Latest news with #votingage
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Starmer lowering the voting age to 16 'just to gain their votes'
Lowering the voting age to 16 - your views WHAT on earth was going through the minds of Starmer and his cronies when they decided to lower the voting age to 16? I know they are stupid, but now I realise they are totally stupid. These are still children. They identify as cats and whatever other creature they feel like. How are they going to vote - with a paw print? There must also be some treats on offer because he ain't doing it for the good of the country. He's doing it to gain their votes. These children think they've been everywhere, seen everything and done everything. Or should that be 'everyfink ay innit'. A lot of them being nothing more than knife wielding, irresponsible and feral. Thugs who refuse to answer to anyone. I wonder just what the treats will be. God help sense or logic lies behind Labour's intent to lower the voting age to 16? There is none, other than a cynical ploy to seduce immature teenagers to vote for them. This by a government that lacks the brains to govern but think they know best how people should conduct their lives.... I WAS brought up with the Second World War still fresh in people's memories and told it was my duty to vote as so many people had died in the fight to be masters of our own destiny. I have always voted as my right and privilege to do so and personally think that people who "can't be bothered" have no rights to criticise. We vote standing on the shoulders of heroes who fought for our freedom. What advice will an 18 year old get from his parents? "Vote for the party who will give you the most, for the least amount of effort". Ask not what England can do for me, but what can I do for England. What do you think? Send your views to: letters@ Write no more than 250 words and please provide your full name, address and mobile number
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
UK to allow children to vote
The British government is set to lower the voting age to 16, granting more than 1.5 million teenagers the right to cast a ballot in the next general election, due in 2029. The pledge to boost turnout, first made in Labour's election manifesto, is part of a raft of measures in the new Elections Bill unveiled on Thursday. 'By engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes,' the official strategy stated, claiming the changes will 'restore trust' in the system. The document argued that if 16-year-olds can work and pay taxes, it is 'right and fair that they should be able to vote.' Registration will be possible from age 14, so young people are added to the electoral roll as soon as they become eligible. The bill also includes simplified identity checks for those without a National Insurance number, and measures for children in care to register. The minimum age to stand as a candidate will remain 18. Critics claim the change could benefit Labour, as younger voters are more likely to support left-leaning parties. A YouGov poll shows Labour leading among 18 to 24-year-olds at 28%, with the Greens at 26% and the Liberal Democrats at 20%. Opposition MPs also questioned the consistency of the policy. 'Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?' Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes argued. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner rejected suggestions of political advantage, saying the reform is not about 'trying to rig votes for a particular party,' but about giving young people a voice in democracy. Voter turnout in the 2024 general election was 59.7%, the lowest in over two decades. Lowering the voting age to 16 would mark the biggest change since it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: Why is 16 too young for voting? Ask a brain scientist...
As the mother of two young adults (22 and 20), I am tentatively enjoying some early fruit of my parental labours. My daughter has just graduated with a first from Manchester (shameless mum-brag, guilty as charged), and my son is gainfully employed over the summer holidays in a job that not only gets him out of the house but also keeps him fit and fed (he's a busser in a restaurant). But the news last week that our glorious leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has followed through on his electoral threat to lower the voting age to 16 has rather dampened my mood. It is, quite simply, the height of idiocy. As any Year 11 teacher will tell you, most 16-year-olds aren't fit to tuck their own shirt in, let alone participate in the democratic process.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
The Good, The Bad, And The Funny: Voting At 16 Years Old
Young voters The United Kingdom announced this week that it would lower the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election. We Americans and others seem somewhere between puzzled and put off by the idea, as this issue generates a wide range of reactions. Voting at 16: A trend already under way Not the first country to do this, the U.K. follows Scotland, Wales and the Channel Islands, where younger voters already cast ballots. Around the globe, Austria became the first European country in 2008 to lower its national voting age to 16, with Malta following suit a decade later. In South and Central America, Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Argentina have reset voting from age 16 for years. When I cover a story, I decide, among other things, the approach – and go from there. This is a rare one, as it jumped at me from three positions: what's good, what's bad (maybe 'worrisome' is a better word), and what's funny (read: skeptical, cynical, sarcastic). An opportunity to lift all ships Although it is well known that many voters are not the most diligent about being responsible, and well-informed – and that this is not likely to change among teens – if we are interested in securing the future of democracy, this is the time to reconstruct our commitment to teaching civics and critical thinking from the early grades. Grade school education is where we can embed the idea that a rising tide lifts all shifts. 