Labour will change voting age, to 16 once elected

[arista]

Starmer's Master Plan
to stay Elected.


Scotland is doing it.



Sunak Confirmed on The SkyNewsHD
Interview with
kids FYI club.

The Voting age is best at 18


A young lady from a Highgate School
gave a Video question to Sunak.
She wants to vote at 16
as labour will allow it
a right little madam

[Crimson Dynamo]

ridiculous to have children voting

[Crimson Dynamo]

Id raise it to 25

[arista]

Id raise it to 25


I think 18
is fine

[Kate!]

They are young adults at 16. Give them their say.

[joeysteele]

It's their future to come so I totally support this.

I've heard many times more sense from 15 and 16 year olds than from many, more decades older.

Definitely I agree with this correct plan in my view.

[joeysteele]

They are young adults at 16. Give them their say.

Absolutely right.

[Liam-]

You become an adult in the eyes of the law at 16, you can pay taxes at 16, you can decide to join the army at 16, if they’re old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions, then why shouldn’t they vote?

[bots]

Peoples perspective changes as they get older, does that mean that someone aged 16 shouldn't vote? I don't think 18 is a magical age in terms of human development. It's purely arbitrary

[Redway]

Good. It’s time to reverse the trend of treating young adults like actual children: 16/17-year-olds used to be taken a lot more seriously and have more rights.

[Redway]

You become an adult in the eyes of the law at 16, you can pay taxes at 16, you can decide to join the army at 16, if they’re old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions, then why shouldn’t they vote?

You might not fully be an adult at 16 but I agree. Teenagers were never as infantilised as they have been in the last five years.

[Livia]

Let them vote at 16. Of course of they commit a crime, they must be sentenced as adults. And we'll be able to send them into war zones... Unless people think 16 is too young?

[joeysteele]

You become an adult in the eyes of the law at 16, you can pay taxes at 16, you can decide to join the army at 16, if they’re old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions, then why shouldn’t they vote?

If polling suggested those around 16 would more vote Con.
The Cons would probably be screaming for it.

I was fascinated with and involved too as to politics at 16.

I was at 16 planning my then hopeful future.
I would have loved to be able to go and vote for who as a government I wanted to then affect my planned future.

[bots]

the thing is, once 16 year olds become eligible to vote, it moves from being conjecture to reality in terms of their voting preferences and that rarely works out the way people think it will

[arista]

They are young adults at 16. Give them their say.


No
it's just to keep
Starmer in power

[Livia]

You might not fully be an adult at 16 but I agree. Teenagers were never as infantilised as they have been in the last five years.

Teenagers weren't a thing till the 1950s. Experience is everything.

[joeysteele]

No
it's just to keep
Starmer in power

Well it doesn't necessarily work that way

Political history had Labour reduce the voting age to 18 for the 1970 general election.
However Labour lost that election.

If Starmer really wanted to do something to stay as PM and lead governnent in power he should adopt PR for future elections.

Because as sure as anyone can be, of the 2 main Parties only Labour at present has anything in common with ALL the other Parties elected to Westminster except for the Cons.

Adopt PR Starmer as voted by over 3 to 1 at the last Labour conference and he'd have the hard-line Cons messing themselves.
That's how he could more make sure he stays in power.

[Oliver_W]

You become an adult in the eyes of the law at 16, you can pay taxes at 16, you can decide to join the army at 16, if they’re old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions, then why shouldn’t they vote?

You don't pay taxes at 16 - it's still compulsory to be in full time education, and the minimum wage of 16 years old is too low to be able to earn taxes. You can join the army at 16 but only with parental consent, and you won't see any kind of front line.
If you're gonna make a point, at least use correct examples :joker:

[arista]

Sure Joey
there are PR options.
Until now Starmer, standing clear
of change in that way.

Scottish Conservative would rather have
Labour in Lead Power.
Then the well "Dodgy Money" SNP group.

So all kind of possible changes are fighting ahead

[GoldHeart]

Tbh I always found it weird how you could do other stuff at 16 but not vote ,so this should be interesting.

