Votes for 16 year olds?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-11-18/lords-back-eu-referendum-vote-for-16-and-17-year-olds/

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/826558/stream_img.jpg

"In the latest of a string of defeats for the government, peers voted by 293 to 211 to approve the reform by a majority of 82 during a debate on the report stage of the European Union Referendum Bill.

If the Government allows the move to stand it would see some 1.5m 16 and 17 year olds eligible to take part in the referendum."



Not sure what to think of this- on the one hand, sixteen and seventeen year olds are eligible to pay taxes, so should have a say on how it is spent, but on the other hand, how many sixteen and seventeen year olds work and earn money? :shrug:

[MB.]

Good

[Kizzy]

A democratic right to vote is nothing to do with earnings.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

A democratic right to vote is nothing to do with earnings.

It was just an example, obviously there are many who do not work or pay taxes and still have a right to vote. Just as there are many sixteen and seventeen year olds currently working and paying taxes.

I guess the point I was trying to make was: if we deem people of this age responsible enough to do things like get married and join the army, they should also have the right to vote. But we also have laws that prevent under-18s from doing a lot of other things, so do we consider them responsible enough or not?

[Crimson Dynamo]

let me give it to you straight

at 16 you know fck all about fck all

BUT this makes you learn

I applaud it

[Denver]

But are they going to vote sensibly? Because the voters didn't in the last election.

[joeysteele]

They absolutely should be able to vote, for me they should now have the vote generally anyway.

Certainly however in this EU referendum for the simple reason this is a decision not likely to have to be made again or not for a very long time.
These groups will be able to vote in the next general election and therefore should be given the vote in this EU referendum.
It is their futures too after all,in fact even moreso.

It is a total disgrace to the Conservative party that they ever tried to refuse the vote to them too.

[Johnnyuk123]

They can vote but only after they have cleaned their room.:hehe:

[JoshBB]

Good!

This will mean that I am able to vote in the EU referendum, right now I am currently more swayed by the 'Stay' arguments but I look forward to the debates.

[Jake.]

But are they going to vote sensibly? Because the voters did in the last election.

Well some grown adults don't vote sensibly so it's not going to make a difference

[empire]

no, schools brainwash the young, and teachers put their own political ideology into their minds, and because these teachers come out of oxford, and other places, that is rife with marxism. they would just tell their students to vote to stay in the eu, rather than making their own minds up,

[JoshBB]

They absolutely should be able to vote, for me they should now have the vote generally anyway.

Certainly however in this EU referendum for the simple reason this is a decision not likely to have to be made again or not for a very long time.
These groups will be able to vote in the next general election and therefore should be given the vote in this EU referendum.
It is their futures too after all,in fact even moreso.

It is a total disgrace to the Conservative party that they ever tried to refuse the vote to them too.

It'll come back to bite them, don't worry.

no, schools brainwash the young, and teachers put their own political ideology into their minds, and because these teachers come out of oxford, and other places, that is rife with marxism. they would just tell their students to vote to stay in the eu, rather than making their own minds up,

:laugh2:

How many schools have you gone to recently, empire? Because in my school, politics is a subject not really visited ever except for in RE when we discuss abortion/euthanasia laws, and in English when we are studying a book with political themes to theme. We've read Animal Farm, and let me tell you that there weren't any teachers promoting marxism whatsoever.

I also don't know where this "people on the left like the eu" thing came about either, because there is quite a lot of euroscepticism among socialists and especially communists actually.

[Ashley.]

16-17 year olds I imagine would be likely to either copy others or let insignificant factors affect their vote (such as the legalisation of certain drugs :umm2:) but as LT said, it could go the other way and could teach them to make mature decisions whilst learning a thing or two about politics.

A completely different way of looking at it is that parties may alter their target audience and make promises that they believe will get the younger generation on their side. But I don't know how probable that is.

In regards to the referendum, meh, I'm not sure how educated 16-17 year olds are in that area nowadays.

[MB.]

Those who are passionate about politics will vote and those who aren't interested won't vote, simple - it's not just a case of 'they're going to copy their parents/vote for who wants to legalise certain drugs/vote for who wants to give everyone free skateboards and backwards baseball caps and rock and roll CDS!!!'

[Ashley.]

Those who are passionate about politics will vote and those who aren't interested won't vote, simple - it's not just a case of 'they're going to copy their parents/vote for who wants to legalise certain drugs/vote for who wants to give everyone free skateboards and backwards baseball caps and rock and roll CDS!!!'

There's no definite "will" or "won't", we'll find out what happens when it happens.

[joeysteele]

Well some grown adults don't vote sensibly so it's not going to make a difference

Looking at the results of the last 3 elections you are truly spot on.

[zakman440]

Good, now they need to extend this to General Elections.

[bots]

i hope the government reverse the lords amendment. 16 year old's shouldn't be voting on anything important to the country.

Why people don't see this for what it is, I will never know - all this is doing is delaying the vote.

[kirklancaster]

let me give it to you straight

at 16 you know fck all about fck all

BUT this makes you learn

I applaud it

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Oh sooooo TRUE. But at 16 we all THOUGHT we KNEW it ALL. That's plain dangerous today.

[kirklancaster]

Looking at the results of the last 3 elections you are truly spot on.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Go Joey mate.

[MTVN]

No they shouldn't vote. Truth is the Lords don't care too much either way, it's just a petty point scoring exercise against the government. This article puts it well:

The peers seeking to give youngsters the vote do not really care about the young. They want to cause trouble for the Government. A new franchise would require a new electoral roll. The time taken to compile that roll might preclude a referendum next year. Overturning a Lords vote to amend the Bill – as the Commons is entitled to do – would also cost time and potentially limit David Cameron’s options.

Some Tory opponents of EU membership are quietly egging the peers on. They calculate that the later the referendum, the more likely Brexit becomes. Peers would be wrong to pass their disruptive and cynical amendment. Whatever the arguments over EU membership, Mr Cameron and his Government were elected on a clear promise to pass this Bill, which was first published in the same form in the last Parliament. The House of Lords is entitled to scrutinise and revise government plans, not wreck them. Peers should think again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/12001348/EU-referendum-16-year-olds-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote.html

[bots]

No they shouldn't vote. Truth is the Lords don't care too much either way, it's just a petty point scoring exercise against the government. This article puts it well:

That's exactly correct. Its all a ploy

[joeysteele]

In the Scottish referendum,I heard far more sense and constructive debate from the 16/17 year olds than was even coming from the Politicians.
When I was 16, I was strongly interested in politics.
This however is an important decision that will affect all in the UK and I say again, anyone who would be entitled to vote in the 2020 general election should have as a right, a vote in this referendum.

So I hope the Lords succeed but it is a real disgrace that the Conservative party are in fact not the ones leading the battle to give 16/17 year olds a vote here,absolutely disgraceful in my view.

[the truth]

16 year olds are mostly clueless

[bots]

In the Scottish referendum,I heard far more sense and constructive debate from the 16/17 year olds than was even coming from the Politicians.
When I was 16, I was strongly interested in politics.
This however is an important decision that will affect all in the UK and I say again, anyone who would be entitled to vote in the 2020 general election should have as a right, a vote in this referendum.

So I hope the Lords succeed but it is a real disgrace that the Conservative party are in fact not the ones leading the battle to give 16/17 year olds a vote here,absolutely disgraceful in my view.

Its not a disgrace. The minimum voting age is 18. If they want that to change then there should be a proper bill put through parliament changing the standard voting age. Attempting to introduce it by the back door by amending a promised action is the disgrace.

[MB.]

16 year olds are mostly clueless

And if they are, they won't vote - the ones who are (or people who at the least think they have a clue, also known as adults) will, just as those of us who have no interest or clue regarding politics don't vote anyway

[kirklancaster]

Its not a disgrace. The minimum voting age is 18. If they want that to change then there should be a proper bill put through parliament changing the standard voting age. Attempting to introduce it by the back door by amending a promised action is the disgrace.

Yes - I have to agree with you and MTVN here BitOnTheSlide. It is a ploy.

[kirklancaster]

And if they are, they won't vote - the ones who are (or people who at the least think they have a clue, also known as adults) will, just as those of us who have no interest or clue regarding politics don't vote anyway

Yeah, but you have cretins such as Russel Brand now influencing huge numbers of young people.

[MB.]

Yeah, but you have cretins such as Russel Brand now influencing huge numbers of young people.

...not to vote. Plus, cretins influencing huge numbers of people sounds rather like everyday politics to me?

[the truth]

I wouldn't let them vote for their own sakes. years later when they actually realise what the worlds about they would be incredibly regrettful. leave kids be kids a few more years

[joeysteele]

Its not a disgrace. The minimum voting age is 18. If they want that to change then there should be a proper bill put through parliament changing the standard voting age. Attempting to introduce it by the back door by amending a promised action is the disgrace.

It is to me, so I stand solid by my view just as you will yours.
I do not support however denying anyone anything who hasn't done anything wrong.
16/17 years olds will all vote in 2020 anyway, what is another years or 2 to allow them a right to vote in the referendum, or is the real reason because it is believed,rightly or wrongly,that more 16/17 year olds will vote to stay in probably.

[MB.]

I wouldn't let them vote for their own sakes. years later when they actually realise what the worlds about they would be incredibly regrettful. leave kids be kids a few more years

You don't give 16/17-year olds enough credit - those who are passionate about politics (a higher number than you might think) have as much of a right on the future of the country as a 60/70-year old does, especially given how many are in employment/apprenticeships etc

[bots]

It is to me, so I stand solid by my view just as you will yours.
I do not support however denying anyone anything who hasn't done anything wrong.
16.17 years olds will all vote in 2010 anyway, what is another years or 2 to allow them a right to vote in the referendum, or is the real reason because it is believed,rightly or wrongly,that more 16/17 year olds will vote to stay in probably.

haha ... 1 in 100 times we agree :joker:

The legal voting age is 18, until that is changed by a legitimate vote, it should remain in place, not sneaked in by an unelected bunch of clueless idiots with an agenda

[the truth]

You don't give 16/17-year olds enough credit - those who are passionate about politics (a higher number than you might think) have as much of a right on the future of the country as a 60/70-year old does, especially given how many are in employment/apprenticeships etc

You give them too much credit and too much responsibility. leave them alone to develop an understanding of the world

[Kizzy]

Yeah, but you have cretins such as Russel Brand now influencing huge numbers of young people.

Influencing them with what? Why is he a cretin, has he lied on any issue, no that's a politicians remit.

[MTVN]

It was also pretty clear in the Scottish referendum that allowing 16/17 year olds to vote was in large part because younger people were more sympathetic to independence on the whole

Almost every country in the world has 18 as their legal voting age, it is the same in our country and has been for decades, it is strange to me that is suddenly now considered highly controversial to have 18 as the minimum age for this referendum. There has to be a cut off at some point and it makes sense to have the same rules around voting in this referendum as there is in the general election.

[MB.]

You give them too much credit and too much responsibility. leave them alone to develop an understanding of the world

Who says they don't have one? Or is that just a generalisation to suit a particular agenda (assuming they'll all vote the same way in the EU referendum, etc)?

[MB.]

It was also pretty clear in the Scottish referendum that allowing 16/17 year olds to vote was in large part because younger people were more sympathetic to independence on the whole

Almost every country in the world has 18 as their legal voting age, it is the same in our country and has been for decades, it is strange to me that is suddenly now considered highly controversial to have 18 as the minimum age for this referendum. There has to be a cut off at some point and it makes sense to have the same rules around voting in this referendum as there is in the general election.

The standard global age was 21 up until the mid-late 20th century, times change

[the truth]

Who says they don't have one? Or is that just a generalisation to suit a particular agenda (assuming they'll all vote the same way in the EU referendum, etc)?

I say, hey simply haven't had enough time or experience.

[joeysteele]

haha ... 1 in 100 times we agree :joker:

The legal voting age is 18, until that is changed by a legitimate vote, it should remain in place, not sneaked in by an unelected bunch of clueless idiots with an agenda

The house of lords is part of parliament, it has every right to amend as part of the constitution and legislative process.
Until it is changed, it has every right to do so and refer things back to the Commons.
Hopefully as with many issues in the past as to Labour govt legislation and now here with this Govt legislation,lets see what the govt does with such recommendations.

If the Lords make this near dictatorial govt change their minds then well done to them I say.

[Kizzy]

The house of lords is part of parliament, it has every right to amend as part of the constitution and legislative process.
Until it is changed, it has every right to do so and refer things back to the Commons.
Hopefully as with many issues in the past as to Labour govt legislation and now here with this Govt legislation,lets see what the govt does with such recommendations.

If the Lords make this near dictatorial govt change their minds then well done to them I say.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

[bots]

The house of lords is part of parliament, it has every right to amend as part of the constitution and legislative process.
Until it is changed, it has every right to do so and refer things back to the Commons.
Hopefully as with many issues in the past as to Labour govt legislation and now here with this Govt legislation,lets see what the govt does with such recommendations.

If the Lords make this near dictatorial govt change their minds then well done to them I say.

This government has a tiny majority, it can't under any possible circumstances be considered dictatorial. The simple fact is that you can't stand their policies, which is fine, but the adjectives used to describe a legitimately elected government are getting tiresome ... to me anyway.

[the truth]

This government has a tiny majority, it can't under any possible circumstances be considered dictatorial. The simple fact is that you can't stand their policies, which is fine, but the adjectives used to describe a legitimately elected government are getting tiresome ... to me anyway.

that's the radical left wing brainwash students go through much of the UK and anyone who questions it is labelled a bigot...very dangerous

[joeysteele]

This government has a tiny majority, it can't under any possible circumstances be considered dictatorial. The simple fact is that you can't stand their policies, which is fine, but the adjectives used to describe a legitimately elected government are getting tiresome ... to me anyway.

I am not going to argue with you but the way this govt imposes rather than compromises with the likes of Police, junior Doctors, its attitude to the sick and disabled and also as to the wishes of just about all other representations in Parliament which far outweigh the votes this govt got in the election.
The way it dismisses charities and welfare groupings as to how devastating its policies are.
Sorry for me it is being 'near' dictatorial in that and I said 'near' not that it was anyway.if you read my post fully.
It is also tiresome for me to have to re state a comment I made,which someone like yourself twists to have it saying something I didn't too.
Again I state, I said 'near dictatorial' 'not' that it actually was.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm with the people that thinks that 16 year olds have the right to vote on their future and not have it decided for by a bunch of scared older adults who can't accept the possibility that the 16 year olds and the younger generations full stop actually don't mind staying in the EU.

[joeysteele]

I'm with the people that thinks that 16 year olds have the right to vote on their future and not have it decided for by a bunch of scared older adults who can't accept the possibility that the 16 year olds and the younger generations full stop actually don't mind staying in the EU.

That is the real issue on this, the Euro sceptics in the political parties that are, do not want 16 and 17 year olds to have a vote because they believe they will vote more to stay in than to leave.
You hear loads of comments like this is a vote for the very long term future of the UK and future generations, then they deride the intelligence of those 16 and 17 years olds, who will be voting if they want to, in the 2020 election, their right to vote for their futures too as to the UK in or out the EU.

Well said Mock and you were at 16 very good on the political issues just as I was, it is shocking to lump all 16 and 17 years olds together as incapable of making a decision about the UK and their futures,just as is it to deride much older generations too.

[Kizzy]

This government has a tiny majority, it can't under any possible circumstances be considered dictatorial. The simple fact is that you can't stand their policies, which is fine, but the adjectives used to describe a legitimately elected government are getting tiresome ... to me anyway.

Yes it can, the tiny majority now has the majority of the power...
They are using that power to cause real damage, dictatorial is a perfect word.

'tending to dictate; tyrannical; overbearing'

[bots]

I am not going to argue with you but the way this govt imposes rather than compromises with the likes of Police, junior Doctors, its attitude to the sick and disabled and also as to the wishes of just about all other representations in Parliament which far outweigh the votes this govt got in the election.
The way it dismisses charities and welfare groupings as to how devastating its policies are.
Sorry for me it is being 'near' dictatorial in that and I said 'near' not that it was anyway.if you read my post fully.
It is also tiresome for me to have to re state a comment I made,which someone like yourself twists to have it saying something I didn't too.
Again I state, I said 'near dictatorial' 'not' that it actually was.

The government was given a mandate to govern by the people. Thats how the system works. It was a small mandate giving them a tiny majority in parliament, so to suggest that the government is in anyway similar to a dictatorship is inappropriate rhetoric.

Your objections to this government are related to its policies, which you are of course entitled to, but many, including myself support those policies.

Using terms such as dictatorial relate to the process of government itself, and is not related to the governments policies. So throwing terms like that around where they bear no relation to the truth is just attempted scaremongering and spreading wholly false accusations

[joeysteele]

The government was given a mandate to govern by the people. Thats how the system works. It was a small mandate giving them a tiny majority in parliament, so to suggest that the government is in anyway similar to a dictatorship is inappropriate rhetoric.

Your objections to this government are related to its policies, which you are of course entitled to, but many, including myself support those policies.

Using terms such as dictatorial relate to the process of government itself, and is not related to the governments policies. So throwing terms like that around where they bear no relation to the truth is just attempted scaremongering and spreading wholly false accusations

Being dictatorial is imposing your will even when warned of the dangers and problems of such will.
being dictatorial is talking 'at' people and groups rather than talking 'to' them.
Dismissing all concerns others have.

All things that this govt is doing.

Twist it all you like but I would be saying all these same things were this a Labour govt acting that way too.
And can you get it right for once please, I said 'near' dictatorial not that it was.
If you just want a silly tit for tat argument, find some other poor soul to be nitpicking with but it will not be me that indulges you in that for sure.

[bots]

Being dictatorial is imposing your will even when warned of the dangers and problems of such will.
being dictatorial is talking 'at' people and groups rather than talking 'to' them.
Dismissing all concerns others have.

All things that this govt is doing.

Twist it all you like but I would be saying all these same things were this a Labour govt acting that way too.
And can you get it right for once please, I said 'near' dictatorial not that it was.
If you just want a silly tit for tat argument, find some other poor soul to be nitpicking with but it will not be me that indulges you in that for sure.

I will always be here to point out when you say things that are blatantly false

[JoshBB]

If people could stop talking about young people like they're idiots that'd be great thanks

[joeysteele]

I will always be here to point out when you say things that are blatantly false

I say nothing that is false, I state my own opinion and always maintain it as so, not insulting others opinions in any way and I always qualify my posts with 'possibly', 'probably','likely' and 'near' as descriptive terms because some others may always hold another viewpoint to mine.

You could perhaps,in my view, think about trying that sometime and not be so insulting to others,and if all you are going to do is twist what I say and insult me personally then just cut that out, thank you.

[joeysteele]

If people could stop talking about young people like they're idiots that'd be great thanks

It is extremely insulting to do so and wrong to generalise anyway on all in such an age group,I agree Josh.

[Jamie89]

I wouldn't let them vote for their own sakes. years later when they actually realise what the worlds about they would be incredibly regrettful. leave kids be kids a few more years

16's not really a kid though is it? They can have jobs, they can start families. And some of them can even learn stuff, about stuff. There are probably plenty of 16/17 year olds who are more interested in, and have a better understanding of politics than some 18+ voters (and the ones who aren't interested simply won't vote). I don't see the problem with it

[kirklancaster]

Influencing them with what? Why is he a cretin, has he lied on any issue, no that's a politicians remit.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: EXACTLY - The cretin has NOTHING. He spouts total B.S and does not have a clue. Ha Ha.

[DemolitionRed]

How many schools have you gone to recently, empire? Because in my school, politics is a subject not really visited ever except for in RE when we discuss abortion/euthanasia laws, and in English when we are studying a book with political themes to theme. We've read Animal Farm, and let me tell you that there weren't any teachers promoting marxism whatsoever.

I also don't know where this "people on the left like the eu" thing came about either, because there is quite a lot of euroscepticism among socialists and especially communists actually.

Do you think politics should be part of senior schools national curriculum ? Politics play such a big part in our life whether we know it or not.

I've never been a supporter of the national curriculum, but it would be a necessary evil if we were to start teaching politics as one of the main subjects.

