Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2023 16:35:18 GMT
Uf they are no longer living in the country they were born it, it is a matter for that country whether or not it still lets them vote there. Voting here though should never be something that comes with a price which is why eligibility to vote should be determined by length of residency here and not by something that costs £1400. If you cannot understand that, explain why the right to vote should be determined by how easily you can afford to shell out a large sum of money. Explain what is democratic about that. Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. I dont want to rig democracy. I want to extend democracy. You fear that because you fear the will of the people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2023 16:37:12 GMT
They would not single handedly be choosing the next government. They'd be greatly outnumbered by you pensioners for one thing. But yes I think they should have a say. It is after all their futures being decided more than anyone's. And of course I used to ne 16 and 17 once myself many moons ago. And the world around me was already affecting me and I was already working and paying my taxes. I was definitely very politically aware by the time I was 17 yet was denied a vote in 1983 simply because the election was called for 2 weeks before my 18th birthday.. That seriously rankled at the time. Yet had I and my fellow 16 and 17 year olds had a vote, we would have changed the result hardly anywhere. So wtf are you afraid of? We trust that age group with far more serious activities than merely putting an x in a box. We train some of them how to use arms. We allow them to ride motorbikes and drive cars. We allow them to leave home and live on their own if they can afford to. We allow them to work and collect taxes from them if they earn enough. We allow them to legally indulge in baby-making activities and become parents. So yes I think they should be trusted with the right to vote. Do you think Labour and the LibDems would be so keen on giving kids the vote if kids tended to vote Conservative? Probably not. But I would. You see I think they should get the vote regardless of who they vote for. And I have vastly more respect - and vastly less condescension - for 16 and 17 year olds to ever think of dismissing them as mere "kids". But I have little difficulty in calling you a condescending old fart. Another plus in my book of giving 16 year olds the vote is it would annoy people like you. So this thread has reinforced my desire to see them get the vote. If it happens I will come here and crow about it just to annoy you. They do after all already have the vote in Scotland and the world has not fallen in nor has it markedly altered the outcome of elections there all that much |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2023 17:34:26 GMT
Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. I dont want to rig democracy. I want to extend democracy. You fear that because you fear the will of the people. I think it's obvious you want votes at any cost. You know that, because you know you couldn't get enough adult UK citizens to support Corbyn. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 19, 2023 19:57:13 GMT
Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. I dont want to rig democracy. I want to extend democracy. You fear that because you fear the will of the people. No. You want to rig it because you believe more people would vote the same way as you, and vote for the people you deem "sensible'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 8:54:36 GMT
I dont want to rig democracy. I want to extend democracy. You fear that because you fear the will of the people. No. You want to rig it because you believe more people would vote the same way as you, and vote for the people you deem "sensible'. Clearly you think you are psychic, knowing what I think better than I do. Because I dont actually care how they vote. Even if they vote Labour which is your transparently obvious fear, Labour has long since ceased to be a party I support. But anyone who wants to restrict the franchise or oppose its extension because they are afraid of how some people might vote is an enemy of democracy in principle, wishing as much as possible to restrict the voting rights of anyone they think might disagree with them. Which is the sort of thing Putin would do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 8:59:35 GMT
I dont want to rig democracy. I want to extend democracy. You fear that because you fear the will of the people. I think it's obvious you want votes at any cost. You know that, because you know you couldn't get enough adult UK citizens to support Corbyn. If you think most newly enfranchised young people or foreign nationals are all going to flock to the banner of Corbyn or someone like him you are scaring yourself to death over fuck all. My Latvian friend would probably vote Tory if she had the vote. I still think she should have that right. Besides which, I am not a member of any political party and do not even support any of the mainstream ones, nor am I - nor will I ever be - standing for office myself. So I don't want anyones votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 20, 2023 9:08:57 GMT
All your Latvian friend has to do is apply for citizenship and she has the right.
As she can apply for citizenship if she wants it, where's the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 20, 2023 9:38:20 GMT
No. You want to rig it because you believe more people would vote the same way as you, and vote for the people you deem "sensible'. Because I dont actually care how they vote. Even if they vote Labour which is your transparently obvious fear, Labour has long since ceased to be a party I support. But anyone who wants to restrict the franchise or oppose its extension because they are afraid of how some people might vote is an enemy of democracy in principle, wishing as much as possible to restrict the voting rights of anyone they think might disagree with them. Which is the sort of thing Putin would do. You've been accusing myself and others about what you believe they think - staggering hypocrisy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 9:49:07 GMT
Clearly you think you are psychic, knowing what I think better than I do. Because I dont actually care how they vote. Even if they vote Labour which is your transparently obvious fear, Labour has long since ceased to be a party I support. But anyone who wants to restrict the franchise or oppose its extension because they are afraid of how some people might vote is an enemy of democracy in principle, wishing as much as possible to restrict the voting rights of anyone they think might disagree with them. Which is the sort of thing Putin would do. You've been accusing myself and others about what you believe they think - staggering hypocrisy. Well none of you have denied it. I however have told you that I don't give a stuff about how any newly enfranchised people vote. Which hasnt stopped you from trying to tell me what you think I really think. Many of you, in accusing me of wanting to enfranchise left wingers, are in those very words revealing your own fears. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 9:53:41 GMT
All your Latvian friend has to do is apply for citizenship and she has the right. As she can apply for citizenship if she wants it, where's the problem? Have you decided to stick your fingers in your ears whilst singing "la,la,la, I cant hear you" or something? That comes with a price tag of £1400 which she cannot even begin to afford. The vote should not have to come with citizenship when such a price tag is involved. The 14 years she had spent living here, working here, and paying her taxes here should be more than enough to have earned the right to vote without having to pay a fortune for it. Because rich foreigners can easily afford to pay that whilst most others cannot this is inherently undemocratic. I will repeat the point again in the hope you actually manage to engage your brain with it this time. As said a couple of pages ago.... Voting rights should not come with a price tag. If citizenship comes with a price tag fair enough but that means the right to vote should not be dependent upon it but be determined by length of residency. Anything else amounts to the ability to buy a vote if you can afford it which is profoundly undemocratic. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 20, 2023 10:09:02 GMT
You've been accusing myself and others about what you believe they think - staggering hypocrisy. Well none of you have denied it. I however have told you that I don't give a stuff about how any newly enfranchised people vote. Which hasnt stopped you from trying to tell me what you think I really think. Many of you, in accusing me of wanting to enfranchise left wingers, are in those very words revealing your own fears. And it's been explained to you by many posters, myself included why there is a backlash to this. They're not citizens and therefore are not entitled to vote or hold a job in public office. Why this arbitrary change that no other nation offers should be made all of a sudden leads people to question the motivation behind it. You outed yourself when you said you believed the would vote for "sensible" people. I'm sure Starmer hopes the same too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 10:26:31 GMT
Well none of you have denied it. I however have told you that I don't give a stuff about how any newly enfranchised people vote. Which hasnt stopped you from trying to tell me what you think I really think. Many of you, in accusing me of wanting to enfranchise left wingers, are in those very words revealing your own fears. And it's been explained to you by many posters, myself included why there is a backlash to this. They're not citizens and therefore are not entitled to vote or hold a job in public office. Why this arbitrary change that no other nation offers should be made all of a sudden leads people to question the motivation behind it. You outed yourself when you said you believed the would vote for "sensible" people. I'm sure Starmer hopes the same too. You say no other nation offers it but I have already told you that New Zealand grants foreign nationals the right to vote after 2 years residency. And however much you try to tell me what I think, I dont care how they vote, I just think it should be their right. Though being more sensible than you lot would not be difficult for most of them. And it is a total figment of your imagination that I equate "sensible" with "left wing". There are intelligent right wingers as well as left wingers. And there are stupid right wingers as well as left wingers. Pacifico is one of the intelligent right wingers around here whom I respect even though we mostly disagree. Others in this thread rather less so. As for Starmer's motivations for anything, they are always suspect and likely to be self-interested. But I do not give a flying fuck about his motivations if this leads him towards doing the right thing. Better the right thing for the wrong reasons than the right thing not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 20, 2023 11:17:46 GMT
