Skip to content

Tim Farron is an idiot

It is hypocrisy of the worst kind to argue against votes at 16 for the EU referendum. The government accepts that at 16 you are mature enough to serve in the Armed Forces, be married and pay tax, and they should now give these same people the right to vote.

The government also states that if you take a selfie of your 16 year old naked tits and send it to the 19 year old bloke you’re quite legally fucking then he is in possession of child pornography.

That’s not an argument in favour of you having the vote, is it?

And the Telegraph subs are wrong again:

EU votes at 16: if you’re old enough to fight, you’re old enough to vote

Boy soldiers do not fight these days. Serve yes, battlefields no.

25 thoughts on “Tim Farron is an idiot”

  1. It is generally accepted, that after a lifetime of seeing hard earned taxes disappear into the pockets of the workshy and the duckhouse owning elite, a person will generally shift to the right of politics as they get older.

    We have an aging population, so the left needs to get their votes somewhere, bussing in immigrants just is not cutting it nowadays.

  2. And isn’t it Lib Dem policy that 16 year olds are too young to leave school?

    Furthermore, I doubt many Lib Dems think marrying at 16 is a good idea.

  3. Yep this is idiocy and hypocrisy.

    1) anyone pays tax if they buy a VAT product or earn over the PA. child stars pay income tax. It isn’t anything to do with age.

    2) both getting married and joining the army at 16 requires parental consent ( in Scotland marriage isn’t though I think)

    Ergo we allow these things to 16 year olds to transition then to adulthood under adult supervision. Similar to when parents begin allowing their 16 year olds to begin drinking the occasional alcoholic drink in the home. How can you be regarded as an adult if certain things are prohibited or only proscribed by adult authority.

    These wankers need to have a think about why they think such inconsistent bullshit. Only those wanting to make 16 year olds full legal adults can agitate consistsantly for this guardian reading pussy cause.

  4. A local rag had a vox pop about “Should we accept Syrian refugees?”. On the day they couldn’t manage to find anyone to ask older than 24–a marked contrast to the crusties who make up their usual vox pops.

    The young and dumb vote for the left–it is that simple. Farron is an EU-sucking turd but I understand from friends that he has jumped thro’ hoops to look out for his voting base and that is why he was a Lib Dem survivor.

  5. Voting at 16? I guess I would have voted tribally, in line with my parents…influenced to a limited extent by my peer group. We can argue certain teenager’s votes are as valid as adult voters a decade older, depending on the relative level of education…that you can only vote if paying taxes, contributing – which teenagers loaded with smart phones and designer wear doubtless are. And yes I appreciate the VAT paid is courtesy of the pocket money they receive from their parents – but you could say the same about people that live off the public purse or on tax credits and benefits.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    When this boy soldier joined at 15 the age for active service was 17.5 years. SE is more in touch bit IIRC it was raised to 18 some time ago.

    As I see it with votes for 16 year-olds if, as a group, they are wise enough to have a major impact on my life they are wise enough to go in to pubs and drink alcohol, start smoking and stand trial as adults.

  7. A 10 year old child actor pays tax – should they have the vote? BTW A friend’s 17 year old wanted to join the army recently – their dad had to sign permission. So this
    “The government accepts that at 16 you are mature enough to serve in the Armed Forces”
    is technically true but not really honest. It is sort of Bill Clinton honest.

  8. BTW A friend’s 17 year old wanted to join the army recently – their dad had to sign permission. So this
    “The government accepts that at 16 you are mature enough to serve in the Armed Forces” is technically true but not really honest.

    Okay – so you can join at 16 (I joined at 17, back in the Dark Ages). And, when I joined, prior to the UK ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, as BiND says, you couldn’t go on active service until 17½.

    With that ratification, the age for active service was raised to 18, although we have made mistakes from time to time and people have been sent back from war zones to sit in barracks for a month or two.

    Most joining at 16 will go in to one of the longer training programmes – the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, for example (it used to be the Army Apprentice College until the Army was ordered to get in line with the govt’s Modern Apprenticeship Scheme – those are now done in-line with standard basic and trade training), so wouldn’t be available for “active service” before they were 18 anyway.

  9. It is curiously oppositional to the the otherwise consistent infantilisations of the modern Left; raising the ages to drink, smoke, have sex, leave school, etc etc. So it would appear to be pure gerrymandering of the vote. It is however a refreshing admission that the more naive and unworldly you are, the more likely you are to vote “left”.

  10. So a teacher must his (her) class of 17-year-old girls (boys) and say: ” Yes, we think you are old enough to decide the future our country, but not old enough to make an informed decision on my sexual advances. Those would be labelled predatory and I would serve time.”

  11. In 1914 most men under 30 didn’t have a vote but they were allowed to join the army and fight at 18 (officially 18 – there are 15-year-ods buried in Flanders). So saying that if you can join as a non-combatant at 16, all 16-year-olds should have the vote doesn’t cut any ice.,

  12. Naked attempt to gerrymander votes but par for the course- having lost much of their vote through abortion on demand (a classic example of the law of unforeseen consequence) the Left needs to get votes from somewhere – as the great Runcie Balspune points out immigration, and the resultant fraud encouraged and abetted by Labour and the Libdems isn’t cutting the mustard.

    I would actually be looking at raising the voting age to 21 on the grounds that 18 – 20 year olds are too self- evidently idiotic to be trusted with it (if the 16 year old was in the forces they would be given the vote) and certainly given some of the terrible female candidates elected by misandrist shortlists in the SNP and Labour, saying nobody under 30 should be allowed to be an MP – this might at least provide a slim chance of reversing some of the utterly catastrophic political decisions of the last 25 years….

  13. Bloke in Costa Rica

    VP’s idea has shades of the Starship Troopers idea about it: you can vote at less than age X but only if you are a member of HM Forces. It would certainly counter the “old enough to fight” motif.

  14. Lib Dem party policy is to have a single age of majority at 16, and has been for at least 17 years, because I was still under 26 when we passed it.

    There was something of a scandal a while ago when the conference passed a motion proposing lowering the age to perform in and watch pornography from 18 to 16. (note that the date on this article is wrong – it references Charles Kennedy as leader, which he certainly wasn’t in 2014).

    So yeah, the Lib Dems are being completely consistent about this.

    PS, Lib Dems are opposed to raising the school leaving age to 18; people should be able to leave at 16 if they want to. We did compromise on that one with the Tories during the coalition, so Lib Dem MPs did vote for something they oppose. Wouldn’t be much of a compromise if you didn’t vote for things you disagree with, would it?

  15. If we’re introducing Starship Troopers as evidence then perhaps female suffrage should be contingent on… no, perhaps I should leave this thread alone.

  16. You’re “mature enough” to pay tax at the age of one second. Paying income tax is entirely and utterly dependant on your income, NOT your age. Daniel Ratcliffe was paying income tax at 12 year old, by that argument 12-year-olds should have the vote.

    16-year-olds being able to join the army is an argument to stop it, not an argument to allow 16-year-old CHILDREN to be given the ADULT right to vote.

    If we’re giving the right to vote based on “being mature enough”, when are the examination centres being set up? It will certainly make campaigining efforts easier when 90% of the electoral roll is culled.

  17. The logic that you should have some representation for your taxation means that the 2 million + EU nationals legally resident and working in the UK should have the vote here. ( Currently they only get to vote in local elections )
    I suspect Tim Farron and his lefty ilk don’t want them to have the vote on national issues as a lot of them can still remember their world before 1989 and even though the UK ain’t perfect they would prefer to take their chances under non-socialism, thanks.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    If 16 year olds expressed a fondness for ukip Tim Farron would be at the front leading the troops against giving the the vote.

  19. EU nationals in the UK also get to vote in EU elections, don’t they?

    In fact, they can also vote for the various teeny-weeny parlies: it is only a General Election that they don’t get a say in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *