UKH

If we give 12 year olds and above the vote it would bring many benefits. 

It would provide a necessary balance to the disproportionate influence of the over 70's. 

It would mean that government policy on many issues would have to include the ideas of teenagers. 

Many teenagers are politically active already. 

Some teenagers pay taxes and are not allowed to vote. All teenagers have to follow the law yet have no influence over the law.

If teenagers can be manipulated, so can adults. 

The country is being too heavily influenced by an ageing population that is far too interested in protecting its own interests.

Teenagers would bring a more idealistic and energetic counterpoint to an increasingly conservative demographic. Climate strikes for schools being a good example. 

Give over. Not a snowball's chance on a sunny bank holiday Saturday.

T.

There are about 7 million over 70's and about 4 million teenagers in the UK. A good political corrective don't you think? 

Votes for the poor and votes for women (until the February 1971 in Switzerland for example) was once thought beyond the pale. 

No, I don't think. It's a dumb idea.

Isn't it time the nurse brought you your special medicine?

T.

That is not an argument against the idea. A 12 year old could do better😊

No

But politically immature

As do some pre-teens

For the most part they have the wisdom and life experience that a 12 year old doesn't.

Why stop at 12? Why not votes for new-borns?

No, that’s a daft idea. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. I think a voting age below 10 would be a bit silly. 

There's a good case for allowing voting from the legal minimum school leaving age, as by that age all should in theory be educated to a baseline acceptable level, but I can't see a case for younger.

Yes, they are politically immature but that does not make a vote less valid. You may as well take the vote away from those who do not read books say. 

12 or 13 is an age when children are becoming more adult. They should be encouraged to engage as citizens in decision making. 

I don't think most adults are particularly wiser than most teenagers. Take Donald Trump for example....

I have laid the case out above. 

I would go the other way. Make the minimum voting age 25. Before being given the power to vote and potentially change the way the country works you should have to have X number of years experience in the real world after leaving education. 

12 year olds? Much too old. All voting should be restricted to those age 1 year old or younger. Becoming an MP should be restricted to those age 1 year old or younger. Parliament would then be not more of a farce, and a joke, than it has been for the last 3 years

In reply 

Well, you do have a point in that the Westminster Parliament is under severe pressure. 

We have had a monkey elected in Hartlepool, a comedian in Ukraine and a TV host elected as President of the USA.  The argument that teenagers will not use their vote wisely, is really weak, when you look at voting patterns by adults. 

The fact that adults can be manipulated doesn’t mean that it’s ok for children who are more easily manipulated to vote. 

Kids are already under loads of pressure to grow up, voting will just add to that pressure and the thought of our politicians targeting children with policies and campaigns is a really unsettling thought. 

When I was in primary school in Barnstable, Jeremy Thorpe once patted me on the head.

I don't think voting puts teenagers under pressure. Many people simply don't care whether they vote or not. The same would apply to teenagers.  

Politicians targeting policies at teenagers would be desirable. It could lead to more school funding and more services directly aimed at teenagers rather than the triple lock on pensions for example. 

I am very happy for you Birdie Num Num. I once shook hands with the Duke of Edinburgh. 

Yes, but I’d have voted for Jezzer after that pat on the head.

Ah, but primary school ends at 11. By twelve, your more mature discerning faculties would have begun to see that the pat on the head was a cheap trick, like writing £350 million pounds on the side of a bus. 

I was never taken in by the bus trick. But the pat on the head... well that was sweet

I don’t think the average 12 year old is mature enough to be entrusted with a driving license, let alone possessed of the maturity to choose a government.

That is an interesting point. Old enough to be criminally responsible but not old enough to be  politically responsible.

What's the 'real world' and why does having a job as say a... mechanic make someone more enlightened about macro-economic policy, politics, climate change, foreign policy, international aid, etc. etc. than a student of some kind. 

I honestly don't think the correlation between age and a good grasp of the issues is particularly strong at all. 

No. 16 years old. 12 year olds are just kids - to young

The primary school I went to in Barnstaple must have been a better one as they taught me to spell it rite.

On the other hand, why not withdraw the vote at say 75.

