The proposed referendum electorate is exactly the same as is used for a general election. We should either change it for all national elections or none.
The argument seems to be from you that because someone might live longer they should get a vote and because they are older they shouldn't have one?
If that is the argument why stop at 16 - let's give 3 year olds the vote!
I don't understand why some British taxpayers should be represented and some not. Could you run that past me again?
Secondly I believe there is a distinction to be made between the EU referendum , the consequences of which are in the long term and therefore of most relevance to the young, and a General Election, which may result in a government that may have a direct impact on the elderly - eg by reducing the winter fuel allowance or increasing taxation for exemple.
Tahiti, you are strong on the 'no taxation without representation argument', saying that those who pay tax should have the right to vote.
Does this mean you would remove the right to vote from the unemployed?
Not sure I follow.
I said that people who pay tax should be able to vote -- no taxation without representation. Therefore 16 year olds should get to vote in GE , and especially, in the EU referendum.
I never said that those who don't pay tax should not get the vote ?
My point is that as sensible as he is I do not think he should vote at 16 because he lacks experience and his future as an adult is too important to be decided by his 15 or 16 year old self.
One thing, though - experience isn't everything. Sometimes you need fresh, new ideas to break free of the fear of change. The system feeds off and instills that fear, in order to preserve itself.
I think 18 is probably about the right age to vote.
My soon to be 19 year old daughter was able to vote in the last election for the first time. She is actually quite well informed and was aware of the various parties and the basics of what they stood for. However some of her friends didn't even know who Ed Miliband was and could just about name David Cameron.
I strongly agree that 15 and 16 is too young but fresh ideas are needed. Also, younger people generally tend to see things more simplistically and that can be a good thing.
To be fair to tahiti though I see her point about taxation and being able to vote., I don't think 16 year olds should be able to marry, vote, join the armed forces or pay tax.
I said that people who pay tax should be able to vote -- no taxation without representation. Therefore 16 year olds should get to vote in GE , and especially, in the EU referendum.
I never said that those who don't pay tax should not get the vote ?
You link representation with taxation, so what about those who do not pay tax?
Not sure why there's such a problem with giving a vote to 16/17 year olds.
Turnout is low amongst under 25s anyway, so a large percentage of under 18s probably wouldn't bother either.
But I think it's a great shame that those who take an interest, have an opinion, be organised enough to register and then present themselves at the polling station to place their cross are not permitted to do so.
Actually I motion that you use these powers of perception of yours urgently to name and shame the 'lefty lunatics' on this very thread !
I found it interesting to see a Forum Member challenging another Forum Member to "name and shame" those Forum Members he or she considered to be lefty-wefty.
As someone who respects the opinions of all my fellow Forum Members and who seeks to abide by the rules of this forum I tend not to describe other users here in that way, but is it something I should be concerned about?
Is it offensive to be a lefty-wefty?
Is it offensive to call someone a lefty-wefty?
Does it depend on the context and the intention behind the use of the term?
Are lefty-wefties not proud to be lefty-wefties and if so are they not happy to be described as such?
Or is it a bit like when only black people are allowed to call black people the "N" word?
I hear lefty-wefties when they appear on LBC as presenters, guests and callers and I consider them to be vile, toxic and deluded. Possibly the number one threat to the welfare of society and the beautiful country in which I live.
If we in the UK had accepted our fair share , and not forced Germany into handling a humanitarian crisis that we, the UK, have largely created, none of this would have happened.
There would be no concentration of refugees in cities like Koln for a start.
We must urgently accept 500'000 refugees here. There are NHS shortages we are told, so a ready remedy is available.
'We forced Germany'? You must be joking.
Even if we did accept another half a million, where would they live? Where would their children go to school? And, yes, there is a shortage of hospital beds so where would the sick ones go?
As for a concentration of refugees in Cologne, Germany is a much larger country than the UK. I'm sure the refugees could be dispersed if that is what Germany wants.
'We forced Germany'? You must be joking.
Even if we did accept another half a million, where would they live? Where would their children go to school? And, yes, there is a shortage of hospital beds so where would the sick ones go?
As for a concentration of refugees in Cologne, Germany is a much larger country than the UK. I'm sure the refugees could be dispersed if that is what Germany wants.
I think tahiti was suggesting that, as we have been told many of the refugees from Syria are doctors, dentists and engineers, they should be working in the NHS, not occupying the beds!
Knowing two Syrian families - including doctors - they left Syria many, many months ago, by plane, and are now happily residing in Canada.
From what I gather from one particular Syrian friend in the UK, the professional classes left a long time ago - and not in dinghies from Turkey.
Yes, I agree, we should take more - and when the Gov provide (not just promise to provide) more schools, houses, doctors etc then that's fine. Until then, no.
I think tahiti was suggesting that, as we have been told many of the refugees from Syria are doctors, dentists and engineers, they should be working in the NHS, not occupying the beds!
Knowing two Syrian families - including doctors - they left Syria many, many months ago, by plane, and are now happily residing in Canada.
From what I gather from one particular Syrian friend in the UK, the professional classes left a long time ago - and not in dinghies from Turkey.
Yes, I agree, we should take more - and when the Gov provide (not just promise to provide) more schools, houses, doctors etc then that's fine. Until then, no.
I am well aware what Tahiti was implying but I was suggesting that a problem needs to be approached from all sides.
It is very laudable to be charitable to others but not at the expense of one's own people.
I think the problem is that everybody comments on behalf of their own self interest, rather than the country's. Is there anybody that can comment completely independently and say this is the best for GB ?
I don't know about anybody else but I admit to being swayed to both sides depending on who I am listening to.
