...

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

So the biggest problem with democracy is that so many people don't fully understand the implications of what they're voting for - and your solution to this is to add even more people who don't understand.

You're basically aiming for whatever the opposite of a meritocracy is I guess.

I agree with the first part - that is arguably the biggest issue with representative democracy.

My proposed solution aims to address that by creating habitual voters from an early age. If politicians are forced to engage with younger people because they vote then understanding of the issues will increase over generational scale. If younger people also vote in numbers which is possible because voting becomes habitual the earlier you do it for the first time (c.f. experience of Austria...) then you also address the other big problem with representative democracy -- apathy and low turnout.

I recognise it's not a perfect solution, but I think on balance adding more voices and forcing engagement is a better solution than disenfranchising people.

Taking both positions to their extremes, disenfranchisement ends in dictatorship and enfranchisement ends in 'perfect' democracy. I know which extreme I'd like to move further towards, although obviously we're far away from both sides.

[Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.]

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.

In any event, Gillick doesn’t seem to set an age at which competence is acquired.
Lord Scarman said
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

So are we now going to have a test to see if people have ‘sufficient understanding’.

it's absolutely the same thing, unless you think all voters over the age of X are completely altruistic and not self-interested, or that the distribution of self-interest and altruism is substantially different in those above X and below X.

And I'm not saying that I want to test every voter (as I'm in favour of wider-enfranchisement in general) but rather I'm interested in setting the line for enfranchisement at the age at which the overwhelming majority of electorate are capable of understanding what a vote is, and why they should do it and what the consequences of voting are.

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

A better way forward would be to let Grandparents proxy vote for their Grandchildren

like grandparents were such stewards of the environment for their grandchildren?

I'm being glib and deliberately obtuse, but the point is that this idea would just double down the vote for older people and disenfranchise even more people (those without children, grandchildren) by making their votes worth less. Unless you're seriously envisaging a world where all grandparents are well-intended grandparents and would vote one way for themselves and another way for their grandchild, then you're just making a mockery of 'one man, one vote'.

and if you truly do believe that grandparents would act in that way....well, I guess that's another qualifying criteria to remove the vote from the over-how-ever-old-you-are

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

You're taxable as soon as you're born. You're just much less likely to earn enough to be taxed.

Most of what you say is obviously absurd but in general - yes, I thnk it would be entirely sensible to have a qualification to vote rather than an automatic assumption of one.

In terms of 16 year olds - the vast majority of 16 year olds have been shown in surveys to wildly underestimate the cost of everything they will need for university and everything they will have to do for it. If they can't work out the implications of looking after themselves why would you think they were capable of understanding the implications of what it would take to look after the country?

(obviously there are individuals who are smart and mature - we're looking at the group as a whole)

definitely show your working for the absolutely absurd claim that 16 year olds can't look after themselves or understand the consequences of decisions any less than the majority of the population. Most people in the UK have absolutely no clue about immigration, crime and most other things.

I couldn't manage Newcastle United, does that make my opinion that Rafa Benitez is a better manager than Steve Bruce any less valid? It is sensible to have some restrictions on who can be an MP (the coach), but not the voter (the fan). Similarly, i couldn't run the NHS at 16 or 30 but I can tell you who I don't want in charge of it at either age.

what kind of qualification would you propose? because I think it's very likely that I'd propose that people who thought that you needed in any way to be qualified to vote should immediately be excluded from doing so.

additionally, with an aging population, older voters are overrepresented with the direct consequence that there is a moral hazard for long term planning. Governments are encouraged by the ballot box to be short-termists. Absolutely no chance of dealing with e.g. climate change with that kind of thinking.

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Bitcoin seems to have fallen off a cliff today.

Anyone know why?

Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress related to Libra Group.

It didn’t exactly go well. Think there’s a decent amount of profit taking happening ahead of the inevitable increased risk of regulatory scrutiny.

Corbyn would be mad to go for an election, but he's being backed into a corner.

Probably needs to make his mind up before PM questions at midday.

But won't it look even worse on him if he chooses to turn down that opportunity again? I think if they turn it down again, they'll lose even more voters. I personally have come round to supporting Labour again in the last few weeks, BUT last few days I've been frustrated by them. If my MP chooses to vote against, then it's the last straw.