Do you think Labour and the LibDems would be so keen on giving kids the vote if kids tended to vote Conservative? Probably not. But I would. You see I think they should get the vote regardless of who they vote for. And I have vastly more respect - and vastly less condescension - for 16 and 17 year olds to ever think of dismissing them as mere "kids". But I have little difficulty in calling you a condescending old fart. Another plus in my book of giving 16 year olds the vote is it would annoy people like you. So this thread has reinforced my desire to see them get the vote. If it happens I will come here and crow about it just to annoy you. They do after all already have the vote in Scotland and the world has not fallen in nor has it markedly altered the outcome of elections there all that much There is no 'probability' about it. You know perfectly well the only reason Starmer wants kids to vote is because they tend to be left wing. This is nothing more than transparent political expediency that the left are attempting to disguise as doing the right thing. The only reason Labour were against voter ID is because they were worried it would reduce their vote share due to electoral fraud in muslim Labour constituencies being the norm. Labour are a disgrace to any democratic electoral process. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2023 11:43:53 GMT
Probably not. But I would. You see I think they should get the vote regardless of who they vote for. And I have vastly more respect - and vastly less condescension - for 16 and 17 year olds to ever think of dismissing them as mere "kids". But I have little difficulty in calling you a condescending old fart. Another plus in my book of giving 16 year olds the vote is it would annoy people like you. So this thread has reinforced my desire to see them get the vote. If it happens I will come here and crow about it just to annoy you. They do after all already have the vote in Scotland and the world has not fallen in nor has it markedly altered the outcome of elections there all that much There is no 'probability' about it. You know perfectly well the only reason Starmer wants kids to vote is because they tend to be left wing. This is nothing more than transparent political expediency that the left are attempting to disguise as doing the right thing. The only reason Labour were against voter ID is because they were worried it would reduce their vote share due to electoral fraud in muslim Labour constituencies being the norm. Labour are a disgrace to any democratic electoral process. And you know perfectly well that referring to 16 and 17 year olds as kids shows such contemptibly deliberate condescension that it automatically makes anything you say look as if it is motivated by contempt for young people, which undermines the validity of anything you have to say in my eyes. And I don't give a fuck what Starmer wants or what his motivations are. Because I personally think giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote is the right thing to do, and have done ever since I was 16 and 17 myself. In other words I have thought this for four decades or more, long before anyone had ever heard of Starmer. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 20, 2023 11:57:20 GMT
There is no 'probability' about it. You know perfectly well the only reason Starmer wants kids to vote is because they tend to be left wing. This is nothing more than transparent political expediency that the left are attempting to disguise as doing the right thing. The only reason Labour were against voter ID is because they were worried it would reduce their vote share due to electoral fraud in muslim Labour constituencies being the norm. Labour are a disgrace to any democratic electoral process. And you know perfectly well that referring to 16 and 17 year olds as kids shows such contemptibly deliberate condescension that it automatically makes anything you say look as if it is motivated by contempt for young people, which undermines the validity of anything you have to say in my eyes. And I don't give a fuck what Starmer wants or what his motivations are. Because I personally think giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote is the right thing to do, and have done ever since I was 16 and 17 myself. In other words I have thought this for four decades or more, long before anyone had ever heard of Starmer. The reason I describe 16 and 17 year olds as 'kids' is quite simple. According to the law a child becomes an adult aged 18. I accept this triggers you so, however I wouldn't have thought it was a difficult concept for most people to understand. |
|