[the truth]

Do you think politics should be part of senior schools national curriculum ? Politics play such a big part in our life whether we know it or not.

I've never been a supporter of the national curriculum, but it would be a necessary evil if we were to start teaching politics as one of the main subjects. yes

[DemolitionRed]

If people could stop talking about young people like they're idiots that'd be great thanks

Josh, just be comfortable in the knowledge that you know more about politics than most people older than you ever will. :laugh:

[JoshBB]

Do you think politics should be part of senior schools national curriculum ? Politics play such a big part in our life whether we know it or not.

I've never been a supporter of the national curriculum, but it would be a necessary evil if we were to start teaching politics as one of the main subjects.

Yes I think it would be very beneficial, even if it were one period a fortnight. We need to know what's going on and how our country as a democracy is run. Perhaps it could even increase voter turnouts which seem to be on the decline.

Josh, just be comfortable in the knowledge that you know more about politics than most people older than you ever will. :laugh:

Thanks :laugh:

[kirklancaster]

When I was young I was a staunch Labour Party supporter, and Joey Steele was a staunch Tory supporter.

We were both highly educated, intelligent, and both BELIEVED with all our heart in our respective political choices.

I am not saying that SOME 16 year olds are not precocious and not mature beyond their years, nor am I saying that 16 year olds CANNOT be socially and politically aware.

But what I AM saying, is that the MAJORITY of 16 year olds in this country cannot SPELL politics let alone understand them.

This is why, I do not favour 16 year old being given the vote.

A vote in immature irresponsible, impressionable and naive hands is as dangerous as a firearm.

[kirklancaster]

Do you think politics should be part of senior schools national curriculum ? Politics play such a big part in our life whether we know it or not.

I've never been a supporter of the national curriculum, but it would be a necessary evil if we were to start teaching politics as one of the main subjects.

Yes - absolutely. It is as important as the three 'R's'.

[smudgie]

Personally I think a bit of life's experience under your belt can be as good if not better than intelligence.
18 is young enough in my opinion.

[JoshBB]

When I was young I was a staunch Labour Party supporter, and Joey Steele was a staunch Tory supporter.

We were both highly educated, intelligent, and both BELIEVED with all our heart in our respective political choices.

I am not saying that SOME 16 year olds are not precocious and not mature beyond their years, nor am I saying that 16 year olds CANNOT be socially and politically aware.

But what I AM saying, is that the MAJORITY of 16 year olds in this country cannot SPELL politics let alone understand them.

This is why, I do not favour 16 year old being given the vote.

A vote in immature irresponsible, impressionable and naive hands is as dangerous as a firearm.

Just because your views changed, does not mean that they were cast stupidly or irresponsibly - they simply changed. And we aren't going to disqualify swing voters from elections.

"No taxation without representation" also rings to mind.

[bots]

I don't have a problem with the voting age changing if the decision is as a result of the proper procedure being followed with a bill going through parliament, discussed and voted on. If that were done, the legal age is changed in a democratic way.

However, the house of lords tagging it on as an amendment is not following the spirit of democracy in my opinion, that's what I object to, that and the knowledge that they do so just to disrupt timetables and the democratic process.

[joeysteele]

Just because your views changed, does not mean that they were cast stupidly or irresponsibly - they simply changed. And we aren't going to disqualify swing voters from elections.

"No taxation without representation" also rings to mind.

Hi Josh.
Just to explain,my mind changed from what I personally started to witness firstly among the homeless then of those being robbed by this govt of due entitlements as to benefits.
Once I saw that happening against the sick and disabled,even in my time at Uni and then in my work in law afterwards,that is when I changed my view as to what party was the better for me as to politics.

I was still more a Conservative sympathiser than a Labour one until I was 19,it was around 2012 when I turned 20, I had seen enough of their heartlessness and injustice that turned me away from them completely and then get behind Labour it wasn't at 16 or 17 I changed my views but when I reached my 20s.

Even the situation in Labour at present is far more appealing than supporting anything this PM particularly and this wretched govt has on offer as to its heartlessness.

[the truth]

If people could stop talking about young people like they're idiots that'd be great thanks

ahh the far left showing false outrage on behalf of others again.....they did the same claiming Christmas offended muslims, it didn't, but the left created the division, they pretended they were the people to fix the division. maybe the majority of 16 year olds aren't prepared for voting , maybe some don't want to vote, lets ask them not those who pretend to represent them

[Kizzy]

When I was young I was a staunch Labour Party supporter, and Joey Steele was a staunch Tory supporter.

We were both highly educated, intelligent, and both BELIEVED with all our heart in our respective political choices.

I am not saying that SOME 16 year olds are not precocious and not mature beyond their years, nor am I saying that 16 year olds CANNOT be socially and politically aware.

But what I AM saying, is that the MAJORITY of 16 year olds in this country cannot SPELL politics let alone understand them.

This is why, I do not favour 16 year old being given the vote.

A vote in immature irresponsible, impressionable and naive hands is as dangerous as a firearm.

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

[the truth]

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

its not its realitistic

[joeysteele]

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

Spot on again Kizzy, I couldn't agree more.