The frustrating thing is that now we see Labour MP's coming out for a GE, but now there's a shift in the party for a second referendum, which is miles away? Why not try and get that second referendum through a GE?

Whilst in the background is SNP is trying to make amendments to an election bill.

Should 16yo's be allowed to vote?

On your last question, I really can't think of a single reason why it makes sense for 16 year olds to vote. I can understand why certain parties like the idea of the 16-18 demographic having a vote but, in as unbiased a way as I am capable of, I can't get positive about it.

Would you say that 16 year olds should be tax exempt then?

Or is your average 16 year old allowed to fiscally contribute to society but not civically?

the trapdoor to No Deal.
Clause 30 - if the Government doesn’t propose an extension to the transition, MPs have no say, & therefore if negotiations on future relationship unfinished by end of December next year, we’re out - it

I think there was a last minute concession,, (in the winding up speech) to give MPs a vote on this in June 2020

Indeed the Justice Sec/Lord Chancellor said that the govt intended to move an amendment which gave the House the ability to vote on whether asking for an extension was required in July 2020.

Two small points:

1. Now that the bill is in limbo, who the fuck knows?

2. This is rather grist for the mill for those who claim (rightly) that passing WAB and ‘getting Brexit done’ is the start of Brexit, not the end of it.

so i lately I've been lurking on Blonde a bit, for the first time in many a year... Tikay reckons it's about 4 years, and I reckon he might be about right.

Quite a lot has happened in those years, so a brief summary.

1. I am no longer a cat owner. Jil and I broke up in slightly acrimonious circumstances and I haven't see her, or the cat, in a couple of years at least.

2. I am still in Prague and still firmly of the belief that the Czech Republic is one of the real hidden gems of Europe. In the years since I last posted, I've traveled almost everywhere throughout the Republic and discovered how much more there is to the place than just Prague. I now live in a vibrant district of the city which is gentrifying at pace. Sometimes I get concerned that Prague is becoming like $insert_european_capital_here - homogeneous and monolithic, but then I'll find some pub or art gallery or and and and which reminds me how much this place retains many of the things that make it unique.

3. My career has changed quite a bit in a direction I'm delighted about. For a while I had quite a mental period of growth and learning at a very hectic pace (which was probably not-sustainable long term...) and now I've reached a place where there's still lots to learn, grow and do, but at a more manageable pace and I am more in control of my goals and ambitions.

4. I still regret that Mike Ashley is the owner of Newcastle United.

5. I do not speak as much Czech as I'd like, but probably B1 on the European Common Framework of Reference for language ability. I'm working hard to increase my level. I'd like to be C1 (which is 'near-fluency') within the next 5 years -- by which time I'll have been here 10 years and will have the option of Citizenship (if I can prove C1 fluency, which is the requirement). I don't know if I want that, as it's such a visceral question of belonging, nationhood and all that, but I would like the option. They say that Czech takes about 1000 hours of study to reach that level and I am trying to study around 8 hours a week, in addition to using the language where and whenever I can.

Maybe I'll post a little from time to time when my schedule allows. (As we say here, Bez práce nejsou koláče. (Without work, there are no pastries...))

Particularly if there's any interest in learning about the mighty Viktoria Žižkov and their attempts to finally get out of the 2nd Division and get back to the glory days of beating Rangers in the Cup Winners' Cup.

Na zdraví vám všem, Blond'aky! 

In

I'm grand. Simply put my life is a farce and I've spent weeks sorting it and therefore not logged in.

Hopefully everything sorted by next week

http://m.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/34511847

Former Scotland international John Beattie told BBC Radio 5 live: "I would red card props at the first scrum collapse and reduce each team to 13 straight away. Longer scrums mean players stay stronger for longer and it is a collision game."

What?

Madness

Nobody has ever said 'oh more Cauliflower please, I really like the way it tastes like mouldy earth'

Horrible stuff.

Even when my parents tried to trick me by presenting it as some sort of cheese based dish.

I beg to differ. I love cauliflower. Raw or cooked just fine and dandy by me.

Has anyone ever asked for more sprouts?

I've never asked for the first lot, nevermind more!

Defo can have some worse hands here. If we need a bigger boat he's gonna have to show me it.