If a 14yo (for example, my daughter) can be asked to write persuasive essays in English and chooses "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", run a mock-election campaign for a political party and have informed discussion of politics is that the behaviour of a child? Admittedly not everyone in her year as politically informed or active, but there's also still a couple of years before they'll get a chance to vote.
All of us can field examples of impressive young people. I suspect that most of us can also provide examples of the other kind as well.
Given that what we have is a universal franchise, rather than one that requires any kind of test, then I think you ought to be looking at average people, and not bright ones. The average GCSE grade is about 4.8, so middle-of-the-road pupils are the ones getting mostly 4s and 5s.
A large majority of 16 and 17 year olds are in full-time education (about 83% of them). Of those, a little more than half are in school (almost 2/3, if you include sixth form colleges as "schools"), and the other third or so are mostly in FE colleges. The "average" group will include some people studying for A-levels in school or college, who will probably manage some fairly unexceptional passes, and some in apprenticeships or studying for technical qualifications. Most live with one or both parents.
I'm not a fan of giving 16-17 year olds the vote, but I think that if your political strategy relies on these 16-17 year olds changing in character significantly on their 18th birthdays, then you don't have a very good strategy.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
If a 14yo (for example, my daughter) can be asked to write persuasive essays in English and chooses "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", run a mock-election campaign for a political party and have informed discussion of politics is that the behaviour of a child? Admittedly not everyone in her year as politically informed or active, but there's also still a couple of years before they'll get a chance to vote.
All of us can field examples of impressive young people. I suspect that most of us can also provide examples of the other kind as well.
Given that what we have is a universal franchise, rather than one that requires any kind of test, then I think you ought to be looking at average people, and not bright ones. The average GCSE grade is about 4.8, so middle-of-the-road pupils are the ones getting mostly 4s and 5s.
A large majority of 16 and 17 year olds are in full-time education (about 83% of them). Of those, a little more than half are in school (almost 2/3, if you include sixth form colleges as "schools"), and the other third or so are mostly in FE colleges. The "average" group will include some people studying for A-levels in school or college, who will probably manage some fairly unexceptional passes, and some in apprenticeships or studying for technical qualifications. Most live with one or both parents.
I'm not a fan of giving 16-17 year olds the vote, but I think that if your political strategy relies on these 16-17 year olds changing in character significantly on their 18th birthdays, then you don't have a very good strategy.
I've never claimed that all 16/17 year olds would pass any sort of "voting eligibility" test - any more than I'd claim all 40 year olds would pass such a test. What I'm not seeing from young adults who are active in politics or those I've come across while campaigning is that the proportion of that age group who don't have a clue what's going on is not significantly greater than among older people. Probably among any group of 14 year olds there will be very few who most would say wouldn't meet some sort of "voting eligibility" test, conversely among any group of 18 year olds most would say that the majority would meet that sort of requirement. At some point between 14 and 18 the majority of people gain the knowledge and gain the cognitive skills needed to participate in society - including voting, but also other forms of political activity, serving on a jury, managing their own lives, making decisions about careers, getting married etc.
The argument is that everyone who has a stake in the nation or local region should be able to vote for those who represent them. That includes anyone who is old enough to work, and hence pay tax. It also covers anyone resident in that nation, regardless of citizenship.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
Well, everyone who has the money to be able to drive or travel overseas for their holiday, and hence have a drivers licence or passport, or old enough to have a bus pass. Not so bothered about letting people without those forms of id to vote.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Even if younger people do strongly support one party over the others (for which there's little evidence - in Scotland that younger vote is split between SNP, Labour, Green and even LibDem and Conservative) the advantage would be very small, less than 2% increase in the electorate. Most people who get the right to vote at 16 won't be able to exercise that until they're 18 anyway (I was well into my 20s before I had the chance to vote in a general election, missing out on 1987 by a couple of months).
Let’s give Telford a break. There was a sarcastic tone to his post. This is Hell. He is totally allowed to make such a comment. If some other ship mates would have posted it there wouldn’t be such a fuss.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
If that were the case they wouldn't have changed voter registration to suppress the vote among people who move around a lot, predominantly young people and especially students.
Is there a principled argument for giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds? Of course there is. In the same way that there is an argument against it. It is possible for reasonable people to hold either position.
In the same vein, there are reasoned arguments for and against voters ID.
In both cases, there may be a political advantage to one or other party.
Therefore, we cannot on that basis alone, reach a conclusion about the parties' motivations in forwarding these policies. However that is not all we know. There is a lot more data and evidence. I won't say anything more here about voter ID except that Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent comments were surprisingly honest and revealing.
