Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, toroymoi said:

I mean, yeah? I'm not talking shite, you're the one claiming that teenagers don't care about anything and really aren't offering a legitimate reason as to why beyond personal assumptions.

Perhaps you're generalising a bit too?  I mean perhaps you are or were a politically inclined self aware person and assuming the same of most others?  Its a big wide world out there with all sorts of people in it, I mean for instance, the fact is there is an AMAZING amount of people out there with a great deal of political apathy, young and old, I mean what was the voter turn out at that recent thing, like 28%?  And we're supposed to believe in a society where that many people couldn't be arsed to vote that there's this seething cauldron of youth bubbling beneath the surface positively chomping at the bit to get in a voters booth?  

None of this is an argument to not allow 16 yr olds to vote, for all i care you let orangutans have the vote, just making a point here.  Out of interest, why 16 and not...15?  Or 14?

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if they want the vote, let em vote, they can't be any fuckin' dumber than the average cunt out there.  Maybe weed'll get legalised! :lol:  Yeah, actually, we need to take a closer looking at the spotty little herbert demographic, i think there's more to them than meets the Clearasil pad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I cannot remember paying tax on my paper round haha - that would have been my last year, sixteen. I just got the money in a brown envelope from memory!

18-34 year old significantly lower than 35 plus,

 

graph-1.jpg

We can assume a lower line for 16-17 year olds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Hey, if they want the vote, let em vote, they can't be any fuckin' dumber than the average cunt out there.  Maybe weed'll get legalised! :lol:  Yeah, actually, we need to take a closer looking at the spotty little herbert demographic, i think there's more to them than meets the Clearasil pad.

:rofl-lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps you're generalising a bit too?  I mean perhaps you are or were a politically inclined self aware person and assuming the same of most others?  Its a big wide world out there with all sorts of people in it, I mean for instance, the fact is there is an AMAZING amount of people out there with a great deal of political apathy, young and old, I mean what was the voter turn out at that recent thing, like 28%?  And we're supposed to believe in a society where that many people couldn't be arsed to vote that there's this seething cauldron of youth bubbling beneath the surface positively chomping at the bit to get in a voters booth?  

None of this is an argument to not allow 16 yr olds to vote, for all i care you let orangutans have the vote, just making a point here.  Out of interest, why 16 and not...15?  Or 14?

I don't think all teens are politically aware or involved, I realise that how I was and how some 16+ year olds are, isn't the same for everybody. I think quite a significant portion of voter apathy in the young can be contributed towards the lack of education in regards to politics tbh, and the appearance that our voices are ignored. I mean, it gets portrayed in the media that the young don't know anything and that we shouldn't be listened to, and that kind of thing does seep into to a persons mindset. Obviously some people are just lazy and uninterested, but that's less due to age and more so about education and disenfranchising certain voters. 

I think 16 and not 15 or 14, because 16 is pretty much an age when people become adults. We can work and be taxed, we can leave home, we can get married, we can join the armed forces (the latter you need parental consent for, but surely if you're that much of a child it should be set to 18, no exceptions). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toroymoi said:

I think it is pressing in emergency. It is only two years, but the effects of the government in power last far beyond that. This isn't just about being able to vote, it's the power that that vote holds. 

A 16 year old who votes on the strength of lower tuition fees will be 20 by the next election.  I bet you that voter, given the choice between increasing tuition fees and lower taxes for post graduates will happily shit on the up and coming generation of 16 year old 6th formers.

 

Edited by spunko12345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, toroymoi said:

I think 16 and not 15 or 14, because 16 is pretty much an age when people become adults. We can work and be taxed, we can leave home, we can get married, we can join the armed forces (the latter you need parental consent for, but surely if you're that much of a child it should be set to 18, no exceptions). 

Bollocks. Eighteen is the 'age of majority' in the United Kingdom before which they are the legal responsibility of their parent/guardian - eighteen is also the age when criminals cease to be judged as 'juveniles'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I don't think all teens are politically aware or involved, I realise that how I was and how some 16+ year olds are, isn't the same for everybody. I think quite a significant portion of voter apathy in the young can be contributed towards the lack of education in regards to politics tbh, and the appearance that our voices are ignored. I mean, it gets portrayed in the media that the young don't know anything and that we shouldn't be listened to, and that kind of thing does seep into to a persons mindset. Obviously some people are just lazy and uninterested, but that's less due to age and more so about education and disenfranchising certain voters. 

So in essence you're talking about an on-going and substantial re-ordering of society to GET young people politically aware in order to have them in a sense worthy or ready for the vote?  By that rationale why are you disputing what Spunko said in the first place because you appear to be agreeing here that, as things stand, 16 yr olds aren't really good candidates for the vote?  I mean you don't re-educate a whole cross-section of society overnight, do you?  And also, you don't know whether your attempts are gonna work.  Honestly, when i was 16 I, and every 16 yr old I knew, found that shit REALLY patronising.  And found that position particularly patronising, this idea that 'oh they're not aware because of this, this and this', having my condition diagnosed second hand like that tended to make me want to tell the person to fuck off.  And still does to be honest.  This idea that kids don't get politics because they're not correctly educated.  There's something weird and kinda fascist about that sort of quasi-establishment initiative type shit.  It reeks of youth clubs that serve orange squash and hand out pamphlets.

Quote

I think 16 and not 15 or 14, because 16 is pretty much an age when people become adults. We can work and be taxed, we can leave home, we can get married, we can join the armed forces (the latter you need parental consent for, but surely if you're that much of a child it should be set to 18, no exceptions). 

All seems kind of arbitrary to me.  Why should being allowed to do one thing have a bearing on others?  Why are those things being taken as necessarily correct enough to be a basis for changing the vote, why not alter those?  I mean since we're re-ordering here.

