Eagle
Established Member
It always amuses me when radical rightist commentators in America seem to equate liberalism with communism, despite the fact that communism is by definition highly illiberal.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Voting Age
- Thread starter Butts
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SS4
Established Member
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
You're making the mistake of Conservatism being right wing, the present day U.K. Conservative party is in no way right wing.
I should have made myself clear as I was referring to the U.K. not the whole world.
Eagle
Established Member
Did you actually read the article, or just look at its title and dismiss it? Conservative liberalism is widely accepted as being a rightist or centre-right political stance.
scandal
Member
The concept of liberalism depends on whether it is interpreted as a classic/traditional liberal or a modern liberal. Modern and traditional liberals often share the same approach to social issues of limited government involvement in people's lives. However, and this is evident within the Liberal Democrat party, there is sizeable difference between economic liberalism, - traditional liberals and what has, since the development of the new right and Thatcherism, become associated with the Conservative party (and more recently the orange bookers in the Lib Dems) of free markets and limited government interference - the state being there only as a small part of societal matters, hence the term neo-liberalism for economic policies of Hayek and Freidman. A modern liberal would be seen by many as traditionally "left of centre" as they believe in an active state to provide equality of opportunity and do not see it as threat as traditional liberals do, instead they see inequality as a bigger threat and argue for limited state involvement to deliver equality (for example legal aid for those unable to afford it so that everyone is equal before the law, regardless of wealth, privledge and opportunity) - this is not be confused with socialisms principles of equality of outcome.
In America the issue is that the term "liberal" is seen much more on the social spectrum, rather then economic (indeed most don't use the term neo-liberal) of association with the left rather then economically, because, as I would argue the lack of history of a Liberal party as has been the case in the UK and so the liberal associations with equality of opportunity are seen as a threat to tradition and history.
Going back onto topic - the issue of votes of 16 has been described as a red herring, it was reported by John Curtice that even if all of Scotland's 16-17 year olds voted then it would only be about 2% of the electorate, and thats assuming 100% turnout in that age group, which analysis of young voters doesn't seem to show in previous elections.
In America the issue is that the term "liberal" is seen much more on the social spectrum, rather then economic (indeed most don't use the term neo-liberal) of association with the left rather then economically, because, as I would argue the lack of history of a Liberal party as has been the case in the UK and so the liberal associations with equality of opportunity are seen as a threat to tradition and history.
Going back onto topic - the issue of votes of 16 has been described as a red herring, it was reported by John Curtice that even if all of Scotland's 16-17 year olds voted then it would only be about 2% of the electorate, and thats assuming 100% turnout in that age group, which analysis of young voters doesn't seem to show in previous elections.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
You reckon that loads of Liberals are right wing amongst other traits.
As I have no interest in the Faroe islands and Moldova will you put forward a few prominent members of the present Liberal party who are fully paid up members of the hang'em and flog'em brigade.
43021HST
Established Member
Saying modern conservatives aren't right wing, is like saying the Nazi party was in no way anti Semitic.
Liberals are Left wing when it suits their purposes, but when it comes down to it, they show their true blue colours.
The type of people who say they love Gays, Blacks and Asians so long as they don't move next door.
Why do people confuse Liberalism with the Lib-Dems? They're not one and the same.
SS4
Established Member
:roll:
Now I'm convinced you're trolling.
edit: Or someone who actually thinks Fox News is Fair and Balanced
There is someone making a mistake in this thread, but it's not Eagle.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
Being allowed to have sex with your partner when you are both age 16, yet not being able to have a naked photo of them until you are both 18. That is the stupidest example of these kind of things IMO.
tbtc
Veteran Member
You are aware of the concept of "neo liberals"?
Most right wingers are very liberal in economic terms (just "traditional"* when it comes to social issues").
* - I say "traditional" - am sure there are other words for certain old fashioned attitudes to women/ sex/ race etc!
SS4
Established Member
Being able to live alone but not being able to buy kitchen knives comes pretty high too
Butts
Veteran Member
Ah we are back on topic - I did state this was not so much about Politics but the contradiction of being able to Vote and get Married at 16 but not buy alcohol,fireworks and cigarettes
SS4 Whats with the Sweep avatar ???
SS4
Established Member
Ah we are back on topic - I did state this was not so much about Politics but the contradiction of being able to Vote and get Married at 16 but not buy alcohol,fireworks and cigarettes
SS4 Whats with the Sweep avatar ???
This time last year myself, Ivo, HST Power and Valenta all had Sooty related avatars and I thought I'd bring it back
To try and bring us somewhat back on topic the BBC have an interesting piece with some differing viewpoints of the issue which you can find here.
scotsman
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 3,252
A very good piece indeed. Alcohol and cigarettes are for over 18s only due to the health implications of use before the age of 18 - yet we've seen for years, through organisations like the Scottish Youth Parliament, that young people do want to participate in politics, and are mature enough to do so.