In terms of giving the franchise to under 18s, there would be no meaningful gain for the Labour party - at least in the short term to medium term. The numbers of people who would be eligible to vote is fairly small. Turnout amongst young people is low. There is no evidence to suggest that this would be different for this sub-group. If you then look at the political allegiances of young people, which are to several / all parties, the total number of votes that would be a net gain for Labour is very small. It is vanishingly unlikely that such votes would make a meaningful difference to the number of seats won in a Westminster election. Hence, the assertion that Labour would reduce the voting age to 16 to keep the Tories out does not stand up to any sort of analysis.
A couple of caveats. It is possible in the long term that this will benefit Labour as people who start voting before they turn 20 are more likely to vote in every election. Therefore there may be a long term pay off in terms of turnout. But an increase in participation is something our democracy desperately needs whether it benefits one party or not.
Of course, there is a good chance that the Tories will be out of power for a while but not because of these policies. The Conservative Party is an election-winning machine. Over the course of their very long history, they have been an incredibly broad church and a coalition of multiple factions that really don't agree on very much and probably can't stand each other. The Party wins because each of these groups cares about winning even more. Whether the Party will be an electoral force within a decade depends entirely on their internal politics.
My first vote was at the age of 18 in the 1983 General Election. By then I’d left school and was working having been booted out of sixth form for being a lazy little sod, but had I stayed on to complete my A Levels, I would technically have still been a “schoolchild” in the eyes of Telford.
The 1987 general election was the first time I was really aware of politics. Held in that period between sitting A-levels and results coming out, there had been a lot of discussion about different parties and candidates and policies in the 6th form common room at school when we needed a break from revision, and various get togethers after the exams. I turned 18 in July, so while most of the people in my class I knew well were voting I couldn't. I didn't actually vote until I was 22, for the 1992 general election (yes, there would have been local elections and a European Parliament election before then ... but, I don't recall voting in any of them).
Though, in 1987 we had a sitting MP who'd been doing a lot of good locally and was generally well respected. So, those few weeks short of being able to vote saved me from the shame of having voted Conservative in my youth.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
So why did Jacob Rees-Mogg say that the Voter ID laws were an attempt to suppress the vote of people who were unlikely to vote Conservative?
I cannot answer for Sir Jacob. If those are his views, I don't agree with him.
He is in a better position to know what makes the Conservatives happy than you are.
If he says the Voter ID laws are an attempt to gerrymander the vote he is in a decent position to know. You on the other hand are just asserting without knowledge what ought to be the case.
Voter ID us know to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Voter fraud is not common in the UK. So there was no need to bring it in. The government must know this, so there must be another reason to being it in. If it didn’t give them an advantage they wouldn’t have done so. You can send away for a voter ID. One may ask what is the real difference between a voter ID card and a general ID card? Some are happy with the former but not the latter
Let’s give Telford a break. There was a sarcastic tone to his post. This is Hell. He is totally allowed to make such a comment. If some other ship mates would have posted it there wouldn’t be such a fuss.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
If that were the case they wouldn't have changed voter registration to suppress the vote among people who move around a lot, predominantly young people and especially students.
I suspect that people who move around a lot are on more than one electoral rolls.
My first vote was at the age of 18 in the 1983 General Election. By then I’d left school and was working having been booted out of sixth form for being a lazy little sod, but had I stayed on to complete my A Levels, I would technically have still been a “schoolchild” in the eyes of Telford.
I understand that you are no longer a child at 18 years of age.
Voter ID us know to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Voter fraud is not common in the UK. So there was no need to bring it in. The government must know this, so there must be another reason to being it in. If it didn’t give them an advantage they wouldn’t have done so. You can send away for a voter ID. One may ask what is the real difference between a voter ID card and a general ID card? Some are happy with the former but not the latter
I would agree that voter fraud convictions are not common.
Let’s give Telford a break. There was a sarcastic tone to his post. This is Hell. He is totally allowed to make such a comment. If some other ship mates would have posted it there wouldn’t be such a fuss.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
If that were the case they wouldn't have changed voter registration to suppress the vote among people who move around a lot, predominantly young people and especially students.
I suspect that people who move around a lot are on more than one electoral rolls.
My first vote was at the age of 18 in the 1983 General Election. By then I’d left school and was working having been booted out of sixth form for being a lazy little sod, but had I stayed on to complete my A Levels, I would technically have still been a “schoolchild” in the eyes of Telford.
I understand that you are no longer a child at 18 years of age.
Voter ID us know to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Voter fraud is not common in the UK. So there was no need to bring it in. The government must know this, so there must be another reason to being it in. If it didn’t give them an advantage they wouldn’t have done so. You can send away for a voter ID. One may ask what is the real difference between a voter ID card and a general ID card? Some are happy with the former but not the latter
I would agree that voter fraud convictions are not common.
You seem to be implying that only a small proportion of voter fraud is prosecuted.
Let’s give Telford a break. There was a sarcastic tone to his post. This is Hell. He is totally allowed to make such a comment. If some other ship mates would have posted it there wouldn’t be such a fuss.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The Conservatives are happy for everyone to vote once they are old enough
If that were the case they wouldn't have changed voter registration to suppress the vote among people who move around a lot, predominantly young people and especially students.
