Forum menu
^ Not sure why I am being quoted for saying that – it was @Flaperon that said it, I just responded to it.
It's all a bit of storm in a teacup really because as a portion of the voting public ranging in age from 16-106 people aged 16-17 is hardly anyone - exactly how much do we imagine that group will shift the dial in any given election. And as often as not people aged 16/17 in a given year won't have any elections scheduled to actually vote in
Or looking at it the other way, you're now almost twice as likely to get to vote in a general election before your 21st birthday.
Usually there's local elections somewhere in the middle too.
No taxation without representation as the saying goes.
Careful now, the non-doms will hear you.
Marriage has been 18 since 2023. Military recruitment is an odd one, basically you can be trained but not in service ‘till 18. But… so? Why should you not be able to vote before you can get married, or fight for your country? Those limits are to protect young people… why do they need protection from being included in the democratic process?
I'm ambivalent about this but I do think voting should be compulsory (like Australia), though with a "none of the above" option for those incapable of making a decision.
Making it compulsory should (my theory goes) make politics less susceptible to minority/extremist policies taking hold (or disproportionate importance) and the world should be a more balanced, happier place to be...
Failing that, Ill make myself a benevolent dictator...😉
rash mature decisions
All your examples are different kinds of decisions (some are virtually reflex, some can be formed over months/years) and have different implications. Different criteria for different situations and responsibilities is totally normal.
I think it's a daft idea for several reasons including because at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision concerning who should represent them in parliament.
I brought up in a fairly political environment taking an early interest in politics, more so than most, but whilst I would have had a basic understanding at 16 I can't say that it was a deep understanding.
Voting should be seen as a civic duty which everyone should be take a responsibility for, why should 16 year old feel pressurised to vote? Let them enjoy another couple of years of their childhoods without burdening them with the gloom of UK politics
If the answer is not to pressurise them to vote then you are not teaching them that it is a civic responsibility to do so. They will have decades of voting throughout their lives allowing to start two years early is a meaningless exercise and pointless gimmick.
A cheap as well as pointless gimmick of course and that is probably the main attraction for the government.
If we really want to do something to enhance the lives of kids in the UK how about doing something a bit more meaningful such as tackling the the scandal of child poverty? 41% of 15-19 year olds in the UK's capital city live in households that are in poverty.
Or is that too radical? Is cheap, pointless, gimmicks, is all that the 6th wealthiest nation on Earth can afford?
Voting should be seen as a civic duty which everyone should be take a responsibility for
While we’re at it… we should let Ernie vote in UK general elections as well.
ir was in the manifesto tho Ernie, so i presume you voted for it?
The youngsters aren't going to override the votes of the apparent nutters looking to make Farage PM.
We prevent people under 18 marrying, drinking and volunteering to go to war because we believe (as in society believes) at 16 or 17 you are too likely to make rash or impulsive or immature decisions -
That nicely portrays the elderly too. I fear I'm heading that way.
at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision
I hate to break it to you Ernie, but age is irrelevant there - you can probably swap 16 for 25, 40 or 80.
I think it's a daft idea for several reasons including because at 16 years most kids haven't thought seriously enough about politics to make an informed decision concerning who should represent them in parliament.
Hardly anyone thinks about it that much. I know you think about it loads Ernie but lets face it you're not typical of the voting public. there's a pretty low bar for being able to vote - being over 18 (or over 16) and not dead - thats pretty much it. No serious thinking about consequences required - not even capacity for reasoned thought - if you're old enough to vote you can vote. Thats it. It would be difficult to vote, in practical terms if you were in a coma, or persistent vegetative state or in the middle of some major psychotic breakdown, etc but theres nothing barring you from doing so that I'm aware of. In the UK the only exception I'm aware of are for incarcerated criminals (but only criminals serving the custodial part of a sentence) but thats by accident rather than design as theres no credible rationale behind that and if Brexit hadn't have happened along we'd probably have to have changed that by now.
Having just taken a look at one GB News is actually News corner of the internet. All yoof have been brainwashed by the "wokerati", and a whole bunch of racist wailing.
double post
I've worked with a lot of folk I wouldn't trust to tie my shoe laces.
If they can vote so to can a 16 year old.
there's a pretty low bar for being able to vote - being over 18 (or over 16) and not dead - thats pretty much it. No serious thinking about consequences required - not even capacity for reasoned thought - if you're old enough to vote you can vote. Thats it
Well yes, I fully understand the point being made with regards to many people not making carefully thought-out informed decisions when it comes to voting.
But I don't think you can deal with that issue by basically throwing the towel in and saying "we might as well let kids vote too".
We need to project voting as a grown-up responsible civic duty which requires careful thought, lowering the bar any lower than it already is isn't likely to enhance the belief that voting is actually quite a serious business.