Sounds petty but I want to know more from suppliers and not politicos about possible rises in mobile phone roaming charges and air fares.
Its not petty. We need to know how it will effect our everyday living.Thats what makes it real and relatable. Its the same with the budget. All people want to know is the price of a pint or a litre of petrol.
And I agree with Martin. I'm changing my mind every ten minutes. I'm one of the many 'undecided'
Btw I'm not sure whoever you copied this stuff from even understands what the Gettysburg address was about, given the apparent intentions of that list.
Comments
I don't understand why some British taxpayers should be represented and some not. Could you run that past me again?
Secondly I believe there is a distinction to be made between the EU referendum , the consequences of which are in the long term and therefore of most relevance to the young, and a General Election, which may result in a government that may have a direct impact on the elderly - eg by reducing the winter fuel allowance or increasing taxation for exemple.
Does this mean you would remove the right to vote from the unemployed?
Not sure I follow.
I said that people who pay tax should be able to vote -- no taxation without representation. Therefore 16 year olds should get to vote in GE , and especially, in the EU referendum.
I never said that those who don't pay tax should not get the vote ?
I think 18 is probably about the right age to vote.
My soon to be 19 year old daughter was able to vote in the last election for the first time. She is actually quite well informed and was aware of the various parties and the basics of what they stood for. However some of her friends didn't even know who Ed Miliband was and could just about name David Cameron.
I strongly agree that 15 and 16 is too young but fresh ideas are needed. Also, younger people generally tend to see things more simplistically and that can be a good thing.
To be fair to tahiti though I see her point about taxation and being able to vote., I don't think 16 year olds should be able to marry, vote, join the armed forces or pay tax.
You link representation with taxation, so what about those who do not pay tax?
If it snows then it is cold.
It does NOT imply that if it does not snow then it is not cold.
If you pay tax you should have the right to vote.
It does NOT imply that if you do not pay tax you should not have the right to vote.
Turnout is low amongst under 25s anyway, so a large percentage of under 18s probably wouldn't bother either.
But I think it's a great shame that those who take an interest, have an opinion, be organised enough to register and then present themselves at the polling station to place their cross are not permitted to do so.
So tax has nothing to do with the right to vote?
Sigh. ... which of these 2 statements remains unclear ?
If you pay tax you should have the right to vote.
This does NOT imply that if you do not pay tax you should not have the right to vote.
So voting has nothing to do with paying tax - do you agree?
Doesn't anyone want to opine about Simon Danczuk? What a total car crash.
Old Worzel Gummage will be rubbing his hands with glee though! He might have even put the 17 year old up to it!
I found it interesting to see a Forum Member challenging another Forum Member to "name and shame" those Forum Members he or she considered to be lefty-wefty.
As someone who respects the opinions of all my fellow Forum Members and who seeks to abide by the rules of this forum I tend not to describe other users here in that way, but is it something I should be concerned about?
Is it offensive to be a lefty-wefty?
Is it offensive to call someone a lefty-wefty?
Does it depend on the context and the intention behind the use of the term?
Are lefty-wefties not proud to be lefty-wefties and if so are they not happy to be described as such?
Or is it a bit like when only black people are allowed to call black people the "N" word?
I hear lefty-wefties when they appear on LBC as presenters, guests and callers and I consider them to be vile, toxic and deluded. Possibly the number one threat to the welfare of society and the beautiful country in which I live.
'We forced Germany'? You must be joking.
Even if we did accept another half a million, where would they live? Where would their children go to school? And, yes, there is a shortage of hospital beds so where would the sick ones go?
As for a concentration of refugees in Cologne, Germany is a much larger country than the UK. I'm sure the refugees could be dispersed if that is what Germany wants.
I think tahiti was suggesting that, as we have been told many of the refugees from Syria are doctors, dentists and engineers, they should be working in the NHS, not occupying the beds!
Knowing two Syrian families - including doctors - they left Syria many, many months ago, by plane, and are now happily residing in Canada.
From what I gather from one particular Syrian friend in the UK, the professional classes left a long time ago - and not in dinghies from Turkey.
Yes, I agree, we should take more - and when the Gov provide (not just promise to provide) more schools, houses, doctors etc then that's fine. Until then, no.
I am well aware what Tahiti was implying but I was suggesting that a problem needs to be approached from all sides.
It is very laudable to be charitable to others but not at the expense of one's own people.
Seems some of the main LBC thread might need the extra space on here.
Not all right wingers like dear Nigel
Surprised that no one is posting here
I would love to read something/anything about this impending referendum that is not written with self- interest in mind.....
I am, quite rightly, suspicious about any of the political utterances.
I can't be the only one ;-)
I don't know about anybody else but I admit to being swayed to both sides depending on who I am listening to.
Does this apply in the General Election as well ?
Sounds petty but I want to know more from suppliers and not politicos about possible rises in mobile phone roaming charges and air fares.
Lord's Prayer - 66 words
10 Commandments - 179 words
Gettysburg address - 286 words
EU regulations on the sale of cabbage - 26,911 words
Its not petty. We need to know how it will effect our everyday living.Thats what makes it real and relatable. Its the same with the budget. All people want to know is the price of a pint or a litre of petrol.
And I agree with Martin. I'm changing my mind every ten minutes. I'm one of the many 'undecided'
http://mobile.newsnow.co.uk/A/2/817688661?-15102:21126:t
WARNING!
Do not open the link if you have a weak stomach or a musical ear!
Do people still really believe any of these EU myths ? This has been debunked hundred of times http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp
Btw I'm not sure whoever you copied this stuff from even understands what the Gettysburg address was about, given the apparent intentions of that list.