'Trouble ahead, trouble behind. Don't you know that notion just crossed my mind.' Teenagers, despite our best efforts to educate them in open-minded ways, are gullible and therefore vulnerable. There is no limit to how much so, and recent history confirms that. Imagine the naïve mind of a 16-yer old being manipulated by the devious, nefarious, and exceptionally skillful political strategists who are backed by countless billions of bucks. No contest. And think back only to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of the 2016 campaign. Today, the average time spent on social media screens is 4.5 hours per day. Anyone see a problem ahead? Sometimes, ya' just gotta laugh
The Independent
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
I'm against votes at 16, but this is how I could be persuaded
If I were making the case for votes at 16, I would say that taking part in democracy is so important that people should be encouraged to do it early. I would say that voting is different from other things that people do, and that taking part can help to prepare young people for the responsibilities of citizenship. Instead, we tend to get a lot of false arguments about the other things that 16-year-olds can do and a rhetorical question: why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too? Thus on Thursday, when Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, published the government's plan to reduce the voting age, she said that '16- and 17-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve in the military'. Each of those actually undermines her case. They can work, but 14-year-olds can work part-time and it is government policy that 16- and 17-year-olds should be in education or training. You can pay income tax at any age. And though you can join the armed forces, you may not serve in a combat role. In an article in The Times, Rayner went further and said that you can be married at 16. Like most people, she was unaware that the law in England and Wales was changed two years ago, raising the age to 18. The article was quietly corrected. That mistake is the problem in a nutshell. At a time when age thresholds are generally being raised, advocates of votes at 16 have to explain why voting is different from most other things, not why it is the same. In recent years, the age at which young people can get a tattoo or buy superglue, fireworks or cigarettes has been raised to 18. The question is: why should voting be in the smaller category of things you can do at 16 rather than in the larger category of things that adults are allowed to do? I think that voting should be part of adulthood, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I could be persuaded that a special case should be made for a lower age, as it is for sex, medical treatment and driving. But the advocates of child voting really need to up their game. To be fair, Rayner did also make the better argument on Thursday: 'By engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes.' There is some evidence for this. A Scottish study found that after the voting age was reduced for everything except UK parliament elections, that cohort 'continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18'. There are other ways of raising turnout. I am opposed to compulsory voting in principle – part of the point of voting is that it is a voluntary act – but I think that a small cash incentive for first-time voters is a good idea. Other studies have shown that 'voting in one election substantially increases the likelihood of voting in the future'. And if a lower voting age does have a lasting effect in increasing engagement then there is no harm in doing that too. My other objection to votes at 16, however, is the suspicion that it is being done for party advantage. That was plainly the case in Scotland, where David Cameron foolishly allowed Alex Salmond to expand the franchise in order to boost the separatist vote in the 2014 referendum. Cameron's strategy seemed plausible: let the Scottish National Party choose the franchise, the date and the question, and then there could be no argument about the result. Like as if. Equally, Rayner's high-sounding arguments of principle are undermined by the knowledge that there are votes in it for her. The effects of the change are likely to be small. One poll this month, by Focaldata, suggested Labour and the Greens would gain 0.2 percentage points each, at the expense of Reform, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. But it still stinks. Yes, it was in Labour's manifesto last year, which even used the good argument rather than the bad: 'We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.' That is the correct procedure in a parliamentary democracy: you put it in the manifesto, get elected and enact it in law. But there is an argument that constitutional questions should be treated differently: that is why we had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011. And Labour ought to worry that in one list of manifesto policies polled it was the only one that more people opposed than supported. That is the clincher for me. I am persuaded that it is good for young people to be engaged in politics. I could accept that Labour is entitled to act in its self-interest, having won a mandate for that explicit policy in the general election, if there was overwhelming support for it. But there is not, not even among 16- and 17-year-olds. So, I realise that it is going to happen, and that it won't be reversed once it has happened, but I wish Labour would drop the nonsense about serving in the military and make a better case of democratic principle.
