A Political Thread

[Draggs]

Just not used to the pressure and scrutiny. I abhorred Tony Blair, but he was extremely good at handling any type of questioning, even the barrage-style seen there. It's how Paxman looks strong compared to those he interviews; find a point and drill it from all aspects and then move to the next.

 

[Chikwa]

Tort is very much necessary.

The law tort is necessary . In simplicity the duty of care from one person to another. Whether it is an individual person or a business . It demands an obligation of responsibility .

 

[Rich Taff]

To quote Sir Menzies Campbell: Welcome to test match cricket

Hello? Reality? Are you there? We've been out of touch for so long!

 

[Draggs]

I've long suspected Recep Tayyip Erdogan of being dropped on the head:
Telegraph

Still demonizing the Kurds who have driven the scourge of ISIL out of their land. Only one of those two groups is a threat in the eyes of Erdogan. The Kurds have fought for their survival for centuries, and despite being potentially the greatest ally to the west, we have sold them out time and time again to keep 'Iraq' as one.

 

[big ginger 8]

One of the question's currently been discussed in Irish politics is whether the voting age should be dropped to 16. Among my parents and people of their demographic the answer seems to be an emphatic no. This being the internet I'm guessing there's a much lower average age on here so am interested in what you guys think? From the one semester of politics it is interesting to note that the literature we were made aware of suggests 18 is actually the worst possible age to have the vote at and 16 or 21 are the optimum ages.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Honestly, no. Naivety and idiocy seem to be particularly high in 16-18 years olds.

That said, an awful lot of the general public are pretty idiotic and grossly misinformed when it comes to politics so it probably can't get any worse. I wish there was a better metric for judging whether someone is eligible to vote than age.

 

[munstermuffin]

One of the question's currently been discussed in Irish politics is whether the voting age should be dropped to 16. Among my parents and people of their demographic the answer seems to be an emphatic no. This being the internet I'm guessing there's a much lower average age on here so am interested in what you guys think? From the one semester of politics it is interesting to note that the literature we were made aware of suggests 18 is actually the worst possible age to have the vote at and 16 or 21 are the optimum ages.

I'm not old but I agree with parents. Voting should be free speech. And I just think kids in bracket of 15-19 are easily influenced. This in turn could sway votes. Like it bugs me at times when it's Internet voting as it's basically a popularity vote and not on the given issue which in politics would be policies etc.

 

[big ginger 8]

Honestly, no. Naivety and idiocy seem to be particularly high in 16-18 years olds.

That said, an awful lot of the general public are pretty idiotic and grossly misinformed when it comes to politics so it probably can't get any worse. I wish there was a better metric for judging whether someone is eligible to vote than age.

True enough, although I suppose there is a counter that the ones that are idiotic probably don't care and won't turn up. Sinn Fein would clearly have a massive upswing if 16 year olds were allowed vote. Something I wouldn't be entirely happy about but at the same time not sure if you can count it as a factor given it's unfairness.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

16 and 17 year olds voting (and 18, 19 and 20 year olds to an extent) would result in two different types of young voter. Those who go for extremist parties, not that we have any it would just be Sinn Fein a party without policy, or parents having two votes. It would be a pointless exceecise if you ask me.

A far more interesting topic in Irish politics is the gay marraige referendum. Until recently I was certain I was going to vote yes and I probably still will but there was a very interesting article in the paper from the point of view of a homosexual man, his name escapes me, on why he will be voting against it. His point being that, first of all a civil partnership isn't a "second class marraige" and that due to the fundamental differences between the relationships of heterosexual and homosexual couples the changing of the interpretation of article 41 of our constitution from the historical to the literal would be inappropriate.

As I said I'm still leaning towards voting yes but it has made me realise I will have to study the terms of the amendment far more closely and not just vote yes because I think I'm liberal and voting no makes the homosexual community a second class community which it certainly does not.

 

[Feicarsinn]

16 and 17 year olds voting (and 18, 19 and 20 year olds to an extent) would result in two different types of young voter. Those who go for extremist parties, not that we have any it would just be Sinn Fein a party without policy, or parents having two votes. It would be a pointless exceecise if you ask me.