I suspect that people who move around a lot are on more than one electoral rolls.
My first vote was at the age of 18 in the 1983 General Election. By then I’d left school and was working having been booted out of sixth form for being a lazy little sod, but had I stayed on to complete my A Levels, I would technically have still been a “schoolchild” in the eyes of Telford.
I understand that you are no longer a child at 18 years of age.
Voter ID us know to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Voter fraud is not common in the UK. So there was no need to bring it in. The government must know this, so there must be another reason to being it in. If it didn’t give them an advantage they wouldn’t have done so. You can send away for a voter ID. One may ask what is the real difference between a voter ID card and a general ID card? Some are happy with the former but not the latter
I would agree that voter fraud convictions are not common.
You seem to be implying that only a small proportion of voter fraud is prosecuted.
You presumably have evidence of this?
My evidence is in the post that I quoted. You can only prosecute or caution for offences that are detected.
It's a bit like possession of cannabis. The Police will claim a 100% detection rate
The argument is that everyone who has a stake in the nation or local region should be able to vote for those who represent them. That includes anyone who is old enough to work, and hence pay tax. It also covers anyone resident in that nation, regardless of citizenship.
I used to have neighbours who worked, and so paid taxes, as babies. I'll grant that child actors, models, and the like are the exception rather than the rule, but I'm not sure that "you're old enough to pay tax" is quite the marker you think it is. Besides which, this argument gets perilously close to a "people who don't pay tax shouldn't be able to vote" position, which is not one I think you would choose to support.
The people who have a stake in the nation or region are all of the people - or at least, all of the people who intend to remain in the region for the medium-to-long term. You can make a case that members of a transient population can serve as proxies for future people who are different individuals, but in similar circumstances. Babies and children have a stake in the region just as much as adults do.
If you asked my youngest son what to vote for, he'd probably say "more trains". This might, as it happens, be good policy, but only coincidentally. The other answer you'd be likely to get is "more dinosaurs", with specific mention made of the giganotosaurus, which he'd quite like to see hanging about on street corners. That would be a less good policy.
In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage was raised to 18, in order to help protect children from being coerced into unwanted marriages. English law presumes that people aged 18 or over are capable of entering into binding contracts, whereas contracts with those under 18 are generally voidable. I find it difficult to square these reasonable protections for young people from exploitation with the idea that those same young people should be able to determine the fate of the country.
For those who think it's relevant, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines "child" as a human aged under 18.
I always fall back on the suffragist maxim: "those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law". If you're old enough to be prosecuted you should be old enough to vote.
The argument is that everyone who has a stake in the nation or local region should be able to vote for those who represent them. That includes anyone who is old enough to work, and hence pay tax. It also covers anyone resident in that nation, regardless of citizenship.
I used to have neighbours who worked, and so paid taxes, as babies. I'll grant that child actors, models, and the like are the exception rather than the rule, but I'm not sure that "you're old enough to pay tax" is quite the marker you think it is. Besides which, this argument gets perilously close to a "people who don't pay tax shouldn't be able to vote" position, which is not one I think you would choose to support.
The people who have a stake in the nation or region are all of the people - or at least, all of the people who intend to remain in the region for the medium-to-long term. You can make a case that members of a transient population can serve as proxies for future people who are different individuals, but in similar circumstances. Babies and children have a stake in the region just as much as adults do.
If you asked my youngest son what to vote for, he'd probably say "more trains". This might, as it happens, be good policy, but only coincidentally. The other answer you'd be likely to get is "more dinosaurs", with specific mention made of the giganotosaurus, which he'd quite like to see hanging about on street corners. That would be a less good policy.
In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage was raised to 18, in order to help protect children from being coerced into unwanted marriages. English law presumes that people aged 18 or over are capable of entering into binding contracts, whereas contracts with those under 18 are generally voidable. I find it difficult to square these reasonable protections for young people from exploitation with the idea that those same young people should be able to determine the fate of the country.
For those who think it's relevant, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines "child" as a human aged under 18.
Good post. BIB.. Very useful
You don't go to the trouble of lowering the voting age if you think it will help every party/
You don't go to the trouble of lowering the voting age if you think it will help every party/
Nope, utter drivel. As has been shown, there are good arguments for and against but the idea that it will result in a measurable benefit to one party over any others is just nonsense.
You don't go to the trouble of lowering the voting age if you think it will help every party/
Nope, utter drivel. As has been shown, there are good arguments for and against but the idea that it will result in a measurable benefit to one party over any others is just nonsense.
AFZ
Not just one party. I guess the Greens would think it was a good idea as well. Basically, it's anti-Conservative.
I don't know about GPEW (SGP support voting rights for 16-17 year olds, and widening the right to vote as far as possible). It's also the policy of LibDems.
