British Politics Thread.

[Al Shut]

I'm not saying other age limits are reasonable, some might be others might not, some might be comparable to voting others are not. Criminal responsability for instance seems to be more about a basic understanding of right and wrong, I can see that having a lower age than voting.

Voting is not about asking a lot of people to come up with the best result, it's about giving the whole system the legitimacy to rule the people by force. It has to be as inclusive as possible and a certain amount of cluelessness or unengagement doesn't seem good enough a reason to deny the right the vote for me

[Denzark]

It is best for the franchise to be wide, but surely there is a limit? Why not 12? If the answer is because they are still children, so are 16 year olds.

I cannot see any possible benefit to society to widening the vote to include 16 year olds.

To explain this, I have had recent exposure to 12-18 year olds. Firstly, I have been an adult instructor with 2 different Air Training Corps units. Secondly, my wife is a secondary science teacher.

Absolutely none of that interaction, either directly with Air Cadets, who are specifically taught about leadership, responsibility and service - or by hearing about the antics of the other children at a typical secondary school, can bring me to conclude we would be better as a whole by including those 16 year olds.

[Psychosplodge]

What's the difference? 16 year olds have to live in the same world as us, give them the vote. At least being in school they can be kept from mind numbing, scaremongering, border line racist NIMBY propaganda.

Or fed the correct propaganda?

[Mr Mystery]

Not if schools are doing it right. Cover all angles like. Explain and explore schools of political thought.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah that's not how I remember school.

[Mr Mystery]

Still better than allowing in the bias of the media.

[Psychosplodge]

But the teachers are generally only repeating the bias form the media they agree with.

[Wildeybeast]

As someone who has daily contact with them, the average 16 year old is in no position to make an informed decision on voting. This isn't a criticism of them as I wouldn't expect them to be. They are children. They have absolutely no experience of adult life or the impact voting decisions make. How can you expect them to appreciate tax bands when they have never had a taxable income? Or the ramifications of fuel duty and 'green car' subsidies when they are not allowed to drive? The simple fact is, their world consists of their friends, family and those life deciding exams they are all sitting. They don't really care who is in power as it has so little direct impact on them.

[Al Shut]

How on earth has whoever is in power no direct impact on the live of juveniles. Who bans them from driving? Who determines at what point and to what conditions they are allowed to take a job? Who determines to what extend the parents have a say in all that? And last but not least who decides if they are allowed to vote?

[Wildeybeast]

I should clarify. I meant no direct impact as far as they can discern. Education policies have a massive impact on them, but they often don't know actually see the impact of the changes in they way I would as a teacher. They get one go round, so to speak, and their education is whatever current policy dictates it is. I know there are better and worse ways to educate children, but they don't because they only have one experience.

They have never had any of those things you have listed, so they have no real impact on them, which limits how much they care about them. They probably have views about the examples you give, but having never experienced voting or driving, a 16 year old isn't really in a position to make a qualified decision about whether they should be allowed to do them. Plus, no party ever campaigns on those things. Why on earth would you create policies to appeal to people who cannot vote for you?