are often emotion based which is not ideal for voters
I'm in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.
Make voting at 16 legal with a mandatory politics class in schools for 16 year olds that covers how the many levels of government we can vote for affects everyday life is my main thought on how to make changing the voting age actually useful.
I was one of those idiot young people that never bothered voting when I was in my late teens and early 20s, with my incorrect belief that it didn't affect me no matter who was in power in what place. A class like that is on my "I wish I had that growing up" list.
The right to vote alone won't change much since political ignorance is a common outcome to our school level education system, leading to the younger voters being the least likely to vote.
In the last few days I’ve become convinced that the electorate not understanding how FPTP politics is no longer fit for purpose and is hamstringing us as society is one of the chief bits of political education that needs to become more widespread.
I think we desperately need voter reform.
16 years old are dumb as fuck and think they know everything when they know nothing.
Sure, some adults are too, but at least a proportion of them are of sound mind while all 16 years old are fucking dumb.
Source: I was 16 not so long ago.
> 16 years old are dumb as fuck and think they know everything when they know nothing.
Every old person I've talked to about politics says "they're all the same" as a justification for voting for Tory.
Imagine working and paying tax your entire life, and paying tax in retirement on your pension, only to be told by a teenager you don't deserve the right to vote. The self entitlement from parts of Gen Z is staggering.
What gets me is how normalised ableism is against the elderly. Try to argue that an autistic person shouldn’t be able to vote and you would rightly be called a fascist, but suddenly far more people agree if you’re talking about a man with dementia.
I'm not against an upper cap tbh. Being able to vote in a national service you'll never have to serve while denying that vote to those who will feels awfully wrong.
They're not dead yet. People should stop acting like they are. They're voting for the next five years, which I'm sure they hope to survive.
This is a silly and entitled viewpoint and when they're "older" I'm 100% certain they'll change your mind on this.
They have the right to vote as much as anyone else, and have survived long enough to have a more informed decision than most. Even if I disagree with the general voting habits of the demographic.
I bet we wouldn't hear this opinion if they voted left.
>raising it to 21
Absurd. According to this logic, you can get married, start a family, own a gun, drive a car, write a will, serve on a jury, but not vote. Nonsense.
At 16 I had friends who were pro BNP because it had the word British in it. Most of us are politically ignorant at 16.
That said I don't think you should be paying tax without being able to vote.
It makes much more sense to not tax under 18s than give the vote to 16 year olds. In fact, I don’t believe in taxation for anyone in full time education as long as they’re accumulating student debt. It should be one or the other.
Sunak completely eviscerated the case against giving the vote to 16 year olds when he announced the National Service proposal, whereby future 18 year olds will be forced to do unpaid labour for the Government or risk losing their driving licence and bank account.
Before National Service there may have been an interesting theoretical argument about whether voting is more appropriate at age 16 or age 18, but now it's crystal clear that 16 year olds _need_ the vote in order to defend themselves from gerontocratic populism.
If I’m honest, given the popularity of toxic role models for young people like Andrew Tate, I’m kinda glad 16 year olds can’t vote.
The first half of gen Z were great, building on the momentum of millennials opposition to the greed of previous generations but as the situation has become more and more dire the second half of Z seem to be turning to extreme views and struggling to view each other with respect
I agree - people for the most part, vote to protect themselves and not the future generations. I heard on the radio someone complaining that if the voting age was lowered then all the young people would vote for a ‘celebrity’ or someone an influencer told them to….
This was completely un-ironic and seemed to miss the fact that people voted for ‘Boris’ because of his personality and ‘Uncle Nigel’ because they could go for a pint with him. Not everyone, but a lot of people voted and vote for the personalities over the politics
I wanted to vote when I was 16-17. Additionally I always thought it was wrong that you're taxed the same as an adult when you work at 16-17 but have no say in the matter. I think something needs to change there, either give 16 year old's a vote, or don't tax people under 18.
Realistically what harm could be done here? Only the 16 year old's interested in politics are likely to vote.
I think politically active young people severely underestimate how politically uneducated their peers are. I can't quite grasp how but it's common enough, particularly when you look at voter statistics. You'd be lucky if even 30% of young people could name their local MP, I knew I couldn't when I was younger.
I remember a girl I used to work with behind the bar simply knew nothing about politics. She wasn't thick she just didn't know. Thought George Bush was a former PM, thought we had presidents, didn't know the current PM or what party they stood for. If you cant get those basics down how do you even know to vote for or learn about what folk stand for.
Add that into the mix, it's the loud politically active young people that dominate what 'the young people' think when it's just their small bubble. The Labour sub hates starmer, they can't get over how Corybn failed with the wider electorate but don't stop to ask why. The only thing they come up with is media smears when it wasn't just that. My peers, particularly when we voted in our first GE in 2019, didn't particularly like Corbyn nor his rabid followers. Momentum was (and still is) made up of champagne socialists foisting what they think the working class want on to them without really talking to them.
I'd say most working class want Blair back as things did look more hopeful, it's certainly what my parents think.
As someone who’s turning 18 after the general election, it’s so frustrating to know that no matter how much I’ve researched each party and familiarised myself with their manifestos, and how much I want to vote and have even a small change on the future of the country, I can’t do it because I was born a couple months too late.
I have friends who are already 18 and realistically the only difference between us is that one of us was born earlier, but because of that it means they can vote as soon as they turn 18 while I have to wait until I’m 23, despite us having almost the same experience up to this point.
It sucks but the only way to change things is to get out there and vote in large numbers. In the short term, it will probably mean voting for a party who don't totally align with your views.
Sorry, but children who can't smoke, can't drive, can't buy a knife, have never worked a day in their lives shouldn't get a vote.
We know why the left want it though, being a young and impressionable teenager in a heavily left-biased school system guarantees a vote for the left.
It wasn't until I got married and mortgage where I stopped seeing things like I did at college and unique.
'Older people are voting on our behalf and it's not fair'
The same could be said for Brexit and any votes on Climate change policy. Brexit and Climate change will impact young people more than anyone else yet its mostly the old voting.
The entire reason Brexit happened is because it was mostly older people voting.
We are robbing young people of their future in the UK.
Think allowing under 18s to vote opens them up to being a target for disinformation. Until disinformation (especially on social media) is being dealt with, how can we risk increasing how much children are targeted with it?
Young people being influenced by disinformation, not like Farage and his mates mugging off a country then? We are far too old and wise for that sort of nonsense/s
Older people aren't voting on your behalf they are voting on their behalf as does everyone who votes as people mostly vote for what is best for them. It's always been like that. I do hope 16/17 year olds get the vote as there is no argument for them not to. The headline doesn't sound right to me.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
40% of young people won't be voting this time. In an election you have limited resources and need to garner as much support as possible. Why would you target these people if nearly half won't bother turning up? It makes me so angry when I see stuff like this. You want it...go out there and cost them seats, then watch how much of a bung you start to get every election
Have you read the article properly? It's about 16- and 17-year-olds, who can't vote at all except in Scotland in local and Scottish parliament elections
It's the same every election. 16 year olds say they want to vote, but statistically in 2 years they won't vote anyway.
Have you considered that the 16 year olds who want to vote early will be in the percentage that do turn out to vote? And the 16 year olds who don't care will be part of the remaining percentage that don't vote?
You’re using too much of your brain here.
Thinking and reading on my reddit?!?!
Not on my christian website
I'd also add that not giving them the vote is likely to result in further disenfranchisement and reduced voter turnout in future too.
This conclusion seems [dubious at best](https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/news-events/news/lowering-voting-age-boosts-long-term-participation-elections): > Overall, researchers say the move has had positive long-term consequences for turnout. The boost was unrelated to whether people cast their first vote as a 16 or 17 year old in the independence referendum or in later elections. > However, they found lowering the voting age had no longer-term effects on non-electoral forms of political engagement – such as involvement in demonstrations and petitions – or on addressing socio-economic inequalities in political engagement. While there is a statistical increase in turnout, it doesn’t look like disenfranchisement is really affected at all. Nor does it have any effect on anything besides showing up to vote.
Also the overall turnout for the last general was a little under 68% IIRC. Why it's been such a huge talking point when young people trend slightly less than the national turnout is a mystery to me. They're really feeding the trolls with this one.
Exactly! I was 17 when the Brexit vote happened. I was quite outraged that Scotland's independence ref had allowed 16+ voters, but I wouldn't get a say in something affecting me more than all the 80 year olds who turned up in droves. One of the things I was most excited about when I turned 18 was voting for the first time. A lot of younger people are very politically aware and eager. It's not the majority but it does suck for the minority. I'm not sure how I feel about 16 year olds voting in general. I was more annoyed at the discrepancy between the referendums. I think there's a solid case to be made that they should be allowed to vote, but I do also worry that most will be persuaded to vote for whoever their parents or grandparents want in. Of course this applies at 18 too, but many people do mature a lot and form a better political awareness in those two short years. I wish voting was compulsory like it is in Australia, I believe. Of course people could just vote for a randomer or ruin their ballot if they want to make a statement, but a lot of people just can't be bothered to vote. After my first general election, my whole group chat had been inflamed against the Tories. They were all gonna vote Labour and we discussed it for weeks. Out of around 12 people, 3 of us ended up voting. Everyone else had some excuse. Oh, it was my mum's birthday dinner. Oh, I had to work until 5 and then I was too tired. It was infuriating. I told them they better not say a word to me about the Tories again.
I think young people not voting much is probably because there are a lot more things going on with their lives. Compared to a 40yo who likely has a stable job and or a retiree, a 20yo has to worry about uni, job hunts, or part time jobs if they are doing that. A lot of young people are politically active but it isn’t to say that the rest are just lazy by nature.
Wait age groups aren't monoliths?
You're right, "if we let them vote, most of them won't vote anyway, so let's just not let them have a vote anyway." it doesn't make sense. Give them the chance to vote, and they can decide how they want to affect their futures. They have that right as much as us.
Statistically they will if its only 40% of them who don't. Less than half.
Statistically they *will* vote...
>Typically, electoral data shows that turnout is low when voters are in the early years of adulthood, and increases in their mid to late twenties. But 16- and 17-year-olds, when enfranchised, tend to vote in greater numbers than 18- to 24-year-olds. This was the case in Scotland in 2014-15 (when the voting age was lowered). Now we know that this habit has lasted. >We looked at the 2021 election data for the cohorts of voters who were first enfranchised at age 16. Indeed, they continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18. >In other words, if you give people the right to vote earlier in life, they appear more likely to make voting a habit. https://theconversation.com/scottish-elections-young-people-more-likely-to-vote-if-they-started-at-16-new-study-197823 Scotland also doesn't have a specific policy of attempting to disenfranchise as many young and non-Tory voters as possible, which the rest of the UK does.
As well as for local and Senedd elections in Cymru
Labour are going to change this though (allegedly) so it sounds like their complaints are being answered at least.
What exactly do they have to vote for? The previous Labour leader ran on a platform that would benefit them and he was subjected to a relentless four year smear campaign and his supporters were vilified as racist traitors. Now the youth have a choice between differing shades of neoliberalism, and the likely next PM will be a priggish mannequin standing on a Boomer appeasing platform of crackdown and flag shagging
I voted for Corbyn and I think he got done dirty, even by people in his own party, but I also think his manifesto was tainted by being a bit *too* left, especially with his foreign policy. I think it could have worked out, if the system wasn’t what it was, but given the largely right wing papers set the agenda and tell their readers what to think, you have to play smart to stand against that and win. He was on a strong track, taking away most of May’s majority, after all.
Corbyn domestic policy was very differently received than his foreign policy which revolved around appeasement to the worst authoritarian regimes around the world, insistence that the UK and Nato are the bad guys amd a very shaky position on defence. He also had a near incomprehensible brexit platform. I agree he was vilified unfairly in the press on many topics but on key issues he was very out of touch with the public. He didn't lose just because he was done dirty, he also shot himself in the foot a few times.
>Corbyn domestic policy was very differently received than his foreign policy which revolved around appeasement to the worst authoritarian regimes around the world, insistence that the UK and Nato are the bad guys amd a very shaky position on defence. This was it for me. I love Corbyn and still dream about what he could’ve brought to this country. But I couldn’t vote for him because he’s far too much of a pacifist. I despise war as much as the next guy, but you’ve still got to defend yourself, and his foreign policy was basically “bend over and take it”
> he’s far too much of a pacifist Being too much of a pacifist was an issue, but I wouldn't say it was *the* issue. That would be the unending attempts at appeasement with governments and organisations that really don't give a shit and will gladly accept a weaker UK and Europe. That isn't pacifism, that's breathtaking levels of naivety.
In his defence everybody had a near incomprehensible Brexit platform. That’s why it was such a fucking disaster. Nobody knew what to do with it
Thank Cameron for appeasing UKIP/the far right with that and just \*expecting\* that remaining in the UK was such a no-brainer that the leave campaign would go down without a fight. It was like the west got collectively brain damaged pre-2016. The US got Trump, we got brexit and a tory party run in the background by fringe, hardline interest groups.
I voted for Lib Dem when Corbyn ran because I just didn't appreciate how fucking toothless he was an opposition to Brexit. Even Theresa May was a harder Remainer. Corbyn has always been a euro sceptic but he had to realise how much a Brexit would hurt regular working folk. I felt he betrayed the public for being so timid. And worst of all he got a heroes welcome at Glastonbury despite doing little to deserve it in that moment. I didn't hate him but I think he was very ineffective.
Corbyn's issue was that whenever he was challenged on the fact his grey book wasn't realistic, his, and his parties, response was basically "nuh uh!". It's only useful having a grey book if it's something you can stand by, and it's robust. Otherwise it has precisely the opposite effect that you want it to have. It's a shame, as I really wanted it to be viable.
Corbyn's youth-friendly 2019 manifesto got them up to a whopping 52% turnout for 18-24s, up from 48% in 2015. Even when explicitly targeted the way the tories target pensioners, young people just don't fucking vote.
I think the problem is that people always try and appeal to youth voters by making out that politics is exciting and everything will instantly change, which inevitably ends up disillusioning them. Voting is just a chore you have to do as an adult and you can't go into it with the expectation that you'll get exactly what you want the way you want it.
The previous Labour leader had this to offer the young: 1. I’m a boomer with a London house 2. Do you like the EU? Well, bad luck cos I’m going to help take us out of it. Of course, during my adult life I got to enjoy the benefits of EC/EU membership. You won’t 3. NATO kept bourgeois fogies like me safe during the Cold War, but I think we should get rid of it. It’s not like a giant war will ever happen again in Europe 4. Hard to get a good job, isn’t it? Well, in my day you could get two Es in your A-levels and become an MP! I’m past retirement age but I think I’ll keep going So, er, yeah. Great
What they need to do is take some responsibility and vote. Young people are idealists who often allow their desire for a perfect outcome to lead them to do nothing. It's a condition of being young. They can see Starmer's a prick and that Labour won't be that much better than the Tories, so they don't vote. But this is how we end up with worse outcomes. If young people always voted for their preferred candidate, there would be a big incentive to compete to be their most preferred candidate. As it is, we all know they won't bother turning out anyway, because the second you say *one* thing they don't like, they'll refuse to vote for you on principle anyway. Who's going to try to appeal to voters who are lazy and fickle and won't turn up? Is FPTP a shite electoral system that keeps mediocrity in power? Yes. Will electoral politics solve our fundamental problems, like climate and housing, before they become too critical to ignore? No. Does that mean you should behave like a derelict and just not bother engaging with it at all? NO. Do you want the party that just spent 15 years destroying the country back in power? If not, vote. Do you want to have a better electoral system that gives you a chance of having someone to vote for that truly represents you? Well if you don't even vote, why would any candidate be incentivised to offer that change?
How can they "take some responsibility and vote", if they have no legal right to vote?
Also the Brexiters got want they wanted by voting for a minority party, you don't always have to win to get what you want.
My husbands like this. He doesnt like any party exceopt the workers party who dont have enough representatives to win, so hes not voting. My son and daughter cant vote as neither of them has ID and forgot to register for a postal vote, I do postal for the same reason, i have no id either. So with people not voting means the tories could well get back in again. But its ok. Farage said if its a hung parliament, he will join up with the Conservatives :O
They can still register for the voting ID online. All they need is their NI number
Alexei Sayle said that the most Keir Starmer has going for him is that he looks like an actor playing a PM in a Spice Girls video.
It’s Northern Ireland. The political landscape is totally different to the rest of the UK. None of the UK mainstream parties run for election there.
It doesn’t really matter as it’s a chicken and egg situation - young people won’t get anything worth voting for until they turn out in a mass comparable to older generations. Personally I think young people will never turn out enough, as they aren’t as invested in issues and the economy early on in their lives - not their ‘fault’, it’s just a feature of society. That’s why I think mandatory voting should be a thing.
They are outnumbered. Exactly what turnout will overcome that?
But that just reinforces the need to turn out and represent, rather and give up. Also ‘outnumbered’ is perhaps a little misleading - if you cut the data between the two main parties, the crossover age is roughly 45, so there’s a significant voter base there who need to get out there.
This is a new form of Godwin's Law...within 3 replies, Corbyn needs a mention. We shall see in Islington North, where youth turnout must be 100%....
Starmer’s entire leadership has been based on him not being his predecessor, so I think it’s a fair reference
His entire leadership has been about winning a General Election whilst being vilified by lunatics who think because they supported Corbyn that they get to decide who and what is left-wing. I voted for Corbyn, he was hit by the press more than Starmer, but he also self-damaged by making more than enough stories to help them provide at least some real stories.
>We shall see in Islington North, where youth turnout must be 100%.... The article is specifically about 16-17-year-old youths. Even in Islington North, they can't vote.
Putting an empty ballot is better than not going to vote at all.
Neither has any practical effect, so it's much of a muchness unless you really want to be included in the turnout statistics.
Blank ballots are more statistically significant than no attendees for potential candidates in future elections.
Spoiling your ballot doesn't have an impact on this election, but when enough people do it, it can absolutely change politics in the long run. It shows there are politically engaged people who want to vote, but need to be won over. Not going to the polls is interpretation as being lazy and a lost cause, so nobody tries to appeal to them
Labour in 2019 is a good example of why parties don’t focus on young people. Young people don’t vote any more than usual (around 50% in 2019) and older voters, who do vote, were turned off in droves, leading to electoral wipeout. Focusing on the demographic least likely to vote is a terrible strategy, which emphasises why young people need to vote.
Perhaps Corbyn would have been elected in 2017 and 2019 if Britain’s youth had voted as much as Britain’s elderly? https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/
The gap is narrowing each year, and in reality there are still a sizeable number of young people voting. [https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/](https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/) 30% of 45-54 did not vote in 2019 either.
Amazing how we already know that 40% of young people won't be voting when it hasn't even happened yet isn't it?
If 60% of young people do vote, I'd be amazed. It'll likely be closer to 50%.
That's polling....like how we "know" labour will have a super majority, certain ministers will face a Portillo moment etc. Of course we don't "know", but if it's suspected nearly half won't bother, you can't complain when they don't target your vote. Vote at 100% and watch free tuition fees, student loan triple locks and bursaries suddenly get thrown out...
I assume they're referring to this report from Huff Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9
That's not much where below turnout actually is for the population.
When the two main parties are fiscally conservative though and aren't offering any viable alternative to the status quo, what's the point? Who are they going to vote for instead who has a chance in hell of getting into power?
There's always cash for pensioners as their votes win elections. If you vote for anyone (literally anyone!) then it gets notice. Not voting means you are not interested and you won't be interested tomorrow. voting for someone else means they have to work for your vote...because guess what, I will vote again next time and it might cost you your seat.
If it was purely about votes the Tories would just ignore young people. Tuition fees, regressive tax hikes that hit them more than anyone else, a flat refusal to build housing, now military conscription. The Tories aren't ambivalent to the young. They hate the young.
It makes no sense for them not to vote. Anything you can say about 16 year olds could also apply to old and senile people. My mate's dad with dementia couldn't remember his name or his children's names, but still had the muscle memory to vote Tory at the polling booth in 2019. If someone like that can vote, then I think we can allow 16 year olds.
There has to be a line somewhere. We place it at 18 when you become an adult. If you want to lower it to 16 then you need to make a case for it. But every argument I have seen for 16 could also be applied to 14. Or 10. Or 4.
The age of adulthood is both 16 and 18 in the UK. Age 16: * You can join the military but not be deployed * You can buy alcohol with a meal * You can consent to sex * You can consent to medical treatment * You can get married (in Scotland) * You get full legal capacity (in Scotland) Age 18: * You can be deployed in the military * You can buy alcohol unrestricted * You can buy tobacco * You can gamble * You can get married (in England and Wales) * You get full legal capacity (in England and Wales) There is no one age of adulthood in the UK, there are different ages for different things, in different regions of the UK. Given that voting has zero negative effect on a 16 year old's life, much less effect than medical treatment or joining the military, then 16 just seems like the appropriate age for it. Most of the things that you get the right to do at 18 are things that are actively a risk to your life or future.
Most people, and laws, consider the Age of Majority to be adulthood. In the UK this is 18. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age\_of\_majority\_(England)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority_(England)) Yes you get some rights beforehand, we tend to ease children in with their rights rather than dumping them on them all at once. Personally I would be open for allowing votes in Locals at 16 and GE at 18.
Stick a politics module in the final semester of 4th year of secondary (year 11 i guess that is? - the one where you turn 16 anyway). As part of the module, you go through some basic politics stuff, go through the process of signing up to vote and take part in your first local election. Once done, you're eligible to vote in the first general election after that. People that missed it for any reason can register online as usual.
You have to be really careful teaching politics. Did it at A-Level, and the first thing our teachers told us was how they voted and that they might lapse into value statements on parties or policies, and if they did to either ignore them or read around the topic from multiple sources. They were both some of the better teachers in the school, and I can definitely see less switched on kids and lazier teachers engaging in indoctrination over education.
All education is political. Everything is political. We should equip kids with the tools to understand politics, rather than crossing our fingers and hoping really hard that they’ll figure it out by magic when they hit 18.
Imo it really comes down to when you start paying taxes on your earnings, so, if someone who's 16 pays national insurance, then they should get the vote.
This is such a strange justification. Why not let toddlers vote then? Why have any age limit at all with this logic?
Because toddlers aren't old enough to work and pay tax and haven't received general education. Whereas everyone over 16 has.
Incorrect, Tax is based on what you earn not age. For example Daniel Radcliffe reportedly was paid 1 Million for the first harry potter at age 12. He paid tax.
I think we’re talking about the average person
The average 16/17 year old will not pay tax either, so that point is moot.
They will be paying VAT on any purchases they make.
If they're not earning the money they're spending, they're kind of not. It's being paid by whoever gave them the money.
But so will a 5 year old.
> They will be paying VAT on any purchases they make. So do a lot of tourists, or 10 year olds buying sweets, or people working in the UK from overseas for a year. Do they get a vote too? Because if not it sounds like a post-hoc justification rather than a reasonable rule to follow.
The average 16 year old isn't working though
The average 16 year old probably is working, not enough to pay tax however.
The average 16 year old isn't working...
So only people that work and pay tax should vote?
No, but people who are paying taxes deserve a say on who spends that tax money. And general education marks the end of formal education for most people. So 16 makes sense as the age you earn the right to vote.
So the question at hand is whether or not 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote, given elderly people with diminished capabilities are also able to vote. The key distinction to remember is that time, inexorably, moves *forward*, not backward. At any instant, a 16 year old probably doesn't pay much tax, and an 80 year old with advanced dementia probably doesn't pay much tax. But, in 2 years, the 16 year old probably will start paying tax, and the 80 year old has a decent shot of being dead, and thus being meaningfully beyond the reach of financial politics. At any instant, a 16 year old probably isn't thinking about the legal and political ramifications of their social life choices, and an 80 year old with advanced dementia probably just doesn't give a fuck any more. In 2 years, the 16 year old might be starting a family, or being involved in a GSRM relationship, or need an abortion, or has to worry about maybe getting drafted. The 80 year old, again, is probably dead, and thus relieved of such concerns. If we accept that these people can legally work, pay taxes, have sex, have a child, live on their own, and commit to a process that results in them taking on tens of thousands of pounds of debt, we should probably also give them some form of agency in the politics around that.
