Listen you set of opinionated fookbags.

Saying as your the most outspoken set of non fence sitters i know can you please discuss the following ( this is important for something im doing at uni, so have fun, have banter, but please actually put something worth reading too!)

 

Should the age of voting be reduced to 16?

 

Consider the 2 quotes taken from a discussion in the big kids playground( Houses of Parliament).

 

Matthew Green (Ludlow): The Prime Minister will know that at 16 young people are considered old enough to marry, to have children, to pay taxes and to join the armed forces, yet they are not allowed to vote until they are 18. Does he consider that thosethings are a lesser responsibility than voting? Will he meet me and a group of young people from a range of youth organisations to discuss reducing the voting age to 16?

 

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things they can do. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the voting age. I think that it should remain as it is.

 

 

Im not asking you to do my work for me. Just brainstorm.

 

Thanks fookers.

 

Nic

sat in the library at uni surrounded by smelly people, folk who are asleep at their desks and power crazed librarians who obviously need a good seeing too.

Yes it should.

Why not change it all together, at 16 years of age people should be made to take a test that not only shows intelligence levels, but also allows one to demonstrate their common sense levels. If a 16 year old passes the test, he/she can vote, if he/she doesn't then he/she has to sit the "test" again in two years time, if he/she fails again, he has to wait another two years befoe being allowed to vote and so on..........

 

Thus, within a generation, we can ensure that fuckwits, mongtards and nobsicles don't get the opportunity to decide who runs the country.

Yes it should.

 

Listen you deviant.

Its the week before the big bleed and im touchy

If yes. Why?

How about at 18 you are considered old enough to marry, to have children, to pay taxes and to join the armed forces and thus, get the vote? Or, even better, go with CWP's idea...

Edited January 22, 200917 yr by Winchester White

Mental means tested voting. 'Tis the future.

Lord Shufflebottom-Whyte, Earl of Plumbchester-cum-filthbeast: - 'Here now boy, 16 today and legally old enough for me to roger you'.

Rupert from some nondescript home county village: - Oh please do, oh yes, its a good job you lowered the gay sex age limit, if you are really good to me I will vote for your favorite MP when I am old enough'.

 

They're either old enough to behave like adults or they're not. I'm sure there are more sensible 16 year olds, than senile 80 year olds.

I'm with CWP on this one.

 

A test just after your 16th birthday.

If you fail, you get another go one year later.

 

3 failures and your right to vote is permanently withdrawn.

On one hand I'd say no because I hate them.

 

One the other hand yes because they are probably more politically and soically aware then we were 20 years ago

 

If I had another hand it really wouldn't care

Lord Shufflebottom-Whyte, Earl of Plumbchester-cum-filthbeast: - 'Here now boy, 16 today and legally old enough for me to roger you'.

Rupert from some nondescript home county village: - Oh please do, oh yes, its a good job you lowered the gay sex age limit, if you are really good to me I will vote for your favorite MP when I am old enough'.

 

They're either old enough to behave like adults or they're not. I'm sure there are more sensible 16 year olds, than senile 80 year olds.

 

At 16 you are old enough to do things, get some experience and and then you are able to vote at 18.

 

With regards to the gay pride march to lower the age to 16, who was it who asked 'why are all the people on this march middle aged men ?'

Thought the Government were putting up the age you can leave school to 17 or 18, also driving is now 18 ain't it? So rather than bringing voting in line with other responsibilities it'll be the other way around. Doubt it matters that much anyway, the turn out for voting in this country is crap so even if they did extend rights to 16 year olds I doubt anyone would notice. They should start trying to engage with the electorate as it is instead of looking at ways to curry favour with those who are currently ineligible to vote.

I'm with CWP on this one.

 

A test just after your 16th birthday.

If you fail, you get another go one year later.

 

3 failures and your right to live is permanently withdrawn.

Odd that the PM would say that as it is going to be in the Labour Party manifesto to reduce the voting age to 16 at the next election. Woops Gordon! Check that out in your research for uni.

 

I think it should be - either that or increase everything to 18 which I can't see being popular.

Listen you deviant.

Its the week before the big bleed and im touchy

If yes. Why?

 

Because they can leave home, get a full-time job, start paying taxes, have children and join the armed forces, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If you're working & paying taxes, you should be entitled to vote. IMO.

Odd that the PM would say that as it is going to be in the Labour Party manifesto to reduce the voting age to 16 at the next election. Woops Gordon! Check that out in your research for uni.

 

I think it should be - either that or increase everything to 18 which I can't see being popular.

 

To be fair, the quote used was in 2002 ( im sorry i forgot to put the date on) so it was Blairs response, not Browns.

The arguments for are still the same though.

If you're working & paying taxes, you should be entitled to vote. IMO.

Do you think that should apply to all ages?

Pay tax/contribute to society= a vote?

 

None of the above= no vote?

Listen you deviant.

Its the week before the big bleed and im touchy

If yes. Why?

 

Thanks for the heads up by the way.

I just thought I was a bit grumpy today due to becoming a, and a I quote, "doley chavy tramp".

Edited January 22, 200917 yr by no balls

Do you think that should apply to all ages?

Pay tax/contribute to society= a vote?

 

None of the above= no vote?

 

 

no !!

 

to vote the qualification is that you are a citizen, if you start putting qualifying rules on based on tax you end up excluding people, these people have no say in the political arena so get ignored and you end up with 2 tier system.

 

if a soldier gets his arms and legs shot off in a war so can not work and can not earn so does not pay tax he does nt get to vote ?

To be fair, the quote used was in 2002 ( im sorry i forgot to put the date on) so it was Blairs response, not Browns.

The arguments for are still the same though.

 

OK that's fair enough. Why not ask some of these questions to Bolton's Youth MP's and to the actual MP's too - you'll get some interesting responses from them i bet.

 

From what I know Brown is quite keen to reduce the voting age. Dunno what the Tory policy is though.

 

Should voting be considered a reward for paying taxes, army service, working etc... I dunno. I think everyone should have the right to vote, unless they break the law in a serious way - ie long term jail sentence or something.

 

But then again I disagree with the whole way politics is in this country - but that's an argument for another day!

Edited January 22, 200917 yr by Pea-Lad

Do you think that should apply to all ages?

Pay tax/contribute to society= a vote?

 

None of the above= no vote?

 

If you've never worked & paid into the system then you shouldn't have a vote. 2 tier or not. Cos, lets face it, those kind of people aren't bothered about voting anyway.

As long as their benefits keep coming through the door they're happy. And that is never going to change.

I have not read all the posts so forgive me if I repeat something.

How many 16 year olds would actually go and vote anyway? Turnouts for elections are lower than ever and most 18 year olds don't vote. It would probably cost a fortune to pass through government and probably not make any difference apart from make turnout figures look worse.

fuck that next thing WOMEN will be voteing

I'm with CWP on this one.

 

A test just after your 16th birthday.

If you fail, you get another go one year later.

 

3 failures and your right to vote is permanently withdrawn.

ile go with that to

I have not read all the posts so forgive me if I repeat something.

How many 16 year olds would actually go and vote anyway? Turnouts for elections are lower than ever and most 18 year olds don't vote. It would probably cost a fortune to pass through government and probably not make any difference apart from make turnout figures look worse.

 

Is it about how many would actually vote? Or is it about their right to?

( forgive im playing devils advocate...all day!)

Age is viewed differently in many aspects of life, e.g. in my line of work 15 - 17 year olds are juveniles - do we want juveniles having the right to vote? in some cases 18 - 21 year olds are viewed as young people, as are 18 - 25 year olds in some cases, you can have a 15 - 17 year old with more common sense and political awareness than say a 30 year old adult. It's a difficult one Missus C. and I suspect you would have to critically analyse both answers and then say which you would prefer to happen.