|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Young people and the vote
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
There is a train station on my commute where the toilet is always, always locked and unavailable. No one can be bothered to get it changed and opened up because everyone is just passing through. By the time people have reached their destination it is forgotten about, no matter how pressing the need is at the time. It is just a feature of the landscape.
How is it tenable that young people are not allowed to vote in this country? I mean, specifically, how is it tenable that the authorities can actively promote greater voting turnout and then bemoan the lack of voting turnout when young people do not have the freedom to vote?
Is it a freedom issue?
Or is it just a feature of our landscape?
(note: please do not take the simile of voting being like going to the toilet literally on Thursday).
[ 05. May 2015, 07:12: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It's probably a feature of the fact that under 18s are not experienced enough in life to make an informed choice.
I had a conversation with a 17 year old on Saturday who thought David Cameron was Labour.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think that some young people are informed enough, and others aren't. We have a 17-year old in our church who has high political awareness and is furious that she can't vote.
Equally, some adults are politically naïve and ill-informed. They may have also become highly prejudiced by years of cynicism - at least the younger folk are still idealistic.
Any age cut-off point is going to be arbitrary. Personally I'd leave it where it says - Mrs. BT feels it should be lowered to 16.
[ 05. May 2015, 07:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I meant "where it is" not "where it says" - missed edit window though.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's probably a feature of the fact that under 18s are not experienced enough in life to make an informed choice.
I had a conversation with a 17 year old on Saturday who thought David Cameron was Labour.
Hi Mudfrog, But neither are some of the adults. I heard it said that young people are more likely to vote against the Government in power because they (the young people) are not established and more interested in change. And that as a result of this the existing Government is unwilling to change the system.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
16 and 17 year olds had the vote in the Scottish referendum, and will have the vote in the next Holyrood election.
I think it worked well - the teenagers were engaged and interested. It also means that the nuts and bolts of politics (i.e. the voting system etc) becomes relevant to school pupils, which is a good thing, in terms of it being incorporated into the curriculum.
16 year olds can marry without parental consent in Scotland, and so it seems ludicrous that they can't vote in the General election.
The Labour candidate in my constituency is 23, although this is a seat where Labour don't have a snowball's chance, so it's just a practise election for him. As 23 year old politicians go, he's doing ok.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that some young people are informed enough, and others aren't. We have a 17-year old in our church who has high political awareness and is furious that she can't vote.
Equally, some adults are politically naïve and ill-informed. They may have also become highly prejudiced by years of cynicism - at least the younger folk are still idealistic.
Any age cut-off point is going to be arbitrary. Personally I'd leave it where it says - Mrs. BT feels it should be lowered to 16.
Hi, - But just imagine if the Church got behind the freedom for young people to vote. Imagine all those people saying 'this is not the gospel'. Imagine the joy of adults if it was allowed - those of us who have turned to vinegar could blame the young people and a cult of youth for all the wrongs in society. It would be great.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Another point which came out of the Scottish referendum was that 16 and 17 year olds were more likely to vote than 18 to 21 year olds. This was probably because 16 and 17 year olds were still at home, and registered to vote at their home address. By contrast 18 to 21 year olds were more likely to be living in e.g. University Halls, or short term rented accommodation and had to either register at a temporary address, travel home to vote, or arrange a postal or proxy vote.
Getting 16 and 17 years olds engaged and into the habit of voting is hoped to increase the chance that they will vote next time, when they are the age group which has currently has a low percentage vote.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
16 and 17 year olds were more likely to vote than 18 to 21 year olds. This was probably because 16 and 17 year olds were still at home, and registered to vote at their home address.
(... and taken to vote by their parents, perhaps?)
I hope that is the real reason, not that the older young people had had longer to become disenchanted by the whole political process.
[ 05. May 2015, 07:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
16 and 17 year olds were more likely to vote than 18 to 21 year olds. This was probably because 16 and 17 year olds were still at home, and registered to vote at their home address.
