NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1072411,00.html

Quite frankly I think its ludicrous. 16 year olds shouldn't have the right to vote let alone be MPs.

For one thing they'd probably change parties every week.

16 year old voters- next we'll see a Goth Party in power or the National Sk8ers Front. :)

Bah. Democracy is all well and good but this is taking it a bit far...

actually, current research shows that young people are maturing mentally a lot younger now...the emotional and intellectual age of a 16 year old today matches up with roughly a 19 year old in our grandparents' generation. also, kids today are much more informed about their world and their governments, thanks in part to things like the internet.

But the thing is- are they informed enough? I don't think the average 16 year old would be.

BTW does the link work ok?

I was more politically articulate at 16 then most adults, I think it's all about opportunity and understanding, personnaly I don't think most people are suitable to vote with their selfish perspective and prejeduices! lighten up you can get married at 16... also how many mp's are unedr 30? I don't think you have to worry about 16 year olds becoming mps (and I think your reaction is a perfect example of my distaste for modern democracy) knee jerk hysteria... it costs £3000 to stand which you can get back if you get a certain number of votes, and thats before canvasing and other advertising which is quite expensive... also in order to be an MP you require the vote of a constituancy and I don't think there are any that would vote in a 16 year old... and no party that would front a 16 yearold in a remotly safe seat.

But the thing is- are they informed enough? I don't think the average 16 year old would be.


i don't think the average 40 year old is informed enough to be voting, quite frankly.

*agrees with Bottle*
I think it would be good, also on the thought of 16 year old mp's I don't think that there would be but if someone mustered an Empowered Youth party of some description at the local level it could be a great boon, at the moment youth is ignored.
in the village I lived all of the youth facilities were closed down and there was nothing for you to do but hang around, drink and smoke dope... If there was more of a youth voice and faction then as opposed to speed bumps being put everywhere prehaps there would be more youth centres and the like and more respect from adolescents... who feel completly detached from the powers that be.
I'm 23 and feel pretty damn removed from the insanity that is the House of commons and even our loopy local council even though I think ours does a really good job on the whole.
But it empowers and that can only ever be a good thing... unless of course they become more powerful then those who currently hold power although that is unlikely... it would leave people in better stead for future development.... and could revitalise a really rather dead political system...

I think the idea is that teenagers have more verve and drive than any other age group (possibly) and so they are trying to muster up support for politics. I don't think it'd make much difference in the long run though.

Well here in Australia we have 18 year olds who sit on local councils and I think it is a good idea to get a wide range of age groups on decision making bodies (govt, councils, committee etc).

I concur on the funding issue, it costs a great deal of money to run anywhere (perhaps more in America - Bush has a war chest of $220 million for this election alone, compared with the two major Australian party's spending a total of $20 million between them since 1996!).

At 16 I think people should not vote, although there are some very mature 16 year olds out there.

As for Goth and Skater parties forming there is little chance, since most 16 year olds are too busy buying CD's and partying. That, and I cannot see enough 16 year olds getting together to form a party (that is what youth political wings are for - big party backing)

When it comes to state and federal parliaments I feel that a member should have some life experience (although some members are totally inept - that applies all over the world) but a variety of age is beneficial. I do find it a bit ironic and wrong for a 60 year old to act like they know all about youth issues when they sit behind a desk or in house all day.

Actually, I believe it is a £500 deposit, and you need at least 1% of the vote to get it back.
I would say that I am very well informed, I watch the news, read the broadsheets (when they are there) have political opinions and an agenda. However, I agree at some points. You can't get a political discussion at my age group going, as most people think it's boring. I think the rights should be extended. The elderly outvote the young by a long way anyway.
(Also, Queenie can dissolve parliament if a extreme right wing group gets in. And given how unpopular they would likely be, and how divided the vote would be for them to win.
Just my 2 pence.

The average 16yrold would probably be a better voter than the average voter, and definatly better than a donkey vote. A touch of idealism to the voting pool.

The truth of democracy is tyranny by majority, remember.

I quite agree that children & young men / women are certainly a lot more mature these days. I guess in part that innocence is lost at a much younger age (i.e being exposed to the realities of the world).