[Kizzy]

its not its realitistic

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

[the truth]

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

if we follow that insane liberal logic, lets have babies voting....come on now don't be ageist

[Marsh.]

if we follow that insane liberal logic, lets have babies voting....come on now don't be ageist

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

[the truth]

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

the line has to be drawn, 16 is too immature...no doubt youd ban all hetro men

[Marsh.]

no doubt youd ban all hetro men

:umm2:

[Kizzy]

the line has to be drawn, 16 is too immature...no doubt youd ban all hetro men

Que... Where did that come from?

[Marsh.]

Pulled out of his arse obviously. :/

[bots]

Surely its very simple, there is a voting age that is deemed legal and acceptable. That is currently 18. Any change to that requires a bill gaining a majority.

We could argue the pro's and cons of changing all day, but provided it is consistently applied and done for genuine reasons and not just to sway the results on a particular issue or further some political agenda, who cares.

[the truth]

Surely its very simple, there is a voting age that is deemed legal and acceptable. That is currently 18. Any change to that requires a bill gaining a majority.

We could argue the pro's and cons of changing all day, but provided it is consistently applied and done for genuine reasons and not just to sway the results on a particular issue or further some political agenda, who cares.

yep that's democracy at work

[Mystic Mock]

I will always be here to point out when you say things that are blatantly false

Is it blatantly false though? The only way to get the public to give them a majority was to get the Media to slander Ed Milliband with his Father so to me that's dictating how the public should feel about someone in a very underhanded manner that not many parties use.

[Mystic Mock]

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

I know, this just keeps getting better.:joker:

[kirklancaster]

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

[Mystic Mock]

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

Okay the BIB are the stuff that I'm quoting.

1. I hate TOWIE, but just because some 16 to 18 year olds might find it more entertaining to watch than some Political shows doesn't mean that they're thick, uneducated when it comes to Politics, or that they should be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE which is kind of the message that your post seems to come across to me Kirk.

2. What sort of survey was that? When I was 12 I knew when the Great War ended, and I certainly knew it wasn't apart of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Ammi]

It was just an example, obviously there are many who do not work or pay taxes and still have a right to vote. Just as there are many sixteen and seventeen year olds currently working and paying taxes.

I guess the point I was trying to make was: if we deem people of this age responsible enough to do things like get married and join the army, they should also have the right to vote. But we also have laws that prevent under-18s from doing a lot of other things, so do we consider them responsible enough or not?

..I'm not sure that voting at 18yrs would add any more 'responsible enough' but just make young people two years older..whatever the age is, I think that people in general, will either inform themselves to vote or they won't...that applies I think to all ages...anyways I would say yes, that 16yr olds should be eligible to vote because 16yr olds are the future...I guess the pointlessness of age is that many who are eligible, don't use their vote...

[kirklancaster]

Okay the BIB are the stuff that I'm quoting.

1. I hate TOWIE, but just because some 16 to 18 year olds might find it more entertaining to watch than some Political shows doesn't mean that they're thick, uneducated when it comes to Politics, or that they should be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE which is kind of the message that your post seems to come across to me Kirk.

2. What sort of survey was that? When I was 12 I knew when the Great War ended, and I certainly knew it wasn't apart of the Napoleonic Wars.

I believe that my post is sufficiently lucid that its meaning and intent is clear, but you are taking certain points in my post out of context Mock. I think you will see that I am NOT saying ALL young people are thick or even that ALL young people who watch TOWIE are thick, if you read my post again - taking note of certain key phrases such as;

"66% -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Most" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"54%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Exception to the rule" --- meaning NOT ALL.
"12%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Average"-- meaning NOT ALL.

In addition:

1) I agree Mock, but it also does not mean that SOME of them are NOT thick and uneducated when it comes to politics, or that some of them SHOULD NOT be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE.

2) I think that the main survey was The Institute for Public Policy Research - I cannot remember really I have read that many.

I do also think to be fair Mock, that you should take into account that I wrote:

"Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds..."

So congratulations if you belong to the 'exception rather than the rule' class, but there are huge numbers who ARE the rule - and it is THEY to whom I am clearly referring in my post.

Incidentally, you have PROVED my point that 'Not Judging others by your own standards' is meaningless twaddle, because you are so obviously judging others by your standards:

YOU are educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, and politically aware - so you assume ALL other young people are like you - or in other words, you are judging them by your own standards. Hence your defence of them here.

How else can we judge but by our own standards?

Anyway Mock I hope this has cleared it up for you.

[empire]

lets point out a few things, britain's political thinking, and the british public are highly flawed, giving 16 year olds the vote, is just adding more dead wood, to a bent political system, every five years, most 16 year olds, will vote only who their parents tell them to vote for, instead of reading what every party sets out for, the problem in britain is that their is too much loyal sheep voting, because that kid would say that his or her parents voted for this party, and there parents voted for the same party, I feel that these kids are just being used to make up lost votes that are not here anymore, I mean when was the last time that the election turn out near 50 million, that was some time ago.

[bots]

Just to balance the argument, there are many, many voters outside the 16-18 age group that are clueless about politics, have no idea what the differences are between the various parties and randomly place their X on the page. They are still entitled to vote.