(... and taken to vote by their parents, perhaps?)
I hope that is the real reason, not that the older young people had had longer to become disenchanted by the whole political process.
Registered to vote by their parents, taken to vote by their parents, popping in to vote en route to school, or on their way home from school. It is fairly easy for them!
My not-terribly-organised 20 year old son was too late for a postal vote in the referendum, but made the ten hour round trip to vote at home. I know a couple of his University friends ended up not voting, because something got in the way.
He's coming home to vote on Thursday, partly because a trip home in early May suits him. But I suspect that organising a postal or proxy vote ahead of time will always be an organisational step too far.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
From everything I've seen and heard, allowing 16 and 17 years olds to vote in the referendum was a great demonstration of the ability of young people to engage in the political process and make informed decisions. It's great that the Scottish Parliament is continuing with that, and would love to see it rolled out to other elections as soon as possible.
Every election provides plenty of evidence of the inability of many older people to engage in the political process and make informed decisions. Far too many people just vote as they've always done, or follow the lead of whatever newspaper they read (the choice of paper often influenced by how they vote, creating a positive feedback loop).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
There are a variety of things wrong with the current political process, of which the high voting age is but one.
I find it perverse that you can be old enough to join the armed forces, be entrusted with lethal weapons or to drive a car, potentially a lethal object and yet you are not trusted to put an X in a box.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
A recent discussion in my Spanish class about voting, where the majority of students are of college age and Miss Amanda is the stand-out old biddy, revealed that most of them don't vote (although entitled to do so).
Reasons given were that politics is corrupt, all politicians are scoundrels, only money matters, just one vote doesn't count, etc.
Miss Amanda was unable to convince them that if all that is true, it's only because the public allows it to be true and could change it in the wink of an eye by simply showing up to vote.
How sad to be so jaded at such a young age. Miss Amanda is entitled to be jaded at her age (she believes that politics is corrupt, all politicians are scoundrels, only money matters) but also believes that every vote does indeed count.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
A recent discussion in my Spanish class about voting, where the majority of students are of college age and Miss Amanda is the stand-out old biddy, revealed that most of them don't vote (although entitled to do so).
Reasons given were that politics is corrupt, all politicians are scoundrels, only money matters, just one vote doesn't count, etc.
Miss Amanda was unable to convince them that if all that is true, it's only because the public allows it to be true and could change it in the wink of an eye by simply showing up to vote.
How sad to be so jaded at such a young age. Miss Amanda is entitled to be jaded at her age (she believes that politics is corrupt, all politicians are scoundrels, only money matters) but also believes that every vote does indeed count.
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
There are a variety of things wrong with the current political process, of which the high voting age is but one.
I find it perverse that you can be old enough to join the armed forces, be entrusted with lethal weapons or to drive a car, potentially a lethal object and yet you are not trusted to put an X in a box.
To be honest, my position is probably that all the rights and responsibilities should be harmonised to the same age - except criminal responsibility (although you should treat under 18 criminals different to adult ones).
You are right hat you can join the armed forces at 16, but you can't be sent to fight til you're 18. My personal view is that if people can vote at 16, then they should be able to be sent to fight and die at 16. I don't want voters choosing governments that might not have to live and die with their decisions. Of course, older people are too old to be sent to fight and risk their lives, but they have at least passed through that window and lived with the theoretical possibility.
Voting age shouldn't be divorced from fighting age at the lower end AFAIC - and of course it was until the age of fighting was raised to 18, but I thought it was wrong before that too so that did at least make it consistent.
By the way, I've got no idea why (even as an ex-serviceman) - it's just something that I do feel very strongly about. Smoke, buy alcohol, vote, fight and maybe die, be treated as an adult in prisons = currently 18. I can see arguments to lower any of those, but lowering the vote in isolation = you need to be an adult to be trusted to do any of the other things but we're quite happy for you to choose you're government. Sorry, doesn't sit right with me.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As iniquities go, that the voting age isn't a bit lower is about as low on the scale as one can get.
