Unless we end up with a Labour government.
I asked Erica Stanford and Carmel Sepuloni about Starmer's move in the UK this morning.
Erica was a hard no. Didn't like it.
Sepuloni loved the change. She said it’s progressive and it's where we should be heading. However, she didn't say if Labour would campaign on it - because they're currently a party with no policy.
The whole thing's a non-starter anyway... because this country has much bigger problems than whether 16-year-olds can vote.
And even if we did go there you would surely have to take another look at the drinking age and the justice system.
As one of our viewers pointed out this morning: 16 and 17 year olds are currently dealt with by the youth justice system, unless the crime is really serious, like murder.
So how can you have a 16-year-old electing adults to make laws when the consequences for breaking them don't apply equally to them.
It's been a wonderful academic exercise today chatting about lowering the voting age, but the reality is it won’t happen anytime soon.
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
We should increase our voting age to 21 again. Our country was so much better off when 21 was our voting age, but Norm Kirk lowered it to increase the left wing vote. He knew people under 21 just want to spend other people's money like he did. Also, while 18 is officially the age of criminal responsibility, offenders that age still get discounts because of lack of maturity and because their brain hasn't developed. If all voters had developed brains, the Greens wouldn't even be in Parliament and Labour would be relying on the welfare vote.
Somehow I remember NZ was a far better place when the voting age was 21...... Or were people then better educated and real critical thinkers? Todays young folk are simply manipulated by media of all kinds... y'know, whatever it is brainwashing them on their headphones......
Lowering the age will bump up the left's share of the vote as younger people tend to be more idealistic and accepting of left-wing propaganda and proposed schemes.
16 year olds are mostly still in school and subject to the influence of the Teachers' Union. Also more likely to be influenced by celebrity endorsements.
Social engineering at its worst. Be very afraid. Another nail in the UK's coffin - and would be the end of our battered democracy in NZ after Labour's indoctrination job on Education. In these strange times, only people paying tax on assets and income and in work should have the right to vote..... they are keeping the country afloat.
Sepuloni, your intentions are sooooo obvious. At least Stanford has said something blunt and clear.... and right.
Further to my comment. Voters should be adult (21ys+} workers or retired workers. Unemployed.. no vote, Prisoners... no vote, Migrants... no vote until fully Naturalised NZ citizens...
Sepuloni, the woman that brought in the naming of a child's father not a welfare requirement. A mental giant and a champion of personal responsibility - yeah right, and one that's cost this country a fortune!
Glan011 you'd have my vote. No taxation without representation and, of course, vice versa. If you haven't or don't contribute, why should you have a say how the money's spent?
The UK has sealed its fate as a basket case.
Thank you. Not standing... just stirring. Too old!! Somebody has to stir this lot!!!
You're welcome, and indeed they do!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.