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern politics should never be taught in the classroom. Too much of a vehicle for political indoctrination. Unless of course you merely mean the institutions and procedures of politics, but then that is a class to bunk off school if I've ever heard one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Nope, that would be 18 and I'm not even convinced at that.

I said pretty much, because at that age we're able to take on what I consider to be rather adult responsibilities. I'm fully aware that 18 is regarded as when we 'really' become adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The age of majority (and criminal responsibility) is eighteen; hitherto your are under the legal ownership of one's parents/guardians - it would take a court ruling otherwise. It is that simple.

How many people ran (figuratively speaking) to the polling station when they turned eighteen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Nope, that would be 18 and I'm not even convinced at that.

Let's go the other way.

Is right for people around the life expectancy age to swing a referendum that won't effect them? Does a 16 year old that can join the army, pay taxes, live in their home, get married (none of which apply to a 15 year old) ect, ect. deserve less of a say on their own future than someone over 75, 80, 90?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How many people ran (figuratively speaking) to the polling station when they turned eighteen?

3/4 of the country didn't run to the polling station for the local elections.

At least the 18 year olds that did, cared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AtariLegend said:

Let's go the other way.

Is right for people around the life expectancy age to swing a referendum that won't effect them? Does a 16 year old that can join the army, pay taxes, live in their home, get married (none of which apply to a 15 year old) ect, ect. deserve less of a say on their own future than someone over 75, 80, 90?

I think the operative word here is "can". Let's be honest though, most of 'em are sitting at home, popping zits and wanking themselves into a frenzy over the lingerie pages of the Littlewoods catalogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

So in essence you're talking about an on-going and substantial re-ordering of society to GET young people politically aware in order to have them in a sense worthy or ready for the vote?  By that rationale why are you disputing what Spunko said in the first place because you appear to be agreeing here that, as things stand, 16 yr olds aren't really good candidates for the vote?  I mean you don't re-educate a whole cross-section of society overnight, do you?  And also, you don't know whether your attempts are gonna work.  Honestly, when i was 16 I, and every 16 yr old I knew, found that shit REALLY patronising.  And found that position particularly patronising, this idea that 'oh they're not aware because of this, this and this', having my condition diagnosed second hand like that tended to make me want to tell the person to fuck off.  And still does to be honest.  This idea that kids don't get politics because they're not correctly educated.  There's something weird and kinda fascist about that sort of quasi-establishment initiative type shit.  It reeks of youth clubs that serve orange squash and hand out pamphlets.

All seems kind of arbitrary to me.  Why should being allowed to do one thing have a bearing on others?  Why are those things being taken as necessarily correct enough to be a basis for changing the vote, why not alter those?  I mean since we're re-ordering here.

Because I don't think all current 16 year olds are uneducated about politics, like I said, as with any age group there'll be those who know what they're talking about and those who don't. I think it would help to lower the age first, as a way to incentivise young people to realise that they have a more immediate responsibility. Also, I mentioned those other things (like work, taxes etc.) because I consider those things to be responsibilities that require a certain maturity to handle, and if 16 year olds can handle that... they can handle a vote. 

I disagree with Spunko because he's continued to paint all 16 year olds as immature and stupid, as though apparently who he was at 16 applies to them too. I mean, not knowing about politics is about not being educated, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. All that we know or don't know is about education, formal or not. If you don't know about something, you haven't been educated/educated yourself on it, and if you do know, then you have. I'm saying a lot of kids don't get politics because they aren't taught at all, I had to seek things out for myself because adults tried to tell me that my opinion didn't matter even though it was something I cared about/was interested in. I'm not saying people are 'uneducated' as a dismissal of them, I'm saying it as an observation of a faulty education system.

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think the operative word here is "can". Let's be honest though, most of 'em are sitting at home, popping zits and wanking themselves into a frenzy over the lingerie pages of the Littlewoods catalogue.

You really are out of touch with the youth :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Because I don't think all current 16 year olds are uneducated about politics, like I said, as with any age group there'll be those who know what they're talking about and those who don't. I think it would help to lower the age first, as a way to incentivise young people to realise that they have a more immediate responsibility. Also, I mentioned those other things (like work, taxes etc.) because I consider those things to be responsibilities that require a certain maturity to handle, and if 16 year olds can handle that... they can handle a vote. 

Can they handle em though or are they damaging too, thats my point.

Quote

I disagree with Spunko because he's continued to paint all 16 year olds as immature and stupid, as though apparently who he was at 16 applies to them too. I mean, not knowing about politics is about not being educated, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. All that we know or don't know is about education, formal or not. If you don't know about something, you haven't been educated/educated yourself on it, and if you do know, then you have. I'm saying a lot of kids don't get politics because they aren't taught at all, I had to seek things out for myself because adults tried to tell me that my opinion didn't matter even though it was something I cared about/was interested in. I'm not saying people are 'uneducated' as a dismissal of them, I'm saying it as an observation of a faulty education system.

There's a presumption there that they would care if only they knew, I don't think people, or kids, are politically apathetic because of a lack of information, I mean they might be aware of the functional mechanics of it all but that doesn't mean to say that they don't have a broad grasp of what its about and that that broad grasp isn't enough for them to conclude that it's a load of bollocks over.  It's really not that complex a thing, though it can get complex, the over-arching principles are pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You didn't answer my question.

Statistically more than the number of 50 year olds that voted in the general election a few weeks ago.

You're ignoring the fact, that turnout is a flawed argument. If people, care they should vote. I have no idea what decade you guys grew up in, but I guess I'm the only one here young enough to be considered a millennial. I did give fuck about my future when I was 16 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...