20 years ago, someone my age (26) was marrried, had kids etc where as now it's much more common to see this happening in the 30's - the world is a changing and the people changing with it.

However, while 16 year olds may well be more mentally mature now than we were back when I was 16, it still does not mean the have the 'life experience' that allows them to make informed decisions based on all the facts from all the angles. Experience comes from living a life and making mistkaes and learning and growing - I still don't think 16 year olds have enough life experince to make informed decisions about the running of a country.

My 16 year old sister is very much a 'ban all cars and vehicles that pollute' person, but only because she has not had to rely on a car yet, and she doesn't fully understand that not everyone can do without a vehicle. Age and experince will allow her to see both sides, and while she very well may stick to her guns, she might not.

Should they be allowed to vote? I'm not sure, I personaly don't think that they have the life experience to make decisions like that.

of course saying that I'm 26 and have never voted cos there all a bunch of gimps and not a single one represents me

Why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote? It's our country adn our lifes and we should have the right to have a say in it. You mean that young people are apathetic when it comes to politics, well if you don't let us gte involved then what's the point?

*blinks*
But how much "life experance" is enough?

how is 16 years diffrent from 18 and from 21 and from 30 and 60?

As you get older you become more cynical, is that good for society? I know between 16 and 23 I've become dangerously cynical, I don't care at all it doesn't matter and has no effect on me at all.
I can't be bothered to do anything about it becouse I don't see away without losing my position... *shrugs* its an interesting situation, I defenetly don't think that it will do any harm... and lets face it with a 16 to 21 voting block the main parties could find themselves being punished a fair bit... it would be interesting... worst that would happen is they vote in the tories!

well I think by asking how a 16 year old is any different to a 30 year old answers the question.

When I was 18 I did not thinkk I was any different to a 25 year old, now that I'm 26 I realise how different I am now.

Again, this is a realisation that will only come with age and I'd banging my head against a wall to try and explain it to you if you don't understand it. I dinf it strange that your no different to how you were when you were 16, cos most people I know are radically different. different 'life experiences' I guess.

I'm not being patrionising, I do agree that the majority of 16 year olds are intelligent and balanced individuals (for the most part!) but you really don't have enough exposure to enough different experiences to make informed decisions (this is not true for all 16 year olds of course, some go through a world of experience by the time they are 16- but thats few and far between)

I wonder of other people my age or above feel the same.

would you agree that you are a completely different person now to when you were 16? I am completely different, I look back and cringe at some of the things I believed in.

I cringe when I think of some of things I find myself thinking now and wondering how I went from a young idealist to an older bordering on fascist it's quite unnerving... I cringe at things I thought five minutes ago!! let alone 7 years!
But i still hark back to, In what way would it hurt? Also sorry the number of infuriating blind people above the age of 16 is I think equal too the number of 16 yearolds who are equallyblind and annoying. I'd say 70% of the population doesn't have the vision required to vote but they still have the vote... I just hate modern short termism... *mutters*

But still I digress, the question is in what way would 16 and 17 year olds being allowed to vote cause any harm? we let old people who wont live to see the end of the government term vote who's only real interest is having cash, police looking after them and geriatrich care... so in what way would having 16 and 17 year olds damage "democracy"?

I guess it wouldn't hurt at all. Given that there ar typically only 3-4 choices of parties and each promises the same (pretty much). I don't vote because I do not believe that any party adequately reflects the way I'd like to see things.

So yeah, I'm convinced, let 16 year old's vote. If they are old enough to have sex, smoke and die for their country, let them have a say in how it is run.

I guess it wouldn't hurt at all. Given that there ar typically only 3-4 choices of parties and each promises the same (pretty much). I don't vote because I do not believe that any party adequately reflects the way I'd like to see things.

So yeah, I'm convinced, let 16 year old's vote. If they are old enough to have sex, smoke and die for their country, let them have a say in how it is run.

