On this week’s episode of London Calling, James Delingpole and I discuss my recent bout of Covid, No-Vaxx Djokovic’s battle with the Australian immigration authorities, the Colston 4, the prospect of two new political parties (Jeremy Corbyn’s and Gina Miller’s), the unvaxxed doctor who confronted Sajid Javid and, in Culture Corner, Don’t Look Up and District 9.
You can listen to the podcast here and subscribe on iTunes here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My father and I started work well before the age of 16. Do we get additional votes to make up for our deprivation.
No, thought not. The 16 year olds the Labour Party wants to harvest live in particular places and their pard TS subscribe to particular (currently minority) views.
Voting?
Age should be 25. Only those currently paying taxes can vote. Women raising a family can vote if their husband is paying taxes. If retired or unemployed prove you paid into the system for 10 years. No welfare queens, invaders, criminals or students can vote.
Mass voting is a sham and scam. It is not a ‘right’. Plundering others is not natural law.
Postal voting should be restricted – as it used to be – to members of the Armed Forces and the Diplomatic Corps serving overseas, and to people who cannot physically get to a Polling Station (doctor’s certificate needed).
Otherwise the whole thing is wide open to fraud, coercion and intimidation.
A recent case in point: In the Rochdale By-election 43% of the entire vote was by postal voting. Of those postal votes, 92% were for Galloway.
Go figure.
“In the Rochdale By-election 43% of the entire vote was by postal voting. Of those postal votes, 92% were for Galloway.”
That was the Imams sending out the troops to collect the postal votes. God knows how many of those postal votes were legitimate and how many “voters” had more than one vote.
Corrupt. Damn right.
Kind of agree, but not so sure about the voting rules for women. Why would having a husband make your opinion more correct? And what if the guy’s out of work? They can’t vote because of their employment status? Feminism has gone way too far, but we’ve got to be careful we don’t follow the same path. We have to get our noses out of the shite.
Democracy is a privilege, not a right. I’d make the voting age 30. Why should kids choose our leaders. Their experience of life is living with their parent, where the biggest choice they have to make is burgers or fish fingers for tea.
Mark Twain wrote, ‘When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant, I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he had learned.’
The only thing that needs to change is Labours corrupt Muslim postal vote. Get rid of the postal vote and almost all Muslim women disappear off the turnout. Let’s be honest here, Muslim women: do they get to vote as they wish? Hell, half of them aren’t allowed out of the house!
Dropping the age to 16 is a blatant stab at getting stupid kids, wet behind the ears, votes. Who of you wasn’t a Communist or Socialist when you were 15/16? I was, I thought it was a great idea that everybody would be equal. By 18 I grew up and voted accordingly. Some never grow up and would vote for a dead dog with a red rosette and claim it had great ideas.
Did it occur to labour Low Command that this could massively backfire on them because of their preachy teachers telling the kids the planet is frying as they wander aimlessly around in the rain? Seems logical they’d do a Mad Greta and vote Green.
Looking at the comments, I seem to be alone on this one (and believe me I am no Starmer fan) but I can see his point; if you can become part of the adult world in other ways, you deserve a say in how it’s run, in my opinion. I’ve known plenty of 16 year olds who would vote as sensibly (by that I mean they’ve come to their decision in a sensible way, not that I agree with their vote necessarily) as any adult I know.
Having said that I’m sure Sir Keir is well aware that younger vote would benefit him and his party, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the wrong thing to do.
It’s his motive that is the issue, he suggests it because he knows it gives him an advantage, just the same as he would never suggest tightening down on his corrupt Muslim postal vote. Now, if the Muslims turn on him, as they will eventually do, watch how fast he wants to change the postal votes.
No matter how plausible anything that man says is do not accept it. He never, ever says anything unless there is something in it for him.
I’m sure he does have an ulterior motive as I said above, but I still don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong in itself.
How many kids start work at 16 and pay tax?
How many 16-year-olds in the army have fought or confronted an enemy?
Following Starmer’s logic, kids should be considered adults at 16 so can get married without consent, buy and smoke tobacco, buy and drink alcohol, gamble, see X rated movies, buy porn, get a full driving licence, have their own credit card, get a mortgage etc.
His argument does not stand up to scrutiny, the man is an idiot.
And how many 16-year-olds have the independence of mind to cast a vote, most can’t even wipe their own backsides.
In a proper democracy a super majority in both houses and a referendum would be needed to make such a change to the participants in decision making.