It's only anti-Conservative if it can be demonstrated that people aged 16-21 are very much more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives, and much more likely to actually vote at all. That has never been clearly demonstrated, what studies I have seen show that people under 30 are more likely to approve of left-wing policies but also much less likely to actually vote. But, those studies also suggest that part of that is a general dis-satisfaction with the government of the time, especially if the same party has been in power for a decade, and a stronger "time for a change" leaning (which could mean that Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government).
I don't know about GPEW (SGP support voting rights for 16-17 year olds, and widening the right to vote as far as possible). It's also the policy of LibDems.
It's only anti-Conservative if it can be demonstrated that people aged 16-21 are very much more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives, and much more likely to actually vote at all. That has never been clearly demonstrated, what studies I have seen show that people under 30 are more likely to approve of left-wing policies but also much less likely to actually vote. But, those studies also suggest that part of that is a general dis-satisfaction with the government of the time, especially if the same party has been in power for a decade, and a stronger "time for a change" leaning (which could mean that Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government).
So what is the purpose of the change? Wont the Labour government have more important issues to deal with ?
@Alan Cresswell said Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government...
Surely that's a good reason for the change? Labour will indeed have a lot of important and more immediate issues to deal with, but no doubt they're looking to the future as well.
I don't know about GPEW (SGP support voting rights for 16-17 year olds, and widening the right to vote as far as possible). It's also the policy of LibDems.
It's only anti-Conservative if it can be demonstrated that people aged 16-21 are very much more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives, and much more likely to actually vote at all. That has never been clearly demonstrated, what studies I have seen show that people under 30 are more likely to approve of left-wing policies but also much less likely to actually vote. But, those studies also suggest that part of that is a general dis-satisfaction with the government of the time, especially if the same party has been in power for a decade, and a stronger "time for a change" leaning (which could mean that Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government).
So what is the purpose of the change? Wont the Labour government have more important issues to deal with ?
Governments can do more than one thing, and this is something that requires minimal planning, no testing, just a small amount of parliamentary time. The purpose of the change is to give young people a say in how the country is run. Secondary to that there is some hope that earlier voting may engender engagement in politics and a lifelong habit of informed voting. I realise that tories tend to think that extending the franchise is always a bad thing.
The arguments for reducing the voting age to 16 are that it increases participation in democratic processes. Not just immediately, but as an ongoing practice because there's a lot of evidence that people who vote before they turn 20 carry on to vote in future elections, whereas those who don't get a chance to vote until they're in their 20s are less likely to get into the habit. Especially where parents vote, they can take their children to the polling station if they're still at home.
There are some other steps that can also be taken to improve participation in democratic processes.
I'd argue that increasing the powers of local government, and emphasising that local government manages some of the things people directly experience (bin collections, pot holes, schools, etc) would make it clearer that voting for local elections is as important as a general election. Also, treating local elections as important in their own right, rather than casting them as predictors for the next general election. That might actually reduce the need to reduce voting age to 16, if people have more elections seen as important then there's more chance to vote in "an important election" so people will automatically be younger (on average) when they get their first chance to vote in "an important election". Also, schedule general and local elections so that they're not in the same year - which not only spreads out voting to being a more regular event it also means local election campaigns can be on local issues without those issues being pushed under the carpet by the contemporaneous general election campaign. If only general elections are counted as important, a voting age of 18 could mean their first chance for a "meaningful vote" would be when they're 23, reduce voting age to 16 reduces that to 21 ... but if local elections are seen as meaningful then that age for first chance to cast a meaningful vote is reduced.
And, as I'm talking about elections being meaningful and voting seen to be important, scrap the stupid FPTP voting system which results in national election results being dominated by a minority of constituencies and overall representation in Parliament being skewed in favour of a couple of parties. A more proportional system where more constituencies are in the position of being important, and where votes for smaller parties will be more significant, will reduce the "my vote doesn't count" fallacy (it's a fallacy because even in a very safe seat those votes for other parties send messages to the elected MP about the spread of views in the constituency, which if they're a good MP they'll pay attention to). Let's have elections which aren't cast as "Sunak v Starmer" as though they're the only politicians that count, but where there are several parties in the ring and where at local constituency levels individual candidates have to convince voters to vote for them.
I don't know about GPEW (SGP support voting rights for 16-17 year olds, and widening the right to vote as far as possible). It's also the policy of LibDems.
It's only anti-Conservative if it can be demonstrated that people aged 16-21 are very much more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives, and much more likely to actually vote at all. That has never been clearly demonstrated, what studies I have seen show that people under 30 are more likely to approve of left-wing policies but also much less likely to actually vote. But, those studies also suggest that part of that is a general dis-satisfaction with the government of the time, especially if the same party has been in power for a decade, and a stronger "time for a change" leaning (which could mean that Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government).
So what is the purpose of the change? Wont the Labour government have more important issues to deal with ?
Here's a radical thought for you: because they believe it's the right thing to do.
The arguments for it (and against) are laid out above.
Let me show you the numbers:
ONS estimate there are 2.4m 16-18 year olds in the UK. [1]
Average turn out of 18-24 year olds in the last 3 elections is 50% (just below in 2015, just above in 2019)[2]
Average vote of 18-24 year olds, last 3 elections; Labour 53%, Conservative 26%.[2]
So, if 16-18 year olds' voting behaviour is similar then Labour would expect a 27% vote advantage.
So our sum is: total number of 16-18yo x turnout x lab % advantage ÷ number of constituencies.
2,400,000 x 0.5 x 0.27 / 650
=498 votes
Guess how many of Labour's target seats have a majority for the Conservatives of fewer than 498 votes?[3]
4.
I'm not convinced that's a winning strategy. Especially given how things will inevitably change over time.
Neither you nor I know if it will be in the manifesto, we shall see. There is a lot for an incoming government to do but this is actually very simple legislation which doesn't need a lot of Parliamentary time.
There are some particular things I would like them to do that could be complicated. I believe there is a viable shortcut.
Parliamentary procedure allows for single line bills repealing previous legislation and returning the law to the status quo ante. (How it was before). This doesn't happen very often because there's always a desire by governments to do more, to change things. However, in the last couple of years there's been some appalling pieces of legislation. I want to see a 5 or 6 line bill that says "x is repealed" "y is repealed" etc. I'm thinking here specifically of the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In these cases, the previous law is workable and any future changes that might be desirable are not urgent. A five line Bill would pass the Commons and Lords very quickly. I doubt this will happen but I hope. They could do voter ID as well.
If Labour want to extend the franchise as well, it is easy to do so, does not really precude other things. There are good arguments in favour and no real electoral advantage. This is a stark contrast with the voter ID law where neither of those things were true.
Karl, one of your links is behind a paywall and the other requires a lot of work checking on the personal data that they will use. Do you have a third?
The BBC don't seem to be carrying the story. But, Sky News does.
Apparently a contender for the Conservative leadership. You'd have thought one habitual liar in that role would be enough for them to learn their lesson.
Various reports are emerging this evening, concerning the chaotic scenes in Parliament today over Labour's call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
It's unedifying, to say the least, and I wonder how many more children died painfully in the ruins of Gaza whilst the tories (and SNP) indulged in tantrums.
Truly, the political scene in this country is an embarrassment. This sinister simulacrum of a government must surely end soon...
The SNP have a good case to be upset. It was their chance under Parliamentary convention to table a motion and seek to influence the UK policy in an area of their choice. And, that motion was not debated or voted on, with a Labour version debated and voted on instead. Does anyone expect Labour to give one of their Opposition debate slots to the SNP so that they can have something debated and voted on?
The SNP motion was substantially identical to what was passed in the Scottish Parliament three months ago, though some changes to reflect the ongoing genocide in Gaza (even if they avoided saying the IDF are engaging in genocidal acts).
Of course it stinks, there's a nation that is illegally occupying the territory of another and has been systematically ethnically cleansing those occupied territories for decades, and is now blasting the homes of millions to dust, along with their schools and hospitals and the rest of the infrastructure of Gaza, murdering thousands of women and children. And, we have a government that is actively supporting them, supplying them with the military machines and munitions being used to commit acts of possible genocide - when the courts have had a chance to examine the evidence and reach a ruling that means that the UK could easily end up being convicted of supporting genocide (but, who needs to abide by international law? some other nations have already stopped supplying munitions to Israel because doing so runs contrary to the ICJ instruction to Israel to desist from acts that may be genocidal). It stinks that Labour didn't support the earlier motion brought by the SNP to call for a meaningful ceasefire. It reflects well on the SNP that when there are so many issues they could raise with an Opposition motion, of which they get two or three a year, that they have chosen to use that to call for a meaningful ceasefire in Gaza. Not once, but twice. It stinks that Labour in collusion with the Speaker has stolen that opportunity from them.
It doesn't help that the lack of a proper constitution means that there's nothing stopping Labour from putting forward an "amendment" to another parties motion that retains the words "This House" at the start and then replaces the whole text with something substantively different, rather than the normal expectation that amendments seek to only change (ie: amend) small sections of a motion.
I hear what you say, but I was referring to the stink of tantrum in Parliament today...
I don't know enough about the SNP to comment meaningfully, but their earlier call for a ceasefire was to their credit.
They have been remarkably consistent on calling for a ceasefire, so bringing a motion to this effect was hardly playing games.
On the contrary, Labour brought an amendment that watered down the conditions of the ceasefire, removed the language about collective punishment and then put pressure on the Speaker to have their amendment voted on first.
