Patronising suggestion on lowering voting age

Call the newsdesk on 01780 758951 or e-mail smeditor@stamfordmercury.co.uk SUS-170809-161328001
Call the newsdesk on 01780 758951 or e-mail smeditor@stamfordmercury.co.uk SUS-170809-161328001

From: Edward Thomas

Collington Close

Blaise Tapp makes some useful points about the question of the voting age being reduced (November 10).

But he moves on to shakier ground when questioning the stance ‘that under-18s lack the political knowledge or maturity required’.

Leaving aside his somewhat patronising suggestion that the same probably applies to 90 per cent of adults, one wonders where the numbering might stop. If 16- and 17-year-olds are reckoned to be worthy of the vote, why not 14 or 12-year-olds, or those younger still?

If we stuck to the commonsense notions of what society decrees is not desirable below a certain age, we would arrive at the appropriate yardstick.

Below what age is it possible to smoke, drink, buy fireworks, gamble, get a tattoo, drive a car on a full licence, buy a house even if the means are to hand, get married without parental permission or be sent to an adult prison?

Surely all that should be reasonable enough to provide us with an answer.