It's worth noting that I'm against independence, but I welcome the decision to let 16 and 17 year olds vote - which I see as a weapon with potential to backfire on Mr Salmond.
12CSVT
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,612
Is there any proof / evidence of this, or is it just an assumption ?
SS4
Established Member
Beyond said poster's personal experience there was no evidence to be found (although it's not implausible)
Please allow me to draw you to page 10 in this document, Teaching Standards 2012
These are the current criteria against which all teachers (not just PGCE students and NQTs) are assesed against. I would say that influencing the political leanings of pupils in a school would contravene this guideline.
Why 18 though? In the US it's 21 I believe at least in part due to health concerns.
Butts
Veteran Member
Why 18 indeed, if you are considered at 16 mature enough to get Married or Vote it seems a strange set of affairs this does not extend to the purchase of cigarettes or alcohol.
The implications of the former two surely require as much if not more thought than the latter
Doesn't stop them though! I think you are stretching the definitions of vulnerability though, unless teachers use their position of authority to force pupils to vote one way. Opening their mind to arguments, on the other hand, is surely their job.
I think the voting age should be 16, because that's when income taxes kick in and I'm a firm believer in no taxation without representation. More generally though, to any teenage readers of this forum, I'd say: Don't be in too much of a hurry to grow up. You WILL be 18 soon enough, your 20s will wizz past in a blink of an eye and the debate about alcohol and knives and DVDs will seem the most trivial thing ever! Enjoy each phase of your life for what it is.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
At last! An argument to support voting rights at 16:
It's certainly a good argument from the point of view of the voter. I was also wondering if any of the supporters of voting rights at 16 had any arguments in support from the point of view of the nation as a whole? (e.g. Scotland would benefit from lowering its voting age because . . . . ).
Its taken over 50 posts on the subject to get to this point.
It's certainly a good argument from the point of view of the voter. I was also wondering if any of the supporters of voting rights at 16 had any arguments in support from the point of view of the nation as a whole? (e.g. Scotland would benefit from lowering its voting age because . . . . ).
Is this the case? I think anyone with an income is liable to income tax, regardless of age, though there may be tax-efficient ways of handling it for younger citizens. And, following your argument, surely anyone who pays VAT should then get the vote.
SS4
Established Member
Are issues relevant to a 16 year old somehow less worthy than those to someone older? Even if those issues are one and the same? Barn suggested taxation, it's certainly something which affects a lot of people both working and not working
Higher Education is more likely to be an important issue in someone who is 16 or 17 - said youngsters may want tuition fees abolished as they're going to be at the sharp end and tbh it reeks of hypocrisy that those introducing/raising fees have all took advantage of the free system. Same goes for pensions, the baby boomers gave themselves excellent pensions compared to those who'll be paying for them.
It's too easy to write off the concerns of youngsters as silly or immature. In other words age is no guarantee of maturity
Additionally when I was studying in sixth form citizenship classes were mandatory.
Interestingly in Scotland, 2001 those aged 16-29 made up 17.46% of the population at large which comes to about 21.6% of those old enough to vote (if voting were to be allowed at 16)
Higher Education is more likely to be an important issue in someone who is 16 or 17 - said youngsters may want tuition fees abolished as they're going to be at the sharp end and tbh it reeks of hypocrisy that those introducing/raising fees have all took advantage of the free system. Same goes for pensions, the baby boomers gave themselves excellent pensions compared to those who'll be paying for them.
It's too easy to write off the concerns of youngsters as silly or immature. In other words age is no guarantee of maturity
Additionally when I was studying in sixth form citizenship classes were mandatory.
Interestingly in Scotland, 2001 those aged 16-29 made up 17.46% of the population at large which comes to about 21.6% of those old enough to vote (if voting were to be allowed at 16)
You're right of course, although compulsory full time education would probably keep earned income below the personal allowance for any kid without an pretty spectacular part-time job. Indirect taxes like VAT do affect everybody although, again, somebody under the care of parents or guardians is likely to be making limited purchases on their own account. Personal finance changes significantly when out of full time education and away from the care of parents, and it is at 16 when both those events generally become legally permissible.
scotsman
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 3,252
Why 18 indeed, if you are considered at 16 mature enough to get Married or Vote it seems a strange set of affairs this does not extend to the purchase of cigarettes or alcohol.
The implications of the former two surely require as much if not more thought than the latter
It's not maturity, just health concerns
But why not 21 as in the US?
- Status