« But don't tell anyone.... | Main | Blair and the referendum »

April 19, 2004

Comments

PooterGeek

I can understand why a Lib Dem might recommend Ms Dynamite.

Andrew Ian Dodge

Yeah nothing like supporting those terrorist eh? Yeesh...Norris is a cretin yet Hughes does his best to piss possible Tory votes away.

Peter Cuthbertson

What really is feeble is the idea that by 'engaging' with young people you will find the right voting age. Of course most 16 year-olds will say they deserve the vote if you ask them, but they would, wouldn't they? You'd get the same answer from 14 year-olds. It doesn't make them right.

You may as well say that if 56% of MPs think that Christmas should not be banned it is just another indication of how out of touch they are. Perhaps these MPs should get out of Westminster a bit more and actually engage with turkeys.

Matthew

Andrew,

I'd just like to inform you that despite her name Miss Dynamite is not a terrorist.

Best

Matthew

Anthony

Andrew obviously confused her with Miss NH4NO3

Tom Robinson

Let's try a variation:

Politics is an activity unsuited to women, not on account of their vices but on account of what I at least consider to be their virtues.... The inner life of a female is a dream, a delightful insanity, a sweet solipsism.

Rather scary, isn't it?

Matthew

Scary if that's what Oakshott was arguing. But it isn't. It is strange that at a time when most people's youth is being prolonged through longer time studying, staying at home longer, putting off marriage etc, there is a movement to reduce the voting age. Most 16- 18 year olds do not work, do not pay tax etc. We are getting to the stage where most 18-21 year olds ownt be doing that either. That is not say we should increase the voting age to 21 again, but why reduce it? If you reduce it to 16, why not 14? or 12? I had political views when I was 12. And then what about the disenfranchised ten year olds?

Matthew

Yes, Ms NH4NO3 deserves locking away for a long time.

On Oakeshott's point, is this an argument to explain why on most opinion polls the most pro-war age group were the 18-24yr olds, and the least the 65- group?

Matthew

You are correct that 18-24s were the most pro war, but I thought post 65 were more pro war than the middling age groups....

Hilary Wade

Tom,

Luckily, disenfranchised 16-year-olds have a successful precedent they can follow. All they need to do is run a poster campaign: "What a Sixteen-Year-Old May Be And Not Have The Vote" - doctor, magistrate, university lecturer, &c...

... actually, you're right, it is rather scary.

MatthewT

No the over 65s were by far and away the most anti-war group. For example in the Guardian's March poll, where the country was 46% in favour, 42%, 18-24yr olds split 49/43, 25-34 47/45 and 35-64, 48-41 whilst over 64 was 38/45.

In fact the 18-24 group (as in this poll) was not always the most pro (it was often thought) but the over 64s were always, and by far, the most anti-group.

I can't really think of any other demographic reasons which might explain this. They are more Tory than other groups, but the Tory support was not much less pro-war than the Labour support. More Lib Dems?

Peter Cuthbertson

Rather scary, isn't it?

It wouldn't be scary if women turned into men within a couple of years.

Well, actually, that would be rather scary, but not for electoral reasons.

MichaelP

Matthew,

You obviously haven't heard her records.

Best

Michael

The comments to this entry are closed.