A far more interesting topic in Irish politics is the gay marraige referendum. Until recently I was certain I was going to vote yes and I probably still will but there was a very interesting article in the paper from the point of view of a homosexual man, his name escapes me, on why he will be voting against it. His point being that, first of all a civil partnership isn't a "second class marraige" and that due to the fundamental differences between the relationships of heterosexual and homosexual couples the changing of the interpretation of article 41 of our constitution from the historical to the literal would be inappropriate.

As I said I'm still leaning towards voting yes but it has made me realise I will have to study the terms of the amendment far more closely and not just vote yes because I think I'm liberal and voting no makes the homosexual community a second class community which it certainly does not.

What differences would these be then?

 

[Draggs]

What about the 16 and 17 year old who work, pay tax, contribute, etc? Surely someone who provides somewhat for themselves (at least to that small extent) is somewhat capable of making a decision, especially when they pay money to the government already.

Now I am not specifically for lowering the voting age, but that was put to me by others who were, and certainly makes more sense than trying to nail a number on the wall without backing.

Certainly you'll get people who just vote like their parents, but it has been shown over time that for the most part, people somewhat mirror their parents views. Source

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What differences would these be then?

He impled the biological differences, ability to have a family as is the established interpretation in our constitution by many Attorneys General. It struck a chord with me mainly because of his view that it would completely alter one of the most protected and important and historic articles of our constitution when, in his opinion, it needn't have to and I've studied this article quite closely. Prior to this I wasn't going to pay much attention to the debates, especially considering the bigoted idiot who went viral last Friday, but now I'll pay close attention to it and assess the legal changes it will bring about. This will likely be minimal and then the deciding factor will be whether or not the homosexual community is satisfied with civil partnership over civil marraige, which they certainly aren't therefore I'll vote yes. The other reason why a yes vote is more appropriate is due to the fact that a civil partnership doesn't give the couple the same protection that a civil marraige does under article. 41.

Basically the article didn't change my vote to no but the reason why I'll vote yes, which won't be fuelled by emotions and morals but the legal and political ramifications of my vote. Considering this will be the first time I vote I think it's a good lesson to have learned.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm all for 16 year olds being allowed to vote. (A step further, I also believe prisoners should have the vote too.)

Education and justice are two entire branches of government that affect mostly people who have no voice on the formation of policy in these arenas. University students are given a voice in politics, and hence they are active in policy in regards to higher education. Likewise, younger students should be empowered to hold politicians more accountable for their problematic views on the way in which middle education should be run.

He impled the biological differences, ability to have a family as is the established interpretation in our constitution by many Attorneys General. It struck a chord with me mainly because of his view that it would completely alter one of the most protected and important and historic articles of our constitution when, in his opinion, it needn't have to and I've studied this article quite closely. Prior to this I wasn't going to pay much attention to the debates, especially considering the bigoted idiot who went viral last Friday, but now I'll pay close attention to it and assess the legal changes it will bring about. This will likely be minimal and then the deciding factor will be whether or not the homosexual community is satisfied with civil partnership over civil marraige, which they certainly aren't therefore I'll vote yes. The other reason why a yes vote is more appropriate is due to the fact that a civil partnership doesn't give the couple the same protection that a civil marraige does under article. 41.

Basically the article didn't change my vote to no but the reason why I'll vote yes, which won't be fuelled by emotions and morals but the legal and political ramifications of my vote. Considering this will be the first time I vote I think it's a good lesson to have learned.

I'm bi. You're right; civil unions are certainly not equal to marriage in my eyes.

 

[Feicarsinn]

He impled the biological differences, ability to have a family as is the established interpretation in our constitution by many Attorneys General. It struck a chord with me mainly because of his view that it would completely alter one of the most protected and important and historic articles of our constitution when, in his opinion, it needn't have to and I've studied this article quite closely. Prior to this I wasn't going to pay much attention to the debates, especially considering the bigoted idiot who went viral last Friday, but now I'll pay close attention to it and assess the legal changes it will bring about. This will likely be minimal and then the deciding factor will be whether or not the homosexual community is satisfied with civil partnership over civil marraige, which they certainly aren't therefore I'll vote yes. The other reason why a yes vote is more appropriate is due to the fact that a civil partnership doesn't give the couple the same protection that a civil marraige does under article. 41.

