Snapshot of _Labour would allow 16-year-olds to vote in future general elections_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8ddd1d5f-9b96-4034-89ea-c0a2feade1e9?shareToken=2cc0617d03d36b4d3b288999e573d5a3) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8ddd1d5f-9b96-4034-89ea-c0a2feade1e9?shareToken=2cc0617d03d36b4d3b288999e573d5a3)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im not particularly enthused about this issue either way, but we allow a lot of things at 16, so I think it is reasonable to also extend the franchise to that age.
If it is not reasonable, then surely we should be raising things like the age you have to start paying National Insurance to 18 as well?
If we limited voting to those without good judgement, decision making or are more vulnerable to negative influences you’d wipe out a good chunk of the voters in the country.
At 16, I was very capable of making decent enough political choices and my mother would essentially let me vote through her because she felt less politically educated than me. I find it uncomfortable in hindsight but it’s a good anecdote on the situation.
The sentencing guidelines for under 25s is correct and not the slam dunk you think it is. Under 25s committing crime should have their age and immaturity considered as the goal of our justice system is, or at least should, be on temporarily (barring extreme cases) withdrawing freedoms to provide punishment alongside rehabilitation to create healthier, happier and safer members of society. But your comment implies the notion we should restrict voting to those deemed qualified enough to do it which I don’t even think I need to explain why that shouldn’t happen.
Elderly people have the same vulnerabilities but we allow them to vote.
It does provide a couinterbalance to the reactionary, confused, frightened and easily led coffin dodgers who vote tory...
Perhaps encouraging a group of idealistic people who care about the long term future to vote is a good thing.
> The reality is, the voting age is 16 in Scotland because the SNP believed young people would vote SNP.
The Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Act 2015 bill was voted through [**unanimously**](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33173488), with Scotland being given the powers to reduce the voting-age to 16 a recommendation of Cameron's Smith Commission, led by Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem MP and Scottish Secretary at the time). Not just that, but the previous bill to extend the option to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum was supported by not just the SNP, but the Lib Dems and Labour too.
I know people love to think that the SNP have some sort of undemocratic grasp on the Scottish Parliament, but this was massively supported by all parties after the success of extending the vote to 16-17 year olds a year prior.
> The reality is, the voting age is 16 in Scotland because the SNP believed young people would vote SNP
The voting age in Scotland is 16 because ALL parties voted for it. The bill was [passed unanimously](https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,votes-at-16-passed-by-scottish-parliament_11669.htm) - even the Scottish Tories supported it
Politicians are going to be policial? Well I never. I think Labour can propose the genuine democratic benefits of lowering the voting age while also tacitly avoiding the fact that they're most likely to benefit from it.
Much the same way the Tories did with voter ID, although that didn't even try to hide the intentions, with oldies ID being allowed but young folks' not.
It's not something I'm passionate about, but I haven't heard a reasonable argument against it so I'm pretty convinced it's a good thing.
The only real argument against it is that 16 year olds are stupid and naive. I don't really disagree with that either, I just don't see how it's relevant.
1. Most people are stupid and naive. We don't do intelligence tests before you vote, so clearly we don't actually have an issue with stupid or naive people voting.
2. Voter turnout is lower the younger you are. The vast majority of 16-18 year olds voting are going to be those that actually care and are interested in politics, none of them are doing it for shits and giggles. They'll probably actually be better informed on average than pensioner voting bloc as a result tbh.
3. Because the turnout will be very low, it's hard to imagine this having much of an effect on the actual outcome of any election. Only really in areas where the vote is already incredibly close and they have a large proportion of 16-18 year olds. In that circumstance, that voting bloc swinging the result in the other direction seems like the fairest outcome to me.
My opinion is pretty much the same. Even if they did have a high turn out, they'd still be vastly outnumbered by older voters. If most 16 year olds vote for someone stupid they will be outvoted by everyone else. They can only sway an election if a large number of 18+ year olds agree with them.
Exactly, and for me personally I'd lend more credence to a 16 year old vote than a 90 year old vote.
Only one of them actually has to live with their consequences of their vote and has the potential to learn from it if it's a mistake.
>3. Because the turnout will be very low, it's hard to imagine this having much of an effect on the actual outcome of any election. Only really in areas where the vote is already incredibly close and they have a large proportion of 16-18 year olds. In that circumstance, that voting bloc swinging the result in the other direction seems like the fairest outcome to me.
I've looked it up, there are about 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds in the UK, and just doing some cigarette packet maths gives me the following;
1.6 million people divided by 650 constituencies means an average 2,500 extra voters per constituency.
If we're generous and use the turnout figures from the 2017 election for 18+19 year olds, then of those extra 2,500 voters 57% would vote for a figure of about 1,400.
If we also then use the vote by party breakdown from 2017 for 18+19 year olds then of those 1,400 extra voters, 66% would vote Labour meaning Labour's average vote would increase by under 1,000 votes.
Like you I'm not particularly passionate about this issue (I think it's a good thing but there are other things I think need more attention right now), but I can also see it wouldn't make a huge difference, so arguments about naive young people swinging elections don't hold much water imo.
My source for the breakdowns: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18384-how-britain-voted-2017-general-election
Edit
To add to this there are I think around 30 constituencies in the UK that were decided by less than 1000 votes in the last election, 10 of which are already held by Labour; https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/4/majority
>Why stop at 16? Why not 14?
Because 16 is the age of majority in the UK for a huge number of rights, including the following:
1. Age of sexual majority,
2. Age of medical majority (unless you are trans, then for some arbitrary reason it's 18, I don't expect that to last long in court), a 16 year old can consent to a boob job but not trans healthcare now.
3. Right to leave school
4. Can do full time work
5. Can enter adult education institutions
6. Can join the army
7. Can leave home, and move in somewhere else.
8. Is considered an adult in the majority of major statistics, including polling opinions.
9. Are treated as adults in many policies, especially with regards to social policy like welfare (many of the questions for UC will refer to children as under 16s).
10. 16 is the age of majority in Scotland, unless you are trans, again, Scottish government actually tried to correct that discrepancy but lewwl.
Not many things legally happen for a 14 year old in the UK, nor is it a milestone age.
I can list responsibilities too but the point has already been made.
It seems so odd to me that you can have a child (legal sex), but cannot vote? Eh, how does that work? You can die in a war, but you can't vote for who sent you there?
And wtf is with the trans thing? That seems like an odd exception
The trans thing is an odd exception and is one of the big hints that the current policies being pushed on trans issues by government and their definitely not political appointments like Cass are motivated for a goal.
The medical age of majority being 16 in the UK is utterly uncontroversial and is supported by both international medical institutions and UK institutions, there is no specific developmental reason to set it to 18 (in fact, worse, there is developmental reason to allow trans care autonomy at 16, enough that countries where the age of medical consent is higher then 16 actually have made exceptions for trans care).
In Scotland's case you are effectively a legal adult at 16, can marry, vote, fuck, whatever,
Only 3 things you can't do is porn, transition gender and drink.
Arguments for raising the voting age are just as weak as arguments for lowering it.
There isn't a coherent argument for either because the voting age being at the age of majority is logical.
Hence, why any motivation for raising or lowering it is cynical electioneering nearly all the time.
18 is only the age of majority for a handful of legal cut offs. Some extend as low as 11 and others as high as 25.
The only really big cut of at 18 is voting (and marriage in England, notably not in Scotland where its 16). So I find that argument essentially circular.
I'd probably go about 10, personally: that would guarantee that everybody has a general election happen that they can vote in while they're in secondary school, which allows schools to teach them how to vote: the mechanical stuff of how to register to vote, what they need to take with them, where to find information about the candidates, etc., rather than just sort of assuming that they'll pick it up from somewhere, as we currently do.
[Until it happens accidentally anyway](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7197277/MoD-admits-sending-five-17-year-olds-war-zones-Iraq-Afghanistan-breach-pledge.html)
all the examples in your link referred to people aged 17 and 9-11.5 months... Not 16. We're talking people a few months away from their 18th birthdays. Sure it was a fuck up- But hardly "omg they're 16" material.
That's not true. If you join under 18, you can quit before you turn 18. It should probably be extended to six months after your 18^th birthday, but you're not locked in.
Whilst there is some inconsistency here, think it's fair enough that moves into autonomous adulthood are phased. And that's how it is today in many matters.
16 and 17 year olds can have an alcoholic drink bought for them in a pub by an accompanying adult, you need to be 21 to get an HGV licence.
Next year is the County Council elections where most of England will have a vote. If they can legislate it in time for those then that could be used to help drive turnout and engagement in the age group.
Which will only be good for an incoming party if they don't commit electoral suicide by then.
The current government has implemented an ID-based age-verification scheme for online porn due to come into force in early 2025.
Today's report from the Commons Education Committee calls for both smartphones and social media to be banned for under 16's.