[arista]

You don't pay taxes at 16 - it's still compulsory to be in full time education, and the minimum wage of 16 years old is too low to be able to earn taxes. You can join the army at 16 but only with parental consent, and you won't see any kind of front line.
If you're gonna make a point, at least use correct examples :joker:


Thank You, Oliver
for sorting out
Slick Liam

[Oliver_W]

Thank You, Oliver
for sorting out
Slick Liam

I'm not "sorting out" anyone, both are common misconceptions.

[GoldHeart]

I'm not "sorting out" anyone, both are common misconceptions.

True
But isn't it weird how you can have sex at 16
And run away and get married at Gretna Green without parents permission ,yet can't vote .....It's daft .

[arista]

I'm not "sorting out" anyone, both are common misconceptions.


Fair Point

[Liam-]

16 and older have to pay tax if they earn more than a certain amount, 16 year - 17 year olds are off to college at that age, which isn’t compulsory.

16 year old are also considered legally adult enough to make their own medical decisions for themselves, so they are more than capable of deciding what they want to vote for

[Oliver_W]

True
But isn't it weird how you can have sex at 16
And run away and get married at Gretna Green without parents permission ,yet can't vote .....It's daft .

I agree it's weird and daft, but it's just the way it is :laugh:

Tbh I think the age of consent should be 18. Not because of my opinion about who should be doing what, but to give more protection to teens from older perves. As ToyBoy said, I think the AoC should be completely reformed, to make ot higher but to add some allowances for people of similar ages.

[Oliver_W]

16 and older have to pay tax if they earn more than a certain amount, 16 year - 17 year olds are off to college at that age, which isn’t compulsory.
If they earn more than like a grand a month, which at 16 you'd have to work more than 50 hours :joker: even without the still compulsory full time education, that'd be a stretch. Someone who's 16 is unlikely to be hired for anything which pays more than minimum.

College has to be full time too, for under 18s. But I guess full time might not take the same amount of hours per week as school, and even sixth formers get free study periods.

But either way, they're unlikely to be paying taxes.

[GoldHeart]

I agree it's weird and daft, but it's just the way it is :laugh:

Tbh I think the age of consent should be 18. Not because of my opinion about who should be doing what, but to give more protection to teens from older perves. As ToyBoy said, I think the AoC should be completely reformed, to make ot higher but to add some allowances for people of similar ages.


Exactly
I never understood why age of consent was 16 , I've always said it should be 18 aswell.

[joeysteele]

If they earn more than like a grand a month, which at 16 you'd have to work more than 50 hours :joker: even without the still compulsory full time education, that'd be a stretch. Someone who's 16 is unlikely to be hired for anything which pays more than minimum.

College has to be full time too, for under 18s. But I guess full time might not take the same amount of hours per week as school, and even sixth formers get free study periods.

But either way, they're unlikely to be paying taxes.


.... but not impossible to pay taxes, or NI.
As you say unlikely but that's not impossible.

Say in a family.business if a 16 year old was employed on more than a minimum wage.
They could, a minority likely admittedly, be In a tax range bracket.

Plus the minimum wage is the minumum to be paid, firms CAN pay more than that if they wished to.
I think Liam made a fair point really.

It's not impossible for 16 year olds to be in a tax bracket.

Plus too, as to the armed services.
They won't, no way be on the front lines
However, they won't be just making coffee or tea.
They'll be being TRAINED for to be potentially engaged in active service in the future.

If they can be trained to do that, then it's ridiculous frankly that they are refused the right to vote.
In my view anyhow.

[Alf]

Bring it on, more youngsters these days are moving to the right. Wokeness is destroying the left. Most people don't want any part of it. Then take the Muslim community and most Asian communities, which are Conservative communities.

[Oliver_W]

.... but not impossible to pay taxes, or NI.
As you say unlikely but that's not impossible.

Say in a family.business if a 16 year old was employed on more than a minimum wage.
They could, a minority likely admittedly, be In a tax range bracket.

Plus the minimum wage is the minumum to be paid, firms CAN pay more than that if they wished to.
I think Liam made a fair point really.

It's not impossible for 16 year olds to be in a tax bracket.