I agree w Twy for the most part, yes some 16 yr olds can be dangerously idealistic, just as others can be completely apathetic or uninformed; but I don't think either group would have any more effect than getting poiticians to re-evaluate their positions somewhat, which prob would not be a bad thing. I don't think however, that allowing 16yr olds to vote would change Britans political environment all that much seeing as how the proportion of apathy would prop remain pretty much the same as it is. As for a 16yr old MP - well it just wouldn't happen. I say let 'em vote - if they start at that age then perhaps by the time they are my age (35) perhaps they would not feel as unempowered an disillusioned as I do

The average 16 year old population in my opinion is not mature enough to vote.

The average 16 year old population in my opinion is not mature enough to vote.

There are some though that this would do well for...

16 year old voters- next we'll see a Goth Party in power or the National Sk8ers Front. :)


I read something like this in the Guardian today, expressing similar views. Although you would only be correct if
a)16/17 year olds made up the bulk of the population.
and
b) They bothered to vote.

I've heard a lot of critics say that this is Labour simply thrying to make the turnout better. How does that work. I only ever see turnout measured in x%, and I doubt 16 year olds are all really political.

dp

The average 16 year old population in my opinion is not mature enough to vote.

There are some though that this would do well for...

The fun thing about democracy: Your opinion counts for just one in multiple millions.

As does mine, but hey.

I guess it wouldn't hurt at all. Given that there ar typically only 3-4 choices of parties and each promises the same (pretty much). I don't vote because I do not believe that any party adequately reflects the way I'd like to see things.

So yeah, I'm convinced, let 16 year old's vote. If they are old enough to have sex, smoke and die for their country, let them have a say in how it is run.

Actually, yeah.
They're old enough to have sex, smoke, die for their country and, above all, FIND EMPLOYMENT. If you can WORK in your country, you should be able to VOTE in your country.
And besides, it makes for an interesting social experiment.
Maybe it would help some of them to make the effort to become better informed of issues (I know that this is an idealistic whimsy on my part, but one can but hope).

But the thing is- are they informed enough? I don't think the average 16 year old would be.

BTW does the link work ok?Yeah, but you don't test older voters to see if they're informed. Does it not seem insane to you that the best informed 16 year old has less of a say than the dumbest, laziest, most apathetic 18 year old?

The average 16 year old population in my opinion is not mature enough to vote.

There are some though that this would do well for...The average voter in my opinion is not mature enough to vote, but thats not my call. One person, one vote, thats how it goes.

You realize that 16 year old can take 3 seconds off partying and listenin to CD's to vote. The problem is only a few 16 year old are informed enough to vote, thinking about some of my friends they'd just vote labour without a second thought because they saw blair on 2DTV. Also whatever government that was in power would probably end up brainwashing the schools to ensure they get the young vote, the same way in school your put off communism at every turn now.

You realize that 16 year old can take 3 seconds off partying and listenin to CD's to vote. The problem is only a few 16 year old are informed enough to vote, thinking about some of my friends they'd just vote labour without a second thought because they saw blair on 2DTV. Also whatever government that was in power would probably end up brainwashing the schools to ensure they get the young vote, the same way in school your put off communism at every turn now.

And brainwashing doesn't happen already? :roll:

You realize that 16 year old can take 3 seconds off partying and listenin to CD's to vote. The problem is only a few 16 year old are informed enough to vote, thinking about some of my friends they'd just vote labour without a second thought because they saw blair on 2DTV. Also whatever government that was in power would probably end up brainwashing the schools to ensure they get the young vote, the same way in school your put off communism at every turn now.

And brainwashing doesn't happen already? :roll:

You have to account for the fact, while labour gets fuck loads of media coverage, we dont care. We just dont listen. We live, we notice no improvement to life at all, and the second I can im givin the liberals or conservatives a chance.

*yawn*

..It's a stupid idea, 16? Voting?

..poppycock.

If you can WORK in your country, you should be able to VOTE in your country.

Absolutely -- especially since they have to pay tax. No taxation without representation!

Lets give 2000 depressed and psychopathic workers the right to vote :P

You have to account for the fact, while labour gets f--- loads of media coverage, we dont care. We just dont listen. We live, we notice no improvement to life at all, and the second I can im givin the liberals or conservatives a chance.

