[Ammi]

Ed Miliband has pledged that his Labour party would give people the right to vote from the age of 16, to a standing ovation from the Brighton conference floor.

He outlined a tough stance on land-grabbing developers, telling them they must "use or lose" the land they own. And he promised that Labour will tackle the housing crisis with 200,000 more homes a year and freeze gas and electricity prices until 2017, if voted into power.

Keeping schools open for breakfast clubs and afterschool clubs, free nursery care and a promise to "strengthen" the minimum wage were key pledges aimed at attracting parents and workers

The manifesto commitment to a change in voting age was first signalled a month ago by Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan, who argued it would reinvigorate politics to get teens involved at a younger age.

Today, it was confirmed. "Let's give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds and make them part of our democracy," Miliband said, a pledge with a rousing reception in Brighton but mixed reaction on social media

[Shaun]

not necessarily a bad idea. The ones who'd be interested in politics would do it, I think people just write off teenagers all as layabouts with only attention for pop music and twitter... sure, a large percentage wouldn't vote, but I think that applies for most generations.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Shaun

not necessarily a bad idea. The ones who'd be interested in politics would do it, I think people just write off teenagers all as layabouts with only attention for pop music and twitter... sure, a large percentage wouldn't vote, but I think that applies for most generations.

..yeah, that's true but I think maybe it would be a good idea to also have politics covered in the National Curriculum to help become more informed..kind of follow it through properly..?...

[joeysteele]

I agreed with all the things Ed Miliband said yesterday outlined in the opening post along with a great deal more he said too.

Sixteen year olds will be getting a vote from the SNP in the Scottish independence referendum next year so I can see no reasons for not having 16 year olds vote in all elections across the UK now.

As Shaun said, some will vote, some will not just as with all other age groups. A good and forward looking move this is in my opinion.

[Toy Soldier]

My initial reaction was "not many 16 year olds are very politically aware" but then when I thought about it... Neither are many 18 year olds. Or 21 year olds. ... Or 40 year olds. So, why not?

[DanaC]

If they're old enough to work, marry (with parental permission), join the army and most important of all pay income tax, they should be allowed to vote.

Right now, every 16 year old in work is subjected to taxation without representation.

They also should sort out the minimum wage for youngsters. It's a disgrace that a 17 year old can do exactly the same job of work as a 27 year old in the same company and get paid a different wage for that work. It's also ever more important, given the stripping back of benefits for the under 25s (housing benefit in particular) that their work pay a living wage.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If they're old enough to work, marry (with parental permission), join the army and most important of all pay income tax, they should be allowed to vote.

Right now, every 16 year old in work is subjected to taxation without representation.

They also should sort out the minimum wage for youngsters. It's a disgrace that a 17 year old can do exactly the same job of work as a 27 year old in the same company and get paid a different wage for that work. It's also ever more important, given the stripping back of benefits for the under 25s (housing benefit in particular) that their work pay a living wage.

Really well said DanaC, I agree with all that too.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If they're old enough to work, marry (with parental permission), join the army and most important of all pay income tax, they should be allowed to vote.

Right now, every 16 year old in work is subjected to taxation without representation.

They also should sort out the minimum wage for youngsters. It's a disgrace that a 17 year old can do exactly the same job of work as a 27 year old in the same company and get paid a different wage for that work. It's also ever more important, given the stripping back of benefits for the under 25s (housing benefit in particular) that their work pay a living wage.

I recall a thread on here not long ago about a fifteen year old girl who ran off with her maths teacher. lots of people were really concerned because she was a "child" and that she was unable to make sensible decisions for herself. And yet the suggestion here is that just months later, she would be adult enough to vote. I don't think so.

Lots of people pay tax in this country without representation but they're not expecting to be made a special case. What's more, lots of people who are eligible to vote don't think it's important enough to get off their backsides because less than 50% of the people eligible to vote actually do.

For the sake of clarity, you specifically mentioned that to marry, a 16 year old needs parental permission. You didn't make the same distinction about the army, although anyone under 18 would need their parents' consent to join. And then they would not be placed on active service until they were 18 - the age of majority. Just thought I'd straighten that one out.

[Kazanne]

Ed Milliband is going to do such a lot this week,wonder if there's an election to win

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Ed Milliband is going to do such a lot this week,wonder if there's an election to win

Funny isn't it... that he never thought of all this stuff while he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous Treasury, making all those bloody awful decisions that got the country into such a mess.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

Funny isn't it... that he never thought of all this stuff while he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous Treasury, making all those bloody awful decisions that got the country into such a mess.