That would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not even arguing that 16 year olds shouldn't vote, but I am saying that people's arguments should be factually correct :joker:

[joeysteele]

That would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not even arguing that 16 year olds shouldn't vote, but I am saying that people's arguments should be factually correct :joker:

If it's an exemption rather than the rule though.
The fact it's an exemption shows it's not impossible .
So I'm just saying Liam has a point.
You are too really as you indicate it isn't impossible too.

I'm pleased you're another who seem to think it maybe right to have a vote at 16.
I have for a good while now.
I'd have loved to be able to vote when I was 16.
My Father got me really interested in politics from me turning 13 in 2005.
At 16 then onwards it was something I followed constantly.

So anyhow I hope this gets the chance to happen.
The younger generation surely cannot make things any worse than what the current generations have in voting in elections.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I really think that if your mum still washes your underwear you should not be anywhere near a polling station

[Oliver_W]

If it's an exemption rather than the rule though.
The fact it's an exemption shows it's not impossible .
So I'm just saying Liam has a point.
You are too really as you indicate it isn't impossible too.



If your argument for allowing all under-18s to vote is that the minority of them can pay taxes, under relatively rare circumstances ... the naysayers' response will be "fine, people under 18 can vote, as long as they're taxpayers."

Honestly I find "because it's a democracy, duh lol" or "sixteen year olds will have longer to live with the consequences lolol oldies be dying" to be stronger and more respectable attempts than talking about tax payers, and they're pretty low-efforted :laugh:

If a change that big is to be made, it should be for bulletproof and unconditional reasons.

The kind of sixteen year old who's likely to be in the position to be paying taxes is more likely to come from a Conservative background and vote accordingly; if they're the only under-18s who can vote, it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!

[arista]

"it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!"


Very Possible
But they have been out of power for a long time
Picking Corbyn wasted years.

So Labour only have their selves to blame.



Starmer is Keeping Brexit
and improving trade
to help him get the voters back.

So Many Dumped Labour
in 2019.


Good on Labour Voters Back Our Brexit

[joeysteele]

If your argument for allowing all under-18s to vote is that the minority of them can pay taxes, under relatively rare circumstances ... the naysayers' response will be "fine, people under 18 can vote, as long as they're taxpayers."

Honestly I find "because it's a democracy, duh lol" or "sixteen year olds will have longer to live with the consequences lolol oldies be dying" to be stronger and more respectable attempts than talking about tax payers, and they're pretty low-efforted :laugh:

If a change that big is to be made, it should be for bulletproof and unconditional reasons.

The kind of sixteen year old who's likely to be in the position to be paying taxes is more likely to come from a Conservative background and vote accordingly; if they're the only under-18s who can vote, it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!



Well that's not my argument at all so how you've arrived at that is a surprise.

If it was impossible in any scenario for anyone of 16 to pay tax.
I'd still be advocating those aged 16 should have the vote.

It's not an issue for me whether they'd vote Labour, Con or any other Party.
I simply support giving votes to those aged 16 as a right.

[Alf]

"it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!"


Very Possible
But they have been out of power for a long time
Picking Corbyn wasted years.

So Labour only have their selves to blame.



Starmer is Keeping Brexit
and improving trade
to help him get the voters back.

So Many Dumped Labour
in 2019.


Good on Labour Voters Back Our BrexitKier Starmer, the guy who gained his knighthood by turning a blind eye to the most prolific sex offender in the country, Jimmy Saville. Had he have taken the correct action against Saville, his career would have gone downhill, no doubt. He's a guy that chose his career and hunger for power over principle, doing what's right and protecting the victims of Jimmy Saville.

Shame on who ever votes to put him in charge. You'd have to have zero morals to do so.

[bots]

Boris, Truss and Sunak are so morally upstanding

[Alf]

LhfUgrCJVIg

[Alf]

Boris, Truss and Sunak are so morally upstandingIs this your defense of the man who failed to prosecute Jimmy Saville and allowed him to go on raping women and children, simply so his career could progress?

[joeysteele]

Kier Starmer, the guy who gained his knighthood by turning a blind eye to the most prolific sex offender in the country, Jimmy Saville. Had he have taken the correct action against Saville, his career would have gone downhill, no doubt. He's a guy that chose his career and hunger for power over principle, doing what's right and protecting the victims of Jimmy Saville.

Shame on who ever votes to put him in charge. You'd have to have zero morals to do so.

Shame on me then because I will be voting for Labour.
Plus I've extremely good morals thank you instilled in me from my parents and grandparents

Maybe you'd like to too ask who was possibly protecting Saville mostly and who one of his greatest admirers was.
Namely the Con Party and then Mrs Thatcher who all helped enable him to get his very high profile and even gave him a Knighthood.

It wasn't just down to Starmer whether he was prosecuted or not.
He should have been no doubt.
However no ONE person is responsible that he wasn't from the protective ring there clearly was around him.

[Alf]

Shame on me then because I will be voting for Labour.
Plus I've extremely good morals thank you instilled in me from my parents and grandparents

Maybe you'd like to too ask who was possibly protecting Saville mostly and who one of his greatest admirers was.
Namely the Con Party and then Mrs Thatcher who all helped enable him to get his very high profile and even gave him a Knighthood.

It wasn't just down to Starmer whether he was prosecuted or not.
He should have been no doubt.
However no ONE person is responsible that he wasn't from the protective there ckeerkybwas around him.Margaret Thatcher is dead. The public were not aware of Saville's crimes when voting her in.

Starmer is alive and hoping to be the Prime minister. We now know about Saville's crimes and how Starmer turned a blind eye to them when it was his job to prosecute them.

[joeysteele]

Margaret Thatcher is dead. The public were not aware of Saville's crimes when voting her in.

Starmer is alive and hoping to be the Prime minister. We now know about Saville's crimes and how Starmer turned a blind eye to them when it was his job to prosecute them.

No you don't know at all.

Plus Thatcher wasn't dead when she fought to get him his Knighthood.
Just how many doors did that Knighthood open up for him.

You can selectively ignore that if you wish.
You only however weaken further your more uninforned statement.

[GoldHeart]

No you don't know at all.

Plus Thatcher wasn't dead when she fought to get him his Knighthood.
Just how many doors did that Knighthood open up for him.

You can selectively ignore that if you wish.
You only however weaken further your more uninforned statement.

Charles was besties with Savile aswell. It looked like Savile had him in his pocket.

[joeysteele]

Charles was besties with Savile aswell. It looked like Savile had him in his pocket.

Yes he was a favourite of the Royals too.

He did though have leading Cons and Thatcher firmly in his camp.

He should have been prosecuted, however Starmer was not one of the investigative lawyers.
He could only act on what was presented.
Which wasn't enough to prosecute.

He stated after all the revelations,which flooded in more after Saville's death, that changes to prosecutions of this nature would be strengthened.

I am no fan of Starmer, however whoever, police, detectives and lawyers who worked on the Saville allegations while he was alive.
It appears didn't present enough to prosecute.
So he'd have to stick to only what was said in the documents presented.

Were the lawyers and even the police leaned on?
Who knows.

Saville was evil.
He had strong influential friends in high places, such as in the Con government and in Thatcher.
As you stated Charles too.
Being fair to them, were they all fooled by him too?
Because he was clearly one vile, evil devious individual.
Even to having hospitals trust him and give him keys to hospital wards.

I say again though.
The Knighthood FOUGHT for him by Thatcher, how many more doors to vulnerable victims did that help open up for him.

[BBDodge]

Yes they did, and Kier Starmer was one of them and he was in a position to prosecute Saville, and he wants our vote to be Prime Minister.

No he wasn't. The case didn't escalate beyond local level as no-one was prepared to testify in court.

[Glenn.]

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

[arista]

Labour is not going to Ban,
buy one, get one free offers

J. Ashworth MP (New) Labour Fella
speaking on Laura BBC2HD today

[Kate!]

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

:notimpressed: :crazy: wtah.

Stupid statement. Do we suddenly become mentally impaired at this specific age? No.

[Redway]

Teenagers weren't a thing till the 1950s. Experience is everything.

Yeah, well, I’m talking from my experience and partly anecdotal tongue-in-cheek and that’s just the way it is, Liv.

[GoldHeart]

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

Now you're just trolling or being age ist for the sake of it.

[Redway]

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

Ageism is no better than homophobia. You know that, right?

[GoldHeart]

Ageism is no better than homophobia. You know that, right?

He's a 'protected class' ...... so he thinks it's ok to dump on others.