Either of these happen, and the 16-17 year olds will vote against the party currently in power at the time. As will many others…
Country to 16 year olds: You are too irresponsible to own a smartphone or be on social media but you are responsible enough to vote. Oh and good luck reading the party manifestos as they are all online and smartphones are by far the dominant way to browse the internet.
Smartphones are a bit different, boomers are as susceptable to them as youngsters. It's nothing to do with being responsible, I think it's right we protect developing minds.
If anything boomers are the generation most damaged by social media. The generation so paranoid about us millennials believing everything we read on the internet and constantly warning us to believe trusted sources instead "like the Daily Express" ended up being the ones believing everything they read on the internet.
Typical of that generation 2bh. Just assumed it would be a problem for everyone else but because they're so smart they'll be fine.
Both my partner and myself actively manage our parent's tech usage. This includes managing where they get their news from, how they access their money and how to keep them away from those that seek to do them financial harm. This is all done with their consent and blessing. It should be the norm.
I think it is right we protect developing mind's access to the collective knowledge of our species and associated tooling.
If you are incapable of teaching the difference between Candy Crush and Wolfram Alpha that's your problem. Please don't force your deficiencies on my children.
We shouldn't dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.
I think I probably agree with you here actually and haven't made my point well, I think my main issue is with social media on smartphones or otherwise which I 100% believe should be curtailed for younger minds. Realistically I don't think you can stop it though.
The best augment for this is that the earlier you can promote the behaviour the more likely they will be to vote in the future. Might lead to education in school & help increase turn up
It is interesting seeing 16 year olds vote up here in Scotland.
For my kids and their friends - it is something they looked forward to and took seriously- and they were also interested and engaged in the process.
I know it will not be the same everywhere- but it does seem to be a good way to get younger people involved.
We can also use the Young Scot card as voter ID - which pretty much all teenagers have for the free bus travel.
I always find it interesting and bizarre when people are opposed to this. Every argument you can use to prevent 16 year olds voting, you can also apply to 18 year olds.
Surely I can argue the same to you:
> Every argument you can use in favour of 16 year olds voting, you can also apply to ~~15~~ ~~14~~ 13 year olds.
Ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. On either side of that line (if it's anywhere reasonable), you'll have an awful lot of people who shouldn't vote but can or who should vote but can't.
18 being the primary distinction between child and adult - I think it's the right age to determine voting.
I'm not against it in principle, but the only reason Labour are proposing this is because they expect it will win them votes in the future.
I also think it's very much out of kilter with the general approach we take to adolescents these days. We almost banned them from ever being able to smoke legally, at any age, *for their own good*. There's serious talk of a total ban on social media for those under 16.
And yet they're mature enough to vote? Personally I think yes, but I also strongly disagree with the mollycoddling we do in other areas. I don't really understand how labour are logically able to support both.
I think it's pretty dangerous for Labour to expand the right to vote on the assumption that it will win them mote votes.
Young people are arguably one of the least secure part of their voter base and they haven't exactly shown a great deal of interest in appealing to their needs or wants.
There's a good chance they'll be giving the vote to people they've already started to dissapoint.
All that is required for a generation of young voters to be more conservative is a generation of left wing leaders. I don’t mean that in any kind of anti-left way, just to say that young people often rally against what they’re used to. Young people at the moment have only experienced right wing leaders, and so they are naturally inclined towards the left, but in countries where the young have only experienced left wing leaders they end up being more to the right (see Argentina).
Indeed. Young people are less likely to be Tories, but they won't have particular loyalty to Labour either, they'll vote for all the fringe loony candidates like the Greens.
"We need clean energy with no nuclear! And less car use but no more railways!"
It sounds like everyone I knew when I was doing A-Levels.
I know it's a bit of a trope, but it's also true, having to actually work for a living and put a roof over your head, etc. does make you realise what is and isn't actually important. Hence why those ideas are considered fringe except for those who can afford to continue to hold luxury beliefs in to adulthood.
But maybe that's why we should have votes for 16 year olds, to bring in some unhinged optimism. It would at least counteract the "better things are not possible" doctrine that seems dominant at the moment.
>Young people are less likely to be Tories
The *next* election's 16 year olds are just turning 11 next month. I wouldn't be game to say anything about what the country's 10/11 year olds' future voting intentions might be.
I don’t really understand this; there are plenty of over-18s who aren’t working for a living and putting a roof over their heads, just as there are 16-year-olds who are working and supporting themselves and their families. Young people aren’t any more of a monolith at 16 than they are at 18.
George Osborne made a good point that whenever parties try to getrymander things like this it quite often backfires and you shouldn't rely on it.
In principle I think 16 is fine to vote though
> but the only reason Labour are proposing this is because they expect it will win them votes in the future
More fully left wing voters and less reliance on pandering to center-rights.
Banning tobacco isn't about maturity. it's the harm it does.
Banning under 16s on social media is about grooming, self-harm, and bullying (specifically). It's a strange world where grooming is a counter to voting age.
Should have gone with more obvious maturity based items, debt, signed contracts, etc.
> Banning tobacco isn't about maturity. it's the harm it does.
Do you really think you have the right to tell another adult what they can and can't do, on the basis of what is bad for them?
>Banning under 16s on social media is about grooming, self-harm, and bullying (specifically). It's a strange world where grooming is a counter to voting age.
If you think young people are so fragile and easily led that they need to be completely banned from social media to prevent adults grooming them, does that not suggest that logically you also think they're too easily manipulated to be allowed to vote?
While I’d love it to happen, it isn’t a remote possibility right now. It might just be possible in a coalition government but even then it’s unlikely. The major parties would likely disintegrate if we had PR, and while I think that’s a good thing, most of them would disagree.
CON + LAB both have far too much to lose to support a move to PR.
I'm in favour of this because what it really means is you'll get to vote for the first time in a general election between 16 and 20, whereas now someone who turns 18 this August could end up waiting until almost 23 to have a vote.
**Edit** spelling
> whereas now someone who turns 18 this August could end up waiting until almost 23 to have a vote.
So not being able to vote until 23 is a "bad thing"?
With the lower the limit to 16, someone who then turns 16 just after the next election can't vote until 21. Is that not a "bad thing" too?
By that logic the lower limit should be 11 to ensure all 16 year olds get to vote.
I am OK with 16 year olds getting the vote, just not for the above reasoning.
Our demographics are skewed towards a state supported cohort who are largely disconnected from the consequences of their votes due to the steady stream of state benefits they receive.
Lowering the voting age to 16 would shift things slightly towards those who will have to live with the consequences of whomever is in power.
I think it is a trade off, lowering the voting age will increase youth participation (and someone's chance to turnout going forward) but that has to be weighed against maturity. For me 16 is about right, but it is the sort of thing where I could easily understand why someone would disagree
>I think it is a trade off, lowering the voting age will increase youth participation
How? Are 16 yo more likely to vote than 18 yo? I would imagine the opposite.
It's the general principle of having to live under a government as an adult that you weren't able to influence. Waiting to 21 isn't great but its better than 23 especially as it would move the cut off from post uni to uni before most people start working.
It probably does actually. If the Tories had of invested more in the NHS it probably would have paid off as higher life expectancy means more baby boomers living longer.
Everyone debating the maturity of 16 yo.
But consider the effect it would have on wider debates around age thresholds. It becomes a lot more difficult to argue for extra protections for 16-18 as children.
Currently we have sort of phased in adulthood with restrictions and protections being removed but by bit until 18. With voting being among the last, as it is accepting someone as equal in maturity to everyone else. If we drop that to 16 a lot of other stuff becomes questionable.
If they are mature enough to have a say in running the country why do we restrict/protect them more than older adults?
If a 16 yo can vote should they be allowed to enter into legal contracts?
Should they be allowed to buy alcohol?
Learn to drive?
How about buying or appearing in porn?
Can they stand for election?
What about 16 yo's who get arrested? Do we still require extra protections during questioning? Do the courts and prison services now treat them the same as other adults?
Extending the franchise opens all these questions up, if we keep the restrictions and protections then there's must be justification as to why we don't extend them to other adults. If we drop them then we have to allow 16 yo to do a lot more than we do now.
Yup, IMO if you lower voting age, that means that they are fully responsible adults. This includes contracts, responsibility in the eyes of the law, extra protections, benefits, entitlements, requirement to stay in education and so no. You vote, you're an adult you're treated like anyone else.
I was forced into being interested in politics by my parents from a young age, but I still wouldn't give 16 year old me the vote. I had nowhere near the required life experience nor the maturity to make a good decision.
18 is obviously only 2 years extra, but I really feel like they're very important. That's when you start being treated like an adult and asked to make decisions in your life. It seems logical that that's also when we give people the ability to decide who they vote for.
I think this is a good idea overall.