It's so transparent what he's up to and I'm not well read on politics,surely others can see too.

[anne666]

Originally Posted by Livia

Funny isn't it... that he never thought of all this stuff while he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous Treasury, making all those bloody awful decisions that got the country into such a mess.

This. I dread the thought of how large the next post Labour debt will be. I would also like to know how they intended to reduce their current debt, that we are now all suffering for, had they stayed in power. I don't agree with schoolchildren being given the right to vote. I am suspicious of the reasoning behind this.

[joeysteele]

For me I think he,Ed Miliband is at last hitting the right notes now, it will take great courage to stand up to the big 6 energy companies but I want him to do that.
They really nned a massive shake up and to be forced to consider their customers at all, since they show little respect to them now.
The weaknesses of this pathetic Govt. as to taking any action as to the energy companies is a part of why energy costs are allowed to continue to rise and take more and more of peoples incomes even when they are even using less!!
If this Govt showed the same force at getting at the greedy energy suppliers as it has against the weakest,poorest and most vulnerable in the UK then all would be a lot better as to the costs of energy probably.

As for voting for those aged 16, as was said by DanaC if they can marry, have children, begin building a home with a partner, have to pay bills, work and also maybe serve the Country in the armed forces, then absolutely why deny them the right to be able to vote in democratic elections in the UK.
During election time, usually, schools take part in a mock general election across the Country too.

It is the figure of 16 being reached that makes all else legal,it may well be at 15 many are able to well and truly act for themselves but the law says until they are 16 they cannot that is the difference there in my opinion.

Even on here though, when I first joined,there was one person then only 14 who in the main talked loads of sense as to politics.
He was well up on the workings of Govt and I took a lot of notice of what he had to say as I did lot's of much older members too.
Many young people I come across, talk a lot of sense and see things a lot more clearer than some others who are more politically active.

Also okay, maybe only around 40% of the 16 year olds may bother to vote, that however is not that far behind the voting figures generally for the so called more politically active older voters of the UK.

The point is when should someone have the vote.
For me that is when they, in law, are seen as able to make their own decisions and stand on their own 2 feet or should be able to.
That is set at 16 years of age and voting should not be denied to them,even if they choose not to use it.
I have a feeling however we may all get quite a surprise how many may in fact end up doing so.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

For me I think he,Ed Miliband is at last hitting the right notes now, it will take great courage to stand up to the big 6 energy companies but I want him to do that.
They really nned a massive shake up and to be forced to consider their customers at all, since they show little respect to them now.
The weaknesses of this pathetic Govt. as to taking any action as to the energy companies is a part of why energy costs are allowed to continue to rise and take more and more of peoples incomes even when they are even using less!!
If this Govt showed the same force at getting at the greedy energy suppliers as it has against the weakest,poorest and most vulnerable in the UK then all would be a lot better as to the costs of energy probably.

As for voting for those aged 16, as was said by DanaC if they can marry, have children, begin building a home with a partner, have to pay bills, work and also maybe serve the Country in the armed forces, then absolutely why deny them the right to be able to vote in democratic elections in the UK.
During election time, usually, schools take part in a mock general election across the Country too.

It is the figure of 16 being reached that makes all else legal,it may well be at 15 many are able to well and truly act for themselves but the law says until they are 16 they cannot that is the difference there in my opinion.

Even on here though, when I first joined,there was one person then only 14 who in the main talked loads of sense as to politics.
He was well up on the workings of Govt and I took a lot of notice of what he had to say as I did lot's of much older members too.
Many young people I come across, talk a lot of sense and see things a lot more clearer than some others who are more politically active.

Also okay, maybe only around 40% of the 16 year olds may bother to vote, that however is not that far behind the voting figures generally for the so called more politically active older voters of the UK.

The point is when should someone have the vote.
For me that is when they, in law, are seen as able to make their own decisions and stand on their own 2 feet or should be able to.
That is set at 16 years of age and voting should not be denied to them,even if they choose not to use it.
I have a feeling however we may all get quite a surprise how many may in fact end up doing so.