[Liam-]

Yet nobody bats an eyelid when people continuously demean young people

[Redway]

Yet nobody bats an eyelid when people continuously demean young people

I bat an eyelid but at the same time I respect increasing age and increasing experience, whether I give off a pompous know-it-all air or I don’t.

[GoldHeart]

Yet nobody bats an eyelid when people continuously demean young people

Here we go with the tit for tat bs .

[GoldHeart]

It's hilarious when plenty including myself are supportive towards lowering the voting age to 16 , yet some people think older people 'shouldn't vote' hmmm.... that's not very progressive is it ? :whistle:.

[Zizu]

Starmer's Master Plan
to stay Elected.


Scotland is doing it.



Sunak Confirmed on The SkyNewsHD
Interview with
kids FYI club.

The Voting age is best at 18


A young lady from a Highgate School
gave a Video question to Sunak.
She wants to vote at 16
as labour will allow it
a right little madam


Todays youngsters are very immature.. they’d be better off increasing the age to 21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

ridiculous to have children voting


The governing bodies are completely out of touch with reality .. unless they feel that the younger ones will be easier to fool ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The Slim Reaper]

Imagine believing labour under Starmer will do anything they say they will. Keir has never met a promise he hasn't reneged on.

[bots]

Imagine believing labour under Starmer will do anything they say they will. Keir has never met a promise he hasn't reneged on.

i'm quite hopeful on that front, he has said brexit means brexit, which should mean we go back into the EU customs union :laugh:

[The Slim Reaper]

i'm quite hopeful on that front, he has said brexit means brexit, which should mean we go back into the EU customs union :laugh:

The exception I missed out, was that any right wing pledges he makes, you can absolutely take to the bank. It's only issues that could be considered progressive that he has no interest in.

[arista]

imagine believing labour under starmer will do anything they say they will. Keir has never met a promise he hasn't reneged on.


1652619987205382145

[The Slim Reaper]

1652619987205382145

Without any pledge to undertake a massive house building project, you can file this under "imagine believing labour"

[arista]

Sure Slim
that comes at the next Election
next year.

[The Slim Reaper]

Sure Slim
that comes at the next Election
next year.

The pledge comes before the next election or after it?

[arista]

The pledge comes before the next election or after it?

Just before The Next General Election.

[The Slim Reaper]

Just before The Next General Election.

Keirsta Starmarista?

[joeysteele]

I still agree wholeheartedly with the reduction of the voting age to 16.

As I said before, teenagers I've talked to, talk far more sense about the Country and politics than some of those very much older.

I just wish Starmer, since he's open to it, something else he's open to but doesn't want to commit to yet.
Is to adopt PR for elections..
He'd ensure a likely landslide if he did.

[Zizu]

I still agree wholeheartedly with the reduction of the voting age to 16.

As I said before, teenagers I've talked to, talk far more sense about the Country and politics than some of those very much older.

I just wish Starmer, since he's open to it, something else he's open to but doesn't want to commit to yet.
Is PR for elections..
He'd ensure a likely landslide if he did.


Many 16 year olds are content to be messing around in class and throwing paper aeroplanes around when they should be revising for GCSE exams in a few weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The Slim Reaper]

I still agree wholeheartedly with the reduction of the voting age to 16.

As I said before, teenagers I've talked to, talk far more sense about the Country and politics than some of those very much older.

I just wish Starmer, since he's open to it, something else he's open to but doesn't want to commit to yet.
Is to adopt PR for elections..
He'd ensure a likely landslide if he did.

His team came out a few days ago and said he's never been in favour of PR, despite, y'know, previously being in favour of it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-labour-proportional-representation-b2329451.html

Why does anyone trust a thing out of this mans mouth?

[Oliver_W]

Many 16 year olds are content to be messing around in class and throwing paper aeroplanes around when they should be revising for GCSE exams in a few weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And many adults are content to be pissing around on benefits when they "should be" working (apparently) so should they be denied a vote as well?

[joeysteele]

His team came out a few days ago and said he's never been in favour of PR, despite, y'know, previously being in favour of it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-labour-proportional-representation-b2329451.html

Why does anyone trust a thing out of this mans mouth?