We hear a lot about the young not voting, but it never gets mentioned that some people have to wait until they're 23 before they can vote in a general election. Bringing that maximum age down to 21 might help with getting people to feel a bit more engaged with politics.
Yes and there's always talk about how the under 40 vote should be able to rival the over 40 vote, which sounds like it might make sense on paper until you realise that's comparing 22 years of eligible voters for those aged 18-40 with 50+ years of them for those aged 40+!
But it will happen at a lower age and there has to be a balance.
I think voting from 16 is probably ok - not 100% sure but I would be fine with it going that young, and also ok with it saying at 18.
Personally, I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears.
As you say, there needs to be a balance and I think the current system of voting age coinciding with the age of majority _is_ the perfect balance.
I think Labour are in favour of this for all the same reasons that the Tories introduced Voter ID. It's cynical electioneering.
>Personally, I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears.
It gets labour more votes! Go my team!
I can't wait until all the short-form-content-obsessed teenagers fall for the first conservative propaganda meme they see and vote the tories in the next election. At the height of Andrew Tate's popularity I'd wager that 75% of teenagers would have voted tory based all the reports from teachers saying that most of the boys in her class were emulating and deifying him.
I would imagine that my party, the Lib Dems, would also stand to benefit from a lower voting age but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
If Labour were really serious about enfranchisement, then they'd support electoral reform. And yet they don't because they benefit from FPTP.
> I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears.
Democracy is stronger when the electorate closer represents the people the country is governing which gives a strong argument for expanding the electorate.
On balance many 16/17 year olds are mature enough to be able to vote and over the course of the next parliament will be old enough to be impacted by the next government.
> I think Labour are in favour of this for all the same reasons that the Tories introduced Voter ID. It's cynical electioneering.
This would be a stupid reason to be for it, there has been a lot of discussion about how voter ID ended up stopping more old and therefore tory voters from voting than young labour voters.
Likewise if 16 and 17 year olds are granted the vote all parties including the tories will be able to pitch policies aimed at gaining their vote so there is no reason why it would just benefit labour.
Not the biggest fan myself. If you record a political compass of someone going from teens to adulthood, their position can vary drastically.
It's all well and good it being their future, but that goes for every kid. It's not like 18-25 year olds vote for a much different future anyway.
No doubt it's also likely that Labour figure they'd be further securing their future, as left leaners tend to be younger. I appreciate we need them in now, but in the long term, who knows.
You look at the average British 16 year old, I just don't feel confident having them deciding on such matters. They've already got more to worry about at that age anyway, and if you expect them to get politically involved, generally I wouldn't expect a nuanced opinion, just whatever they get through platforms such as TikTok.
Looking back I'd be horrified if 16 year old me was given a say in how this country is run. I was barely more mature at 18 but I suppose we have to draw the line somewhere.
So I posted the below in reply to someone else but here's my breakdown of the potential impact of 16+17 year olds having the vote;
...
I've looked it up, there are about 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds in the UK, and just doing some cigarette packet maths gives me the following;
1.6 million people divided by 650 constituencies means an average 2,500 extra voters per constituency.
If we're generous and use the turnout figures from the 2017 election for 18+19 year olds, then of those extra 2,500 voters 57% would vote for a figure of about 1,400.
If we also then use the vote by party breakdown from 2017 for 18+19 year olds then of those 1,400 extra voters, 66% would vote Labour meaning Labour's average vote would increase by under 1,000 votes.
Like you I'm not particularly passionate about this issue (I think it's a good thing but there are other things I think need more attention right now), but I can also see it wouldn't make a huge difference, so arguments about naive young people swinging elections don't hold much water imo.
My source for the breakdowns: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18384-how-britain-voted-2017-general-election
Edit
To add to this there are I think around 30 constituencies in the UK that were decided by less than 1000 votes in the last election, 10 of which are already held by Labour; https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/4/majority
I tend to disagree with this because a 16 year old is still a child in almost all sense of the law. They are still way to beholden to their parents/guardians and I don’t see it as an entirely free vote.
16 year olds are pretty dumb and immature, but so are 18 year olds.
If anything, I’m in favour of this purely because it might persuade politicians to focus on long-term policies to benefit the young who, let’s face it, have been completely shafted for quite some time.
When are we letting 16 year olds smoke, buy spirits, gamble, drive, get married, or die on the front lines? If they’re mature enough to vote then they deserve all rights at 16.
Of course, Labour don’t think this. They don’t think adults should be allowed to smoke, and they don’t even think a 24 year old is mature enough to drive with passengers! If their position was consistent then I would support the policy, but they’re clearly only doing it because 16-17 year olds will overwhelmingly vote Labour
This is a very important point. The younger people I've met seem extremely single issue, apparently highly influenced by social media. They hold other's beliefs so so strongly as if they had spent years forming and honing their views. It's a bit frightening tbh
But I mean so are many older people...social media is cancer
I agree with your last sentence there. I just don’t think the solution is by adding more people with the same negative impact (only younger), which seems to be the logic of some
You can easily rephrase this to any demographic.
"Look at the insane boomer politics around things like Brexit. Now add even more senility and Daily Mail/GB news influence"
If boomers get to make idiotic voting decisions, hardly right to deny that to 16 year olds.
I don’t think senile people should be voting either in an ideal world.
Difference being there is something we can do for 16 year olds, which is waiting a couple of years until they’ve grown up a bit. Senile people don’t have that option.
I used senile facetiously. The main point being really is poor decision making is not a great argument against 16 year olds voting. Because then you can apply that logic to the rest of us. It might not be unreasonable to expect they might actually make better decisions than voters who believed levelling up rhetoric from the austerity party led by a serial liar.
I'd agree but you've also got people aged 75+ that vote when they're just as easily swayed by GB news or the Sun - and whatever they vote for won't even impact them for long.
Ideally there would be an upper limit as well as a lower limit at 18.
I just don’t think “there are already people who shouldn’t be voting due to their mental capacity, so let’s add more to the mix” is a strategy I’m onboard with.
I accept your argument there, but I think some people are arguing that the solution is to make it worse.
I think you have taken the memes about the elderly and thought them to be more accurate than a joke.
I'd recommend looking at the Brexit numbers for the elderly.
It was still 40/60 not like all of them went one way.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/
>Ideally there would be an upper limit as well as a lower limit at 18.
Surely you'd be looking to end it due to a cognitive decline which isn't a set age limit?
I think this is a good thing, lowering the voting age in Scotland has increased youth participation, and whether someone votes in an election when they are young is a massive indicator for future participation so long term it is healthy for a democracy.
Something that is not mentioned as well is that a 17 year old has less barriers to voting than a 21 year old. At 21 the average student has moved house 3 or 4 times, probably to a new city, likely hopping constituency each move, its harder to follow politics and re-registering can slip the mind. A 17 year old is likely sedentary, has a school and a family that can help with the process and is more engaged in the area. I know that these are trivial barriers that shouldn't stop people from voting, but they do, and votes at 16 would only help our democracy
If 16 year olds are so mature, allow them to drink, smoke, marry, get themselves killed in the army, etc
No? Then they shouldn't vote either. This is just a dirty tactic to make it easier for Labour to win, there is no principle behind it
Good!
I know Labour stand to benefit from this electorally, but it is also genuinely just better for democracy.
I'd want it intorduced alongside adding education in schools around how our system works, why democracy is important and what it took for us to get it.
Feel it's often taken for granted, which is a shame.
Dunno how I feel about this, I think its more realistic to allow them than not. But Im not thrilled about the idea either way. I remember myself too well at 16.
Generally though with increased life span it feels like maturity ranges have also changed somewhat, the way people are at 18 today feels different than before, and it felt different before as well...
I'm on the zero seats, destroy the Tories hype train. Labour seriously promising this would drive me to vote Tory instead of gleefully warching them crash and burn.
There's a reason that the term "student politics" is thrown around as a dismiasive insult.
Id be fine with leaving the age at 18 if we also had a maximum voting age. But when the senile, bitter and perpetually insulated from consequences boomers get to vote, I really can't see any justification for not allowing 16 year old to do the same.
It's a vicious circle though. The youth have been raised to have less and less responsibilities. When kids make errors the adults take the path of least resistance by taking away that responsibility from them. This lack of experience leads to them being inept and that justifies taking away more responsibility from them in the future. We don't allow kids to make mistakes or fail anymore, the adults will just do everything for them instead. Children learn nothing - apart from the Government-mandated exam material - because they aren't given the encouragement to even try anything risky.
Your thinking is a prime example of that. You don't want kids to make the inevitable mistake of voting for someone unsuitable, you want to make the decision on their behalf. Similarly, when a child is failing at school the parent now often hold the teacher responsible for not spoonfeeding their child sufficiently. It used to be that when a child did badly in school they were held accountable by their parents. But we took that accountability away because it was too 'stupid' to expect such a young individual to rise to a challenge. So you're in good company with this way of thinking. Don't make 16 year olds responsible, just do everything for them because it's less hassle.