Oh, God, no, don't vote for the Tories. I was a teenager under the Tories, and it was miserable. New Labour are bad, but the Tories are actively evil. Vote Monster Raving Looney before you vote Tory. At least they won't promise you tax cuts AND better services. That's how stupid they think we are. "Better AND cheaper" -- the song of the wide boy everywhere.

You have to account for the fact, while labour gets f--- loads of media coverage, we dont care. We just dont listen. We live, we notice no improvement to life at all, and the second I can im givin the liberals or conservatives a chance.

Oh, God, no, don't vote for the Tories. I was a teenager under the Tories, and it was miserable. New Labour are bad, but the Tories are actively evil. Vote Monster Raving Looney before you vote Tory. At least they won't promise you tax cuts AND better services. That's how stupid they think we are. "Better AND cheaper" -- the song of the wide boy everywhere.

I'm 16, I'm a Tory, I'm a member of the Tories, so they are who I would vote for. But giving people at that age the vote is a risk, most of us don't care enough to vote correctly, and someone like Jordan would probably get into power. I did read that she stood for election somwhere promising free cosmetic surgery, some adults are no better than 16 year olds. :roll:

I'm 16, I'm a Tory, I'm a member of the Tories, so they are who I would vote for. But giving people at that age the vote is a risk, most of us don't care enough to vote correctly, and someone like Jordan would probably get into power. I did read that she stood for election somwhere promising free cosmetic surgery, some adults are no better than 16 year olds. :roll: Better Jordan than a Tory.

the dude who made the point about being old enough to work wins it, If you are old enough to work, and the government is collecting tax and NI directly from your labor then it is only right that you at least have the opportunity available to you to have a say in which party rules the country

(equally true if your old enough to die for your country!)

I wont agree with the better Jordan than a tory becouse I'm quite sure Jordan would be a tory anyway ;c). But i don't like the party system as it works at the moment it's a bit silly... (okay it's alot silly!)

I'm 16, I'm a Tory, I'm a member of the Tories, so they are who I would vote for. But giving people at that age the vote is a risk, most of us don't care enough to vote correctly, and someone like Jordan would probably get into power. I did read that she stood for election somwhere promising free cosmetic surgery, some adults are no better than 16 year olds. :roll:

You need to get out more. Drink a few beers, smoke a few spliffs, have some casual, meaningless sex before it's too late. A Tory at 16... *tch*. :wink:

Anyhoo, there aren't that many 16-year-olds around -- it's not going to make that much of a mark on the polls. The ones you have to look out for are the coffin-dodgers: there's millions of them, and they all vote. Enfranchising the 16-year-olds might help to swing the balance away slightly from the geriatric end of the spectrum.

I'm 16, I'm a Tory, I'm a member of the Tories, so they are who I would vote for. But giving people at that age the vote is a risk, most of us don't care enough to vote correctly, and someone like Jordan would probably get into power. I did read that she stood for election somwhere promising free cosmetic surgery, some adults are no better than 16 year olds. :roll: Better Jordan than a Tory.

It is possible to get better and cheaper, you can privatise, with most things this would create competition, lowering prices forcing companies to keep quality at a low price. This frees up funds for tax cuts etc.

P.S. I don't *hic* drink.

the dude who made the point about being old enough to work wins it, If you are old enough to work, and the government is collecting tax and NI directly from your labor then it is only right that you at least have the opportunity available to you to have a say in which party rules the country

(equally true if your old enough to die for your country!)

I wont agree with the better Jordan than a tory becouse I'm quite sure Jordan would be a tory anyway ;c). But i don't like the party system as it works at the moment it's a bit silly... (okay it's alot silly!)

Why would she be a Tory?

The last time this subject came up I got a bit of a pasting for my misanthropy and disparaging remarks towards the younger members of society. And I was only having a bit of fun... sigh.

So, serious attention this time:

On the basis of fairness and rights, I can see little reason to deny those aged 16+ the vote. Previous comments regarding work, tax, etc are spot on. I doubt that many 16-18 year-olds will make a positive contribution, but this is irrelevant. The UK's current voting population is already swamped by the lazy, the ignorant, the apathetic and the selfish; extending the franchise will do little harm.