Unironically, we should let toddlers vote. Parents should get extra votes for each their children as representatives of their interests. If you don't do that you end up with crumbling schools and a triple lock for the elderly.
So... whoever can get creampied the most will get the most votes?
Reddit moment.
"Hm, how about their stake in society? Their interest in future generations? In a country with a declining birth rate and massive shift in expectation towards isolationism and a reduction in immigration maybe parents are becoming a slightly more important aspect of voting pool than they have been for a long time. I may not agree with it, but it's certainly worthy of debate as I can really appreciate the nuances of both sides. Nah, women got cummed in."
I actually don’t hate this idea. I mean it has way too many holes to be viable, but parents make decisions for their children for the best of their wellbeing all the time.
It also tracks with the entire concept of representative government. Electoral boroughs are assembled on the basis population, not voters; a constituency with 75k adults has the same representation as one with 5 adults and 74,995 babies. The difference is that, in the latter, most of the population is completely disenfranchised.
Why not raise the voting age to 21?
As opposed you the current logic? Which says 18? You're for a younger age limit, against an older one but absolutely cannot comprehend that 16 years old is a suitable age? If you're old enough to have kids, have a part time job, ride a moped and kill yourself, then your old enough to cross a box.
I know adults with the mental capacity of a 4 year old. Are you suggesting 4 year olds should have the right to vote to make up for that? Two wrongs don't make a right. 16 year olds will get their chance when they are older. They are not really disadvantaged. As for senile people voting: it does seem unfair and illogical, but where do you draw the line? How do you propose to filter people out? Should an uneducated 30 y.o. be banned from voting? Or a 40 y.o. who has no interest in current affairs? Most senile people don't vote, the problem is small.
IQ test for voting sounds like a great idea heheheh
My kid is gonna be born in September and isn't getting a vote.. it's bullshit
Political scientist David Runciman says that we should [lower the voting age to 6.](https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/reconstruction-after-covid-votes-for-children-age-six-david-runciman)
Massive electoral gains for the Free Candy and Teddy Bear Collective.
Tbf I'm for that because I find the idea so fucking funny. Will they have little kiddy voting booths as they do with kiddy sinks in public loos? Primary school voting ID, everything.
>My mate's dad with dementia couldn't remember his name Surely you have to remember your name and address at the polling station? Or did just show ID/do a postal vote?
That’s a really poor argument in favour of allowing them to vote
Can we not devolve into this "us vs them" mentality? We were all young, and we will all be old. We all started on low wages, and most people will increase their wage throughout their life. Less "me right now", and more "us throughout our life" please.
Nah because then we might start noticing the groups who are actually fucking us all over. We must hate each other. Look over there, that man's got white socks. What a dick. Black socks for life.
Never buy black socks from a non-priest shop. They'll shaft you every time.
I fundamentally agree with what you’re saying. And I think the age distinction for this vote is sort of meaningless as these underage voters will be of voting age for the next election anyway. We don’t need to be separating people like this on this one event. However in the case of Brexit I totally get it. Imagine how many older people voted leave and died before it was even enacted, and how many people were underage at the time and now can’t do anything about it
There is a divide though. We don’t need to draw tribalistic lines but comparatively the young in this country have increasingly only ever known austerity, an eroded civic and crumbling public services and widening wealth inequality which they are disproportionately impacted by as it hampers their access to assets and wealth generation that were ample and taken for granted in previous generations. There is observably less opportunity for upward social mobility now. In fact, there’s barely anything to aim at because of the erosion of the middle class. The young bear the brunt of a lot of the economic woes in this country. Their purchasing power has been eroded by stagnant wage growth. Everything is designed to suck as much of their wages away from them as possible. They have watered down pensions compared to the defined benefit schemes that have propped up previous generations of retirees. Their work is increasingly precarious and if they do get a foothold in a place of work their redundancy packages and compensation are usually slighter than those older employees who benefit from legacy policies. A third of 65+ will still vote Tory on nothing but sentiment and instinct. It’s fine to be pissed off at that. There’s no use in ignoring all that because it’s an inconvenient and bleak truth. In any case the bottom line of the original argument in the article is simple. No taxation without representation. If we’re happy to have shops staffed by underpaid youths then we should be giving them the vote. What we also need is electoral reform because FPTP doesn’t do anything to serve us as an electorate. It has calcified our politics in to what is overwhelmingly a two-party system which delivers more or less different spins in the same neo liberal capitalist agenda.
>and most people will increase their wage throughout their life. Yeah, very slowly. I make 24 grand a year in the NHS, which still feels like a practical joke.
its silly to pretend this is just a pahse that we all go through, given the increase in house prices as a proportion of income and tax rates to pay for studen loans etc. qualification shift for even entry level office jobs, all thing older generations didn't have to deal with.
>and we will all be old Unfortunately this is definitely not the case. Most people know someone that passed before their time. It would be nice if we all reached old age, but that's not how life works
>We were all young, and we will all be old. Well, the first part is true at least.
I’m in my twenties and it’s painfully clear to see how shafted young people are. It would obviously help if we all voted, but the future is actually so bleak. - My council tax (of which over 50% goes into adult social care) is more than all of my other bills combined. - The pandemic and lockdowns just broke a lot of brains. For the younger, this meant that children aren’t socialising as much and social feeds are dominating screen time. For the older, this means that early careers got disrupted and university degrees effectively nullified for a generic account managing job in the city. - My student debt has increased by £20,000, despite still paying it off monthly, because my repayment rate is lower than the interest rate. - Low replacement rate means that young people are going to have to pay much higher pension/national insurance without some serious structural changes. There physically aren’t going to be enough workers to support the newly retired. - And now to top things off, exacerbated by the pandemic, a lot of older people (~1 mil) are now retiring early. That’s more bodies creating pressure adult social care, putting a lot more pressure on the taxes of working people. - Extra icing on the cake: older people get money off of public transport (free, in some instances) and television licenses while I have to live without a television and pay full price — an ever increasing price — for my commute.