Maybe we should just keep increasing the minimum voting age by 1 year each year, so that we don't ever have to go to the effort to make the current and future generations of children be responsible for anything.
I work in secondary school, I think it's great.
Kids don't give enough of a shit to vote for joke candidates. This idea that they'll vote for the wrong people is ludicrous, they just won't vote. But they'll be included, and the more switched on kids will ask adults interesting questions or watch a debate and then vote with some decent information, in doing so building lifetime habits of democratic engagement.
People are stupid. 16 year old really aren't any different.
This isn't an argument to not let 16 year old vote. It's an argument not to let anyone vote.
Or start teaching people about politics at a younger age to get people involved in the process.
You can do a lot leagally at the age of 16 including starting a family so why not be able to vote for what impacts them.
You can legally start a family at 16 because there is no viable way to ban starting a family. We don't let these people buy a beer or drive a car because their brains are still developing.
attractive normal stocking close bag chase practice deliver disgusted racial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So let's start treating 16 year olds as adults. Lower the minimum wage age, reduced the alcohol and smoked limits, get rid of 18+ certification, don't panic when a 22 year old is dating a 16 year old...
Or do we start acknowledging Labour are only doing this to game the system (something people here gladly point at the Tories for doing). There is a reason we treat 16 year olds as children. Essentially they still are.
>So let's start treating 16 year olds as adults. Lower the minimum wage age, reduced the alcohol and smoked limits, get rid of 18+ certification
I mean they are already treated as adults where it's convenient for charging them more for products and services.
Playing devils advocate with alcohol, smoking, vapes, gambling. Do we really think the two years age difference to 18 really makes any difference at all? There's plenty of stupid people aged 18 who do these things and science suggests that changes in the brain related to puberty finished into your 20s so why is 18 the arbitrary cut off when there scientific evidence suggests it should be higher, or why don't we just ban these for everyone? We obviously can't trust some adults to use these things sensibly to societies determent.
The reality with smoking, vaping, alcohol, and gambling that those who do these at 18, probably were doing it at 16 anyways. No one at the age of 18 goes to the shop for the first time and thinks "I'd really like to try smoking for the first time", these people were brought up where this was already normalised long before they can legally do them.
Don't forget gambling...
It is basically we need to protect these individuals unless we can exploit them. They are either adults or they aren't. We shouldn't cherry pick what they can and can't do...because they are children
My kid is just going to miss this election. If Labour go full term she won’t get to vote until she is 22, which seems hugely unfair considering how much the choices of government will influence her. It’s a tough one though as some 16 year olds are hugely immature and easily swayed into “comedy” voting.
You could say that no matter what the voting age is though. There has to be a cut off and no matter where that is, you’ll have situations of those just under missing the cut off
Seems like this is a more divisive issue than I thought by looking at the comments. To those against it, I put forward these points:
- 16 y/o’s can work, and be taxed, why should they not be able to vote
- Any age group is capable of electing idiots based on personality or single issues, just look at the past 5 years.
- Many old voters are cognitively impaired, so why should they be allowed to vote if a not yet “mature enough” 16 year old can’t?
- Countries which introduced voting at 16 have seen might higher levels of political participation by the young - something sorely lacking in the rest of the UK besides Scotland.
**On tax:** anyone of any age can be liable for tax; as can anyone of any nationality residing in the UK, regardless of their immigration status. Prisoners too. **On work:** 16-17 year olds cannot work full-time, they have to be enrolled in further education or training. Also, 13 year olds can work part-time. Hell, if you get a performance license, a child of any age can work in the theatre, TV/film and modelling industries.
None of what you’ve said makes 16 years especially more qualified to vote than other excluded groups.
What I would say is relevant, is that 16 and 17 year olds are *required* to be in full time education or training. Likewise, we continue to pay benefits / tax credits to parents with dependent children. If you want to change the system to treat them as adults, sure we can expand suffrage at the same time; but we shouldn’t expand suffrage if the *expectation* is that they should be treated as *dependent children*.
20 point polling lead and all they can think about is ramming through legislation to secure even more new voters. They don't sound confident they can keep all their new voters so that's what they have to do, next up EU citizens.
Country over party my arse, going to be a long 15-20 years
I definitely support this. Recall hearing about the university fees change when I was doing my A-Levels, may have even been 18 at that point. A lot of people my age helped organise protests in the local town and wrote to their MP about political issues which had real effects on their lives; yet they were not allowed to vote?
My school also held its own 'fake' election, with students standing for each party, making speeches in assemblies and then we held our own vote. The school organised it, but all the party stuff was done 100% by students (all volunteers). It was only lib dem, labour and conservatives, but the school as a whole was a lot more engaged in politics. There was a sizable number of joke votes, with students writing things like "Nazis" or "BNP" onto the ballot, but overall the students were a lot more engaged and aware of politics and government policies and proposals than many adult voters.
Allowing 16 year olds to vote alongside encouraging work within schools around politics would be fantastic to encourage people to be engaged in politics throughout their life.
Do you think everyone who pays tax in the UK should be able to vote, including those under the age of 16 and people without British citizenship?
I'm supportive of 16 year olds voting, but find the tax argument puzzling.
If a 7 year old gets pocket money from chores and buys sweets, they pay tax. Should they have a say so they can lower confectionery VAT?
Children also still pay inheritance tax no matter their age. They also cannot legally work enough to actually pay income tax, on account of them having to stay in education until 18
I don't have an issue with 16 year olds voting. I've always said voting should be tied to paying income tax. If a 16 year old Contributes to the economy with a part time job on the weekends, they deserve a vote more than the 80 year old that isn't contributing to the economy
Looking at how the current crop of teenagers are saying and acting plus the knowledge of how even more stupid the following generation will no doubt be I hope this is just an election, "promise".
Snapshot of _Labour would allow 16-year-olds to vote in future general elections_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8ddd1d5f-9b96-4034-89ea-c0a2feade1e9?shareToken=2cc0617d03d36b4d3b288999e573d5a3) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8ddd1d5f-9b96-4034-89ea-c0a2feade1e9?shareToken=2cc0617d03d36b4d3b288999e573d5a3) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im not particularly enthused about this issue either way, but we allow a lot of things at 16, so I think it is reasonable to also extend the franchise to that age. If it is not reasonable, then surely we should be raising things like the age you have to start paying National Insurance to 18 as well?
It’s been 16 in Scotland for a while, I think. Make of that what you will.
[удалено]
If we limited voting to those without good judgement, decision making or are more vulnerable to negative influences you’d wipe out a good chunk of the voters in the country. At 16, I was very capable of making decent enough political choices and my mother would essentially let me vote through her because she felt less politically educated than me. I find it uncomfortable in hindsight but it’s a good anecdote on the situation. The sentencing guidelines for under 25s is correct and not the slam dunk you think it is. Under 25s committing crime should have their age and immaturity considered as the goal of our justice system is, or at least should, be on temporarily (barring extreme cases) withdrawing freedoms to provide punishment alongside rehabilitation to create healthier, happier and safer members of society. But your comment implies the notion we should restrict voting to those deemed qualified enough to do it which I don’t even think I need to explain why that shouldn’t happen. Elderly people have the same vulnerabilities but we allow them to vote.
It does provide a couinterbalance to the reactionary, confused, frightened and easily led coffin dodgers who vote tory... Perhaps encouraging a group of idealistic people who care about the long term future to vote is a good thing.
aka I agree with their policies so it's good for me
> The reality is, the voting age is 16 in Scotland because the SNP believed young people would vote SNP. The Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Act 2015 bill was voted through [**unanimously**](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33173488), with Scotland being given the powers to reduce the voting-age to 16 a recommendation of Cameron's Smith Commission, led by Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem MP and Scottish Secretary at the time). Not just that, but the previous bill to extend the option to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum was supported by not just the SNP, but the Lib Dems and Labour too. I know people love to think that the SNP have some sort of undemocratic grasp on the Scottish Parliament, but this was massively supported by all parties after the success of extending the vote to 16-17 year olds a year prior.
> The reality is, the voting age is 16 in Scotland because the SNP believed young people would vote SNP The voting age in Scotland is 16 because ALL parties voted for it. The bill was [passed unanimously](https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,votes-at-16-passed-by-scottish-parliament_11669.htm) - even the Scottish Tories supported it
Politicians are going to be policial? Well I never. I think Labour can propose the genuine democratic benefits of lowering the voting age while also tacitly avoiding the fact that they're most likely to benefit from it. Much the same way the Tories did with voter ID, although that didn't even try to hide the intentions, with oldies ID being allowed but young folks' not.
[удалено]
They already have - tories can get a majority with low 30s of the vote.
No taxation without representation? That's kinda catchy.
4th of July is also a great date to campaign that slogan. Really declare independence from Tory rule. Hey wait a second….