There has to be a minimum age. Obviously babies, toddlers and small children should not vote, just as they should not be held liable for contracts.
Likewise, there has to be an age of majority. It's also no bad thing that there should be a point or a series of stages about becoming an adult, and if so, voting, participating in full as a citizen, should, like ownership of land and being fully answerable for ones' contracts, come at the last step. So, IMHO should being eligible to die for one's country.
There's nothing that I can see is wrong with 18. When I was that age, it was 21. I do not feel that I was deprived by having to wait until I was 21.
I'm also slightly fed up with the argument that we're at some way collectively at fault because some people don't bother to vote. If we're saying people are adults, then they take responsibility for whether they vote and which way they cast their vote. If they can't be bothered, that's their failure not mine.
I also think that quite a lot of people who say they aren't sure whether they will vote or not, will do so, but are too polite to let the person asking them know that they won't be voting their way, particularly if there are several people present and they know the answer won't please all of them. I can remember doing that myself.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I wonder if there is an argument that parents should have a proxy vote for each of their children, from birth? On the grounds that our choice of government will affect children too.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder if there is an argument that parents should have a proxy vote for each of their children, from birth? On the grounds that our choice of government will affect children too.
I would expect that idea to fly. It inherently means that people with lots of children get more votes than people who have fewer children who still get more votes than people without children.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Perhaps people over a certain age, or with a poor medical prognosis, should only get half a vote because they won't be around for many of the years that will be affected by the next government's policies.
We could be more sophisticated about it if we gave everyone a hundred votes to start with, and you'd lose one for every year you lived, gain eighteen for each child, and we could shave a couple off every time your cholesterol level goes up or if you buy a motorbike.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Sipech - Well yes, that's the point.
Suppose in Ricardusborough East you have 50 people with underage children and who vote for the Friends of Children Party, 75 people without underage children who vote for the We Hate Children Party, and 50 minors. The We Hate Children Party gets elected even though its policies are against the interests of the majority of the population of Ricardusborough East.
Now that's a bit of a silly example but the We Hate Children Party can be representative of any party whose programme is contrary to the interests of children (cough cough Sure Start Centre closures cough).
(For the record - I have no children.)
[ 05. May 2015, 11:53: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Well of course we need a cut off age below which young people can't vote. How this age is decided is the difficulty. Personally I thought the age of 21 was good as it allowed for some time to experience life after school before having to make important adult decisions. Nevertheless it is now 18, but I strongly believe that it should not go any lower.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
Mmm ... I don't think I would want a 21-year old MP with little life experience.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
Mmm ... I don't think I would want a 21-year old MP with little life experience.
We've had plenty of members of parliament (particularly members of the cabinet) with little life experience. They are career politicians, born into wealth and educated to think they have a birthright to govern. Whether they are 21 or 43 makes no difference.
My personal belief is that cabinet members should meet a relevant experience criteria. e.g. the education secretary must have worked for 5 years in a school, college or university; the health secretary must be a qualified nurse or doctor; etc.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
Mmm ... I don't think I would want a 21-year old MP with little life experience.
But, you'll take a 40 something son of wealthy parents, educated at a top public school, a classics degree from Oxbridge and a cushy job in daddy's business before entering politics. Really great life experience to represent a constituency of pit villages, without any pits (or, anywhere else except parts of some constituencies in leafy London suburbs).
If irrelevant life experience is no hindrance to being an MP, then neither should very little life experience be a hindrance.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
Mmm ... I don't think I would want a 21-year old MP with little life experience.
We've had plenty of members of parliament (particularly members of the cabinet) with little life experience. They are career politicians, born into wealth and educated to think they have a birthright to govern. Whether they are 21 or 43 makes no difference.
My personal belief is that cabinet members should meet a relevant experience criteria. e.g. the education secretary must have worked for 5 years in a school, college or university; the health secretary must be a qualified nurse or doctor; etc.
I wouldn't want a Home Secretary who had been a policeman, an ex-military Defence Secretary or a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had worked for, say, Rothschilds. Too much scope for vested interests. Politicians and especially ministers provide the ideas which advisors and civil servants then kick into shape as administration of policy.
As for age, twenty year olds are as likely as forty year olds to have the energy to represent constituents, and the arguments that can be levelled against the young not being taken seriously are exactly those used when women entered Parliament.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Sipech, Alan: I knew someone would say that - and I don't disagree. I realise that some young people are wise beyond their years. Nevertheless a 41 year old is at least more likely to have experienced employment, bereavement, illness etc. than someone 20 years younger.
Personally I would like all MPs to be people who have lived and worked in their constituency for some years - I don't like this "parachuting in" of bright young things who the party wants to cultivate.
That's under the present no-longer-fit-for-purpose system, of course.
[ 05. May 2015, 13:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
My personal belief is that cabinet members should meet a relevant experience criteria. e.g. the education secretary must have worked for 5 years in a school, college or university; the health secretary must be a qualified nurse or doctor; etc.
Nah, they'd go native and never get anything done/fight too much between departments with their tunnel vision. Maybe everyone should be one of those, but they shouldn't be allowed to run that department - send the doctor to education, the general to health, etc...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more young people stood (or ran) than more young people would be inclined to vote. As it is, most party machines are run by the middle aged who, unsurprisingly, appoint middle aged candidates.
Mmm ... I don't think I would want a 21-year old MP with little life experience.
We've had plenty of members of parliament (particularly members of the cabinet) with little life experience. They are career politicians, born into wealth and educated to think they have a birthright to govern. Whether they are 21 or 43 makes no difference.
My personal belief is that cabinet members should meet a relevant experience criteria. e.g. the education secretary must have worked for 5 years in a school, college or university; the health secretary must be a qualified nurse or doctor; etc.
Well hang on, Ed Miliband, to take an example is younger than me and he's lost his father, he's married with kids, he's taught at Harvard, he's worked for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he's been an MP and a Cabinet Minister and he's currently Leader of the Opposition. The anti-politics brigade will tell you that he lacks life experience. But he's experienced joy and grief, he has worked in demanding and high pressure jobs and so on and so forth. This is life experience. It isn't usual life experience and it isn't experience of hardship - I'd certainly like to see more people in Parliament who know what it is like to have to routinely balance the amount of money they have left with the amount of month. But it's life experience. I can't see how it's life experience which is irrelevant to the business of politics.
The killer, to my mind, about the life experience argument is that the people who are keen on it never trot it out as an argument against the monarchy. After all HM the Queen's life experience consists largely of being a) A Princess and b) A Queen. All,of a sudden, it's "oh, but she has worked with every Prime Minister from Churchill to Cameron". Her wisdom is invaluable to the working of the Constitution. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Incidentally, if you insist that Cabinet Ministers are drawn from their relevant area of expertise you will have two unintended consequences. My wife works for the health service, and whilst she is a wonderful woman and much better than I deserve, I cannot think of a single circumstance in which she would cut the budget of the National Health Service. I don't imagine, teachers, members of the armed forces, police officers and so forth are much different. Secondly, on the (vanishingly rare) occasions that I point out that the NHS may not work with optimal efficiency in some areas she is quite convinced (doubtless with some justice) that my experience as a patient has less validity than her experience of having worked for the NHS since university. Again, teachers, police officers and soldiers are much the same. As George Bernard Shaw was wont to observe all professions are conspiracies against the laity. I'm not sure that it would get us better government, although it would probably be popular among the professions.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wouldn't want a Home Secretary who had been a policeman, an ex-military Defence Secretary or a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had worked for, say, Rothschilds. Too much scope for vested interests. Politicians and especially ministers provide the ideas which advisors and civil servants then kick into shape as administration of policy.