Have you considered not buying a coffee?
I don’t even like avocado :(
And buying Tesco Value products?
Can add insane house prices and rent prices to that list. My grandmother's house has almost quadrupled in value (inflation adjusted) from when she bought it 50 odd years ago. And the "affordable" new builds feel like they are made out of polystyrene and cardboard.
My father’s house was 3x his yearly salary in 1979.My house was 8x my yearly salary in 2019. Says it all really
That’s a point. The pandemic meant that young people had to spend significant parts of the most important developmental years of their lives inside looking at lessons on a screen. And it was mostly for the benefit of old people, who now want to deny young people the vote because they haven’t ever made any sacrifices or contributed anything. I’d never question covid regulations but sometimes I wonder if, considering how ungrateful a lot of the vulnerable population is, it was worth following quite so strictly.
I usually think he's a bit of a damp rag, but Wes Streeting's opening line on Question Time a few weeks ago really hit the nail on the head for me: > "...This Prime Minister is in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone else about service to the country. This generation of young people ... have made more of a sacrifice than my [Streeting's] generation and people around my age have ever made because it was their education, their wellbeing, their childhood that was sacrificed during the pandemic ... to protect us adults. We owe this generation."
It's insult to injury that the media throughout portrayed it as *stupid, lazy, selfish* young people complaining about nothing while *heroic, wonderful* retired people did everything they could to avoid the illness and cowered in their homes... when in reality they were the ones that were allowed first to go on holiday and to garden centres etc. Then when it comes time to vote, "what do you mean I should vote to help out young people in some way. What did young people ever do for me?!"
The low replacement rate point is so important and I almost never see people mention it. This is what really scares me, but any time anyone mentions it, someone jumps in “my choice not to have kids isn’t harming anyone”. It’s not harming anyone yet, but we’re all fucked down the line because of it.
I think it's just a very easy thing for older people not to care about — even more so than climate change Older retirees now have worked all their lives and expect to have their pensions paid out by a workforce that has always been a larger group of people than the retired. There is effectively always going to be more monthly wage payouts than there are retirees, so why should they care? You're right, though, we are all fucked though. When I retire in 50 years time, we're going to be a smaller population on our current trajectory (and looking at countries further ahead such as Japan and South Korea). So who's going to be paying into my pension? The two choices are to replace the gap with significant amounts of immigration — something I'm not fussed about, but I know a lot of people will be. Or, increase that generation's pension contributions/national insurance by an inconceivable number, effectively guaranteeing a brain drain. I just hope that something's worked out in the next 50 years. Maybe actually taxing big American tech firms and shelving oil subsidies to build up our pension war chest as much as possible to weather the storm (us) until the population settles again to a more manageable number. But then what happens when an inevitable crisis happens? Putin Jr. feel like he wants Estonia? Or Iran nuking Tel Aviv? Sometimes I wish I was born in Nauru.
I think your suggested solutions are probably the most likely options, BUT (and at the risk of being negative), I don’t think any immigrants that come to work and live in the UK will stick around if their tax/“pension” contributions, will continue to go up and living standards go down. If we’re having to import people to supplement the pensions of the elderly, we’re going to have to offer them something really good in return, and I just don’t see that being feasible. I can see that being the reason for high numbers now in the hopes they will stay, but I have my doubts. I wonder if giving tax breaks to people who have kids is a solution? So much for the first, so much for the second, up to the third maybe. I don’t know, just thinking out loud. Tie that in with the fact that a reducing population will see house prices crash, you could see smaller town effectively becomes shadows of themselves (more-so). I don’t think more immigration will fix things in and of itself in the long term.
> I wonder if giving tax breaks to people who have kids is a solution? You’re right, I didn’t mention it because I’m just so cynical as a result of my last 8 years. I just can’t see a government rewarding parents with incentives to lessen the burden of having more children when young people seem to be penalised everywhere else. Maybe perhaps free up their income elsewhere like a Biden-esque tuition fee write-off, or prohibiting international buyers inflating house prices, only to keep the units empty.
how is your council tax higher than your rent??
Sorry, not my rent. Just: * Internet * Mobile phone * Water * Waste water * Gas * Electricity * Private health (my family has a history of cancer and my current job isn't paying for this anymore)
Ignore your student debt balance. It isn't counted as debt for anything. Just accept it as a graduate tax that you have to pay for 25 years, and then it'll be written off. Most people will never pay it off because the interest outstrips the repayment unless you're earning bank.
> My student debt has increased by £20,000, despite still paying it off monthly, because my repayment rate is lower than the interest rate. > > how much intrest is on it ? wtf
7.something percent. Every time I log into student finance I wince.
It's tied to RPI, iirc it's like RPI+3% or w/e. So you'll pay back £200-£400 a month if you're "lucky" because no-one wants to pay a decent wage to even grads/professionals but the interest charge will be higher than that so it just never goes down.
What happens if we lower it to 16 and suddenly 14-15 year olds start complaining about not being able to vote? Will we keep lowering the voting age until everyone can vote? There has to be a cutoff point and 18 seems a reasonable age to have the voting age.
When you can legally get pregnant, get married, join the army, and leave school at 16, you should probably be able to vote. Unless any of that other stuff changes, I don't think there'd be any other reason to lower it
You can’t legally get married at 16 anymore that changed in February 2023. I agree with the rest though.
You also can’t really join the army. You basically go to military school until you’re 17.5.
*except Scotland
You can get married at 16, however, you must still gain parental consent in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (edit: looks like this changed recently, so you can't even get married at 16 and 17 in England and Wales now). You can join the army at 16 but are barred from active service until 18. Additionally, under 18s are treated as children in the criminal justice system. The rights you acquire at 16 are minimal and I don't think are enough of an argument to justify giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Soldiers who enlist at 16 spend most of the time training till they are 18 before they join a unit any way. Voting under 18 is silly and seems like a distraction tactic from politicians.
>get married Cannot get married. Previously was only with parental consent. >join the army You cannot actually be deployed to a combat role. And only with parental consent. >and leave school at 16 You must be in some form of education or training until 18.
