[MB.]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by MB.

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.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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

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]

Originally Posted by MB.

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.]

Originally Posted by the truth

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by MB.

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

haha ... 1 in 100 times we agree

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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'

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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