Should people be given the vote at 16 rather than as at present as in all Britain’s European partners at
Should people be given the vote at 16, rather than, as at present, as in all Britain’s European partners, at 18? Lord Falconer said the Government was concerned about the lack of participation of young people in politics, and suggested that lowering the voting age might address this. Furthermore, he also raised the possibility that the lower age limit at which someone can become a Member of Parliament might be lowered from 21 to 18. All this is being presented with the utmost seriousness.The first thing to say is that lowering the voting age would not place Britain in the vanguard of countries valuing democratic freedoms. Somehow, a silly idea had been floated in the think-tank on a quiet Friday morning, and before anyone could dismiss it, the idea had got into the newspapers where it would die a noisy death.
But apparently not.
Or, since it was not quite that, perhaps a piece of blue-skies thinking emanating from some policy wonk who had started to wonder out loud without too much contemplation. At first, I thought this must be a joke. If this is the kind of operation we will be involved with the US, we had better be prepared for far more men, not fewer. And all the sophisticated weaponry in the world will not help us much.But is this the kind of operation we will have more of and should it be? As Geoffrey Hoon today plods dutifully though his array of Future Integrated Soldier Technology (Fist), Networked Enabled Capability, Effects-Based Operations and all the other high-flown concepts that the ministry use to give an air of modernity, someone needs to ask: “what is it all for?”a.hamilton independent.co.uk
More from Adrian Hamilton. The intelligence gaps were abysmal, and there is nothing in the evidence before the Hutton inquiry that should give any confidence that they will be better on future occasions. Its suggestion of a European Security Commission to move things along is just as potentially important as anything in the defence white paper.Even on strictly military grounds, the Iraq invasion has shown there is far more to meeting the defence needs of the future than Donald Rumsfeld’s doctrine of speed and mobility, which the British are now following. For most other wars and peacekeeping operations we need a lighter, better equipped and more highly trained force that can act alone or in association with others as the need dictates.But what exactly are these needs? If the primary British interest is in its own security – as it surely must – then it could be argued that any increase in expenditure would be far better directed to intelligence-gathering and police operations, not on more toys for the boys (and girls?) in the forces.
It is through old-fashioned forensic work that we stand the best chance of containing terror, and through the sharing of information and the co-ordination of activity at an international level that we stand the best chance of defeating it.Only recently, the UN was warning how far behind we are in the pursuit of money trails in the hunt for al-Qa’ida, while this week the Centre for European Reform was warning of the gaps in European co-operation. For the future the Government assumes that any major fighting will be in association with the Americans – with their heavy lift capacity and heavier firepower. In hard military terms of what we are doing – the troops we now have deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland – it makes sense. The media is only interested in how well he can manage himself as he stumbles towards oblivion.He has a story to tell on defence But no one will listen to it. And if they do it will be only to indulge in the age-old parliamentary slanging match over “defence cuts” – which regiments, which ships and what tanks will be dropped in the drive towards a hi-tech mobile force.But the truth is that today’s report should have been presented alongside the foreign policy review, and by a minister committed to its importance.