The Conservatives are largely composed of puritans and fat cats, Labour of sycophants and corporate lapdogs. Chances are the Liberal Democrats would go the same way as Labour if they ever got enough of a sniff of power. Democracy is failing. We have no meaningful political choices. For every good politician (and they are out there) we have at least one that is bad. And the politicians have less and less meaningful power as every year passes. We are abandoning our democracy in droves (watch the turnout drop to about 50% at the next General Election) just as corporations and transnational organisations are becoming more powerful.

We are increasingly disenfranchised and we don't even seem to give a damn.

"you can privatise"

Jesus wept - please, no more flogging off our national assets to corrupt incompetents who will only go and flog them off again for a massive profit (having bled us dry of subsidies) to offshore trust funds who have even less of a clue.

The last time this subject came up I got a bit of a pasting for my misanthropy and disparaging remarks towards the younger members of society. And I was only having a bit of fun... sigh.

So, serious attention this time:

On the basis of fairness and rights, I can see little reason to deny those aged 16+ the vote. Previous comments regarding work, tax, etc are spot on. I doubt that many 16-18 year-olds will make a positive contribution, but this is irrelevant. The UK's current voting population is already swamped by the lazy, the ignorant, the apathetic and the selfish; extending the franchise will do little harm.

The Conservatives are largely composed of puritans and fat cats, Labour of sycophants and corporate lapdogs. Chances are the Liberal Democrats would go the same way as Labour if they ever got enough of a sniff of power. Democracy is failing. We have no meaningful political choices. For every good politician (and they are out there) we have at least one that is bad. And the politicians have less and less meaningful power as every year passes. We are abandoning our democracy in droves (watch the turnout drop to about 50% at the next General Election) just as corporations and transnational organisations are becoming more powerful.

We are increasingly disenfranchised and we don't even seem to give a damn.

I'm afraid you're right..it's no different in the States..fewer vote each year, the Senior citizen block usually gets out there, but our youth I guess perhaps are apathetic to the whole idea..although there has been no shortage of MTV ads trying to get the youth to the voting booths

It is possible to get better and cheaper, you can privatise, with most things this would create competition, lowering prices forcing companies to keep quality at a low price. This frees up funds for tax cuts etc.

P.S. I don't *hic* drink.

Oh dear me no, privatisation isn't better and cheaper, it's worse and more expensive. Consider, say, hospital cleaning: when it was privatised, it did, indeed, cost the NHS less. How did the private companies manage to do it cheaper? By paying their workers less, and sacking half of them. What was the result? The hospitals weren't cleaned properly, and now are home to virulent strains of MRSA and other fun, antibiotic-resistant nasties -- which cost the NHS millions every year, dealing with the effects. Not to mention killing people.

There was the electricity privatisations. Are our bills cheaper now? Very slightly. Why? For a kickoff, the privatisation didn't include the monstrously expensive and unprofitable nuclear plants, so the private firms had a headstart there. They didn't have to build any infrastructure, either -- that was already provided for them, pre-paid by yours truly, the British taxpayer. They also lowered costs by, again, laying off workers. The result? Tens of thousands of homes in East Anglia were blacked out for two weeks (!) a few years ago, and engineers had to be flown in from France -- because the engineers the privatised companies laid off weren't superfluous; they were the safety margin. The other effect of privatisation has been a blizzard of bewildering deals to get your gas from the phone company, your electricity from the gas company and your phones from the electricity board, all offers subject to weekly change and, frankly, not worth the bother for the £20 a year you might just save. I'd happily PAY £20 per year not to be bothered by it all.

Let's not even go into the debacle of privatised railways. Delays, cancellations, speed limits, more dead in rail crashes since privatisation than for decades under British Rail, soaring subsidies, huge pay deals for incompetent bosses, freeloading shareholders getting payouts regardless of company performances... not a rip-snorting advert for the scheme by any stretch of the imagination.