I don't see the problem with telling a 16 year old that they will have to wait 24 months before they can vote. Well in fact there isn't one actually - kids that are 16 years old now will have to wait 48 months before they can vote in a general election, I don't think that is causing anyone any huge problems.
I think it's all a distraction from real issues that currently confront adolescents imo.
Yes please, then can we have a referendum on rejoining the EU please?
Youth vote might swing it!
I think it's all a distraction from real issues that currently confront adolescents imo.
Given that when it comes to it a lot of people don't vote beyond the end of their own noses, who's going to force parties to prioritise issues confronting adolescents. We've already seen enough GB News type response to the idea that isn't far away from 'woke teenagers don't know what's good for them, bring back the cane, it never harmed me' - why would anyone think they're going to back parties with strong policy ideas that benefit teenagers.
So yes, allow them a say in who's elected and maybe then you'll get parties committed to addressing these issues.
We've already seen enough GB News type response to the idea that isn't far away from 'woke teenagers don't know what's good for them, bring back the cane, it never harmed me' -
That sounds very much like a reactive response and backing a proposal because you believe it pisses off the sort of people that you don't like, which is hardly the most grown-up way to deal with electoral reform!
Apart from pissing off a certain category of people and maintaining the woefully low bar when it comes to political discourse among the voting population, what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote, and why it should be a priority over a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments? I am genuinely open to suggestions.
Failing that, Ill make myself a benevolent dictator...
Username checks out....
All the FB comments I'm seeing on this seem to include a very high proportion of folk very fixated on naming under 18s convicted of offences. The bots have odd priorities.
what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote
It makes it less advantageous for politicians to ignore the needs of young people if they can vote. The importance of the aged vote at elections is growing, and the effects of politicians having to listen to them more than young people is pretty clear for all to see.
This poll is interesting, it's a year old but I think we can safely say that the only significant change which has occurred in the last 12 months is that support for Reform UK has massively increased whilst support for Labour has fallen considerably.
https://twitter.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1808111523195167158
It's interesting to note how the lads appear to have quite a liking for Farage/Reform compared to the girls. I reckon Farage needs to find a female influencer equivalent to Andrew Tate to draw in female support.
I believe that far-right support is a growing phenomenon throughout much of Europe. And that's hardly surprising they do after all provide simple solutions for the political naive and they also claim to be anti-establishment, so you can understand the appeal that might have among naive rebellious youth.
On the other hand radical left support is also likely to increase if perhaps not quite as much. A real "centrist" nightmare I would imagine
As the father of three who have enthusiastically voted in Scotland twice since 16, I'm all for it.
In my experience they are more questioning of the political parties and vote based on what they want for the future. And they are more inclusive and tolerant than many older folk we know.
If you are expected to work and pay taxes, you can have a vote.
what are the obvious benefits of allowing 16 year olds to vote,
If you want parties to develop policies addressing the needs of young people, then give young people a say in who's subsequently elected. When push comes to shove a lot of people vote with self interest front and centre, so franchise the young, and make parties work for their votes.
why it should be a priority over a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments? I am genuinely open to suggestions.
Unless I missed something, is it an either / or?
It makes it less advantageous for politicians to ignore the needs of young people if they can vote.
That is a fair and I reckon valid point, although I wouldn't want to exaggerate how much politicians are attentive to the needs of voters in general, and 16-17 year olds who actually turn out to vote are likely to be a really tiny percentage of the electorate.
Unless I missed something, is it an either / or?
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
It's a distraction away from the need for real electoral reform, including PR, and real issues affecting 16-17 year old such as poverty, IMHO.
I see quite a few disadvantages and so far only one possible tangible benefit.
I am very much in favour of politicalising young people btw, and helping them to have a greater understanding of politics, but I doubt that the government or the establishment wants that at all, nor do I believe that giving them a vote 2 years before their 18th is necessary to achieve that.
For me it's a fundamental question of fairness.. Of its fair to tax someone, they should be able to vote.
I'd happily forfiet my vote if it meant I didn't have to pay any tax, I'd be a millionaire, lol!
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
This needs doing well before any general election. Rushing the change in with just months to go would look very dodgy. The other changes you suggest will likely need to be a known and complete proposal at the next election (as this one was at the last).
I'd happily forfiet my vote if it meant I didn't have to pay any tax, I'd be a millionaire, lol!
I don't suppose many 16 and 17 year olds pay income tax, approximately 94% are in education or training so I doubt that many go beyond the personal allowance threshold.
Well we are discussing plans to give 16-17 year olds the vote, not about the plans for a democratic second chamber and regional parliaments, so it certainly seems that way.
Equally we're not talking about PR, or getting rid of the king and becoming a republic, or any other change to the political structure of the UK. But they're not currently talking points in UK politics, which makes me think that 16/17 year olds voting is not an either/or.