I'd agree that there is scope for vested interests, but no more than we have had at present. After all, the chief whip and former education secretary is also a former lackey of Rupert Murdoch.
I wouldn't have any objection to a former policeman, or a solicitor, magistrate or judge. I can understand the objection to a soldier being the secretary of state for defence, but one could choose from the opposite end of the pacifist-warmonger spectrum.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I should have added, apropos my Ed Miliband example, that much the same could be said of Cameron and Clegg, btw. If you don't like their politics, don't like their politics. But be aware that, say, Safid Javad, or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable haven't chosen to split with their Oxbridge PPE masters and form a coalition of People With Life Experience. I think that's a clue.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
I'd agree that there is scope for vested interests, but no more than we have had at present. After all, the chief whip and former education secretary is also a former lackey of Rupert Murdoch.
No doubt. But I can't imagine that Rupert Murdoch's commercial interests are much served one way or the other by free schools or the composition of the national curriculum. In any event, under your schema, Gove would, presumably, have been Business Secretary in charge of deciding on the BSkyB bid or implementing Leveson?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wouldn't want a Home Secretary who had been a policeman, an ex-military Defence Secretary or a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had worked for, say, Rothschilds. Too much scope for vested interests. Politicians and especially ministers provide the ideas which advisors and civil servants then kick into shape as administration of policy.
I'd agree that there is scope for vested interests, but no more than we have had at present. After all, the chief whip and former education secretary is also a former lackey of Rupert Murdoch.
I wouldn't have any objection to a former policeman, or a solicitor, magistrate or judge. I can understand the objection to a soldier being the secretary of state for defence, but one could choose from the opposite end of the pacifist-warmonger spectrum.
But there isn't a Ministry of Pacifism to advance the cause of pacifism. You're also assuming that everyone in the military is a warmonger.
Under your plan every profession gets one of its own except the military (who, IME, tend to have a rather more realistic view of warfare and what it involves than many of the civilian back seat drivers who send them to war). I don't think that's on.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've tended towards the view espoused by the suffragettes: that those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law. Consequently the voting age should be that age at which you are held to be criminally responsible for your actions. If you think that makes the voting age too low then perhaps it's the justice system that's the problem.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
..... I do not feel that I was deprived by having to wait until I was 21....
In Australia in the 1970s, I felt very deprived at not being able to vote until I turned 21, because on my 20th birthday (like every other 20 year old man then) I was eligible to be conscripted into the army to fight in the Vietnam War (and quite likely be killed there, as quite a few conscripts did). There was a "lottery of death" based on your 20th birthday, to determine just who got conscripted; I lost.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've tended towards the view espoused by the suffragettes: that those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law. Consequently the voting age should be that age at which you are held to be criminally responsible for your actions. If you think that makes the voting age too low then perhaps it's the justice system that's the problem.
But the justice system does hold under 18s to a different standard to over 18s in terms of how it treats and sentences them, and under 10s to under 18s....
Surely you're not advocating different tiers of voting?
[ 06. May 2015, 10:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The problem with having the voting age for Westminster equate to the age of criminal responsibility is that Scotland has a lower age of criminal responsibility than England.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've tended towards the view espoused by the suffragettes: that those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law. Consequently the voting age should be that age at which you are held to be criminally responsible for your actions. If you think that makes the voting age too low then perhaps it's the justice system that's the problem.
Even those below the age of criminal responsibility are expected to obey the law. They are simply not criminally sanctioned if they do not.
In any event, a person's ability to distinguish right from wrong (IMHO) develops somewhat earlier than their ability to evaluate the more complex issues of economic and social policy.
I would give people the right to vote at the point where they are deemed to have full legal capacity in relation to their own lives (which does generate some cross border issues - 18 in England, 16 in Scotland).
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