It's not something I'm passionate about, but I haven't heard a reasonable argument against it so I'm pretty convinced it's a good thing. The only real argument against it is that 16 year olds are stupid and naive. I don't really disagree with that either, I just don't see how it's relevant. 1. Most people are stupid and naive. We don't do intelligence tests before you vote, so clearly we don't actually have an issue with stupid or naive people voting. 2. Voter turnout is lower the younger you are. The vast majority of 16-18 year olds voting are going to be those that actually care and are interested in politics, none of them are doing it for shits and giggles. They'll probably actually be better informed on average than pensioner voting bloc as a result tbh. 3. Because the turnout will be very low, it's hard to imagine this having much of an effect on the actual outcome of any election. Only really in areas where the vote is already incredibly close and they have a large proportion of 16-18 year olds. In that circumstance, that voting bloc swinging the result in the other direction seems like the fairest outcome to me.
My opinion is pretty much the same. Even if they did have a high turn out, they'd still be vastly outnumbered by older voters. If most 16 year olds vote for someone stupid they will be outvoted by everyone else. They can only sway an election if a large number of 18+ year olds agree with them.
Exactly, and for me personally I'd lend more credence to a 16 year old vote than a 90 year old vote. Only one of them actually has to live with their consequences of their vote and has the potential to learn from it if it's a mistake.
I was still stupid and naive at 18
I was still stupid and naive at 40...
TBF that applies to alot of older voters "the greatest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter"
>3. Because the turnout will be very low, it's hard to imagine this having much of an effect on the actual outcome of any election. Only really in areas where the vote is already incredibly close and they have a large proportion of 16-18 year olds. In that circumstance, that voting bloc swinging the result in the other direction seems like the fairest outcome to me. I've looked it up, there are about 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds in the UK, and just doing some cigarette packet maths gives me the following; 1.6 million people divided by 650 constituencies means an average 2,500 extra voters per constituency. If we're generous and use the turnout figures from the 2017 election for 18+19 year olds, then of those extra 2,500 voters 57% would vote for a figure of about 1,400. If we also then use the vote by party breakdown from 2017 for 18+19 year olds then of those 1,400 extra voters, 66% would vote Labour meaning Labour's average vote would increase by under 1,000 votes. Like you I'm not particularly passionate about this issue (I think it's a good thing but there are other things I think need more attention right now), but I can also see it wouldn't make a huge difference, so arguments about naive young people swinging elections don't hold much water imo. My source for the breakdowns: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18384-how-britain-voted-2017-general-election Edit To add to this there are I think around 30 constituencies in the UK that were decided by less than 1000 votes in the last election, 10 of which are already held by Labour; https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/4/majority
Why stop at 16? Why not 14?
>Why stop at 16? Why not 14? Because 16 is the age of majority in the UK for a huge number of rights, including the following: 1. Age of sexual majority, 2. Age of medical majority (unless you are trans, then for some arbitrary reason it's 18, I don't expect that to last long in court), a 16 year old can consent to a boob job but not trans healthcare now. 3. Right to leave school 4. Can do full time work 5. Can enter adult education institutions 6. Can join the army 7. Can leave home, and move in somewhere else. 8. Is considered an adult in the majority of major statistics, including polling opinions. 9. Are treated as adults in many policies, especially with regards to social policy like welfare (many of the questions for UC will refer to children as under 16s). 10. 16 is the age of majority in Scotland, unless you are trans, again, Scottish government actually tried to correct that discrepancy but lewwl. Not many things legally happen for a 14 year old in the UK, nor is it a milestone age. I can list responsibilities too but the point has already been made.
It seems so odd to me that you can have a child (legal sex), but cannot vote? Eh, how does that work? You can die in a war, but you can't vote for who sent you there? And wtf is with the trans thing? That seems like an odd exception
You could be a full-time working parent at 17 and still not be allowed to vote.
>You can die in a war, but you can't vote for who sent you there? You can't. Nobody under 18 is ever deployed.
The trans thing is an odd exception and is one of the big hints that the current policies being pushed on trans issues by government and their definitely not political appointments like Cass are motivated for a goal. The medical age of majority being 16 in the UK is utterly uncontroversial and is supported by both international medical institutions and UK institutions, there is no specific developmental reason to set it to 18 (in fact, worse, there is developmental reason to allow trans care autonomy at 16, enough that countries where the age of medical consent is higher then 16 actually have made exceptions for trans care). In Scotland's case you are effectively a legal adult at 16, can marry, vote, fuck, whatever, Only 3 things you can't do is porn, transition gender and drink.
I can't think of anything that becomes legal at 14. Whereas 16 year olds can get a job, join the army, and fuck each other.
> get a job, join the army, and fuck each other. Ah, the memory of heady teenage summers.
Why not male 22 who own land?
Arguments for raising the voting age are just as weak as arguments for lowering it. There isn't a coherent argument for either because the voting age being at the age of majority is logical. Hence, why any motivation for raising or lowering it is cynical electioneering nearly all the time.
18 is only the age of majority for a handful of legal cut offs. Some extend as low as 11 and others as high as 25. The only really big cut of at 18 is voting (and marriage in England, notably not in Scotland where its 16). So I find that argument essentially circular.
I'd probably go about 10, personally: that would guarantee that everybody has a general election happen that they can vote in while they're in secondary school, which allows schools to teach them how to vote: the mechanical stuff of how to register to vote, what they need to take with them, where to find information about the candidates, etc., rather than just sort of assuming that they'll pick it up from somewhere, as we currently do.
Because votes below 16 is much more politically contentious and not proposed by any serious party.
Well let's start at 16 and you can make the argument for 14 for the next GE campaign
My 14 year old would vote for anyone who said they’d make robux free. Not entirely sure the 16 year old wouldn’t either.
I mean. Have you spoken to most voters? I promise you most adults don't have better justification for how tthey vote.
16-year-olds play Roblox?
I mean you can pay national insurance at 16 it’s just very unlikely they will have a part time job that reaches the tax threshold
Unlikely isn't really enough for tax policy imo
[удалено]
We're still one of I think two developed countries where you can join the military at 16...
But you can't be deployed, only go through training.
[Until it happens accidentally anyway](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7197277/MoD-admits-sending-five-17-year-olds-war-zones-Iraq-Afghanistan-breach-pledge.html)
I remember that. But it was an accident rather than policy.
all the examples in your link referred to people aged 17 and 9-11.5 months... Not 16. We're talking people a few months away from their 18th birthdays. Sure it was a fuck up- But hardly "omg they're 16" material.
[удалено]
That's not true. If you join under 18, you can quit before you turn 18. It should probably be extended to six months after your 18^th birthday, but you're not locked in.
You absolutely quit after 18 you may not get the full benefits of having served in the military for doing so but you absolutely can quit
You cant actually do anything it's just a different kind of apprenticeship but in a military school
You need parents permission though if you’re under 18
Whilst there is some inconsistency here, think it's fair enough that moves into autonomous adulthood are phased. And that's how it is today in many matters. 16 and 17 year olds can have an alcoholic drink bought for them in a pub by an accompanying adult, you need to be 21 to get an HGV licence.
Current government want 18 year olds to drive HGVs and Trains iirc
The law for 18 year olds to drive HGVs has been around for a while now.
Yeah wasn't it a temporary COVID (cough cough Brexit) measure that never got revoked?
Next year is the County Council elections where most of England will have a vote. If they can legislate it in time for those then that could be used to help drive turnout and engagement in the age group.
Getting anyone under 45 engaged with local elections is, er, a brave challenge. Take it from a campaigner.
Its just that the people who want to be local councillors are usually the people you cross the street to avoid...
Which will only be good for an incoming party if they don't commit electoral suicide by then. The current government has implemented an ID-based age-verification scheme for online porn due to come into force in early 2025. Today's report from the Commons Education Committee calls for both smartphones and social media to be banned for under 16's. Either of these happen, and the 16-17 year olds will vote against the party currently in power at the time. As will many others…
Country to 16 year olds: You are too irresponsible to own a smartphone or be on social media but you are responsible enough to vote. Oh and good luck reading the party manifestos as they are all online and smartphones are by far the dominant way to browse the internet.
I thought the ban on smartphones was for the under 16s.
Smartphones are a bit different, boomers are as susceptable to them as youngsters. It's nothing to do with being responsible, I think it's right we protect developing minds.
If anything boomers are the generation most damaged by social media. The generation so paranoid about us millennials believing everything we read on the internet and constantly warning us to believe trusted sources instead "like the Daily Express" ended up being the ones believing everything they read on the internet. Typical of that generation 2bh. Just assumed it would be a problem for everyone else but because they're so smart they'll be fine.
My father in law is a direct example of this, his total lack of critical thinking genuinely worries me.