The point being that education/knowledge is not a prerequisite to being able to vote

[Mystic Mock]

I believe that my post is sufficiently lucid that its meaning and intent is clear, but you are taking certain points in my post out of context Mock. I think you will see that I am NOT saying ALL young people are thick or even that ALL young people who watch TOWIE are thick, if you read my post again - taking note of certain key phrases such as;

"66% -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Most" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"54%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Exception to the rule" --- meaning NOT ALL.
"12%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Average"-- meaning NOT ALL.

In addition:

1) I agree Mock, but it also does not mean that SOME of them are NOT thick and uneducated when it comes to politics, or that some of them SHOULD NOT be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE.

2) I think that the main survey was The Institute for Public Policy Research - I cannot remember really I have read that many.

I do also think to be fair Mock, that you should take into account that I wrote:

"Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds..."

So congratulations if you belong to the 'exception rather than the rule' class, but there are huge numbers who ARE the rule - and it is THEY to whom I am clearly referring in my post.

Incidentally, you have PROVED my point that 'Not Judging others by your own standards' is meaningless twaddle, because you are so obviously judging others by your standards:

YOU are educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, and politically aware - so you assume ALL other young people are like you - or in other words, you are judging them by your own standards. Hence your defence of them here.

How else can we judge but by our own standards?

Anyway Mock I hope this has cleared it up for you.

Yeah you have thanks.

We all do judge by our own standards of course we do, who's said otherwise?:laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

according to these two articles http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100231789/young-people-dont-worship-the-welfare-state-lowering-the-voting-age-to-16-could-benefit-the-tories/ http://www.conservativehome.com//thetorydiary/2013/06/conservative-support-rises-among-the-young-presenting-an-opportunity-we-must-seize.htmlarticle, the Conservatives would gain votes if the voting age was lowered.

I firmly believe that young voters are much more likely to follow the same political views as their parents. I know I did when I was 16. Their thoughts influenced my thoughts because I wasn't really interested enough at that age to look any further.

[joeysteele]

..I'm not sure that voting at 18yrs would add any more 'responsible enough' but just make young people two years older..whatever the age is, I think that people in general, will either inform themselves to vote or they won't...that applies I think to all ages...anyways I would say yes, that 16yr olds should be eligible to vote because 16yr olds are the future...I guess the pointlessness of age is that many who are eligible, don't use their vote...

Hallelujah, exactly right and that is the whole point of why they should be able to vote,it is their futures too.
Also the precedent has been already set in the UK when the Scottish parliament was able to permit 16 year olds to vote in that referendum, which this govt also permitted to happen.
Oh really well said and all excellent and fair points too from you Ammi.

[DemolitionRed]

I firmly believe that young voters are much more likely to follow the same political views as their parents. I know I did when I was 16. Their thoughts influenced my thoughts because I wasn't really interested enough at that age to look any further.

I know I've quoted my own post but its relevant to what I want to add.

If we bring down the vote then we need to be careful that its not open to corruption.

It has to be that Teachers within state and privately run schools can't influence votes and there can't be politically prepared pre-election campaigns taking place within schools.

There has to be more education on national politics/economics because without this, most of the state run schools won't bother to go and vote whilst all of the private schools will.

[kirklancaster]

I know I've quoted my own post but its relevant to what I want to add.

If we bring down the vote then we need to be careful that its not open to corruption.

It has to be that Teachers within state and privately run schools can't influence votes and there can't be politically prepared pre-election campaigns taking place within schools.

There has to be more education on national politics/economics because without this, most of the state run schools won't bother to go and vote whilst all of the private schools will.

Exactly one of my points; very young people ARE more susceptible to being influenced by sinister forces who have their own agenda.

It happens in some institutions now with Religion by those with authority - both Pro and Anti.

Prisons are the biggest breeding grounds for young people being converted to Islam for instance.

And yes, there DOES need to be comprehensive education on politics if we are to lower the voting age.

[Niamh.]

You're not considered an adult till you're 18 so no I don't think you should be able to vote till then either tbqh :shrug:

[Jamie89]

You're not considered an adult till you're 18 so no I don't think you should be able to vote till then either tbqh :shrug:

But you can have a job and start a family at 16. It is a grey area though.

I'm starting to wonder actually (and I might be alone here :unsure:) whether there should be no age limit at all on voting. Now before anyone starts with how ridiculous that is and babies voting etc lol, here me out. Most of the reasoning behind 16 year olds not being allowed the vote, seems to be that they aren't knowledgeable enough and don't understand politics well enough. But this can be applied to so many adults that it doesn't seem to fit as a reasonable argument to me. Of course the ratios are going to be different in those age groups, but if political knowledge is a factor in determining who gets a vote then maybe there's another solution. What if at the polls, in addition to casting a vote, you have to also fill out some sort of short quiz, that would demonstrate your knowledge of the parties policies etc?
Really I'm just thinking out load here and it might seem like a silly idea because it's so different to how we currently do things, but would it not ensure that all people who are knowledgeable of politics would cast a valid vote, and those who aren't, wouldn't? Solving the whole issue of 'well they shouldn't vote because they don't know anything about it'?

[Denver]

Most people can't even Cook, Wash their Clothes, Clean their Rooms at 16 let alone vot sensible.