I have on good authority that he is open to PR but NOT at this time.
That makes little sense to me admittedky.
His last statement on it when asked was, it's not a right policy for this coming election.

I think and hope, that PR along with other things he KNOWS full well are popular.
If he wins this time, that they'll BE policy for the election after.

He will be in massive difficulty if he fails to adopt them.
That's for sure.

[joeysteele]

Many 16 year olds are content to be messing around in class and throwing paper aeroplanes around when they should be revising for GCSE exams in a few weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've seen and heard loads of utter more tripe and nonsense from people much older too.
I think the young often have a better idea of how things should be.

They couldn't make a worse mess than the current older generation have.
Look at the state of the Country.
Look at the chaotic mess there is

[The Slim Reaper]

I have on good authority that he is open to PR but NOT at this time.
That makes little sense to me admittedky.
His last statement on it when asked was, it's not a right policy for this coming election.

I think and hope, that PR along with other things he KNOWS full well are popular.
If he wins this time, that they'll BE policy for the election after.

He will be in massive difficulty if he fails to adopt them.
That's for sure.

He's pissed away his tory incompetence lead, so we both know PR is never going to raise it's head. I don't know why you keep putting yourself through this, Joey. I understand the need to vote for him to get tories out, but i don't understand the need to keep pretending he's something he isn't.

[joeysteele]

He's pissed away his tory incompetence lead, so we both know PR is never going to raise it's head. I don't know why you keep putting yourself through this, Joey. I understand the need to vote for him to get tories out, but i don't understand the need to keep pretending he's something he isn't.

Because I believe perseverance can win through in the end.
I don't give up on things easily either

I've never really liked any recent Labour leader anyhow.
Or Con one.

I think you're wrong as to PR with respect.
It has now been passed twice at conference.
Very heavily last year too.
My thinking is, Labour will now adopt PR.
Not at the next election as policy.
However I do think it's coming and it can ONLY come via Labour because the Cons will never support it.
That's one of my main aims to fight for in the Party.

[Oliver_W]

I'm still not convinced that PR would "work", I'm still yet to hear a coherent way as to how it's compatible with our parliamentary system; as it stands, we vote for who we want to represent the constituency in which we live, in the Commons. Under PR the amount of seats for each party would be allocated based on the total votes across the UK.
How would the seats be allocated? Maybe something like ... each area should be represented by whichever party has the most votes in that area?

[The Slim Reaper]

Because I believe perseverance can win through in the end.
I don't give up on things easily either

I've never really liked any recent Labour leader anyhow.
Or Con one.

I think you're wrong as to PR with respect.
It has now been passed twice at conference.
Very heavily last year too.
My thinking is, Labour will now adopt PR.
Not at the next election as policy.
However I do think it's coming and it can ONLY come via Labour because the Cons will never support it.
That's one of my main aims to fight for in the Party.

Wish I could trade some of my cynicism for your idealism, and as always, hope you're right.

[Zizu]

I've seen and heard loads of utter more tripe and nonsense from people much older too.
I think the young often have a better idea of how things should be.

They couldn't make a worse mess than the current older generation have.
Look at the state of the Country.
Look at the chaotic mess there is


My point is that teenagers seem to be getting more and more immature as time goes on .. I’ve noticed the decline over the last 30 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Crimson Dynamo]

until you own property, pay a pension, council tax, put your own bins out own a car and have kids im sorry you have no earthly clue as to what is going on in life

[Oliver_W]

My point is that teenagers seem to be getting more and more immature as time goes on .. I’ve noticed the decline over the last 30 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?

[Zizu]

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?


:)

Sadly no .. the behaviour in yr 11 nowadays is probably similar to yr 7 behaviour when I started


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Redway]

Maybe it's because you're getting further in age away from them?

I do feel like there’s an element in truth in what Zuzu’s saying. Millennial teenagers (and when I say millennial I really mean anyone born between 1980 and 1998, 1999 at a push but definitely not much later than that) were generally more mature and treated as young adults at 16/17 than the children they’re moulded to be now. Maybe it’s something in the Gen. Z water but they’re definitely less mature than teenagers of other generations. But like I said elsewhere they have some valid opinions. I don’t think giving them the chance to vote would be the worst thing ever. It might give some of them a certain sense of responsibility.

