Voting age and criminal responsibility

Good point, I was wrong.  It's only been raised to 18 for England and Wales

Then there is not a lot left to discuss.

You must be some kind of idiot who doesn't understand human nature.

When I was 16 (1983) I was bright enough to realise that neither the Tories nor Labour had the best interests of the country at heart and were merely propagating their own ideological dogma, using the British people as political laboratory rats, so I joined the Liberals.

At that stage, forty years ago, I had hope for proportional representation and political reform (that's will a small 'r'!)

That was my political naivete at the time - hoping the system might see its own faults and seek to correct them. It hasn't. Despite still being a Lib Dem, I'll be voting tactically (Labour) next Thursday. There's a slim chance (at least two MRP polls show) that here in Richmond the Labour candidate, Tom Wilson, is in with a shout of giving Sunak his very own 'Portillo Moment'. We can only hope.

Personal abuse belongs elsewhere according to two leftwing supersnowflakes complaining here (there is even a god and there's another confused one who is a saint is a god too -talk about pulling rank-is it Saint god or God saint !!)
Posters here are regularly using words(in full) like c*n* , b*ll*nd, w*nker and others to describe posters elsewhere
Shouldn't the leftwing supersnowflakes be more concerned with housekeeping and stopping such personal abuse on this forum rather than attacking others elsewhere?
Hypocrisy rules

Search engine says otherwise.  Why are you making up false stories?

 Jonksy celebrated the drowning of children. Why would you have a problem with someone who described him as a racist prick?

Red Rum

I'm more inclined to think that a significant proportion of older people didn't take much notice of any campaigns. They'd already lived for several decades under EU membership, as well as having a reasonably clear recollection of how power and influence would most likely again be allocated should the decision revert to being self governing.

The so called campaigners only had one vote allocated the same as the rest of us, it wasn't as if they were standing to be Prime Minister or to become a member of Parliament, in which case we'd have felt more duty bound to listen to them. I think it was more a case of what aspect of EU membership, or the loss of it, most interested you ...... for instance if it was Sovereignty, then it was what Constitutional experts might be saying, if it was the balance of payments or Industry, you'd take notice of what the Economists, Company bosses or Trade Union leaders were saying. The fact that the Media gave most air time to Politicians who the General Public don't rank too highly in the first place as regards truth telling, or being a reliable source of accurately predicting the future, just brought about the predictable accusations and counter accusations from the 'campaigns', and those of us longer in the tooth, in may instances thought we'd had enough experience of life under the EU to decide whether we liked it sufficiently to want more of it, or disliked it sufficiently to take the Exit door when it was at long last on offer.

Of course the same criticisms were made during Covid. The News Conferences etc, and Government scientists such as Whitty were there to be quizzed and the question always arose, why didn't the Telegraph or the BBC ever send their Science Correspondents to ask more pertinent questions, rather than the likes of Beth Rigby or Peston, and the long winded drivel they'd come out with ( a bit reminiscent of this post actually   )

Did exit polls reveal that younger members of the electorate had been more gullible when subjected to Project Fears forebodings re millions more unemployed, a stock market crash to rival Wall Street in 1929, and not forgetting the plague of locusts ?, or had the more elderly swallowed stories of the enticing prospect of a milk and honey golden past being recreated ..... with a slim chance of compulsory repatriation for our darker skinned citizens not being entirely discounted, if only we could break free from Brussels ?

In the end it all comes down to opinion. Does Keir Starmer see an attraction in giving the vote to 16 year olds precisely because he believes they are more able to be manipulated by older people, and he's fairly confident of the views held by a particular group of older people who have more interaction with 16 year olds than most of us ?  Hook Keir up to a lie detector, and I'm fairly certain I could predict the verdict