[And if not for the SNP Labour wouldn't even have brought an equivalent motion to the amendment they just nodded through]
I thought the speaker brought all three motions to the house, Labours, the SNPs and the government’s - what I don’t understand, is why the SNP’s was then pulled part way through the process.
Or how walking out part way through the vote was in anyway helpful.
I can understand the SNP walking out, but not the Conservatives. Their version was even more watered down than Labours. Childish behaviour on their part.
I thought the speaker brought all three motions to the house, Labours, the SNPs and the government’s - what I don’t understand, is why the SNP’s was then pulled part way through the process.
Or how walking out part way through the vote was in anyway helpful.
Labour broke convention by introducing a substantially different motion (calling it an amendment to the SNP motion, even though that would be like calling an apple and amended orange) as part of internal party politics and reducing the prospect of a significant rebellion against the instructions of Starmer to vote against the SNP. The Speaker broke convention by allowing that. I don't think anyone understands quite why that happened.
I can understand the SNP walking out at the end. Once the Conservatives said they'd be abstaining then there was no way that the Labour "amendment" wasn't going to pass, once the Speaker had accepted that Labour could put in their version of the motion the only way the SNP motion was going to be debated and voted on would have been if the Conservatives voted against the Labour version. Walking out makes a statement, and by that point was the only way the SNP could make that statement.
I don’t see how the amendments were substantial,y different - this seems like an argument over semantics, they were calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Comments
All of us can field examples of impressive young people. I suspect that most of us can also provide examples of the other kind as well.
Given that what we have is a universal franchise, rather than one that requires any kind of test, then I think you ought to be looking at average people, and not bright ones. The average GCSE grade is about 4.8, so middle-of-the-road pupils are the ones getting mostly 4s and 5s.
A large majority of 16 and 17 year olds are in full-time education (about 83% of them). Of those, a little more than half are in school (almost 2/3, if you include sixth form colleges as "schools"), and the other third or so are mostly in FE colleges. The "average" group will include some people studying for A-levels in school or college, who will probably manage some fairly unexceptional passes, and some in apprenticeships or studying for technical qualifications. Most live with one or both parents.
I'm not a fan of giving 16-17 year olds the vote, but I think that if your political strategy relies on these 16-17 year olds changing in character significantly on their 18th birthdays, then you don't have a very good strategy.
Put another way, the tories rely on the votes of people who won't have to live with the consequences so oppose voting from those with a long future ahead of them. Same reason they fiddled with voter registration.
The argument is that everyone who has a stake in the nation or local region should be able to vote for those who represent them. That includes anyone who is old enough to work, and hence pay tax. It also covers anyone resident in that nation, regardless of citizenship.
If that were the case they wouldn't have changed voter registration to suppress the vote among people who move around a lot, predominantly young people and especially students.
Is there a principled argument for giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds? Of course there is. In the same way that there is an argument against it. It is possible for reasonable people to hold either position.
In the same vein, there are reasoned arguments for and against voters ID.
In both cases, there may be a political advantage to one or other party.
Therefore, we cannot on that basis alone, reach a conclusion about the parties' motivations in forwarding these policies. However that is not all we know. There is a lot more data and evidence. I won't say anything more here about voter ID except that Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent comments were surprisingly honest and revealing.
In terms of giving the franchise to under 18s, there would be no meaningful gain for the Labour party - at least in the short term to medium term. The numbers of people who would be eligible to vote is fairly small. Turnout amongst young people is low. There is no evidence to suggest that this would be different for this sub-group. If you then look at the political allegiances of young people, which are to several / all parties, the total number of votes that would be a net gain for Labour is very small. It is vanishingly unlikely that such votes would make a meaningful difference to the number of seats won in a Westminster election. Hence, the assertion that Labour would reduce the voting age to 16 to keep the Tories out does not stand up to any sort of analysis.
A couple of caveats. It is possible in the long term that this will benefit Labour as people who start voting before they turn 20 are more likely to vote in every election. Therefore there may be a long term pay off in terms of turnout. But an increase in participation is something our democracy desperately needs whether it benefits one party or not.
Of course, there is a good chance that the Tories will be out of power for a while but not because of these policies. The Conservative Party is an election-winning machine. Over the course of their very long history, they have been an incredibly broad church and a coalition of multiple factions that really don't agree on very much and probably can't stand each other. The Party wins because each of these groups cares about winning even more. Whether the Party will be an electoral force within a decade depends entirely on their internal politics.
AFZ
Though, in 1987 we had a sitting MP who'd been doing a lot of good locally and was generally well respected. So, those few weeks short of being able to vote saved me from the shame of having voted Conservative in my youth.
If he says the Voter ID laws are an attempt to gerrymander the vote he is in a decent position to know. You on the other hand are just asserting without knowledge what ought to be the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/20/mps-demand-to-see-ex-post-office-chair-henry-staunton-note-over-horizon-payouts
It seems to be Staunton versus Badenoch, and is not looking good for the latter contestant...