I have nothing at all against what he plans to do Joey,but I have grave concerns as to why he's rolling them out now and all in quick succession,it smacks of desperation to me,they really need to THINK things through before saying such things,I don't care who runs this country as long as they at least TRY and get us out of the red and back on track,unfortunately I really don't think Milliband is the man to do it.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I have nothing at all against what he plans to do Joey,but I have grave concerns as to why he's rolling them out now and all in quick succession,it smacks of desperation to me,they really need to THINK things through before saying such things,I don't care who runs this country as long as they at least TRY and get us out of the red and back on track,unfortunately I really don't think Milliband is the man to do it.

Hello Kazanne,I,until these last 2 years had great doubts as to Ed Miliband as PM,I don't now though.
If what he is saying are his real hopes and he does do them if he wins the election then he is virtually taking the words out of my mouth as to what he is outlining as policy as to what I would like to see.

It is too only a year or so until the next election, he has regularly been heavily slammed from the press and other political critics for not detailing policies.
Now he is,he is electioneering.
Of course he is electioneering, he is the opposition leader he has to do that.
To just sit back and do and say little would rightfully mean disaster for his party and to leave all policy announcements until the last few months would look like desperation.
The last election we had was a near 2 year long campaign as to the run up to it.

For me, these policies outlined this week by this conference, show at least here has been some research and consultation with those that matter as to the problems and a bit more thought as to the planning of the policies too.

He couldn't really leave things with just good speeches until next years conference, he had to now, (and really maybe should have done so more last year too), detail policies that all party workers, his MPs and Councillors can get to work on now and plan how they will play it out in over a years time.

I as you know have fully crossed the political divide in the last 4 years, I worry for the NHS,( one my real reasons as to who I vote for in the main),the energy rising costs and also for the weakest,poorest and most vulnerable in the UK if something isn't done or changed.
Very sadly however,I see absolutely no sign of any compassionate change from the present Govt. as to its policies.

Although now the pathetic Lib Dems are making more snidey comments as to the Conservatives and making more overtures to Labour to try to ensure if Labour miss out on an overall majority they have a chance of staying as a part of Govt after 2015.

I think to be fair to Ed Miliband,this week he has from all he has said,opened up strong likely debate on a range of vital issues and set a strong initial agenda as to the next election.
As the Opposition leader,he has to do that and for me I throw a lot of credit to him for the way he has done so this week.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I have nothing at all against what he plans to do Joey,but I have grave concerns as to why he's rolling them out now and all in quick succession,it smacks of desperation to me,they really need to THINK things through before saying such things,I don't care who runs this country as long as they at least TRY and get us out of the red and back on track,unfortunately I really don't think Milliband is the man to do it.

Because it's Labour's annual conference at the moment..

I think this is a good idea anyway, we now have fixed term elections for our parliaments so someone who is 16 in 2015 will not get any chance to have their say in who is running the country until they are 21. They will be subject to numerous policies during those 5 years that affect them directly and by that time they will be fully grown adults who might have been working full time for years, have their own place etc. There are plenty of politically aware 16 year olds and those who aren't won't bother to vote, just as a sizeable chunk of those already eligible to vote don't

[Nedusa]

This is a clever idea by Labour to give the vote to 16 and 17 yr olds as can be shown in various studies, young people are for more idealistic than their older conterparts.

By allowing this new group to vote the chances are the results will be slewed in favour of labour as younger people do have the rose tinted idealistic view of life where the Socialist principles sit nicely. I think the voting results would be a boost to the overall labour vote.

I think this will be challenged by the other parties for these reasons although personally today's young are far more politically astute and are able to appreciate all political arguments.

[Livia]

I'm going to say this again: sixteen year olds cannot join the army without parental consent, and then only for training. They don't fight on the front line until they are 18 years old and an adult so I do wish people would stop using the old "they're old enough to join the army" chestnut. If we're going to assume that they're fully cooked at 16 and give them the vote, then why bother with parental consent for marriage? Why keep them out of armed conflict until they're 18? Maybe let them drive a car at 16 too? No. Because they are not adults.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm going to say this again: sixteen year olds cannot join the army without parental consent, and then only for training. They don't fight on the front line until they are 18 years old and an adult so I do wish people would stop using the old "they're old enough to join the army" chestnut. If we're going to assume that they're fully cooked at 16 and give them the vote, then why bother with parental consent for marriage? Why keep them out of armed conflict until they're 18? Maybe let them drive a car at 16 too? No. Because they are not adults.

