British Politics Thread.

[Wolfshade]

Clearly age isn't the problem, there are young [political party] groups and those minorities (pun intended boom) are definietely policitcally educated.

Instead we should have an eligibility criteria, like at least being a tax payer. Or some minimum education criteria.

Like the people who voted UKIP in the local elections, while I don't have an issue with them as a legitmate politcal party, they are a one trick pony which can only be done in national / eu level, there is no platform for them as local councillors.

I don't know what the solution is, benevolent dictator, which I would more than happily run .

Just consider the Anglican Communion vs. the Roman Catholic Church, both have a similiar structure. The big difference is that the Pope is the voice that matters so if he sees something wrong he can rapidly change the course of the RC through his will (or holy ghost depending on your theological leanings) the Anglican Communion is instead left having to table motions as general synod that happens infrequently and any change from the status quo requires a 2/3rds majority.

This is the issue that we have with parliament is that opposition will often vote against the government just for the sake of voting against them and scoring political points for making the government seem ineffective. Whereas we need people who have conviction to see what needs to be done and vote for that regardless of which side it comes from.

It does scare me Labour's forecast spending and I really can't see how they are going to do that without taking more money out of my pocket. That is without looking at what labour did to NHS wales : shudder : . Plus I think we totally got the wrong milliband.

UKIP: Withdrawl from the EU worries me. I am in favour of the EEC, the whole open free and fair trade within the european bloc is essential and to put but barriers into out largest trading partner is economic suicide.

The Greens, they are more worrisome for me than UKIP, but that could be because I lean more right than left. In a lot of ways I do like some of their ecological views and certainly sustainability should be a the core of what we do. Though being pro nuclear and trident it would worry me that we would be removing ourselves from the top military table just at the time when Russia are becoming resurgent.

SNP/Plaid : I doubt I will have an option to vote for them

LibDems: Clegg is certainly a very good orator, though I am not sure that they might not flp flop all over the place.

Tories: Well they still haven't sorted out the debt as promised and I'm not entirely sold with free schools, they need mroe regulation i think.

[Al Shut]

Everybody keep in mind that the right to vote is not given to somebody, it's a basic right that is taken away from somebody. For that you need a damn good reason and I'm not sure 'everybody from 16-18 is automatically unable to make an important decision for themselves' is good enough.

[Denzark]

I don't see how the state can say (in the UK, YMMV elsewhere) 'Righto 16 year old, you are incapable of deciding whether or not to drink alcohol or pollute your body with cigarettes, we'll make that call for you. You can join the military at 16 and 3/4 (with your parents permission) but you are too young to go on operational service until 18. However, your opinion as to which political wunderkind is in charge is really well formed on all that life experience so please come and vote'.

I find that a touch hypocritical (of the UK policy makers not you Al Shut).

18 is a reasonable age to say someone is now an adult, and 18 is therefore a reasonable age to vote.

[Mr Mystery]

Why? What's the difference? You don't magically become wise and knowing at 18. Instead you properly discover nights out without the fear of being hoofed out due to fake id.

[CoffeeGrunt]

As someone who's pretty young, there's a pretty big difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds in terms of mentality, but from the perspective of the older people here, probably not so much.

The difference is two years of college or work and being outside of the coddling of school. Trust me when I say it grants perspective, experience and insight you simply can't have when you've only just left school. The problem is that 16 year olds will feel pretty smart due to a handful of GCSEs, but ultimately, don't really understand any of the systems government is using.

People are pointing out how marriage, military service and such can come at 16, but my viewpoint is that those should be left until 18. How many marriages at 16 even last, how many 16 year old kids wash out of military boot camp? I'd dig up some research and answer these myself, but I've got a busy day ahead. :P

[Denzark]

Why? What's the difference? You don't magically become wise and knowing at 18. Instead you properly discover nights out without the fear of being hoofed out due to fake id.

Because those extra 2 years of life experience, increasing your life by 12.5% from 16, should give you slightly more context.

Maybe we should let people shag, drink, smoke and vote from 12? If you don't agree, then you are haggling over what the age should be. Letting 16 year olds vote is a gimmick, that Alex Salmond wanted - for the precise reason that the vast majority simply haven't the combined intelligence and life experience to make a well reasoned choice.

[Mr Mystery]

Again, which is different from the rest of the population, how?

To quote one exit poll from 1997.......'Good enough for the Sun, good enough for me'. That from some middle aged dude.

[Denzark]

Every thing is a matter of risk management. And yes you are correct actually, whichever way you cut it there are a lot of numpties/clueless people/clueless numpties.

But proportionately those whose numptiness is based on inexperience, there is naturally less experience of life in the first 16 years of the average base line citizen, than there is with the extra 2 years.

[Mr Mystery]

I disagree.

It's not until you've worked for a few years that you properly find your feet in the adult world. Whether secondary school, University or College, you're not fully exposed to life's possibilities.

Yoof these days are kept in education until 18 - so we're already producing a generation of educated numpties who will end up voting.

And with the majority of the electorate largely unengaged, what's the difference? Naiivety and Ignorance are interchangeable.

Who knows, engaging with those in school, teaching them something about the political process (though for gods sake, keep it secular!) and giving them the vote might just shake things up enough to make a difference.

Otherwise we're just going to get more morons listening to Russell Brand, and feeling that somehow not exercising your vote is the best way to make a difference, as opposed to giving fringe loonies free reign.

[Denzark]

Well OK then, the age of criminal responsibility in England Wales (Don't know about Scotland) is 10. If you are old enough to be responsible for your own actions, why not voting?