Urban myth I suspect, looking at the poll above. And considering 16 and 17 year olds are all broke and regard anyone with more than 50p in the bank as being loaded and therefore fair game for higher taxes.Don’t we always hear that Reform have the youth vote sewn up through their clever use of Tik Tok algorithms?
YouGov's latest voting intention poll for 18 to 24 year olds, puts Labour at 28%, followed by the Greens on 26% and the Liberal Democrats on 20%.
In contrast, the Tories on 9% and Reform UK on 8%.
We absolutely need to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote to, er, strengthen democracy. Voting intentions surely have nothing to do with it.
Nope...I haven't waded through umpteen recent pages but have I got this right?
People who've been critical of Labour for breaking manifesto promises (or doing things that weren't mentioned in the manifesto "but should have been") are now up in arms because Labour is keeping a manifesto pledge to lower voting age...
But didn't I read someone on here saying the manifesto was only a wish list?
No, fair enough if it was in the manifesto it is arguably what people voted for so no complaints from me, however personally I think it's too young. As someone has already mentioned, it's the 12 year olds plus they need to canvass about voting intentions because they are the people we are talking about. It is quite likely they will be heavily influenced by their parents, hence why, given Reforms national popularity, they seem to be coming out of this favourably. This does not bode well for the future IMO as people who genuinely detest Reform may feel the impact of this decision... could this be a big own goal by Labour?
I haven't waded through umpteen recent pages but have I got this right?
People who've been critical of Labour for breaking manifesto promises (or doing things that weren't mentioned in the manifesto "but should have been") are now up in arms because Labour is keeping a manifesto pledge to lower voting age...
Urban myth I suspect, looking at the poll above. And considering 16 and 17 year olds are all broke and regard anyone with more than 50p in the bank as being loaded and therefore fair game for higher taxes.
Plus 4 years is a long time until next election. That's a lot of time to get your social media brainwashing working if you are Labour.
I suppose the question we have to ask ourselves is is her basic premise wrong? I struggle to see anything remotely wrong in what she is saying.
People use the term racism far too loosely, you only have to look at the immigration debate on here. Not wanting immigration isn’t in itself racist, not wanting immigrants of a certain ethnicity would be. After all we are blessed with an English language is rich in words and there are perfectly suitable words to describe someone who does not want immigration (or high immigration). Sadly racism (at least antidotally for me) is on the rise, social media allows this toxic messaging on its platforms and the algorithms do the rest - I posted previously how I paused on a post that I thought was about history (which I love) but ended up just being racist shit and my feed was then inundated for a few days from one post, these cunts that want to get folk worked up about something or other know exactly what they are doing and how to snare folk. @BlueHammer85 Is spot on when he rants about social media. I don’t know the answers or where to begin other than to turn it off, except BM!
To your second point, you may well be right, Abbott may well have provoked this fight so she can cuddle up with Corbyn again of course. It would make an element of sense. If so Starmer has shown again he isn’t very strategic and walked straight in to her trap.
Reform has failed every single scrutiny test so far. They're only doing well because they dominate the immigration argument but their solutions are still extremely weak and limited to populist soundbites.100% something I have been saying for quite a while now. Both main parties have proven themselves to be incapable of running the country.
As for Reforms current popularity, say what you like, call me all the names under the sun but it is 100% a reflection of Labours abysmal performance in government.
You need to sort your caps lock key out mate, or is that you trying to be trendy‘’CoUldn’T bE anY woRSe ‘’
Her latest statement is in line with much of what she's said before, for her racism is white on black racism, all other forms of so called "racism" are either gradations of prejudice or white fear of replacement, bastardisation or corruption of bloodline like the Nuremberg Laws of 1935: the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which outlined the fascist rationale for the persecution of Jews and underpinned the Holocaust.Having listened to the interview, I don't think it was. I do believe she's misrepresenting what she said in the first place. If she'd not gone further in her initial letter, she wouldn't have had a problem in the first place.
