This excuse for a journalist is seriously in favour of lowering the voting age to children as young as 6! Yes you read that correctly. The article is inspired by some political theorist called John Wall.
Runciman says “Climate politics would probably rise more rapidly up the political agenda” if children were enfranchised. I’m sure it would, because their little heads are rammed with this shit and they don’t have the nous to counter argue. Children believe anything you tell them. Don’t most 6 year olds believe in Santa Claus?
Runciman also says because children can’t vote and most voters are old that it leads to policies that ensure “Pensions will get protected while student debt goes unaddressed. The interests of mortgage payers will be prioritised over the interests of renters.” He caps off his article with slagging off the EU referendum result, noting that 70% of the under-30s voted to remain and it made no difference.
This guy seems to have managed to expose most of the lefty agendas all in one article, from the love of the EU, hatred of the aging, centre right-leaning population, to climate change. I’d give him a pat on the back if it wasn’t for the fact that I think he’s a sinister cunt. By which I mean it is sinister to believe children as young as 6 are somehow old enough to be responsible and can deal with manifestos and complex political argument. If he thinks they can do that then why not 6 year old jurors? Idiot. No, no, no. Adults look after children. Children need protection and education, not a fucking election.
I hope this twat get his wish and watches a future government face a lobby group of 6 year olds demanding ‘free toys’ and a big chunk of his pension gets diverted to pay for it.
Nominated by: Cuntologist