We already sent under 18s regardless of their capability to understand the issues. So blanket age ban is already a fact.

We already assume parents will consider children in their voting, or why else would school funding be an issue, so why not assume adults will still want 75+ to be fairly treated. 

Driving proficiency has immediate consequences of life and death. In our current parliamentary democracy extremely few people, unless in swing seats, choose the government. The PM, recently chosen by c100,000 people,then chooses the most important decision making body, the cabinet. 

Most teenagers have opinions. Some are daft, many are not. I cannot see that as being different to the current average voter. 

You need parental consent for many things under 18. There is arguably a case to push the driving licence age go to 18 as well. 

Some over 75's have dementia, yet still have a vote. However, I don't think taking away someone's vote is a good idea. 

Assuming that parents will consider their children when voting. Is that not the same as the pre 1928 situation i.e. men will consider their wives when voting? That women were considered incapable of rational thought and were too hysterical to vote was a common Victorian attitude. 

I think that you’ll find that this attitude is still alive and kicking in many parts of the UK.

Some over 75's have dementia, yet still have a vote. However, I don't think taking away someone's vote is a good idea. 

Thank you for supporting my rights. When I did National Service one ran a real risk of being  killed in the interests of the country, but you were not allowed to vote for those running it until you were 21. So I feel that I at least have as much right to vote as a 12 yr old'

In reply to 

12 does seem a bit young, but 16 seems pretty hard to argue against.

if reforming the franchise - what about commonwealth and EU citizens?

Enfranchising more of the population, regardless of age, is unlikely really to make an iota of difference other than in a few seats. Everything that can be said of a teenager - too lazy, uninterested, uninformed, zealous, manipulated, influenced etc to vote, can also be said of over 18s.

This country really, really, needs a voting system where people of whatever age and capacity, can vote for who best represents their views. A system that ends tactical voting, the binary choice in most constituencies, and the skewed representation.  The two main parties are, by any semblence of an objective view, unfit for purpose currently.  Yet if there was a GE tomorrow one of them would form some sort of government. I think It is the effective disenfranchisement of many, by the FPTP system, and their frustration with the status quo that has ultimately led us to this sorry state.  Lowering the voting age would be a gimmick, I don't see the harm in it at all myself, but neither do I see it as a panacea for the nations political ills.

I find it difficult to look at those pictures in recent weeks of 16 and 17/18 year old getting their exam results and not feel we should make every effort to engage them politically as soon as possible. I’m in favour of (probably) 16. We seem to have a number of big issues Brexit and the climate crisis to name two that will affect younger people more. I really don’t see how involving more citizens can be bad for democracy.

I would have thought we’ve already had ample experience, at home and abroad, of what happens when those who are ill informed, overly passionate and of limited life experience, turn out and vote en masse. 

So sure, add to that cohort, what could possibly go wrong?

I think the exact opposite, same as the OP.

I think a better way of addressing the balance would be to remove the voting rights of those 70 and over.  An aging population means some difficult decisions need to be made.  These will never be made whilst the grey vote holds so much power.  

When I was 12 I wanted to be the supreme ruler of the world, ruling with an iron fist and exterminating all the poor, disabled and unintelligent in order that the human race could advance at a much faster pace, once the burden of supporting the weak was removed.

I'm not so sure it would have been wise to let me have the vote.  

Christ! When I was 12 I wanted Woolworths pick&mix.

Wouldn't they just vote for the person with the best Social Media and we'd end up with one of those 'Influencers' becoming PM?

So my 94 year old (perfectly lucid) mother should've had no say in who runs the country for 24 years of her life?

Bollocks!

Well, the idea of representative democracy is to encourage everybody to vote. The rule of the golden mean should mean that your former wishes would have been balanced out by a 12 year old with more liberal tendencies! 

But that argument can easily be laid at the door of older people too. It is not the teenagers who have voted in the current comedians/populists/ influencers. Surely the greatest current influencer is a tweeting Donald Trump? 

I don't agree. Everybody should have the right to vote. In my view, including prisoners, but that is a seperate argument. 

I thought this thread was about voting for candidates who are 12 years old.

Given the mess adults have made in the last few years, I'm all in favour.

And what about British citizens. Few seem to realise that those living in Europe had no vote in the Brexit referendum. 

youtube.com/watch?v=dLuEY6jN6gY&

I will say no more.

Al

If new recruits can join the army at 16, 16 year olds should be able to vote too.

But they can't go to war and even if they could I would say that would be a case for raising the age to 18.

Al

Well no. That’s not exactly true. Children grow at different rates and at different points in their lives they become more responsible criminally. They don’t suddenly become fully responsible for all their actions at age 10. 

You think that politicians would make schools better to appeal to children? They don’t do it at the moment to appeal to adults and teachers! 

I suspect you’d see more bribery type policies than ones that are good for kids. Abolishing bed times and more sugar on breakfast cereals. That’s what the average 12-15 year old will be interested in. 

People earn the rights and have have responsibility to behave in a certain way to preserve those rights. 

Children have not earned the right as they cannot be held responsible for a great deal of their actions as they haven’t learned the full implications of all their actions, and prisoners have forgone their right by acting irresponsibly. 

That's a something I didn't know about not going to war. Given the pivotal nature of deciding to join the army, I do think the voting age should be the same as the age one can join at, but it is parity which I think makes sense, more than a certain age particularly.

The idealistic and energetic young people around me worked hard to help get Corbyn in as the leader of the opposition.  A few years later and they’re wiser and more jaded and increasingly angry at his refusal and/or inability to oppose the most disorganised has dangerous government in a long time.

Let kids have some time as kids without having to shoulder responsibility for decisions they don’t have to make - just imagine being 16 today and already blaming yourself for Corbyn.  

Becoming an adult is a gradual process, not something that magically happens overnight because it’s your birthday. 

Do you have children? 

At what point did I mention having a job is real world experience. One of the good things about our voting system is its open to people from all social, economic, race and colour walks of life. I would rather people have a bit more life experiences behind them before they get to vote.

There is a big difference in how the world works and the realities of life between a student picking up a few shifts at McDonalds to top up their student loan to someone who works a 40 hour week on minimum wage and has a choice between rent or food or the person on benefits having to stretch out £70 a week whilst trying to find a job or the person who is earning £250k a year and has saved for a rainy day just in case. 

Well at least they have the self-awareness and maturity to regret their decision, as opposed to leave voters who would sooner see the country burn than accept that they were played for fools.

They can't without parental consent. 

At 16 you’ll need your parents permission to sign up and, perhaps more importantly to this thread, you’ll be making a decision about your own life, not everyone else’s.

The problem is people vote for what they see as being good for them personally, rather than what’s good for the country. Your personal experiences shouldn’t be affecting your vote.

That’s a view that only comes with maturity.

ftfy

Wondered how long it would be before some idiot mentioned Brexit. 

It seemed a salient point in the question over voting age. The main argument against lowering the voting age appears to be about experience and maturity. The fallout of the Brexit referendum reveals how tenuous that argument is.

i fully understand this, and didn't imagine for an instant that it magically happens on a certain birthday, is your point that signing up to be able to go to war in two years (while one's risk perception is still developing) has less gravitas than being able to vote in an election, more gravitas, or something else?

They’re not ‘signing up to go to war in two years.’

They only go to war if they’re still in the army when they reach 18.

Yes, is that the point you were wanting to make in talking about people not suddenly becoming adults? I'm a little bit lost.

Edit: I didn't write 'signing up to go to war in 2 years' by the way...

Sorry. Growing up is a process. You don’t suddenly become an adult. That process involves learning and understanding different things at different stages together with the consequences of your actions. The law recognises that. The army recognise that. You can join up at 16 with parents permission (who should know whether you are mature enough to make that choice) and then two years later you can make another decision whether you are ready to fight. 

That’s all part of a process.

I’d rather vote for a twelve year old than Boris Johnson. 

You're not considered old enough to drive until you're 17.

You're not considered old enough to decide to smoke until you're 18.

You're not able to take out various loans or a mortgage until you're 18.

You're not considered old enough to get married until you're 18.

You're not considered old enough to drink until you're 18.

You're nor considered old enough to go on active service until you're 18.

You're not allowed to see son films until you're 18.

Few of us would disagree with any if these age based restrictions. They are in place because in some way or another people below these ages are judged not to have the judgement necessary to decide to do these things.

and yet while acknowledging, at least tacitly, the lack of judgement of the young people think they have the judgement to choose their government. Weird.

It's not weird at all.  Parties considered to be on the left know that younger people are more likely to vote for them so it is highly probable that it's people who consider themselves of the left who will support this.

Al

But to an extent the choice of 18 is arbitrary - for lots of things there's clearly a point between being born and dying at which one becomes capable, and in our society 18 has become the standard age of entry into adulthood, but more because certain areas of life are considered to require a qualifying age than because one suddenly becomes capable. 
Arguing that people below 18 don't have sufficient judgement might be true to some extent, and certainly idealism is likely to be stronger, but then I don't think most people vote based on a balanced and considered appraisal of all the facts, or on what would be best for the country as a whole rather than themselves specifically

Im no fan of Corbyn, but what do you think would’ve happened if he hadn’t been elected? Theresa wouldn’t have had a general election against Cooper or Burnham, so the tories would still have an effective majority of 15. 

All those old bastards actually think it's worth using their vote. Younger people are less bothered by a figure of something approaching 25%, according to the referendum. I can't see anything to suggest that an even younger franchise will be less uninterested.

That's the whole point of me wanting to raise the age for voting. Your personal experiences are what make you mature. People reach maturity at different ages but unless you can devise a maturity test an age has to be put on it. In my opinion 18 is way off the mark because the majority of people have next to no experience of anything at that age. 

I look back at myself and my mate's at that age and though we knew it all and were far smarter than the old folk we knew bugger all. I didn't start to mature until I was in my mid 20's and the process wasn't complete until my dad died in my early 30's. The day that happened something clicked in my head when I lost my "dad can do anything and sort anything" safety blanket. 

If the vote is given to 16-year olds, then surely they should also be "entitled" to serve as frontline troops, be treated as adults in court (and hence liable for adult sentences in adult prisons), and also regarded as adults in all sexual matters - i.e. no longer treated as impressionable and easily led children.

As society refuses to accept that 16-year olds are able to manage their personal sexual affairs without help (due to being children), why should they be entitled to manage the political affairs of the country.

The biggest problem with universal suffrage is just that. There is no test or exam that anyone has to pass to have a vote, merely attaining a certain age and not being locked up.

Unfortunately Brexit has shown that there a considerable number of complete f*ckw*ts who should never have been given any form of vote over anything. And this would be the same for their children under 18 as well.

Maybe if people did actually have to take some form of exam to prove their competence (like a driving test ?) then we might not be in this sh*tty position. Unfortunately, having seen a number of complete idiots on the road today, of varying ages, maybe we should tighten up the driving test as well.

So you're basically stating that they are not interested in the good of the country, or any reasonably argued equality, but are just power crazy.

So being a student and studying 30 hours a week and working 20 isn't real life experience but doing 35 hours a week at an office is? 

If just 'having moved on from education' is your criteria then how about those people who have full times jobs but are doing a college course in the evenings somewhere to improve their prospects. 

I honestly think that people's reasoning and mental capabilities can go backwards as well as forwards. A minimum age of 25 is far too late and would affect many people in their mental prime. A maximum age of let's say 75 would be much more sensible. 

I’m not even an armchair expert at party politics so I don’t know.  I’d like to think it would have been better; it can’t really have been much worse.

I agree with you regarding driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Given the serious consequences of abusing that privilege, we shouldn't be squeamish about revoking it.

However if democracy is to mean anything, then voting should be regarded as an inalienable right. We can't remove it from people, regardless of the stupidity of decisions they may make (this is an argument for tightening up our electoral system, making politicians more accountable and improving political/citizenship education).

Of course there needs to be a minimum voting age (although I think it would be fairer to apply it by school year).

“Old enough to kill but not for votin....”

Eve of destruction.

Why on earth do you automatically assume that young people would add to that cohort? The arbitrary age of 18 (rightly) takes no account of fitness, intelligence etc etc.

Anyways, my central point was that engaging young people in the political process would be a good thing. Let’s face it the current system is in such dire straits that progressive initiatives are sorely needed.