I suspect that people who move around a lot are on more than one electoral rolls.
I understand that you are no longer a child at 18 years of age.
I would agree that voter fraud convictions are not common.
You seem to be implying that only a small proportion of voter fraud is prosecuted.
You presumably have evidence of this?
My evidence is in the post that I quoted. You can only prosecute or caution for offences that are detected.
It's a bit like possession of cannabis. The Police will claim a 100% detection rate
In the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
Of the 1,386 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2018 and 2022, 9 led to convictions and the police issued 6 cautions.
Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing words of advice.
What a dreadful scourge this is, and what an affront to our sacred democracy. A poor effort by the police, though - only nine convictions?
(IRONY)
Speaking of elections, it looks as though yet another tory scrote is likely to head into well-deserved obscurity, if a byelection is called:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/20/tories-may-face-byelection-scott-benton-loses-suspension-appeal-blackpool-south
I used to have neighbours who worked, and so paid taxes, as babies. I'll grant that child actors, models, and the like are the exception rather than the rule, but I'm not sure that "you're old enough to pay tax" is quite the marker you think it is. Besides which, this argument gets perilously close to a "people who don't pay tax shouldn't be able to vote" position, which is not one I think you would choose to support.
The people who have a stake in the nation or region are all of the people - or at least, all of the people who intend to remain in the region for the medium-to-long term. You can make a case that members of a transient population can serve as proxies for future people who are different individuals, but in similar circumstances. Babies and children have a stake in the region just as much as adults do.
If you asked my youngest son what to vote for, he'd probably say "more trains". This might, as it happens, be good policy, but only coincidentally. The other answer you'd be likely to get is "more dinosaurs", with specific mention made of the giganotosaurus, which he'd quite like to see hanging about on street corners. That would be a less good policy.
In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage was raised to 18, in order to help protect children from being coerced into unwanted marriages. English law presumes that people aged 18 or over are capable of entering into binding contracts, whereas contracts with those under 18 are generally voidable. I find it difficult to square these reasonable protections for young people from exploitation with the idea that those same young people should be able to determine the fate of the country.
For those who think it's relevant, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines "child" as a human aged under 18.
You don't go to the trouble of lowering the voting age if you think it will help every party/
Nope, utter drivel. As has been shown, there are good arguments for and against but the idea that it will result in a measurable benefit to one party over any others is just nonsense.
AFZ
Not just one party. I guess the Greens would think it was a good idea as well. Basically, it's anti-Conservative.
It's only anti-Conservative if it can be demonstrated that people aged 16-21 are very much more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives, and much more likely to actually vote at all. That has never been clearly demonstrated, what studies I have seen show that people under 30 are more likely to approve of left-wing policies but also much less likely to actually vote. But, those studies also suggest that part of that is a general dis-satisfaction with the government of the time, especially if the same party has been in power for a decade, and a stronger "time for a change" leaning (which could mean that Labour may find that age-group might swing to Conservative after a couple of terms in government).
So what is the purpose of the change? Wont the Labour government have more important issues to deal with ?
Surely that's a good reason for the change? Labour will indeed have a lot of important and more immediate issues to deal with, but no doubt they're looking to the future as well.
Governments can do more than one thing, and this is something that requires minimal planning, no testing, just a small amount of parliamentary time. The purpose of the change is to give young people a say in how the country is run. Secondary to that there is some hope that earlier voting may engender engagement in politics and a lifelong habit of informed voting. I realise that tories tend to think that extending the franchise is always a bad thing.
There are some other steps that can also be taken to improve participation in democratic processes.
I'd argue that increasing the powers of local government, and emphasising that local government manages some of the things people directly experience (bin collections, pot holes, schools, etc) would make it clearer that voting for local elections is as important as a general election. Also, treating local elections as important in their own right, rather than casting them as predictors for the next general election. That might actually reduce the need to reduce voting age to 16, if people have more elections seen as important then there's more chance to vote in "an important election" so people will automatically be younger (on average) when they get their first chance to vote in "an important election". Also, schedule general and local elections so that they're not in the same year - which not only spreads out voting to being a more regular event it also means local election campaigns can be on local issues without those issues being pushed under the carpet by the contemporaneous general election campaign. If only general elections are counted as important, a voting age of 18 could mean their first chance for a "meaningful vote" would be when they're 23, reduce voting age to 16 reduces that to 21 ... but if local elections are seen as meaningful then that age for first chance to cast a meaningful vote is reduced.
And, as I'm talking about elections being meaningful and voting seen to be important, scrap the stupid FPTP voting system which results in national election results being dominated by a minority of constituencies and overall representation in Parliament being skewed in favour of a couple of parties. A more proportional system where more constituencies are in the position of being important, and where votes for smaller parties will be more significant, will reduce the "my vote doesn't count" fallacy (it's a fallacy because even in a very safe seat those votes for other parties send messages to the elected MP about the spread of views in the constituency, which if they're a good MP they'll pay attention to). Let's have elections which aren't cast as "Sunak v Starmer" as though they're the only politicians that count, but where there are several parties in the ring and where at local constituency levels individual candidates have to convince voters to vote for them.
