Keir Starmer Prime Minister
Discussion
Votes for 16 year olds.
Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Previous said:
Votes for 16 year olds.
Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Have you seen the statistics from across Europe? Young people turning to the right in droves. I'm all for 16 being the age for voting. They are taxed at that age aren't they? Yes I accept that some will not have the maturity or capability to figure things out, but that holds true for many different reasons across the age ranges. One could, and should argue, that given the parlous state of our political classes and the statistics indicating that huge amounts of 18-35 year old just won't vote, getting people involved in the process at a young age would be a habit forming thing and ensure a more representative turn out in the future....Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Edited by biggbn on Sunday 30th June 16:47
biggbn said:
Previous said:
Votes for 16 year olds.
Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Have you seen the statistics from across Europe? Young people turning to the right in droves. I'm all for 16 being the age for voting. They are taxed at that age aren't they? Yes I accept that some will not have the maturity or capability to figure things out, but that holds true for many different reasons across the age ranges. One could, and should argue, that given the parlous state of our political classes and the statistics indicating that huge amounts of 18-35 year old just won't vote, getting people involved in the process at a young age would be a habit forming thing and ensure a more representative turn out in the future....Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Edited by biggbn on Sunday 30th June 16:47
Catweazle said:
biggbn said:
Previous said:
Votes for 16 year olds.
Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Have you seen the statistics from across Europe? Young people turning to the right in droves. I'm all for 16 being the age for voting. They are taxed at that age aren't they? Yes I accept that some will not have the maturity or capability to figure things out, but that holds true for many different reasons across the age ranges. One could, and should argue, that given the parlous state of our political classes and the statistics indicating that huge amounts of 18-35 year old just won't vote, getting people involved in the process at a young age would be a habit forming thing and ensure a more representative turn out in the future....Old enough to vote for the government of the day, but not for full criminal responsibility.
It's enough to make me not vote for Labour.
Expect it to be high up the legislative agenda;
- Doesn't really cost anything to implement,
- Younger voters more likely to be Labour/ left leaning (secures future elections).
Edited by biggbn on Sunday 30th June 16:47
Gecko1978 said:
airbusA346 said:
If he does become Prime Minister, I think by the end of the year he will have been removed as leader/PM and replaced by someone from the far left of the party.
I also think that is likely but not by DecemberAnge is already sorting out her wardrobe.
airbusA346 said:
If he does become Prime Minister, I think by the end of the year he will have been removed as leader/PM and replaced by someone from the far left of the party.
Under what circumstances do you imagine Starmer being removed?And even if he was somehow removed and a vacancy ensued, all nominees would need to secure support of a least 20% of MPs and either: a) 5% of Constituency Labour Parties or b) at least affiliaties comprising 5% of the affiliated membership. If there's no vacancy and it's just a direct challenge against Starmer at the annual conference, it's just 20% of MPs. That would mean at least 80 MPs supporting a challenge against the leader who has just delivered the party's largest ever parliamentary majority. That's over twice as many MPs as Corbyn managed and there won't be any useful idiots lending support this time.
Are you a Tory cabinet minister who has bet their life savings on winning the election?!
hstewie said:
airbusA346 said:
If he does become Prime Minister, I think by the end of the year he will have been removed as leader/PM and replaced by someone from the far left of the party.
Why? The far left (if you can call it that) had their chance with Corbyn and failed. Starmer has been busy behind the scenes removing and sidelining people who don’t toe the party line over the last few years and we’re about to see a large influx of new MPs who probably owe their success to Starmer and making Labour electable once again. As much as we had ‘Red wall’ Tory Mps owe their allegiance to Boris, we’ll see similar with this new lot.It’s just the same Labour bogeyman nonsense.
‘Reds under the bed’. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now and besides, the mechanism for removing a labour leader are more involved than a simple no confidence vote and it’s something that Labour historically doesn’t do. They leave that to the Tories…
Bill said:
119 said:
What?
Please elobaborate.
The posts about how he'll be replaced by the lovechild of Stalin and Mao by Christmas. Please elobaborate.
eharding said:
I heard they were going to dig up Karl Marx and extract the DNA from his bones, inject it into Jeremy Corbyn to make an undead super-leftie and make that the leader of the party, then make the colour blue illegal and bring in mandatory singing of The Internationale in all workplaces at 11am every day.
I’m hoping to run myself and will expect support from you all. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff