• swatantra

    Yes. This all ties up with the loss of childhood. Children are too often seen as minature adults., which is wrong. Well they’re not.
    True 100 years ago we had chidren under 15 working in factories; do wereally want to go down there again?
    Young people have a right to a good education, training and some work experience up till the age of 18. The also have a right to higher education at Uni and FE. All the while the are physically and mentally maturing.
    Voting rights should start at 21 and the right to stand as a candidate at 25.
    Give them time to get some experience of life.

    • Anonymous

      You can join the army at sixteen you can drive a vehicle in the army at sixteen, you can fire a high power rifle at sixteen but you cannot yet go forward into a battle situation, yet.

      I had a licence to  shoot a twelve bore shotgun at 14years of age

      You can have children get married do work which is classed as dangerous, work down a mine which use to be fourteen, I was working at heights of 1000ft at fifteen using climbing equipment, but you cannot put an X on a box because your seen as not know New labour was Tory and David Miliband is a right wing bigot like his mate Blair, hell even a two year old would have guessed that one.

      • Swatantran

        The point is not many 16 yr olds get married at 16.; they don’t go down the mines or get shot at on the front line, or climb 100′ towers, or shoot 12 bore guns. And niether should thet be allowed to. Its plain irresponsible of parents to allow them to do so. No 16 yr old or 18 yr old should be fighting in Afghanistan; lets have the decency to give that youth a few precious years of life before they come home in a body bag. 21 is the min they should be sent to the Front.
        Some of the 16 yrs I”ve come across are a load of right wing facist ******s, and I wouldn’t trust them with a vote let alone common sense. Lets not assume that all young people are good lefty social democrats and tradeunionists. They aren’t.

        • Anonymous

          God your a pratt

      • http://thepeoplesflag.blogspot.com/ Andy Williams

        You used to be able to go to the front at 16 right up until Gulf War 2.        There is a cracking picture of a young Royal Scot aged 16 years and 8 months from Gulf War 1 on the frontline, bayonet fixed,  smiling having just fragged an Iraqi bunker with a phosporous grenade.

        Although you can join at 16,  the vast bulk of the British Army joins at 17-18,  on three year contracts and leaves at 21 (most western armies are similar).  That way we have a large, young, reserve pool (we can actually quite quickly  expand the Army to more than half a million by mobilising everyone under 35 who has served) – a country’s most important policy is it’s Defence Policy. If it has no proper plan for war then it has failed.

        Swat as usual shows a frightening ignorance of anything to do with Britain.  There are Taleban insurgents wandering around Helmand in flip-flops who know more about Britain  and the ‘British way’ than him.

        • Swatantra

          The nature of warfare ohas changed. You don’t need a large standing Army or conscription or press gangs or cannon fodder as in WWI when there are ‘smart’ precision weapons that can do the job for you. You can bomb a civilian population into submission by shock and awe and then send in a ground force to mop up …  in theory. 
          Armies that don’t have those capabilites can resort to guerilla tactics quite effective against an enemy that vlues the lives of their soldiers more than you do. So we have child soldiers under 14 in civil wars and child suicide bombers indoctrinated in the madrasas who are effective in inducing a climate of fear against a western army armed to the teeth with sophisticated weapons but totally powerless.
          We don’t want to go down that route of child soldiers some as young as 9. THeir mothers would not be too happy with that. Neither are they happy when their 18 yr olds come home in a bodybag. 
          On one point you my be right. there are a hellofa lot of foreigners who know more about Britain Shakespeare and the Royals than the ordinary indiginous Briton does. Its got something to do with education and attitude.

          • http://thepeoplesflag.blogspot.com/ Andy Williams

            Swat you still aren’t grasping it. We sent 16-year-olds to war as recently as 10 years ago. Now they don’t go till they are 18.

            The nature of war has not changed in 20,000 years.

            The primary role of the Armed Forces is the defence of the homeland from a full scale war hence why all ex-soldiers remain on the reserve list for call-up in general war until they are 40. In fact, to fill in shortfalls caused by Iraq and Afghanistann overlapping, many former soldiers were mobilised back into the forces – some having been out 5 years or more.

            Smart muunituions are for little wars – tin a full scale war there would be no smart stuff left after the fiorst few days and it would quickly revert backdown to the old faithfulls of industrial capacity and population size.

  • Anonymous

    So, if in 2010 I’d filled in the forms for my 5 year old son, then told him that Nasty My Brown is a bully who shouts at people and throws things, like  Callum at school does, while Nice Mr Cameron likes Ben10 I could have got another Tory vote?

    How do you know the child is asking for a vote because they want it? How are they expected to be informed (I don’t know if you have seen it lately but Newsround’s hardly ever covers PMQs).

    We let children make decisions on their own medical treatment since it effects them personally, but voting is about things that will effect others. My 2 year old daughter doesn’t really care about others much.

    There has to be a cut off, we can’t expect the electoral registrars to assess the competence of every child who applies. We can discuss if the cut off should be 16  but Alex is just being silly (then again very few 16 years have voted when given the chance).

  • LesAbbey

    Maybe IQ would be a better measurement for voting rights than age. Of course older people like myself who can feel some brain cells disappearing every day could well lose out. Then again if the following link is correct there should be a guaranteed left of centre government for the foreseeable future.


    • Anonymous

       Could be down to that left wingers are less frit than conservatives.


      • LesAbbey

        Yes in a way that ties in with the neo-liberal/social democrat split on whether man is basically good or evil and generous or selfish.

    • Anonymous

      Had a little look into that article. That study is very dodgy at best. Firstly it basically says racism is right -wing and right wingers are racists which is making a big and pretty offensive leap (Hard to argue that there aren’t a fair few people who vote Labour with racist views). I think the researchers have been letting their own prejudices interfere.

      Secondly the use of data is dodgy as anything.

          “A contender for the worst use of statistics in an original paper ever”

      Dr William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York


      Of course the mighty Mash say it better


      My favourite “right wingers are at least intelligent enough to assume that everyone is a potential enemy. Especially those who give hugs instead of handshakes.

      And while racism, homophobia and insisting climatology is a pyramid sales scam are all a bit dense, so is standing on top of a pile of skulls and shouting, ‘let’s try it again’.

  • Anonymous

    The real question of course why would a sixteen year old or younger care enough to vote, when many adults do not care or bother.

  • Swatantra

    ”The real question of course is why a sixteen year old or younger…. woukd want to …..( fill in your own words like:vote, or shoot a 12 bore, or marry or get killed on the frontline, or etc etc etc) ….  when many adults do not …. ’.