[Niamh.]

But you can have a job and start a family at 16. It is a grey area though.

I'm starting to wonder actually (and I might be alone here :unsure:) whether there should be no age limit at all on voting. Now before anyone starts with how ridiculous that is and babies voting etc lol, here me out. Most of the reasoning behind 16 year olds not being allowed the vote, seems to be that they aren't knowledgeable enough and don't understand politics well enough. But this can be applied to so many adults that it doesn't seem to fit as a reasonable argument to me. Of course the ratios are going to be different in those age groups, but if political knowledge is a factor in determining who gets a vote then maybe there's another solution. What if at the polls, in addition to casting a vote, you have to also fill out some sort of short quiz, that would demonstrate your knowledge of the parties policies etc?
Really I'm just thinking out load here and it might seem like a silly idea because it's so different to how we currently do things, but would it not ensure that all people who are knowledgeable of politics would cast a valid vote, and those who aren't, wouldn't? Solving the whole issue of 'well they shouldn't vote because they don't know anything about it'?

Yes and the vast majority of 16 year olds either don't work or work part time jobs and are still in school, there has to be a line drawn somewhere and I believe as the majority of 16 year olds won't be living an adult life of working full time and raising a family then they shouldn't really be able to vote.

As for no age limit at all? That's a bit silly

[Jamie89]

Yes and the vast majority of 16 year olds either don't work or work part time jobs and are still in school, there has to be a line drawn somewhere and I believe as the majority of 16 year olds won't be living an adult life of working full time and raising a family then they shouldn't really be able to vote.

As for no age limit at all? That's a bit silly

Did you see my reasoning though? It's not so much about taking the age limit away and blanketly allowing everyone to vote, as much as it would be about refocusing on what criteria is used in determining who gets to vote ie. people who have no political knowledge v people who have political knowledge (as most of the reasoning I've seen on the thread seems to be suggesting a lack of political knowledge as the main reason 16 year olds shouldn't get to vote).

[Niamh.]

Did you see my reasoning though? It's not so much about taking the age limit away and blanketly allowing everyone to vote, as much as it would be about refocusing on what criteria is used in determining who gets to vote ie. people who have no political knowledge v people who have political knowledge (as most of the reasoning I've seen on the thread seems to be suggesting a lack of political knowledge as the main reason 16 year olds shouldn't get to vote).

What so you want to get people to do some sort of test now before they get to vote? Besides the fact that that's massively undemocratic, it would be expensive, time consuming and too open to corruption imo

[Mystic Mock]

according to these two articles http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100231789/young-people-dont-worship-the-welfare-state-lowering-the-voting-age-to-16-could-benefit-the-tories/ http://www.conservativehome.com//thetorydiary/2013/06/conservative-support-rises-among-the-young-presenting-an-opportunity-we-must-seize.htmlarticle, the Conservatives would gain votes if the voting age was lowered.

I firmly believe that young voters are much more likely to follow the same political views as their parents. I know I did when I was 16. Their thoughts influenced my thoughts because I wasn't really interested enough at that age to look any further.

It definitely makes Winston Churchill's statement look out of sync when you see these articles.:laugh:

[Jamie89]

What so you want to get people to do some sort of test now before they get to vote? Besides the fact that that's massively undemocratic, it would be expensive, time consuming and too open to corruption imo

I'm not saying it's what I want to happen, it's just an idea I had because of everyone saying that their issue with under 18's voting is their lack of knowledge, so it's just something I'm putting out there. If it's undemocratic, surely that makes the whole argument of one person not being able to vote because of their lack of knowledge compared to someone else undemocratic too? Obviously there's practicalities like those you've mentioned (although I don't see how it would necessarily make the process more open to corruption), but I'm just posing it as a theory 'in principle' more than anything else

[Niamh.]

I'm not saying it's what I want to happen, it's just an idea I had because of everyone saying that their issue with under 18's voting is their lack of knowledge, so it's just something I'm putting out there. If it's undemocratic, surely that makes the whole argument of one person not being able to vote because of their lack of knowledge compared to someone else undemocratic too? Obviously there's practicalities like those you've mentioned (although I don't see how it would necessarily make the process more open to corruption), but I'm just posing it as a theory 'in principle' more than anything else

You can't tell an adult who pays taxes that they can't vote because they're not knowledgeable enough, it's completely undemocratic.

You could argue that some 16 year olds pay taxes but again my original point stands that most 16 year olds either don't work or only work part time and probably don't earn enough to pay anything or very little. All those 16 year olds who are that interested in voting (again I think there's probably a minority who care that much too) will be able to vote in two years time, it's not a very long wait

[Kizzy]

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

I'll clarify, I said that and related it to the OP in the context that while you yourself may not have been, or felt educated or responsible enough, it doesn't naturally follow that your peers weren't.

I used the term ageist as I think it is apt, 16-18yr olds are studying A levels their capacity for learning and absorbing information is great and their minds are open.
Whatever stereotypical view you have it is unfair to align this subgroup based on an unnamed study containing an unknown number... 66% of how many polled?
There are those who will have no interest, as there are currently over 18s who can't be bothered to vote... and of course those that can and do, I say give the 16yr olds who want a voice one.