The private sector CAN BE more efficient than the state, but it's not guaranteed. The reason for this is, indeed, competition -- but competition only works because of failure. It is by culling off the incompetent or incapable majority that the minority survive and prosper. That's all well and good for soft drinks, or trainers, or the rest of the consumer fluff -- but when we're dealing with essential services, we can't afford to let them fail. Therefore, since failure is not an option, the privatisation of essential services (like power, communications, health care, transport etc.) WILL NOT result in better, cheaper services. They might, if you are lucky, get better or get cheaper, but never both simultaneously. The private sector cannot be trusted with essential services: we are starting to find that out, and -- unless we do something about it pronto -- we'll be paying for the criminal error of privatising our infrastructure for the next umpteen generations.

Like all things in life, you get what you pay for. Tax cuts = worse services.

Not much to do with 16-year-olds getting the vote -- sorry. But it's just this thing I have about the P-word. We all got robbed, and we're expected to like it? I used to part-own all sorts of stuff, as a citizen: then suddenly it all got sold off to a tiny bunch of rich people who get to cream off the top, just because they happen to be rich.

Well said, Clappi. The sad fact is that no government seems likely to have the guts to claim the railways, etc back for the people.

I think a lot of the problems also come from part-privatisation. The Private Finance Initiative is an unmitigated travesty, the worst of both worlds.

I wonder, could any of the younger prospective voters tell me if PFI is on any part of the curriculum? I'd be very interested to know how it's taught, if at all.

DP

TP

I'm 16, I'm a Tory, I'm a member of the Tories, so they are who I would vote for. But giving people at that age the vote is a risk, most of us don't care enough to vote correctly, and someone like Jordan would probably get into power. I did read that she stood for election somwhere promising free cosmetic surgery, some adults are no better than 16 year olds. :roll: Better Jordan than a Tory.

It is possible to get better and cheaper, you can privatise, with most things this would create competition, lowering prices forcing companies to keep quality at a low price. This frees up funds for tax cuts etc.

P.S. I don't *hic* drink.DO WHAT?!

(Sorry, Clappi I just read your post and it says the same thing I do but I just feel that reasoned argument is no substitute for outrage, wide-eyed horror and righteous indignation in this case.)

Enerica, for those of us who were there at the time Clappi spoke of (and I think I speak for most of us here) I say again ... DO WHAT?! NO YOU CAN'T, NO IT WOULDN'T (quality at a low price?! what kind of blinkered, brainwashed, read-it-off-the-back-of-a-cornflakes-packet, contradiction-in-terms BS is that?), AND NO IT DOESN'T.
Besides we don't need tax cuts. A little restructuring wouldn't go amiss ie axing the ridiculous Council Tax (just you wait till u join the work-force you'll c wot I mean), - we need efficient and sensible government spending of what we already pay. Did you know, the last Tory government spent more on repeatedly restructuring the DSS than it paid out in benefits? Not that I'm saying the current "Labour" govt is much better - no, strike that - ANY better.
OK, I was gonna stop after DO WHAT?!, but I felt a rant coming on. Clappi said the rest of it. Oh btw, Clappi, the Nuclear plants DID get privatised along with the rest, only the companies instantly mothballed them as "unprofitable".
Rant over.

I am a 15 year old and I am strongly considering entering the field of politics when older, however as I have noted on the UK Youth Parliament website I do not think the vote should be lowered to the age of 16, and I certainly do not think a 16 year old MP should be allowed into parliament.

As a student currently in state school I see around me a generation growing up who have very little interest in schoolwork, let alone how the country works. Of course there are also a minority of responsible elements who do care about schoolwork. There is also an even smaller minority within this group who know a thing about how the government works.
The problem is that many 16> year olds are at a very early stage and this factor can be easily exploited by other parties looking for votes. They will try to do something to attract the young people simply to gain votes which IMO is wrong, as the voters are not capable of making a balanced decision. There are other reasons why I think it is a bad idea and most of them involve the exploitation of the young mind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1072411,00.html

Quite frankly I think its ludicrous. 16 year olds shouldn't have the right to vote let alone be MPs.

For one thing they'd probably change parties every week.

16 year old voters- next we'll see a Goth Party in power or the National Sk8ers Front. :)

Bah. Democracy is all well and good but this is taking it a bit far...

Voting rights should not be based on chronological age, Only on the maturity level of the person.