Basically the article didn't change my vote to no but the reason why I'll vote yes, which won't be fuelled by emotions and morals but the legal and political ramifications of my vote. Considering this will be the first time I vote I think it's a good lesson to have learned.

I don't like the biological argument really. Firstly it's what those fools in the Iona "institute" spout, but mainly it's because it's not in keeping at all with the legal definition of marriage, or the public's general perception of marriage. If it was true infertile people wouldn't be able to get married, nor people over the age where childbirth is possible. That's clearly not the case, so in my opinion the argument falls flat on its face.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't like the biological argument really. Firstly it's what those fools in the Iona "institute" spout, but mainly it's because it's not in keeping at all with the legal definition of marriage, or the public's general perception of marriage. If it was true infertile people wouldn't be able to get married, nor people over the age where childbirth is possible. That's clearly not the case, so in my opinion the argument falls flat on its face.

I considered that as well, the infertile argument isn't as good as those over the age where childhood is possible due to the majority of infertile couples getting married not being aware that this is the case and having the intention to have a "traditional family". But to vote no and keep the interpretation would imply that article 41 only applies to couples who have the intention to have children someday which is obviously absurd.

It's interesting to hear from an intelligent and unbiased person who is supporting a no vote though because it shows that those opposing to the amendment aren't all bigoted and discriminative which some of the more aggressive advocates of the amendment would allow you to believe.

You mentioning the Iona institute leads me into another topic which infuriates me. They only get the coverage they do because both sides of the vote in a referendum must be represented equally in national media. Not only does this lead to ridiculous associations like themselves getting far too much coverage but it's a violation of our right to free speech as a nation.

 

[McTallshort]

Regards gay marrige, it came in here a while ago and no one really gives a monkeys its all forgottern about now.#

Voting at 16 is a tricky one. In the UK you have to stay in full time education of some sorts now until your 18 so for 2 years you will probably be voting Lib dem or Green on the orders of your clueless, right on, Guardian reading teachers. Then you will change your voting once you have to do things like find a job and stuff and can no longer live in the fluffy world of Education that teachers never leave.

I left school at 16 and joined the Army and if Im honest wasnt interesting in voting and just wanted to drink and get laid both of which I did badly but then not all teenagers are as daft as me even if most are...

 

[j'nuh]

Regards gay marrige, it came in here a while ago and no one really gives a monkeys its all forgottern about now.#

Voting at 16 is a tricky one. In the UK you have to stay in full time education of some sorts now until your 18 so for 2 years you will probably be voting Lib dem or Green on the orders of your clueless, right on, Guardian reading teachers. Then you will change your voting once you have to do things like find a job and stuff and can no longer live in the fluffy world of Education that teachers never leave.

I left school at 16 and joined the Army and if Im honest wasnt interesting in voting and just wanted to drink and get laid both of which I did badly but then not all teenagers are as daft as me even if most are...

A big part of the reason people move away from Greens/Lib Dems as they age is political disenchantment imo. I think there's a point where you start voting against the party you want least in, rather than for the party you want most in and it reinforces the status of the big two. Labour and Conservatives are just too big for any minor party to overcome; I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with policy.

It's the ultimate price paid by a FPTP system imo.

 

[nickdnz]

Lowering a voting age to 16 I tend to think is a bad idea. The fast majority of 16 year olds are not independent as a start. Voting at 16 without appreciating what it is to really pay taxes, have a reasonable awareness of full time employment or just generally have to participate in society outside of the very specific role of the student. It's much easier to be very idealistic when you're not actually have to support yourself. So yeah, I'd probably keep it as it is.

 

[McTallshort]

A big part of the reason people move away from Greens/Lib Dems as they age is political disenchantment imo. I think there's a point where you start voting against the party you want least in, rather than for the party you want most in and it reinforces the status of the big two. Labour and Conservatives are just too big for any minor party to overcome; I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with policy.

It's the ultimate price paid by a FPTP system imo.

Well the liberals are not a minor party and were in power for many years. Also Ukip seem to be making plenty of ground on the 2 parties mentioned

 

[Feicarsinn]

^Agreed. There's a world of difference between having a part time job and having a job to support yourself. All of a sudden I give a **** about what happens to my money.