I've never voted in my own interest, neither have many other people I know.

Yes of course the transition to maturity isn't black and white and is different for different individuals but in all other instances I can think of where an age limit is set on when people are considered old enough to make their own judgements, that age is above 16 and generally it's 18. It's not just about maturity or intelligence, it's about experience.

I chose to believe that you know exactly what I am talking about. I agree that there are some very mature students but when it comes to living in the real world rather than student idiology they are in the minority. 

I used a few years after leaving education as a convinient reference point probably squewed from my experience of graduates in the workplace. I see them come straight from academia in to lower management positions and 99% of them are bloody useless but think they are gods gift. But a couple of years down the line when they have done the roll, made the mistakes and learned the difference between the theory and the reality and a lot of them become very good.

Typically people doing a night class or OU course are more mature and already have plenty of experience at the game of life so in the most part they will be a bit older anyway.

I do like your top age cap idea. Like the few young people who could be trusted to vote there are people over 75 who are fully in control of their faculties and as sharp as a razor blade but there are plenty who aren't. Plus at that age whoever you vote for isn't really going to impact your life that much. 

Let's have a 50 year window for voting where you are old enough (maybe not smart enough) to have an understanding about things but not too old that your past caring and jost voting for whoever will protect your pension and investments the best. 

Participating in the democratic functioning of the country is best seen as a civic duty. A duty that is best learnt young.  Most of the examples you give have older age restrictions to reduce harm to an individual. 

Young people between the ages of 12 and 18 would be placing a cross in a box maybe twice. 

How they form a judgement to that decision is like everybody else. If they vote, they will listen to what politicians are saying and vote for policies they like.

Most teenagers can spot a fraud when they see one, most teenagers can decide correctly who is an effective or poor teacher. Likewise with politicians and political ideas.

I don't see anything to fear here. A more important question we should ask about the current system is, who benefits? 

Heartinthe Highlands. Headup thearse. Just because there's a few more conservatives than you like then it's about bringing the young out. I wonder if the far right were to start trotting out emotive speaking kids like Greta Thunberg and calling youth strikes whether you'd still be for it... Obviously not.

It's easy to say that this wouldn't have support but realistically you'd only think this if you only met middle class kids. Racism is alive and kicking in particular sections of society. 

You might think the youth are woke but the reality is when the right realise they can employ the tactic of using kids to pull the heart strings of a population you don't need to go far on social media see something darker than the dreaded Farrage could surface. 

At 16 it's legal to have sex.

At 17 it's legal to drive.  

So a 17 year old can have sex, drive to the cinema and not be allowed to watch a film that has a sex scene.  

Ridiculous.   

You missed out a whole bunch of other ages. 

Certain films are 12 and 15 age related. 

You can babysit at 14. 

You can marry at 16. 

There are other age related jobs. Driving busses and lorries is 21.

I’m sure there’s lots more if we look hard enough.

What's the legal starting age for wanking?

So you think giving 12 year olds the vote would be progressive? Try asking a group of 12 year olds what they think of the Irish backstop, what the pros and cons of redistributive taxation are, what the role of the House of Lords is? 

I’ve got two kids of 10 and 13. They get a say In Where we go on holiday, what we have for tea and what film we might watch on a rainy afternoon. I wouldn’t consider it “progressive” to give them an equal say on what I put into my pension, the affordability of a bigger house or whether a sizeable portion of the household income should go towards acquiring a pony. 

Beyond a certain level, some decisions (like who runs the country) are best left to grown ups.

You don't have to be rude to make your point. It is not a left/right issue. You are right in that many teenagers may have right wing views. 

The two main benefits would be a balancing in the age profile of voters as governments increasingly create policies that favour the old. Secondly, it encourages young people to engage in democracy. 

Beat ya - I was kissed by Winston Churchill. And before you ask, no, I was not 27. I was 1 and being held by my mother. 

I think you have confused me with someone else. I have not suggested 12 year olds should vote. I would probably be in favour of 16. Would like to hear more arguments against though.

More arguments against? Well, sticking with 16 year olds; I was an idiot at 16, most of the 16 year olds I know are almost as idiotic and even more worrying, the relatively intelligent/engaged among them have a propensity to believe highly complex issues have simplistic solutions and anyone with a different opinion is obviously an idiot (yes, I know plenty on here share similar characteristics). All this is compounded by an overdeveloped herd instinct which only dissipates with age.

None if this matters much because 16 year olds haven’t much political or economic power. Give them vote though and you have a few million extra in the electorate who are more easily swayed by the glib and charismatic than the average person who’s had the benefit of being knocked about a bit by life.

I guess we all form views based on life experiences.

I was’nt an idiot at 16 - I was doing an apprenticeship in a heavy engineering factory.

A lot of my friends have teenagers doing GCSE/A levels and I cannot think of one I would not give the vote to.

21 years of teaching in inner city/small town schools gave me a respect for teenagers, the majority at least.

Anyway my central point was that involving young people in the political process would be a positive move. Advantages perhaps outweighing disadvantages?

Obviously. I see you’ve grasped my central argument against votes for 16 year olds.

After spending 25 plus years working in industry, your arguing that holding an apprenticeship and being an idiot are some how mutually exclusive doesn’t fill me with confidence in your judgement or life experience.

you must have a narrow range of acquaintances or a very low bar.

I have plenty of respect for teenagers as teenagers, I just think that as a cohort they make poor life choices. Have you noticed what they choose to eat/drink/wear/listen to? When they’ve grown out of Nando’s, 100 quid day-glo trainers and Katy Perry, I might take their opinions on governance a bit more seriously.

Yeah teenagers and politics go together like egg and chips. Do you remember the Young Conservatives?

I've spent my entire career in the engineering industry and I fail to see the correlation between an apprenticeship in engineering and common sense.

Oh yeah, and when I was sixteen I wasn't an idiot either but all I knew about politics came from the Daily Telegraph and my parents. Three years later my politics had turned 180 degrees and broadly speaking hasn't changed a great deal since.

So taste in music, fashion and food is sufficient to judge someone's worthiness to make political decisions?

Oh yeah, and when I was sixteen I wasn't an idiot either but all I knew about politics came from the Daily Worker and my parents. Three years later my politics had turned 180 degrees and broadly speaking hasn't changed a great deal since.

That's quite interesting isn't it?  Seeing sense or just juvenile rebellion?

Al

I didn’t say there was a correlation, just what I was doing!

You having a laugh lol

Well, this thread is getting amusing if that's what you mean.😃

I still think a bunch of teenagers have just as good political nous as most of the adults judging by some of the comments above. 

By and large, Yeah.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2918999/boris-johnson-sports-bizarre-hawaiian...

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-favorite-foods-steak-cake-diet...

I can't imagine giving 12 year olds the vote would make the slightest difference to anything.

Until such time as there's a voting app for their mobile phones and they could vote from their beds (having been sent a reminder) they will never bother. 

The thing is, from the arguments presented so far, which are mostly about immaturity and inability to make complex decisions about important matters; the same applies to a sizeable proportion of the adult vote.

Many people vote from the gut, not from reason. I don't see why teenagers will be much different. It would encourage government to take them seriously though. 

=  You can drive smaller tractors and mopeds at 16.

-  Age restriction is for purchasing tobacco products - not actually for smoking

- Fairly arbitrary as most u18 would fail on the repayment eligibility set by the finance organisations

- Depends on your what you think marriage stands for - there are various religious marriages which are conducted between u18s which may not be legally recognised - but entail the same moral commitment to another person.

Again - this is a restriction on purchasing alcohol  - there are various cases where consumption is allowed.

correct

I found out the other day that the Fortnite game - involving murder and features realistic current modern weapons is only for 12yrs and over. - I think age limits on video/film content has changed considerably in the last 20 years.

- For the most part complying with all the above age suggestions is down to Parental supervision -

Parents who have the vote. 

I think the this is all based on a few individuals - who look, sound and present themselves as adults in a few snap shots -  there are a lot more of the age group who don't currently care about whether Jaffa cakes are cakes or biscuits for tax purposes.

Once again, this argument can be turned around. 16 year olds are less jaded and more idealistic, and therefore less likely to simply vote for somebody who gives air to their grievances, real or perceived, and more likely to make a choice based on values and the sort of society they'd like to grow into.

What evidence do you have for this? What is the proportion? ‘Sizeable’ seems a bit like you’ve made that statement up  

That is a tricky question to answer. Why do  people vote the way they do? Is it peer influences? They like the look of a leader? There is a good analysis here:  

https://www.britpolitics.co.uk/a-level-uk-elections-how-vote-democracy

My argument is that adults often make voting decisions as much from the gut as teenagers would. Both suffer from imperfect knowledge and may vote against their best interest without realising it. 

Hmm...teenagers as value based idealists just yearning for a better society.

Nice theory entirely founded on wishful thinking. The demographic most likely to do voluntary work are the 35-55 year olds, whilst those most likely to be involved in criminality and anti-social behaviour...16-24.

Beyond paying lip service to social and environmental concerns, teenage years are peak times for selfish and self centred behaviour, a point amply illustrated by the annual post-festival scenes of acres of rubbish and abandoned tents.

All the teenagers and young adults that I know, including my own 2 daughters, are incredibly unselfish. They fully understand climate change issues, way more than I knew. Are very forward thinking, caring, know what is right and what is wrong, know that Brexit is a f*cking stupid idea and really should be allowed to vote.

Schooling these days teaches the young all about different religions, different politics, the consequences of both on society. A 15 year old these days is more deserving of a vote than a 60 year old!

Not to mention they can be taxed - no taxation without representation. Wars have been fought and countries founded...

Certainly not juvenile rebellion in my case. I simply wasn't really aware of different political philosophies and hadn't had the time to give them any thought.

Once I had I came to a considered conclusion.

That is also my experience.

They fully understand climate change issues, way more than I knew.

I don't know what you know or don't know so that MAY well be true but I suspect they just take in the headlines and highlights.

Are very forward thinking, caring, know what is right and what is wrong

Agreed but can be a little naive.  My kids changed but it was after they left home and got wiser.

, know that Brexit is a f*cking stupid idea and really should be allowed to vote.

You are letting your personal bias creep in here. If there was a poll that showed that 52% of teenagers agreed with Brexit would you still be as keen to give them a vote?

I can't comment on this as I no longer have personal knowledge but I do get a sense that political correctness is high on the curriculum.

A 15 year old these days is more deserving of a vote than a 60 year old!

That's very undemocratic.  On what basis? The 60 year old could well live to 100 and carries with their age a lot of life experience.

Al

I'm glad that your personal experience of teenagers has been so positive. Actual figures and statistics would indicate otherwise.

You actually believe the average 15 year old is more informed than the average 60 year old???

Ok, the comment about them being more deserving of a vote than a 60 year old was a flippant throw away comment. Not meant literally. But in the experience of my daughters they are much better educated about political affairs (not political correctness), than most 60 year olds that I know.

Where do you get the "sense that political correctness is high on the curriculum"? They do not get taught political correctness. What they are taught is about diversity, different religions, different political stances and this allows them to be very open minded and accepting of others.

Are you often in the habit of basing your judgment of millions of people based purely on a couple of family members sharing the same demographic? Have a word with your daughters, sounds like they might also have a better grip on probability and statistical evidence.

Yes of course you are right. In the school of over 250 students they were the only ones to be taught such things. (If I was young enough to understand emojis I'd add a rolling eyes one here)

This is an example of why votes for under 18s isn’t great. 

Their world view is pretty limited to parents and school influence. 

I’ve also seen people switch from conservative views to hardline labour when they’ve joined a highly unionised workplace. 

Most people’s views are highly biased towards their experiences. Not sure how you change that but certainly I’d be worried about schools teaching a politics curriculum that was set by the government of the day. Possibly being taught by a young charismatic trendy politics teacher fresh out of university. 

I think people need to be exposed to more life experiences, unfortunately, instead of being a place to educate and learn, the internet is becoming more echo chamber like. 

Ahh..so you’re basing your judgement of millions on 250 students (and a school of that size, we’re probably not talking about your average state comp are we).Best ask your daughters about significant cohort sizes and why your experience might be wildly at odds with published crime statistics.