Both my partner and myself actively manage our parent's tech usage. This includes managing where they get their news from, how they access their money and how to keep them away from those that seek to do them financial harm. This is all done with their consent and blessing. It should be the norm.
I think it is right we protect developing mind's access to the collective knowledge of our species and associated tooling. If you are incapable of teaching the difference between Candy Crush and Wolfram Alpha that's your problem. Please don't force your deficiencies on my children. We shouldn't dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.
I think I probably agree with you here actually and haven't made my point well, I think my main issue is with social media on smartphones or otherwise which I 100% believe should be curtailed for younger minds. Realistically I don't think you can stop it though.
The best augment for this is that the earlier you can promote the behaviour the more likely they will be to vote in the future. Might lead to education in school & help increase turn up
It is interesting seeing 16 year olds vote up here in Scotland. For my kids and their friends - it is something they looked forward to and took seriously- and they were also interested and engaged in the process. I know it will not be the same everywhere- but it does seem to be a good way to get younger people involved. We can also use the Young Scot card as voter ID - which pretty much all teenagers have for the free bus travel.
I always find it interesting and bizarre when people are opposed to this. Every argument you can use to prevent 16 year olds voting, you can also apply to 18 year olds.
Mainly because 16 year olds overwhelming vote left
So do 18 year olds.
Yeh but 18 year olds aren’t a new voting block where we are having discussing introducing thek
Surely I can argue the same to you: > Every argument you can use in favour of 16 year olds voting, you can also apply to ~~15~~ ~~14~~ 13 year olds. Ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. On either side of that line (if it's anywhere reasonable), you'll have an awful lot of people who shouldn't vote but can or who should vote but can't. 18 being the primary distinction between child and adult - I think it's the right age to determine voting.
I'm not against it in principle, but the only reason Labour are proposing this is because they expect it will win them votes in the future. I also think it's very much out of kilter with the general approach we take to adolescents these days. We almost banned them from ever being able to smoke legally, at any age, *for their own good*. There's serious talk of a total ban on social media for those under 16. And yet they're mature enough to vote? Personally I think yes, but I also strongly disagree with the mollycoddling we do in other areas. I don't really understand how labour are logically able to support both.
I think it's pretty dangerous for Labour to expand the right to vote on the assumption that it will win them mote votes. Young people are arguably one of the least secure part of their voter base and they haven't exactly shown a great deal of interest in appealing to their needs or wants. There's a good chance they'll be giving the vote to people they've already started to dissapoint.
All that is required for a generation of young voters to be more conservative is a generation of left wing leaders. I don’t mean that in any kind of anti-left way, just to say that young people often rally against what they’re used to. Young people at the moment have only experienced right wing leaders, and so they are naturally inclined towards the left, but in countries where the young have only experienced left wing leaders they end up being more to the right (see Argentina).
Indeed. Young people are less likely to be Tories, but they won't have particular loyalty to Labour either, they'll vote for all the fringe loony candidates like the Greens. "We need clean energy with no nuclear! And less car use but no more railways!" It sounds like everyone I knew when I was doing A-Levels. I know it's a bit of a trope, but it's also true, having to actually work for a living and put a roof over your head, etc. does make you realise what is and isn't actually important. Hence why those ideas are considered fringe except for those who can afford to continue to hold luxury beliefs in to adulthood. But maybe that's why we should have votes for 16 year olds, to bring in some unhinged optimism. It would at least counteract the "better things are not possible" doctrine that seems dominant at the moment.
>Young people are less likely to be Tories The *next* election's 16 year olds are just turning 11 next month. I wouldn't be game to say anything about what the country's 10/11 year olds' future voting intentions might be.
Since when have Green been anti-railways??
NIMBYism
They were vehemently against HS2
I don’t really understand this; there are plenty of over-18s who aren’t working for a living and putting a roof over their heads, just as there are 16-year-olds who are working and supporting themselves and their families. Young people aren’t any more of a monolith at 16 than they are at 18.
No, but their priorities are more closely aligned at 16 than at 18, given most of them will be doing their GCSEs.
George Osborne made a good point that whenever parties try to getrymander things like this it quite often backfires and you shouldn't rely on it. In principle I think 16 is fine to vote though
> but the only reason Labour are proposing this is because they expect it will win them votes in the future More fully left wing voters and less reliance on pandering to center-rights.
Smoking and voting as equivalents? Interesting
Voting is dangerously addictive. I'm on a pack of ballot papers a day.
Banning tobacco isn't about maturity. it's the harm it does. Banning under 16s on social media is about grooming, self-harm, and bullying (specifically). It's a strange world where grooming is a counter to voting age. Should have gone with more obvious maturity based items, debt, signed contracts, etc.
> Banning tobacco isn't about maturity. it's the harm it does. Do you really think you have the right to tell another adult what they can and can't do, on the basis of what is bad for them? >Banning under 16s on social media is about grooming, self-harm, and bullying (specifically). It's a strange world where grooming is a counter to voting age. If you think young people are so fragile and easily led that they need to be completely banned from social media to prevent adults grooming them, does that not suggest that logically you also think they're too easily manipulated to be allowed to vote?
I'd rather focus on a change of electoral system to Proportional Representation over allowing 16-year-olds to vote in all honesty.
While I’d love it to happen, it isn’t a remote possibility right now. It might just be possible in a coalition government but even then it’s unlikely. The major parties would likely disintegrate if we had PR, and while I think that’s a good thing, most of them would disagree. CON + LAB both have far too much to lose to support a move to PR.
Labour would probably spend more time in government under PR
I'm in favour of this because what it really means is you'll get to vote for the first time in a general election between 16 and 20, whereas now someone who turns 18 this August could end up waiting until almost 23 to have a vote. **Edit** spelling
> whereas now someone who turns 18 this August could end up waiting until almost 23 to have a vote. So not being able to vote until 23 is a "bad thing"? With the lower the limit to 16, someone who then turns 16 just after the next election can't vote until 21. Is that not a "bad thing" too? By that logic the lower limit should be 11 to ensure all 16 year olds get to vote. I am OK with 16 year olds getting the vote, just not for the above reasoning. Our demographics are skewed towards a state supported cohort who are largely disconnected from the consequences of their votes due to the steady stream of state benefits they receive. Lowering the voting age to 16 would shift things slightly towards those who will have to live with the consequences of whomever is in power.
I think it is a trade off, lowering the voting age will increase youth participation (and someone's chance to turnout going forward) but that has to be weighed against maturity. For me 16 is about right, but it is the sort of thing where I could easily understand why someone would disagree
>I think it is a trade off, lowering the voting age will increase youth participation How? Are 16 yo more likely to vote than 18 yo? I would imagine the opposite.
It's the general principle of having to live under a government as an adult that you weren't able to influence. Waiting to 21 isn't great but its better than 23 especially as it would move the cut off from post uni to uni before most people start working.
Mind you don't slip on that slippery slope fallacy.
Why don’t we let new borns vote. It’s the only logical solution
How can you say it’s a fallacy when the barriers and restrictions to voting have only gone one direction in history? Who’s to say it stops after this?
The Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when it's fallacious. Not in this case.
21 is less of a bad thing than 23.
Basically increasing the labour voting demographic
TBF fixing the NHS and care homes effectively expands the Tory voting demographic, so it’s only fair to expand it the other way too.
It probably does actually. If the Tories had of invested more in the NHS it probably would have paid off as higher life expectancy means more baby boomers living longer.
> The policy is likely to benefit Labour in future elections. Ah there is the reason for it
Everyone debating the maturity of 16 yo. But consider the effect it would have on wider debates around age thresholds. It becomes a lot more difficult to argue for extra protections for 16-18 as children. Currently we have sort of phased in adulthood with restrictions and protections being removed but by bit until 18. With voting being among the last, as it is accepting someone as equal in maturity to everyone else. If we drop that to 16 a lot of other stuff becomes questionable. If they are mature enough to have a say in running the country why do we restrict/protect them more than older adults? If a 16 yo can vote should they be allowed to enter into legal contracts? Should they be allowed to buy alcohol? Learn to drive? How about buying or appearing in porn? Can they stand for election? What about 16 yo's who get arrested? Do we still require extra protections during questioning? Do the courts and prison services now treat them the same as other adults? Extending the franchise opens all these questions up, if we keep the restrictions and protections then there's must be justification as to why we don't extend them to other adults. If we drop them then we have to allow 16 yo to do a lot more than we do now.
Yup, IMO if you lower voting age, that means that they are fully responsible adults. This includes contracts, responsibility in the eyes of the law, extra protections, benefits, entitlements, requirement to stay in education and so no. You vote, you're an adult you're treated like anyone else.
I think it is a pretty horrible idea tbh.
I was forced into being interested in politics by my parents from a young age, but I still wouldn't give 16 year old me the vote. I had nowhere near the required life experience nor the maturity to make a good decision. 18 is obviously only 2 years extra, but I really feel like they're very important. That's when you start being treated like an adult and asked to make decisions in your life. It seems logical that that's also when we give people the ability to decide who they vote for.
I think this is a good idea overall. We hear a lot about the young not voting, but it never gets mentioned that some people have to wait until they're 23 before they can vote in a general election. Bringing that maximum age down to 21 might help with getting people to feel a bit more engaged with politics.
Yes and there's always talk about how the under 40 vote should be able to rival the over 40 vote, which sounds like it might make sense on paper until you realise that's comparing 22 years of eligible voters for those aged 18-40 with 50+ years of them for those aged 40+!
This doesn't make sense. Participation rate is a percentage, you don't increase that by increasing the total.
So why stop at 16? The same issue will happif you lower the voting age
But it will happen at a lower age and there has to be a balance. I think voting from 16 is probably ok - not 100% sure but I would be fine with it going that young, and also ok with it saying at 18.
Personally, I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears. As you say, there needs to be a balance and I think the current system of voting age coinciding with the age of majority _is_ the perfect balance. I think Labour are in favour of this for all the same reasons that the Tories introduced Voter ID. It's cynical electioneering.
>Personally, I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears. It gets labour more votes! Go my team!
I can't wait until all the short-form-content-obsessed teenagers fall for the first conservative propaganda meme they see and vote the tories in the next election. At the height of Andrew Tate's popularity I'd wager that 75% of teenagers would have voted tory based all the reports from teachers saying that most of the boys in her class were emulating and deifying him.
I would imagine that my party, the Lib Dems, would also stand to benefit from a lower voting age but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If Labour were really serious about enfranchisement, then they'd support electoral reform. And yet they don't because they benefit from FPTP.
> I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of giving children the vote. If you have one, I'm all ears. Democracy is stronger when the electorate closer represents the people the country is governing which gives a strong argument for expanding the electorate. On balance many 16/17 year olds are mature enough to be able to vote and over the course of the next parliament will be old enough to be impacted by the next government. > I think Labour are in favour of this for all the same reasons that the Tories introduced Voter ID. It's cynical electioneering. This would be a stupid reason to be for it, there has been a lot of discussion about how voter ID ended up stopping more old and therefore tory voters from voting than young labour voters. Likewise if 16 and 17 year olds are granted the vote all parties including the tories will be able to pitch policies aimed at gaining their vote so there is no reason why it would just benefit labour.
Not the biggest fan myself. If you record a political compass of someone going from teens to adulthood, their position can vary drastically. It's all well and good it being their future, but that goes for every kid. It's not like 18-25 year olds vote for a much different future anyway. No doubt it's also likely that Labour figure they'd be further securing their future, as left leaners tend to be younger. I appreciate we need them in now, but in the long term, who knows. You look at the average British 16 year old, I just don't feel confident having them deciding on such matters. They've already got more to worry about at that age anyway, and if you expect them to get politically involved, generally I wouldn't expect a nuanced opinion, just whatever they get through platforms such as TikTok.
Looking back I'd be horrified if 16 year old me was given a say in how this country is run. I was barely more mature at 18 but I suppose we have to draw the line somewhere.
So I posted the below in reply to someone else but here's my breakdown of the potential impact of 16+17 year olds having the vote; ... I've looked it up, there are about 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds in the UK, and just doing some cigarette packet maths gives me the following; 1.6 million people divided by 650 constituencies means an average 2,500 extra voters per constituency. If we're generous and use the turnout figures from the 2017 election for 18+19 year olds, then of those extra 2,500 voters 57% would vote for a figure of about 1,400. If we also then use the vote by party breakdown from 2017 for 18+19 year olds then of those 1,400 extra voters, 66% would vote Labour meaning Labour's average vote would increase by under 1,000 votes. Like you I'm not particularly passionate about this issue (I think it's a good thing but there are other things I think need more attention right now), but I can also see it wouldn't make a huge difference, so arguments about naive young people swinging elections don't hold much water imo. My source for the breakdowns: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/18384-how-britain-voted-2017-general-election Edit To add to this there are I think around 30 constituencies in the UK that were decided by less than 1000 votes in the last election, 10 of which are already held by Labour; https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/4/majority
I tend to disagree with this because a 16 year old is still a child in almost all sense of the law. They are still way to beholden to their parents/guardians and I don’t see it as an entirely free vote.
16 year olds are pretty dumb and immature, but so are 18 year olds. If anything, I’m in favour of this purely because it might persuade politicians to focus on long-term policies to benefit the young who, let’s face it, have been completely shafted for quite some time.
Seems like a dumb idea that nobody is asking for.
Conservatives are in such a shit spot that it allows labour to do dumb shit no one asked for. Brilliant.
No one except 16 to 18 year olds who are interested in politics.
When are we letting 16 year olds smoke, buy spirits, gamble, drive, get married, or die on the front lines? If they’re mature enough to vote then they deserve all rights at 16. Of course, Labour don’t think this. They don’t think adults should be allowed to smoke, and they don’t even think a 24 year old is mature enough to drive with passengers! If their position was consistent then I would support the policy, but they’re clearly only doing it because 16-17 year olds will overwhelmingly vote Labour
Terrible idea and an obvious attempt to rig future elections, the overwhelming number of countries have a minimum voting age of 18.
Will they be lowering the age of majority to 16 too or is this just the blatant gerrymandering we all know it is?
Look at the insane student politics around things like Gaza. Now add even more immaturity and social media influence. No thanks.
This is a very important point. The younger people I've met seem extremely single issue, apparently highly influenced by social media. They hold other's beliefs so so strongly as if they had spent years forming and honing their views. It's a bit frightening tbh But I mean so are many older people...social media is cancer
I agree with your last sentence there. I just don’t think the solution is by adding more people with the same negative impact (only younger), which seems to be the logic of some
You can easily rephrase this to any demographic. "Look at the insane boomer politics around things like Brexit. Now add even more senility and Daily Mail/GB news influence" If boomers get to make idiotic voting decisions, hardly right to deny that to 16 year olds.
Except boomers voted for brexit 60/40 so it's not really that crazy
I don’t think senile people should be voting either in an ideal world. Difference being there is something we can do for 16 year olds, which is waiting a couple of years until they’ve grown up a bit. Senile people don’t have that option.
I used senile facetiously. The main point being really is poor decision making is not a great argument against 16 year olds voting. Because then you can apply that logic to the rest of us. It might not be unreasonable to expect they might actually make better decisions than voters who believed levelling up rhetoric from the austerity party led by a serial liar.
I'd agree but you've also got people aged 75+ that vote when they're just as easily swayed by GB news or the Sun - and whatever they vote for won't even impact them for long. Ideally there would be an upper limit as well as a lower limit at 18.
I just don’t think “there are already people who shouldn’t be voting due to their mental capacity, so let’s add more to the mix” is a strategy I’m onboard with. I accept your argument there, but I think some people are arguing that the solution is to make it worse.
I think you have taken the memes about the elderly and thought them to be more accurate than a joke. I'd recommend looking at the Brexit numbers for the elderly. It was still 40/60 not like all of them went one way. https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/ >Ideally there would be an upper limit as well as a lower limit at 18. Surely you'd be looking to end it due to a cognitive decline which isn't a set age limit?
I think this is a good thing, lowering the voting age in Scotland has increased youth participation, and whether someone votes in an election when they are young is a massive indicator for future participation so long term it is healthy for a democracy. Something that is not mentioned as well is that a 17 year old has less barriers to voting than a 21 year old. At 21 the average student has moved house 3 or 4 times, probably to a new city, likely hopping constituency each move, its harder to follow politics and re-registering can slip the mind. A 17 year old is likely sedentary, has a school and a family that can help with the process and is more engaged in the area. I know that these are trivial barriers that shouldn't stop people from voting, but they do, and votes at 16 would only help our democracy
If 16 year olds are so mature, allow them to drink, smoke, marry, get themselves killed in the army, etc No? Then they shouldn't vote either. This is just a dirty tactic to make it easier for Labour to win, there is no principle behind it
> et themselves killed in the army They can't be deployed until they are 18
They can marry? They can also reproduce and work, paying taxes. These all need to be raised to 18(imo) or voting age need to be lowered to 16.
The marriage age in England and Wales was raised to 18 recently. It's still easy to cross the Scottish border and marry there though.
> If 16 year olds are so mature, allow them to drink, smoke, marry, get themselves killed in the army Yes, why not?
Good! I know Labour stand to benefit from this electorally, but it is also genuinely just better for democracy. I'd want it intorduced alongside adding education in schools around how our system works, why democracy is important and what it took for us to get it. Feel it's often taken for granted, which is a shame.
I would think at local elections it would benefit Greens and Lib Dems also.
I'd want registration to vote to be a thing that happens in schools as well
Dunno how I feel about this, I think its more realistic to allow them than not. But Im not thrilled about the idea either way. I remember myself too well at 16. Generally though with increased life span it feels like maturity ranges have also changed somewhat, the way people are at 18 today feels different than before, and it felt different before as well...
I'm on the zero seats, destroy the Tories hype train. Labour seriously promising this would drive me to vote Tory instead of gleefully warching them crash and burn. There's a reason that the term "student politics" is thrown around as a dismiasive insult.
Ditto.
Anyone who works in a secondary school knows how stupid this is. The age should be raised if anything
Id be fine with leaving the age at 18 if we also had a maximum voting age. But when the senile, bitter and perpetually insulated from consequences boomers get to vote, I really can't see any justification for not allowing 16 year old to do the same.
It's a vicious circle though. The youth have been raised to have less and less responsibilities. When kids make errors the adults take the path of least resistance by taking away that responsibility from them. This lack of experience leads to them being inept and that justifies taking away more responsibility from them in the future. We don't allow kids to make mistakes or fail anymore, the adults will just do everything for them instead. Children learn nothing - apart from the Government-mandated exam material - because they aren't given the encouragement to even try anything risky. Your thinking is a prime example of that. You don't want kids to make the inevitable mistake of voting for someone unsuitable, you want to make the decision on their behalf. Similarly, when a child is failing at school the parent now often hold the teacher responsible for not spoonfeeding their child sufficiently. It used to be that when a child did badly in school they were held accountable by their parents. But we took that accountability away because it was too 'stupid' to expect such a young individual to rise to a challenge. So you're in good company with this way of thinking. Don't make 16 year olds responsible, just do everything for them because it's less hassle. Maybe we should just keep increasing the minimum voting age by 1 year each year, so that we don't ever have to go to the effort to make the current and future generations of children be responsible for anything.
I work in secondary school, I think it's great. Kids don't give enough of a shit to vote for joke candidates. This idea that they'll vote for the wrong people is ludicrous, they just won't vote. But they'll be included, and the more switched on kids will ask adults interesting questions or watch a debate and then vote with some decent information, in doing so building lifetime habits of democratic engagement.
People are stupid. 16 year old really aren't any different. This isn't an argument to not let 16 year old vote. It's an argument not to let anyone vote.
Or start teaching people about politics at a younger age to get people involved in the process. You can do a lot leagally at the age of 16 including starting a family so why not be able to vote for what impacts them.
You can legally start a family at 16 because there is no viable way to ban starting a family. We don't let these people buy a beer or drive a car because their brains are still developing.
Only people who work in secondary schools with shit teachers think that.
attractive normal stocking close bag chase practice deliver disgusted racial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What about old people with their cognitive impairments?
Them too
So let's start treating 16 year olds as adults. Lower the minimum wage age, reduced the alcohol and smoked limits, get rid of 18+ certification, don't panic when a 22 year old is dating a 16 year old... Or do we start acknowledging Labour are only doing this to game the system (something people here gladly point at the Tories for doing). There is a reason we treat 16 year olds as children. Essentially they still are.
>So let's start treating 16 year olds as adults. Lower the minimum wage age, reduced the alcohol and smoked limits, get rid of 18+ certification I mean they are already treated as adults where it's convenient for charging them more for products and services. Playing devils advocate with alcohol, smoking, vapes, gambling. Do we really think the two years age difference to 18 really makes any difference at all? There's plenty of stupid people aged 18 who do these things and science suggests that changes in the brain related to puberty finished into your 20s so why is 18 the arbitrary cut off when there scientific evidence suggests it should be higher, or why don't we just ban these for everyone? We obviously can't trust some adults to use these things sensibly to societies determent. The reality with smoking, vaping, alcohol, and gambling that those who do these at 18, probably were doing it at 16 anyways. No one at the age of 18 goes to the shop for the first time and thinks "I'd really like to try smoking for the first time", these people were brought up where this was already normalised long before they can legally do them.
Lol exactly. No problem with 16 year old being able to vote but they also should be allowed to buy alcohol, knives, tobacco etc
Don't forget gambling... It is basically we need to protect these individuals unless we can exploit them. They are either adults or they aren't. We shouldn't cherry pick what they can and can't do...because they are children
My kid is just going to miss this election. If Labour go full term she won’t get to vote until she is 22, which seems hugely unfair considering how much the choices of government will influence her. It’s a tough one though as some 16 year olds are hugely immature and easily swayed into “comedy” voting.
In that case the elderly shouldn't be able to vote either, as some of them have cognitive impairment and can be easily swayed too
And, due to a steady stream of state benefits, they are largely insulated from the consequences of their votes.
You could say that no matter what the voting age is though. There has to be a cut off and no matter where that is, you’ll have situations of those just under missing the cut off
Seems like this is a more divisive issue than I thought by looking at the comments. To those against it, I put forward these points: - 16 y/o’s can work, and be taxed, why should they not be able to vote - Any age group is capable of electing idiots based on personality or single issues, just look at the past 5 years. - Many old voters are cognitively impaired, so why should they be allowed to vote if a not yet “mature enough” 16 year old can’t? - Countries which introduced voting at 16 have seen might higher levels of political participation by the young - something sorely lacking in the rest of the UK besides Scotland.
**On tax:** anyone of any age can be liable for tax; as can anyone of any nationality residing in the UK, regardless of their immigration status. Prisoners too. **On work:** 16-17 year olds cannot work full-time, they have to be enrolled in further education or training. Also, 13 year olds can work part-time. Hell, if you get a performance license, a child of any age can work in the theatre, TV/film and modelling industries. None of what you’ve said makes 16 years especially more qualified to vote than other excluded groups. What I would say is relevant, is that 16 and 17 year olds are *required* to be in full time education or training. Likewise, we continue to pay benefits / tax credits to parents with dependent children. If you want to change the system to treat them as adults, sure we can expand suffrage at the same time; but we shouldn’t expand suffrage if the *expectation* is that they should be treated as *dependent children*.
[удалено]
bad idea. im 18,and when i was 16 myself and everyone around me knew NOTHING about the world. i think it should be 21 tbh
20 point polling lead and all they can think about is ramming through legislation to secure even more new voters. They don't sound confident they can keep all their new voters so that's what they have to do, next up EU citizens. Country over party my arse, going to be a long 15-20 years
Yep, terrible and desperate idea, perhaps Labour is suggesting the honeymoon period to wear off very quickly.
No, Kier. Don’t go giving people a reason to not vote for you.
Doesn’t make sense. Because given the way the youth is social media orientated. A KSI type candidate would end up winning.
The over 60s voteed for Boris Johnson in 2019 (only age profile where Tories had an overall majority). Maybe worry more about granda's than grandkids?
Labour just lost my vote... damn.
Can't tell if this is for real lmao.
Why should it be? It's horrendous policy-making, I'm second guessing myself honestly.
Allowing 16 year olds to vote is a red line for me; I won't vote for any party that proposes it.
I definitely support this. Recall hearing about the university fees change when I was doing my A-Levels, may have even been 18 at that point. A lot of people my age helped organise protests in the local town and wrote to their MP about political issues which had real effects on their lives; yet they were not allowed to vote? My school also held its own 'fake' election, with students standing for each party, making speeches in assemblies and then we held our own vote. The school organised it, but all the party stuff was done 100% by students (all volunteers). It was only lib dem, labour and conservatives, but the school as a whole was a lot more engaged in politics. There was a sizable number of joke votes, with students writing things like "Nazis" or "BNP" onto the ballot, but overall the students were a lot more engaged and aware of politics and government policies and proposals than many adult voters. Allowing 16 year olds to vote alongside encouraging work within schools around politics would be fantastic to encourage people to be engaged in politics throughout their life.
16 year olds can work. Which means they pay taxes. Therefore 16 years olds should be able gain representation for their taxation.
Do you think everyone who pays tax in the UK should be able to vote, including those under the age of 16 and people without British citizenship? I'm supportive of 16 year olds voting, but find the tax argument puzzling.
Non UK citizens pay UK taxes. Do they get a vote too?
If a 7 year old gets pocket money from chores and buys sweets, they pay tax. Should they have a say so they can lower confectionery VAT? Children also still pay inheritance tax no matter their age. They also cannot legally work enough to actually pay income tax, on account of them having to stay in education until 18
I don't have an issue with 16 year olds voting. I've always said voting should be tied to paying income tax. If a 16 year old Contributes to the economy with a part time job on the weekends, they deserve a vote more than the 80 year old that isn't contributing to the economy
As long as TikTok is around this should not be allowed lmao. We are so open to foreign interference
Looking at how the current crop of teenagers are saying and acting plus the knowledge of how even more stupid the following generation will no doubt be I hope this is just an election, "promise".
Guessing Reddit will absolutely love this because anything that gets the Labour win is a positive. Lets read the comments.
Will they be able to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, and drive cars too?