"Voting rights should not be based on chronological age, Only on the maturity level of the person."

A nice theory but impossible to enact. Who is to judge maturity? There are some who believe that left wing politics is a sign of immaturity, for heaven's sake!

As for Bayorta's comments, I agree with a lot that you say; however, fairness and consistency would suggest that if you are taxed, you should be able to vote.

Zarozina (and others) - what do we replace the council tax with?

And finally, I repeat: how is the PFI taught at school, if at all?

I am a 15 year old and I am strongly considering entering the field of politics when older, however as I have noted on the UK Youth Parliament website I do not think the vote should be lowered to the age of 16, and I certainly do not think a 16 year old MP should be allowed into parliament.

As a student currently in state school I see around me a generation growing up who have very little interest in schoolwork, let alone how the country works. Of course there are also a minority of responsible elements who do care about schoolwork. There is also an even smaller minority within this group who know a thing about how the government works.
The problem is that many 16> year olds are at a very early stage and this factor can be easily exploited by other parties looking for votes. They will try to do something to attract the young people simply to gain votes which IMO is wrong, as the voters are not capable of making a balanced decision. There are other reasons why I think it is a bad idea and most of them involve the exploitation of the young mind.

There's a whole nation of people of all ages all around you with very little interest in how the country works. And political parties pander to special-interest groups all the time (when they're not pandering to people with bulging bank accounts, that is). It's all the same deal whether you're 16 or 66 -- just that one segment of society can be wooed by Rich Tea biscuits, the other by pogs :wink: .

If the electorate in a constituency vote for a 16-year-old in sufficient numbers to win them the seat (not the same thing as a majority, but... anyway) then I don't see why a 16-year-old shouldn't go to Westminster. It's not exactly a Temple of Maturity as it is.

Oh, Zarozina: on electricity privatisation and the nuclear power plants: IIRC these were kept out of the original share offer (or "theft") as they soured the whole deal. The later nuclear "privatisation" only went ahead after the state agreed to meet all decommissioning costs -- the main reason why nuclear power stations are so unprofitable. I could be wrong, though -- it has been known to happen from time to time...

Well 16 year olds shouldn't vote - just because a handful are mature doesn't mean we should release the flood gates.

On privatisation, I am not british, but I will say that the privatisation of essential services such as electricity, water, defence, communications (basic infratsructure) has proven bad across the world.

As a result of the search for short term gains, private eneterprise is not the least interested in maintaining infrastructure especially when big profits are to be made by a CEO who is around for maybe 5 years.

Two main aims of private enterprise:

1. Make profit
2. Please the shareholder

(note how service quality is not even in the first two priorities?)

The privatisation of US electricity led to the complete meltdown of 1/3 of the country last year. In New Zealand, Auckland was blacked out for 3 weeks following on from the privatisation of its energy resources.

Now, to privatise a nuclear power station...well a blackout isn't the only thing you'd have to worry about!

What about rail? Private railways, how many tragedies have occured in the UK alone...derailments etc...profit before safety clearly.

But back to the 16 year old issue...as someone has said, most 16 year olds are not informed enough and are simply not interested in politics. I would say that it is important for schools to introduce a proper civics and citizenship course that goes right through high school. I believe it important to educate young people on how the system works...

for example: a lot of young people do not know how to fill in a ballot paper properly (or for that matter a lot of older people either)! Nothing is being done in at least Australia and I bet the US and UK (a trip to parliament for an excursion wont do).

But I would say a 16 year old would not be able to handle their education and sit as a full time MP simultaneously. There is a lot of work involved in politics at that level and I doubt any 16 year old would be committed enough and indeed skilled enough. You may be interested in politics, but could a 16 year old handle the work load?

Well 16 year olds shouldn't vote - just because a handful are mature doesn't mean we should release the flood gates.

On privatisation, I am not british, but I will say that the privatisation of essential services such as electricity, water, defence, communications (basic infratsructure) has proven bad across the world.

As a result of the search for short term gains, private eneterprise is not the least interested in maintaining infrastructure especially when big profits are to be made by a CEO who is around for maybe 5 years.

