2024, hoodwink and bamboozle the public

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Someone please tell me what a old fogie has a clue about what is going on in the world with real issues other than what The Daily Mail tells them?

Just as legitimate a gripe.

[Hoboh]

Someone please tell me what a old fogie has a clue about what is going on in the world with real issues other than what The Daily Mail tells them?

Just as legitimate a gripe.

Beg to differ fella.
You like a lot of a certain type seem to peddle the 'believe what you read in the mail types' myth.
Perhaps it should be all about the Mirror reading hopeless lefties who are so compassionate about everything that are the deluded?
It's really simple
Read the figures of youth in further education and the numbers of jobless then tell us were all these usually minimum wage, exempt from paying tax youth are.

[Hoboh]

Oh, and for what it's worth, the stupid idea of conscription by the short pant legged idiot should not be considered either.
The professional forces don't need woke lazy types forced upon them.

[BWFC_Insane]

Someone please tell me what a old fogie has a clue about what is going on in the world with real issues other than what The Daily Mail tells them?

Just as legitimate a gripe.

Beg to differ fella.
You like a lot of a certain type seem to peddle the 'believe what you read in the mail types' myth.
Perhaps it should be all about the Mirror reading hopeless lefties who are so compassionate about everything that are the deluded?
It's really simple
Read the figures of youth in further education and the numbers of jobless then tell us were all these usually minimum wage, exempt from paying tax youth are.

A 16 year old can’t vote because they don’t know what they are doing but a 90 year old with dementia does and can? It doesn’t make sense. Once you define by competence age doesn’t work.

[Worthy4England]

Someone please tell me what a old fogie has a clue about what is going on in the world with real issues other than what The Daily Mail tells them?

Just as legitimate a gripe.

Beg to differ fella.
You like a lot of a certain type seem to peddle the 'believe what you read in the mail types' myth.
Perhaps it should be all about the Mirror reading hopeless lefties who are so compassionate about everything that are the deluded?
It's really simple
Read the figures of youth in further education and the numbers of jobless then tell us were all these usually minimum wage, exempt from paying tax youth are.

Never fear Hobes, we'll just leave it to you, mate.

Minute you bring competence in, we can work out how to measure it. I mean you probably wouldn't want to give clueless people without degrees a vote, now would you?

[Hoboh]

People with mental health problems should not vote, no matter what age to be fair.
Given the attitude of some perhaps five would be an appropriate time to be given the vote because they are setting off on the lifelong course of education and work?
No, thought not.
I notice the 'give them adult responsibility of voting' but stop treating them as babies gets overlooked.
As you say
You cannot expect 'owt for now't.

[BWFC_Insane]

People with mental health problems should not vote, no matter what age to be fair.
Given the attitude of some perhaps five would be an appropriate time to be given the vote because they are setting off on the lifelong course of education and work?
No, thought not.
I notice the 'give them adult responsibility of voting' but stop treating them as babies gets overlooked.
As you say
You cannot expect 'owt for now't.

So people with alzeimhers can’t vote. People who are sometimes confused can’t. Those with mental health conditions can’t. Thats a huge chunk of people unable to vote suddenly.

What about those with learning difficulties? Should they have the vote? What about those who haven’t managed a degree level education? Why should we let them have a say if they aren’t intelligent enough to at least manage a first degree?

Competency is not a good argument. 16 year olds can live on their own. Can earn a living. I think that is a good place to say they should have a say in how the country is run.

[Hoboh]

People with mental health problems should not vote, no matter what age to be fair.
Given the attitude of some perhaps five would be an appropriate time to be given the vote because they are setting off on the lifelong course of education and work?
No, thought not.
I notice the 'give them adult responsibility of voting' but stop treating them as babies gets overlooked.
As you say
You cannot expect 'owt for now't.

So people with alzeimhers can’t vote. People who are sometimes confused can’t. Those with mental health conditions can’t. Thats a huge chunk of people unable to vote suddenly.

What about those with learning difficulties? Should they have the vote? What about those who haven’t managed a degree level education? Why should we let them have a say if they aren’t intelligent enough to at least manage a first degree?

Competency is not a good argument. 16 year olds can live on their own. Can earn a living. I think that is a good place to say they should have a say in how the country is run.