[bots]

kids generally have less to worry about now than they did in previous generations, hence why they have time to involve themselves in things like climate change. A tough life is what forces kids to grow up quickly

[Cherie]

Many 16 year olds are content to be messing around in class and throwing paper aeroplanes around when they should be revising for GCSE exams in a few weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Tbf thats nothing new :laugh:

[James]

PR is Emperor's New Clothes, in my opinion.

It won't make people any more satisfied with the outcome of elections.

[Zizu]

Tbf thats nothing new :laugh:


Fair point :)


I kinda feel sorry for this generation with so many distractions just as their GCSE exams approach .. who’s gonna want to revise for hours when they’re constantly bombarded by tweets , texts or links for Instagram , SnapChat and TikTok from their friends every minute of the day

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Livia]

They could always turn off Twitter. Radical, I know...

[Oliver_W]

Social media is pretty toxic, especially for the young. Nothing of value would be lost if they all closed down.

[The Slim Reaper]

PR is Emperor's New Clothes, in my opinion.

It won't make people any more satisfied with the outcome of elections.

But it is unquestionably more democratic.

[arista]

Social media is pretty toxic, especially for the young. Nothing of value would be lost if they all closed down.


It Connects Families
so it will stay.


But you are right to point out
the negative part of social media
is wrecking young lives

[arista]

But it is unquestionably more democratic.


Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

[joeysteele]

Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

No it's to stop any arrogant leader and Party governing in a hard-line fashion being heartless too after only getting 43.6% of the votes meaning around 56% of people who even bothered to vote, voting against them.
For said arrogant power mad leader having absolute power with ridiculously over inflated overall majorities.

The ONE and ONLY Party against PR is the Con Party and it's more heartless, hard-line supporters because they know they could never likely get power to be as heartless and hard-line again under PR.

It's coming from Labour, maybe not as policy in the coming election but it's coming.
I'm sure of that in a future one.
Whether under Starmer or if necessary a NEW leader.

[James]

But it is unquestionably more democratic.

The advantage of it is that people would likely get to vote for an (electable) party that more closely matches their views.

But the problem is that no party is likely to gain a majority on their own, so they have to do deals after the election and compromise on what they promised.

So while people would get to vote for parties whose policies they like better, they'll just never get to see them implemented.

[joeysteele]

The advantage of it is that people would likely get to vote for an (electable) party that more closely matches their views.

But the problem is that no party is likely to gain a majority on their own, so they have to do deals after the election and compromise on what they promised.

So while people would get to vote for parties whose policies they like better, they'll just never get to see them implemented.

Voters don't get that now James.

56% voted AGAINST near ALL the Cons stood for in 2019 yet got it inflicted on them with his obscene 80 overall majority.

[The Slim Reaper]

Bollocks

Starmer is only going to change it
to stay in Power.
Sod their rights

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

[Oliver_W]

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

Even if Southend didn't vote for a Britain First MP? Because under PR there's no guarantee that a seat would be represented by the party the seat's majority voted for. Unless the seats are allocated by votes-per-area, aka what we have now, basically.

[bots]

i always cite italy as a wonderful example of what PR can achieve, a system to be envied across the world.

[joeysteele]

So you're admitting that a more democratic voting system adversely affects your favourites?

Starmer staying in power isn't ideal for me, neither would Southend being represented represented by Britain first for example, but it's still more democratic than what we currently have.

Of voters polled Slim.
Of all the Parties who get elected and don't get elected to Westminster.
Even the N.Irish DUP.

The vast majority now prefer PR to this dinosaur system we have now.

I repeat, it's ONLY the Con Party and it's hard-line supporters who don't want PR because they know, they've then had their day of hard-line, divisive, discriminating,heartless near dictatorial governing.

[joeysteele]

i always cite italy as a wonderful example of what PR can achieve, a system to be envied across the world.

We are a different Country bots.

Many Nations elect government's by PR and it works well enough.
This system we have in my view only really fails, you can't have and shouldn't have, absolute power with a minority of total votes cast.

No matter what governnent it is.

[DigitalSid]

The only people who think young people are wise are those whose political views haven't evolved since college.