The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[mulhuzz]

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.

[Jon MW]

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)

[Doobs]

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)

But the general population overestimate crime, proportion of muslims, refuge benefits, immigrants in housing etc. 

How can we expect them to understand the implications of Brexit? 

I think the vast majority of the population will significantly underestimare the cost of providing a pension too, and how many soon to be parents understand the costs of their bundle of joy, so I am not sure that 16 year olds are on their own on understimating the cost of future decisions.

I don't think we should disallow voting for ignorant people, so am not convinced that ignorance of various issues is valid to use against 16 year olds.  I am sure that a lot of younger people are less ignorant on the environment and have more balanced views on immigration for instance.

[TightEnd]

This is an eye opening read

"Battle raging between Dominic Cummings, other senior Number 10 advisers, ministers and MPs over whether to push for an election or try to bring their Brexit Bill back again"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

[Sheriff Fatman]

This is an eye opening read

"Battle raging between Dominic Cummings, other senior Number 10 advisers, ministers and MPs over whether to push for an election or try to bring their Brexit Bill back again"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

I liked the bit where the plan backfired due to Corbyn not backing an election, which they assumed he'd never do.  Undone by the unwitting tactical genius of JC.

The most revealing part, for me, is that the worst case scenario for No10 is a 2nd referendum, because they fear this is how Brexit will be lost.  No-one can be certain of this, because you can't assume the outcome, yet there policy is based an an underlying assumption that they would lose (backed by all the recent polling on this).

It puts us in the rather absurd situation of the most logical solution to the Brexit stalemate, a 2nd Ref, being strategically avoided at all cost by a party intent on delivering hard Brexit based on 'the will of the people', because they expect the 'will of the people' would be to stop Brexit, if tested.

A GE, on the other hand, muddies the water so that pretty much anything can be interpreted from the outcome (as Theresa May did in 2017).

It looks like we're diving headlong into the GE now, which is ultimately playing into BoJo and Cummings' hands.

[mulhuzz]

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.

[Doobs]

This is an eye opening read

"Battle raging between Dominic Cummings, other senior Number 10 advisers, ministers and MPs over whether to push for an election or try to bring their Brexit Bill back again"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

I liked the bit where the plan backfired due to Corbyn not backing an election, which they assumed he'd never do.  Undone by the unwitting tactical genius of JC.

The most revealing part, for me, is that the worst case scenario for No10 is a 2nd referendum, because they fear this is how Brexit will be lost.  No-one can be certain of this, because you can't assume the outcome, yet there policy is based an an underlying assumption that they would lose (backed by all the recent polling on this).

It puts us in the rather absurd situation of the most logical solution to the Brexit stalemate, a 2nd Ref, being strategically avoided at all cost by a party intent on delivering hard Brexit based on 'the will of the people', because they expect the 'will of the people' would be to stop Brexit, if tested.

A GE, on the other hand, muddies the water so that pretty much anything can be interpreted from the outcome (as Theresa May did in 2017).

It looks like we're diving headlong into the GE now, which is ultimately playing into BoJo and Cummings' hands.

I saw some wag asking why they bothered with anyone other than Cummimgs and Milne at the meeting. 

[nirvana]

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.

To Jon's point. A 14 year old earning in excess of the personal allowance would pay income tax so should they have a vote? Easy to agree that just becoming 18 doesn't automatically  make you less callow or impressionable but there's a chance. I think you're right that the main reason I don't like the idea is that they will vote the wrong way but I think that's exactly the same rationale that proponents would have except of course the belief would be they vote the right way.

To me it's instructive that the voices are loud on this right now because the left and the SNP cannot be sure of securing positive outcomes in a UK GE or any of the various referendums they want. its easy to advocate for this now to try and improve chances rather than out of any solid rationale for a change at this time

[nirvana]

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

[Pokerpops]

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?

[mulhuzz]

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

[Jon MW]

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?

Only rich babies though.

And logically withdraw the vote from the retired and unemployed.

No more votes for stay at home mums (or dads) obviously.

[nirvana]

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

I like the last line. I'm not sure I can be relied on to vote sensibly on anything but slightly more likely to than when I was 16

[mulhuzz]

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:

[nirvana]

I want us to leave but don't feel specially attached to this month though I understand it was necessary to push this date hard. Shirley though, it makes sense to give say 3 weeks for an attempt at getting the WAB through and then push for an election if we're still at stalemate. It would look like all legit attempts had been made and leave a GE as the only way forward.

Assume the biggest fear on the Govt side is that a stalemate would end up garnering nmore support in parl for a ref than a GE