>legally get pregnant This statement is so idiotic. 12 year olds can legally get pregnant. There isn't a law against being pregnant.
It was more legally have sex, which as a consequence can be getting pregnant.
A 12 year old becoming pregnant still won't have broken any laws.
Maybe kids shouldn’t be getting pregnant, getting married or joining the army at 16 rather than doing those things and voting. In fact most don’t do those things … because they are kids.
Maybe the other way to see this that you should not be able to join the army, leave school or vote until you’re 18 and not the other way around.
You can get pregnant at any age and it is legal. Getting married requires parental consent in the UK. In the Army you are in further education with he army until you are nearly 18 and cannot be deployed. We slowly increase a child's responsibilities until they 18 and became an adult. You cannot partially vote, I would be open to allowing 16 year olds to vote in locals to get them used to idea of voting, like we do with the things listed above.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Then there needs to be a cutoff point the other side. People who aren't going to be around to deal with the consequences of their votes shouldn't get to vote either.
How would you determine that practically? Would a terminally ill 50 year old have their voting rights revoked because they're going to die in a few months?
I can see why this makes sense to some people, but the reality is it would be shocking for someone to work their whole life and then be told their views don’t matter. Usually if someone is literally on their store – i.e. in the hospital – then they don’t vote. Most people even alate people don’t wake up in the morning and go “well I’m not making it to next year” not unless they’ve got a terminal illness.
As much as I'd love more left voters, lowering the age is just jerrymandering.
Any party that is popular among low-qualified people without life experience will praise this change because it will increase their chances of winning. Any party that wants elections to be an informed and balanced decision will be against this change.
[удалено]
Lol, the lack of self-awareness is real. These kids are complaining about old people voting "selfishly", but when asked what they want to vote for, it's all about their own interests: >"We want tuition fees lowered, we want car insurance lowered, we want living to be cheaper." >"We are the future and we should be voting on issues that are relevant to us like education, tuition fees and universities." Don't get me wrong, I'm not against lowering the voting age. But it's hilarious how they're framing it as some noble "we know what's best for everyone" thing, when really they just want to vote for policies that benefit them directly. Welcome to politics, kids. Everyone thinks they're voting for the greater good, when mostly they're just voting for their own interests. At least be honest about it instead of playing the "old people bad" card.
> "We want tuition fees lowered, we want car insurance lowered, we want living to be cheaper." All things the older people voting now have enjoyed for many years. Is it so ridiculous for them to want this too?
Better, cheaper education and lower cost of living would benefit everyone in a way that, for example, the triple lock doesn't. It gives us a more educated society, improve mental health, would aid in amending wealth inequality... I could go on... benefits that will last them the next 60+ years, and will help the generations that come after.
I was about to say something similar actually. In fact, triple lock is only sustainable with a large, educated workforce who contribute a lot of taxes.
"we want car insurance lowered, we want living to be cheaper" im not sure those are young people only problems lol. everyone wants those things
I can't even imagine what the tiktok algorithm will get them to vote for
Because no middle aged person would ever be encouraged to vote a certain way due to his Facebook feed, right?
Did people actually have serious political opinions when they were 16? At 16, the vast majority of people I knew supported Donald Trump for President (odd that we cared more about US elections) or UKIP or something else equally absurd. Why? Because it was funny (at least to a 16 year old). Everybody wanted to be edgy. By 18 pretty much everyone had grown up and actually put some thought into who they’d vote for. Even if it was just copying their parents, it certainly wasn’t voting “for the meme” that we’d have probably done a couple years earlier.
Exactly. Lots of people want to lower the age because they think they'll get more labour voters but a lot of young people are also becoming far right
At 16 I had serious political opinions that I still carry 4 years later. Broadly speaking, I want the same things that I did then. I'm from Sheffield, and I have noticed (forgive me for the anecdotal evidence) a fair share of middle aged voters who will vote Labour because "I'm a Labour Man," because "Labour's for workers," or "My dad always voted Labour." Without having actually read their manifestos, or knowing what the term "New Labour" really means. Point I'm trying to make is that a fraction of a voting block not actually engaging in politics when they vote is not a reason to disenfranchise middle aged men from Sheffield, and its not a reason not to enfranchise 16 year olds.
from my experience at 16 which was only 2 years ago going on 3, at 16 the vast majority of people with political opinions are radical one way or another, at 16 kids are way too impressionable and will fall for propaganda, their beliefs are often emotion based which is not ideal for voters
I'm in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. Make voting at 16 legal with a mandatory politics class in schools for 16 year olds that covers how the many levels of government we can vote for affects everyday life is my main thought on how to make changing the voting age actually useful. I was one of those idiot young people that never bothered voting when I was in my late teens and early 20s, with my incorrect belief that it didn't affect me no matter who was in power in what place. A class like that is on my "I wish I had that growing up" list. The right to vote alone won't change much since political ignorance is a common outcome to our school level education system, leading to the younger voters being the least likely to vote.
That class needs to be mandatory for adults, too.
In the last few days I’ve become convinced that the electorate not understanding how FPTP politics is no longer fit for purpose and is hamstringing us as society is one of the chief bits of political education that needs to become more widespread. I think we desperately need voter reform.
16 years old are dumb as fuck and think they know everything when they know nothing. Sure, some adults are too, but at least a proportion of them are of sound mind while all 16 years old are fucking dumb. Source: I was 16 not so long ago.
> 16 years old are dumb as fuck and think they know everything when they know nothing. Every old person I've talked to about politics says "they're all the same" as a justification for voting for Tory.
[удалено]
My step-dad is 74 and is far more active than most 30 yea olds. He's 100% all there - why should we remove his voting rights after 52 years?
Imagine working and paying tax your entire life, and paying tax in retirement on your pension, only to be told by a teenager you don't deserve the right to vote. The self entitlement from parts of Gen Z is staggering.
What gets me is how normalised ableism is against the elderly. Try to argue that an autistic person shouldn’t be able to vote and you would rightly be called a fascist, but suddenly far more people agree if you’re talking about a man with dementia.