I take that on board completely but I do also stand firm on that if a 16 year old wants to get married and have a child they can do so, yes with permission but they can be in a situation where they actually are a Family and have bills to pay and a home to run and even work to do too.
I wouldn't deny them a right to a vote in an election,I was very politically aware when I was 16 and would have loved to have the vote then too.

I also agree with your point as to the joining of the armed forces, I think it totally right that 16 year olds are not sent to the front line.
However being in the armed forces is a dangerous place to be at any age and as was shown this year, you don't even need to be doing anything as to defending at home or anywhere else in the World or in fact even be armed yet still get killed for being a Soldier.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I take that on board completely but I do also stand firm on that if a 16 year old wants to get married and have a child they can do so, yes with permission but they can be in a situation where they actually are a Family and have bills to pay and a home to run and even work to do too.
I wouldn't deny them a right to a vote in an election,I was very politically aware when I was 16 and would have loved to have the vote then too.

I also agree with your point as to the joining of the armed forces, I think it totally right that 16 year olds are not sent to the front line.
However being in the armed forces is a dangerous place to be at any age and as was shown this year, you don't even need to be doing anything as to defending at home or anywhere else in the World or in fact even be armed yet still get killed for being a Soldier.

So tell me joey, if someone's able to get married, have a child, pay their bills, vote in elections, why do you assume they would not be able to fight on the front line? Surely if they're old enough to do all the things you say, then they're old enough to put their life on the line?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

So tell me joey, if someone's able to get married, have a child, pay their bills, vote in elections, why do you assume they would not be able to fight on the front line? Surely if they're old enough to do all the things you say, then they're old enough to put their life on the line?

Well for me firstly, anyone joining the Army say at 16, is likely to be a bit over 16 anyway.
I think however there is to be fair, a world of a difference between fighting in conflict and building a home and paying bills at 16 years of age.
I do though accept you make a strong and valid point as to what I said so will try to explain how I see it

Oviously the front line would come later in my view since on joining the Army or other Force, there would clearly have to be intense training, after initiation and getting used to Forces discipline.
I personally though wouldn't like to send a 16 year old to a life or death situation on a front line,in fact I would wish never to send anyone to a front line, but my point was they were able to 'decide' that they wanted to join a Force like the Army.

Their parents don't make that decision they just allow it to happen earlier than it may have to.
I know of 16 year olds who have joined up who would love to be there on a front line of action.

It is though the decision point I come back to, if they can make the decisons already outlined as to domestic or work matters, if they then can also decide the Army is something they want to do and since they will have completed the education time allotted generally then I cannot see where the decision of who to vote for is or should be above their ability.

As I said, I would have loved the vote at 16 myself,it used to be 21, now it is 18, for me it is a simple and sensible progression to involve as many in the political and election process of the UK.
I am 21,yet I am sure that some even 14 year olds and most certainly many 16 year olds may make better decsions and judgements as to politics and elections that I may make myself.

I am all for inclusion not exclusion myself and I just see this as a good and sensible move to give the votes to 16 year olds.
Since too all Scottish 16 year olds are to be trusted with the decision to decide if Scotland should break away from the UK,(a far bigger decison than even election a Government in my view), then I think giving 16 year old UK citizens the right to vote in elections is right.

I guess you maybe won't agree and you know I always take on board what you say and respect massively all you say however I just cannot see anything wrong with this plan at all and it is also a Lib Dem idea as well so in reality is coming likely anyway.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm going to say this again: sixteen year olds cannot join the army without parental consent, and then only for training. They don't fight on the front line until they are 18 years old and an adult so I do wish people would stop using the old "they're old enough to join the army" chestnut. If we're going to assume that they're fully cooked at 16 and give them the vote, then why bother with parental consent for marriage? Why keep them out of armed conflict until they're 18? Maybe let them drive a car at 16 too? No. Because they are not adults.

I totally agree, and are there not now plans to raise the school leaving age as well. So that would mean school kids can vote, no thanks.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I totally agree, and are there not now plans to raise the school leaving age as well. So that would mean school kids can vote, no thanks.

yes, I understand the leaving age is to be raised, and I hope they use that to educate young people more about politics and how important it is to vote when they come of age. There are very few "joeysteeles" around unfortunately, most young people are totally disconnected from politics. I'd like to see more information and encouragement for younger people to vote and make informed choices... but not until they're of age.

[Jemal]

Anythings better than David Cameron.

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Jemal

Anythings better than David Cameron.