Oh yeah, the good old CAN! Try DO.
Mate some youth Don't know which bathroom to use or if they are a cat or not.
I know you are a dyed in the wool labour leftie but I at least credited you with having some grey matter upstairs.

[BWFC_Insane]

People with mental health problems should not vote, no matter what age to be fair.
Given the attitude of some perhaps five would be an appropriate time to be given the vote because they are setting off on the lifelong course of education and work?
No, thought not.
I notice the 'give them adult responsibility of voting' but stop treating them as babies gets overlooked.
As you say
You cannot expect 'owt for now't.

So people with alzeimhers can’t vote. People who are sometimes confused can’t. Those with mental health conditions can’t. Thats a huge chunk of people unable to vote suddenly.

What about those with learning difficulties? Should they have the vote? What about those who haven’t managed a degree level education? Why should we let them have a say if they aren’t intelligent enough to at least manage a first degree?

Competency is not a good argument. 16 year olds can live on their own. Can earn a living. I think that is a good place to say they should have a say in how the country is run.

Oh yeah, the good old CAN! Try DO.
Mate some youth Don't know which bathroom to use or if they are a cat or not.
I know you are a dyed in the wool labour leftie but I at least credited you with having some grey matter upstairs.

Your argument was competence. I’m asking how you correlate age with competence. Because it doesn’t make sense.

So given we don’t distinguish between eligibility based on competence - then it’s a terrible argument to use for age.

It’s a fact that many 16 year olds will be more competent than many other eligible voters.

So the argument is really at which point someone should become legally eligible to vote. I think it’s merely a question as to whether that is full legal independence at 18 or partial (and sometimes full) legal independence at 16. There are reasonable arguments either way but I think for me the ability to earn your own money (full time) sways me. If they can pay taxes then I think they deserve a say.

I just don’t think ‘oh 16 year olds they aren’t responsible to vote’ based on competency or outcome works. The exact same arguments can be made about whole other swathes of the electorate. We’ve had a disastrous 14 years at levels we’ve never seen before of corruption and incompetence. Should we ban those who inflicted that mess on us from voting on the basis they are clearly incompetent?

[Hoboh]

You see your argument about competence is a distraction and do you seriously think there are 16yo taxpayers out there?
My argument is they are mostly absolutely clueless at that age about anything outside of social media and what their mates are upto, throw in a lot of parents who still think little angels are babies and should be treated as such and you think they should be responsible enough to vote?
The other side of my argument is okay, give them the vote and them let them face adult consequences for any of their actions.

[Worthy4England]

The minute you start using the word "clueless" you're talking about understanding and interpretation which some might call competence. I don't think you have to go anywhere near topics such as alzheimers, to suggest that if "having a clue" is the criteria then you need to measure it.

It's another sideshow anyhow. If it comes in, it'll be because more vote Labour than Tory, so it will be the will of the people to which there can be no argument, apparently.

[TANGODANCER]

Regardless of competency, there needs t be a line in the sand that applies to all, or at least the majority of citizens. In voting age has always been that line Competency is determined by common sense, or should be, a mandate for all arguments. It's rather sad that the armed forces should be the scale-tipping element when war as a whole should be decried, not supported. In truth, a force of today's eighteen year-olds in combat would make Dad's army look like the S.A.S.

Like most, I have no real answer to offer, but sixteen year old voters isn't my idea of that, and two World Wars wrote off multi thousands of youth who thought a rifle was any answer to anything except premature death. National service is a con, as anyone wanting to be a soldier only has to walk into the nearest enrolment office and sign a form. To make it compulsory is the fact most likely to get the opposite to happen. Being a serviceman/woman, also isn't a game on Warcraft. Back to the drawing board.

[Prufrock]

I find this discussion a touch odd in that to me it's clearly about competency. Your starting point should be that everyone who is competent to do so should have a vote. Lots of arguments are self-serving about who is likely to win, but that's democracy. "I don't like who they'd vote for"...tough.

I absolutely agree with tango that it's a bright line test. We don't have the resources and it would clearly be disproportionate to check every person for competency. That's means some people who aren't for many reasons well be able to (though I'm sure many self select out). So you need general rules.