Two main aims of private enterprise:

1. Make profit
2. Please the shareholder

(note how service quality is not even in the first two priorities?)

The privatisation of US electricity led to the complete meltdown of 1/3 of the country last year. In New Zealand, Auckland was blacked out for 3 weeks following on from the privatisation of its energy resources.

Now, to privatise a nuclear power station...well a blackout isn't the only thing you'd have to worry about!

What about rail? Private railways, how many tragedies have occured in the UK alone...derailments etc...profit before safety clearly.

But back to the 16 year old issue...as someone has said, most 16 year olds are not informed enough and are simply not interested in politics. I would say that it is important for schools to introduce a proper civics and citizenship course that goes right through high school. I believe it important to educate young people on how the system works...

for example: a lot of young people do not know how to fill in a ballot paper properly (or for that matter a lot of older people either)! Nothing is being done in at least Australia and I bet the US and UK (a trip to parliament for an excursion wont do).

But I would say a 16 year old would not be able to handle their education and sit as a full time MP simultaneously. There is a lot of work involved in politics at that level and I doubt any 16 year old would be committed enough and indeed skilled enough. You may be interested in politics, but could a 16 year old handle the work load?

If we start allowing people to vote on the basis of "maturity", where do we stop? Who studies manifestos in-depth before voting? And since no party seems capable of actually doing what it promised, or indeed not doing what it promised not to, what would be the point in any case? If you're mature enough to have children, die for your country and pay tax, then you are more than mature enough to put a cross in a little box every few years. In any case, I would argue that 16-year-olds, at or very recently left school, are probably better-informed about the world today, via Modern Studies and similar classes, than most of the rest of the population.

Giving 16-year-olds the right to stand for election is not the same thing as creating 16-year-old MPs. They would first have to be selected by their constituency party (assuming they're standing for one of the more organised, i.e. stands-a-chance-of-getting-elected, parties); then they would have to get more votes than anyone else. If -- and it's a very big if -- a 16-year-old can do that, then why can't they be an MP? Part of the "workload" problem for MPs (who have some of the longest holidays you are ever likely to come across) is that many of them insist on holding down various lucrative jobs as well as corporate "advisory" positions, directorships and other little posts on the gravy train.

Life experience is a great thing but many of our current MPs don't have it. We're not yet as bad as America, but the bulk of our political class is drawn from the very- to extremely rich. Most have no idea, literally, how life is for 90%+ of the population of the country. This level of ignorance worries me far more than physical age.

Well 16 year olds shouldn't vote - just because a handful are mature doesn't mean we should release the flood gates.

On privatisation, I am not british, but I will say that the privatisation of essential services such as electricity, water, defence, communications (basic infratsructure) has proven bad across the world.

As a result of the search for short term gains, private eneterprise is not the least interested in maintaining infrastructure especially when big profits are to be made by a CEO who is around for maybe 5 years.

Two main aims of private enterprise:

1. Make profit
2. Please the shareholder

(note how service quality is not even in the first two priorities?)

The privatisation of US electricity led to the complete meltdown of 1/3 of the country last year. In New Zealand, Auckland was blacked out for 3 weeks following on from the privatisation of its energy resources.

Now, to privatise a nuclear power station...well a blackout isn't the only thing you'd have to worry about!

What about rail? Private railways, how many tragedies have occured in the UK alone...derailments etc...profit before safety clearly.

But back to the 16 year old issue...as someone has said, most 16 year olds are not informed enough and are simply not interested in politics. I would say that it is important for schools to introduce a proper civics and citizenship course that goes right through high school. I believe it important to educate young people on how the system works...

for example: a lot of young people do not know how to fill in a ballot paper properly (or for that matter a lot of older people either)! Nothing is being done in at least Australia and I bet the US and UK (a trip to parliament for an excursion wont do).

But I would say a 16 year old would not be able to handle their education and sit as a full time MP simultaneously. There is a lot of work involved in politics at that level and I doubt any 16 year old would be committed enough and indeed skilled enough. You may be interested in politics, but could a 16 year old handle the work load?

Privatisation brings two words directly to mind.

"Esso" and "Longford."