Speaking recently to the House of Commons Liaison Committee, Gordon Brown said he was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.
So he is in favour of giving what is a very important choice to a group, one third of which had no idea who he, or David Cameron, was and a group half of whom had intimated they would be unlikely to vote anyway.
3 comments:
Blimey! It all smacks of desperation - 'Are there any voters out there I haven't alienated? No? Then we'll have to find some more!'
The Urchin, while fairly clued-up for 16, is still likely vote for whichever party offers the best anti-zombie strategy in the event of an outbreak.
In years gone by I would have said we should raise it rather than lower it, but what the hell.
Why have an age limit at all? A simple policy of no representation without taxation would mean only taxpayers have a vote on how their money is spent. As I have said elsewhere, he who robs Peter to pay Paul may depend on the support of Paul. If we remove the right to vote from those who depend on the taxpayer for their income, and give it only to those who fund the state we will have a much more involved electorate and he who pays the piper will be calling the tune.
There may be room for negotiation over a couple of extreme cases; members of the armed forces depend on the taxpayer for their income, but they put their lives on the line so maybe they should be an exeption; there are newborns with generous endowments who pay tax on their income and perhaps they too should be exeptions (or maybe a prent who can provide so well for their children should be entitled to an extra vote).
Post a Comment