I'm mildly in favour for. I'm not sure you're ever a fully formed rational human, but I think generally 16 year olds are capable of understanding issues, even if not informed by much experience.

But I'm not wholly sure, and it's interesting that most steps recently have been the other way (mandatory education until 18, marriage age completely moved to 18).

[BWFC_Insane]

You see your argument about competence is a distraction and do you seriously think there are 16yo taxpayers out there?
My argument is they are mostly absolutely clueless at that age about anything outside of social media and what their mates are upto, throw in a lot of parents who still think little angels are babies and should be treated as such and you think they should be responsible enough to vote?
The other side of my argument is okay, give them the vote and them let them face adult consequences for any of their actions.

Of course there are 16 year old taxpayers…

[BWFC_Insane]

Regardless of competency, there needs t be a line in the sand that applies to all, or at least the majority of citizens. In voting age has always been that line Competency is determined by common sense, or should be, a mandate for all arguments. It's rather sad that the armed forces should be the scale-tipping element when war as a whole should be decried, not supported. In truth, a force of today's eighteen year-olds in combat would make Dad's army look like the S.A.S.

Like most, I have no real answer to offer, but sixteen year old voters isn't my idea of that, and two World Wars wrote off multi thousands of youth who thought a rifle was any answer to anything except premature death. National service is a con, as anyone wanting to be a soldier only has to walk into the nearest enrolment office and sign a form. To make it compulsory is the fact most likely to get the opposite to happen. Being a serviceman/woman, also isn't a game on Warcraft. Back to the drawing board.

Millions of teenagers and young men were sent to their deaths in World War One by elite generals who knew their attacks would gain nothing other than thousands more dead young men. Those young men were lied to about the realities of war to ensure they signed up.

If that isn’t the biggest justification for letting 16 year olds have a say then I’m not sure what is.

[TANGODANCER]

Millions of teenagers and young men were sent to their deaths in World War One by elite generals who knew their attacks would gain nothing other than thousands more dead young men. Those young men were lied to about the realities of war to ensure they signed up.

If that isn’t the biggest justification for letting 16 year olds have a say then I’m not sure what is

What exactly are they going to vote for at sixteen that we can't sort out at fifties plus, free mobile phones and x Boxes for all? ?
Bearing in mind also of course that the next generation of soldiers, sailors and air personnel are likely to be our grandchildren and great grand children. Frightening isn't it?

[TANGODANCER]

Without further comment from me..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9xx1w48wjdo

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

What exactly are they going to vote for at sixteen that we can't sort out at fifties plus, free mobile phones and x Boxes for all? ?
Bearing in mind also of course that the next generation of soldiers, sailors and air personnel are likely to be our grandchildren and great grand children. Frightening isn't it?

Sorry TD, I think that is a bit condescending to young people. Sure, some would, but it is no different to generalising and marginalising any other group. To varying degrees everyone votes in self interest, or what they believe is in their interest. But we all also vote for things we think is in societies best interest - some think locking up criminals for longer, or free education for young folk or even looking after older folk better make for a better society. We all believe different things, but the point is we all have a tiny say in it regardless of self interest.

I personally don't think there is a significant maturity difference between 16 and 18. At both ages I was mainly concerned with going out, getting laid and playing sport and not necessarily in that order I have no idea how I would have voted back then, but things that affected me were college and first jobs. But the big thing I remember thinking about then was the 1st gulf war and wondering if it might mean getting called up. I remember a 17 year old from Rochdale getting killed in friendly fire after the armoured carrier he was in was bombed by the Americans. I'd have liked a say through the ballot box, but I think I was probably 17 and didn't have a voice. Should that lad, the same age and from a couple of miles down the road from me had a say? I dare say he wasn't concerned with free Nintendo and walkmans as welcome as they would be.

[TANGODANCER]

I'll step back a little as my arguments are made. I leave you with this quote from "Lord of the Flies"...

William Golding, 1983. "The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable."

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'll step back a little as my arguments are made. I leave you with this quote from "Lord of the Flies"...

William Golding, 1983. "The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable."

No need to step back Tango. Its a healthy discussion and one that affects us all ultimately. As scary as it is, these youngsters are going to be running things one day