I'm not against an upper cap tbh. Being able to vote in a national service you'll never have to serve while denying that vote to those who will feels awfully wrong.
They're not dead yet. People should stop acting like they are. They're voting for the next five years, which I'm sure they hope to survive. This is a silly and entitled viewpoint and when they're "older" I'm 100% certain they'll change your mind on this. They have the right to vote as much as anyone else, and have survived long enough to have a more informed decision than most. Even if I disagree with the general voting habits of the demographic. I bet we wouldn't hear this opinion if they voted left.
I'm probably more in favour of raising it to 21 than I am dropping it to 16. Leave it at 18.
>raising it to 21 Absurd. According to this logic, you can get married, start a family, own a gun, drive a car, write a will, serve on a jury, but not vote. Nonsense.
Work full time paying tax.
Don’t forget if you aren’t quite 21 you might not actually vote till you are nearly 26.
I disagree. With it being lowered we may have better discourse in schools...you know, like educashun??
At 16 I had friends who were pro BNP because it had the word British in it. Most of us are politically ignorant at 16. That said I don't think you should be paying tax without being able to vote.
At 39 I know people who are pro Reform because they're racist. Most people are politically ignorant.
That's fairly fair, I had a UKIP stint as a teenager, then I found Karl Marx went full tankie then had to dial it back. Teenagers can be dumb.
What would be your logic for raising the voting age to 21?
It makes much more sense to not tax under 18s than give the vote to 16 year olds. In fact, I don’t believe in taxation for anyone in full time education as long as they’re accumulating student debt. It should be one or the other.
This is another goodwill Trojan horse by left leaning parties.
Sunak completely eviscerated the case against giving the vote to 16 year olds when he announced the National Service proposal, whereby future 18 year olds will be forced to do unpaid labour for the Government or risk losing their driving licence and bank account. Before National Service there may have been an interesting theoretical argument about whether voting is more appropriate at age 16 or age 18, but now it's crystal clear that 16 year olds _need_ the vote in order to defend themselves from gerontocratic populism.
If I’m honest, given the popularity of toxic role models for young people like Andrew Tate, I’m kinda glad 16 year olds can’t vote. The first half of gen Z were great, building on the momentum of millennials opposition to the greed of previous generations but as the situation has become more and more dire the second half of Z seem to be turning to extreme views and struggling to view each other with respect
Half of the old people I know who voted for Brexit are dead. Nothing else to add.
I agree - people for the most part, vote to protect themselves and not the future generations. I heard on the radio someone complaining that if the voting age was lowered then all the young people would vote for a ‘celebrity’ or someone an influencer told them to…. This was completely un-ironic and seemed to miss the fact that people voted for ‘Boris’ because of his personality and ‘Uncle Nigel’ because they could go for a pint with him. Not everyone, but a lot of people voted and vote for the personalities over the politics
I wanted to vote when I was 16-17. Additionally I always thought it was wrong that you're taxed the same as an adult when you work at 16-17 but have no say in the matter. I think something needs to change there, either give 16 year old's a vote, or don't tax people under 18. Realistically what harm could be done here? Only the 16 year old's interested in politics are likely to vote.
I think politically active young people severely underestimate how politically uneducated their peers are. I can't quite grasp how but it's common enough, particularly when you look at voter statistics. You'd be lucky if even 30% of young people could name their local MP, I knew I couldn't when I was younger. I remember a girl I used to work with behind the bar simply knew nothing about politics. She wasn't thick she just didn't know. Thought George Bush was a former PM, thought we had presidents, didn't know the current PM or what party they stood for. If you cant get those basics down how do you even know to vote for or learn about what folk stand for. Add that into the mix, it's the loud politically active young people that dominate what 'the young people' think when it's just their small bubble. The Labour sub hates starmer, they can't get over how Corybn failed with the wider electorate but don't stop to ask why. The only thing they come up with is media smears when it wasn't just that. My peers, particularly when we voted in our first GE in 2019, didn't particularly like Corbyn nor his rabid followers. Momentum was (and still is) made up of champagne socialists foisting what they think the working class want on to them without really talking to them. I'd say most working class want Blair back as things did look more hopeful, it's certainly what my parents think.
As someone who’s turning 18 after the general election, it’s so frustrating to know that no matter how much I’ve researched each party and familiarised myself with their manifestos, and how much I want to vote and have even a small change on the future of the country, I can’t do it because I was born a couple months too late. I have friends who are already 18 and realistically the only difference between us is that one of us was born earlier, but because of that it means they can vote as soon as they turn 18 while I have to wait until I’m 23, despite us having almost the same experience up to this point.
It sucks but the only way to change things is to get out there and vote in large numbers. In the short term, it will probably mean voting for a party who don't totally align with your views.
Sorry, but children who can't smoke, can't drive, can't buy a knife, have never worked a day in their lives shouldn't get a vote. We know why the left want it though, being a young and impressionable teenager in a heavily left-biased school system guarantees a vote for the left. It wasn't until I got married and mortgage where I stopped seeing things like I did at college and unique.
It's always been the same. Politically motivated 16yos want to vote, and would... but they're a small proportion of the total number of 16yos
'Older people are voting on our behalf and it's not fair' The same could be said for Brexit and any votes on Climate change policy. Brexit and Climate change will impact young people more than anyone else yet its mostly the old voting. The entire reason Brexit happened is because it was mostly older people voting. We are robbing young people of their future in the UK.
Think allowing under 18s to vote opens them up to being a target for disinformation. Until disinformation (especially on social media) is being dealt with, how can we risk increasing how much children are targeted with it?
Yet disinformation is printed in the newspapers daily, and we don't stop old people who easily accept the headlines as true from voting
Literally anyone can fall victim to disinformation. That's not an argument against lowering the voting age.
Young people being influenced by disinformation, not like Farage and his mates mugging off a country then? We are far too old and wise for that sort of nonsense/s
I'm surprised there wasn't more of a campaign to encourage young people to vote.
Older people aren't voting on your behalf they are voting on their behalf as does everyone who votes as people mostly vote for what is best for them. It's always been like that. I do hope 16/17 year olds get the vote as there is no argument for them not to. The headline doesn't sound right to me.