Pulled out of his arse obviously. :/

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

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.

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

"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':

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'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...

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.

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.

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

Yeah you have thanks.

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

according to these two articles http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...it-the-tories/ http://www.conservativehome.com//the...ze.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.

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.

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.

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'?

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

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).

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

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

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