I've just said in my reply to DK that it sounds to me like she's setting up a straw man in the R4 interview, by making a different, more reasonable argument, and then suggesting her critics were silly to disagree.
Trendy? Really... is that trendy?You need to sort your caps lock key out mate, or is that you trying to be trendy
You need to sort your caps lock key out mate, or is that you trying to be trendy
For a lot of people I think it comes down to not Labour and not Conservative.
Those considering it more thoughtfully I suspect are interested in reducing immigration, and also critically, getting the state off our backs, getting rid of woke shite, DEI and other such bollocks, and giving people personal freedoms back. People want less meddling with their lives, I think.
Her latest statement is in line with much of what she's said before, for her racism is white on black racism, all other forms of racism are either gradations of prejudice or white fear of replacement, bastardisation or corruption of bloodline like the Nuremberg Laws of 1935: the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which outlined the fascist rationale for the persecution of Jews and underpinned the Holocaust.
Put simply for Abbott racism is white on black racism, all other racisms are a fetish for eugenics. Powerful white folk drawing a circle round the white racial ideal and persecuting the untermenschen (subhuman) who threaten the pure bloodline of the white master race, hence the animosity between the Teuton and the Slav that underpinned both world wars
That's why Abbott sees racism as a white problem, but more than that, and this is the issue, for her it's a problem that stems from whiteness and it has always been thus. Hence white folk have historically persecuted black folk and continue to do so to this day because black folk not only pose an existential threat to whiteness through inter breeding, like "lesser" white races did for the Nazis, but, and this is the crux, black folk are not even untermenschen like the slavs were for the Nazis, they're not inferior versions of whiteness, they're something else, they're not white at all and as whiteness defines what it is to be human then blacks are not just lesser humans they're lesser beings entirely, hence the slave ships where black folk were treated like cattle, hence the inhumanity shown to George Floyd, hence BLM.
So what you're effectively saying is that you don't want to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote because it's likely they'll vote for a party you don't like. Why don't you just go the whole hog and say that everyone who isn't going to vote Tory or Reform should be excluded from voting? ;)YouGov's latest voting intention poll for 18 to 24 year olds, puts Labour at 28%, followed by the Greens on 26% and the Liberal Democrats on 20%.
In contrast, the Tories on 9% and Reform UK on 8%.
We absolutely need to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote to, er, strengthen democracy. Voting intentions surely have nothing to do with it.
Apparently, you can’t join the army (I.e. fight for ‘your country’) after your 43rd birthday which, going off the logic of many on here, means you shouldn’t be able to vote if you’re 44 or older…So what you're effectively saying is that you don't want to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote because it's likely they'll vote for a party you don't like. Why don't you just go the whole hog and say that everyone who isn't going to vote Tory or Reform should be excluded from voting? ;)
Arguments about race are certainly complex, but I don't think her initial letter was. She was responding to this article https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ck-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated, and her reply, which very clearly stated she didn't think white people faced racism, and then added the comment about people with red hair also facing prejudice, was condemned across the board. Given the context of the article, about abuse/assaults faced by various ethnic groups, and the scrutiny Labour was under, it made pretty grim reading.
Her apology was made very quickly, and, despite the curious comments about it being a draft, was very clear, and appeared genuine. Certainly not the non-apology that many politicians make.
As I said, I completely agree that what she said yesterday was much more reasonable, and she could have made that argument many times without anyone batting an eyelid. In the context of it being a response to that article, it was always a very loaded response, and it appeared at the time that she regretted what she said. What disappointed me, is that by suggesting she had no regrets about the incident, setting up the straw man, and then claiming her critics were silly, she's clearly rowing back on the apology.
Dried up lately mate :-)
And I happen to think they might have some success with that.It's funny to watch the Reform lovers on here moan and flap about the youth having a vote, guess their main hope is filtering social media with racist spam and try and influence them that way.