Here's a radical thought for you: because they believe it's the right thing to do.
The arguments for it (and against) are laid out above.
Let me show you the numbers:
ONS estimate there are 2.4m 16-18 year olds in the UK. [1]
Average turn out of 18-24 year olds in the last 3 elections is 50% (just below in 2015, just above in 2019)[2]
Average vote of 18-24 year olds, last 3 elections; Labour 53%, Conservative 26%.[2]
So, if 16-18 year olds' voting behaviour is similar then Labour would expect a 27% vote advantage.
So our sum is: total number of 16-18yo x turnout x lab % advantage ÷ number of constituencies.
2,400,000 x 0.5 x 0.27 / 650
=498 votes
Guess how many of Labour's target seats have a majority for the Conservatives of fewer than 498 votes?[3]
4.
I'm not convinced that's a winning strategy. Especially given how things will inevitably change over time.
Neither you nor I know if it will be in the manifesto, we shall see. There is a lot for an incoming government to do but this is actually very simple legislation which doesn't need a lot of Parliamentary time.
There are some particular things I would like them to do that could be complicated. I believe there is a viable shortcut.
Parliamentary procedure allows for single line bills repealing previous legislation and returning the law to the status quo ante. (How it was before). This doesn't happen very often because there's always a desire by governments to do more, to change things. However, in the last couple of years there's been some appalling pieces of legislation. I want to see a 5 or 6 line bill that says "x is repealed" "y is repealed" etc. I'm thinking here specifically of the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In these cases, the previous law is workable and any future changes that might be desirable are not urgent. A five line Bill would pass the Commons and Lords very quickly. I doubt this will happen but I hope. They could do voter ID as well.
If Labour want to extend the franchise as well, it is easy to do so, does not really precude other things. There are good arguments in favour and no real electoral advantage. This is a stark contrast with the voter ID law where neither of those things were true.
AFZ
Sources:
1. https://www.fenews.co.uk/fe-voices/levelling-up-more-16-18-year-olds/#:~:text=Projections by the ONS for,age population is about 86.7%.
2. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/
3. https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
Dafyd Hell Host
Canada days "no you didn't you mendacious toad": https://www.ft.com/content/373b7ab9-2a51-4db3-a0f5-2d021155c778
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/badenoch-tells-house-that-trade-talks-with-canada-are-ongoing-canada-says-otherwise-369068/
Spivs and chancers. Always been one of the Tory party's problems.
Apparently a contender for the Conservative leadership. You'd have thought one habitual liar in that role would be enough for them to learn their lesson.
Don't try asking her the time of day...
She should resign, or be sacked, but Wishi-Washi hasn't the guts to tell her to go.
Her political career should have ended a long time ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/09/bafflement-over-tory-mps-admission-she-hacked-harriet-harmans-website
It's unedifying, to say the least, and I wonder how many more children died painfully in the ruins of Gaza whilst the tories (and SNP) indulged in tantrums.
Truly, the political scene in this country is an embarrassment. This sinister simulacrum of a government must surely end soon...
The SNP motion was substantially identical to what was passed in the Scottish Parliament three months ago, though some changes to reflect the ongoing genocide in Gaza (even if they avoided saying the IDF are engaging in genocidal acts).
John Crace's take on it all:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/21/while-people-die-in-gaza-the-uk-parliament-goes-to-war-over-the-ceasefire
It doesn't help that the lack of a proper constitution means that there's nothing stopping Labour from putting forward an "amendment" to another parties motion that retains the words "This House" at the start and then replaces the whole text with something substantively different, rather than the normal expectation that amendments seek to only change (ie: amend) small sections of a motion.
I don't know enough about the SNP to comment meaningfully, but their earlier call for a ceasefire was to their credit.
They have been remarkably consistent on calling for a ceasefire, so bringing a motion to this effect was hardly playing games.
On the contrary, Labour brought an amendment that watered down the conditions of the ceasefire, removed the language about collective punishment and then put pressure on the Speaker to have their amendment voted on first.
[And if not for the SNP Labour wouldn't even have brought an equivalent motion to the amendment they just nodded through]
Or how walking out part way through the vote was in anyway helpful.
I can understand the SNP walking out at the end. Once the Conservatives said they'd be abstaining then there was no way that the Labour "amendment" wasn't going to pass, once the Speaker had accepted that Labour could put in their version of the motion the only way the SNP motion was going to be debated and voted on would have been if the Conservatives voted against the Labour version. Walking out makes a statement, and by that point was the only way the SNP could make that statement.