The Sunday Telegraph’s article reporting on how Labour is planning to give 16-year-olds the vote should come as no surprise—politicians always prefer voters who are easier to fool. Keir Starmer and his mixed band of thugs and of managerial authoritarians know well that younger voters are more likely to swallow their empty promises and performative virtue-signalling. So, rather than attempting to win over sceptical, experienced voters, they’ll simply redefine the electorate to their advantage.

The cynicism of the plan is shown by their simultaneous enthusiasm for lowering the voting age while keeping 16-year-olds legally classified as children in every other respect. You can’t buy a pint at 16. You can’t sign a legally binding contract. If you commit a crime, you’re tried in a youth court, because the state considers you incapable of full moral responsibility. I shall still need my fake ID to live as I please. Yet Labour would have us believe that these same schoolchildren are somehow ready to vote for a government.

As the Telegraph notes, Labour’s plan is not a response to popular demand. This is a calculated electoral strategy. If this was truly about broadening democracy, the Ministers would support lowering the tax burden on young workers. They would support policies that allow young people to get onto the housing ladder. But, of course, they won’t. Because they don’t actually want young people to have more direction of their lives—they just want their votes.

And who, precisely, would these new voters be? Schoolchildren processed in schools that are indoctrination factories for ruling class lies. A generation that has been force-fed climate hysteria and a steady diet of anti-British propaganda: of course, Labour wants to get to them before reality does.

The truth is that too many people vote already. Universal suffrage was at least a mistake. Enfranchising poor men was bad enough: letting women vote was a disaster. Democracy, as practised in the modern West is a fraud. The sooner we can move beyond it, the better it will be. Even so, once the collapse has happened, and the dust has settled, we shall probably do well to have some kind of electoral element in the new order. So, here are my proposed franchise qualifications: married male Christians over the age of thirty, with at least two ancestors listed as present in the modern territory of the United Kingdom at the time of the 1891 census. I might further suggest giving one extra vote per child.

The Christian test I fancy is swearing belief the Apostle’s Creed. I have no particular need myself for an Imaginary Friend in the sky—but I’d have no trouble swearing; nor would anyone else I think suitable to vote in elections. Nor, after a mass-unfrocking and a few threats of burning, would the Church of England put up any resistance to supervising the process.

Oh, and, and for the avoidance of doubt, I’d have the same general qualification for candidates and all offices of profit under the Crown—assuming, that is, we bother keeping our presently sorry apology for a monarchy. Notice, I haven’t mentioned property as a qualification. That might have done nicely before 1914. Since then, I suggest, the kind of rich we’ve acquired almost scream for disfranchisement. After that, we might as well hit them with a wealth tax. Yes, how about a country that limits power and wealth to those who contribute to the country rather, than to those who simply exist within it?

But this is another matter. Coming back to the Starmer Regime and its election-rigging plan, there is nothing we can do to stop it. The Conservatives deserved their wipe out last year. Sadly, this has left us with the inconvenience of a Labour Government with a big majority and big ambitions to stay clamped to the feeding tube of the taxpayers’ money forever and ever. I suppose we shall have to put up with that until someone in the armed forces can find a backbone. Looking at the Starmer plan to fix the vote, I’m not sure the next election will give us even the lesser of two evils.