But why isn't PR a talking point in UK politics? It would probably be just as easy and cheap to introduce as lowering the voting age by two years. If we can talk about giving 16 year olds the vote we can certainly talk about PR.
Obviously abolishing the monarchy and establishing a republic would be highly time consuming and quite expensive, and it isn't contained in the many party manifestos.
Introducing PR in the next 4 years is perfectly feasible, abolition of the monarchy not quite so much
Let alone reason with himself to cast a vote.
To be fair that applies to a large % of the voting population regardless of age......just look at how many votes reform got last time for evidence!
There’s a significant portion of the British electorate I wouldn’t trust to tie their own shoelaces unaided, let alone put a cross with a crayon on a piece of paper!
Marriage has been 18 since 2023.
I must have been asleep at the time, I hadn’t realised that the age limit had been raised! 🤷🏼♂️
The biggest change needed would be to prevent any body not on the electoral register from not being able to make political donations, and that would mean companies etc would not be able to make political donations, and to cap the allowed amount of donation, I would suggest at £500 per year.
Allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote, making the 2nd chamber democratic and PR are good things, but it is really political finance that is distorting democracy to a point where it is really only a façade of democracy, these other changes are just window dressing to avoid the big issue.
Equally we're not talking about PR, or getting rid of the king and becoming a republic, or any other change to the political structure of the UK. But they're not currently talking points in UK politics, which makes me think that 16/17 year olds voting is not an either/or.
Wouldn't this need Lib Dems and Reform to be the two leading parties at the next election? (For PR)
It's not that unlikely especially if the SNP regain ground from Labour.
So, you can vote at an age that's only 2 years away from being old enough to die at war? And people think that's too young to vote because they may not be mature enough? If 16's too young to vote then 18's too young to be sent to war.
I would expect a lot of overlap between those thinking 16 is too young to vote and those thinking 18 is fine to be at war. And considering where we may be in the next 5 years .. I would give those 16 year olds a say in their near future.
Again, I'll preface with that I'm in favour....
But to counter my own preference......it also means that at 16 you are too young to volunteer yourself to go to war (because 16 is too young to make a sensible, mature decision about such a life changing consequence) but you would be considered old enough to vote in a way that means others are sent to war.
seems a lot of fuss about not much. the 18 y'o dont turn out, i dont think the 16y/o will be much better
No problem. However maybe there should be an IQ test and required level to reach for all voters before they are eligible to put their cross in a box. Too many cretins of all ages that have no idea what they are voting on.
seems a lot of fuss about not much. the 18 y'o dont turn out, i dont think the 16y/o will be much better
Think the data from Scotland shows 16-18 year old are more likely to vote than 19-25s
Think the data from Scotland shows 16-18 year old are more likely to vote than 19-25s
Actually, it's slightly more nuanced (and positive). There is evidence that people who had a chance to vote at 16/17 are more likely to vote in early adulthood than those that weren't. Their turnout rate will still drop, but still not to as low as those that didn't have a chance. However - engagement in politics beyond voting remains unchanged.
If 18 year olds and young people don't turn out it's perhaps because they encounter the hurdles I did at that age. Registering to vote is time consuming and slow when you're a student or doing temporary jobs (some abroad) and constantly changing address (which means you're hundreds of miles away and can't afford the tickets). In my case that was followed by poll tax when I was living in a vehicle, then I left the country and lost my rights until they were restored a couple of years back. At past 60 I managed to vote in a UK election for the first time after registering on the basis of a P45 from a temporary job in 1991 and using a postal vote. It's getting easier put could still be a lot easier.
Compare that with France where my ID car makes it a piece of cake to vote. When I'm absent I do a procuration so I've voted in every national election since being granted nationality. Even before that I voted in every local election using my carte de séjour. Easy. Make it easy and people will vote.
No problem. However maybe there should be an IQ test and required level to reach for all voters before they are eligible to put their cross in a box.
Do you have an IQ level in mind?
Controversial, but, I think it's a good idea. OK, if they vote one way, it goers wrong, at least they'll have a better idea in four years time.
It's better than having a load of "old crusties" that only vote one way, especially some of the more 'wealthy ones'. They are from a different 'time' ! Controversial I know, but locally you can tell which way an area will vote due to the local population - the "old" white, middle class only vote one way. I could go on, but I know enough of them - outdated views (bordering racist).
If not a good idea, then we really need toy 18-30's to start to take notice and vote, as it affects them most, not a 70 year old pulling in a nice pension.
Having taught hundreds of 16-18 year olds, including the minister introducing this bill for 2 of her A levels, I'd say they're as rational and clear-headed as anyone else. Denying them the vote is more likely to lead to cynicism and disengagement as rich old bloaters eg take away their student grants and send other people's kids to fight colonial wars