43% of 18 – 24-year-olds voted at the 2015 general election. Clearly, this is evidence of political disengagement in young people, which negatively affects our democracy because it means people aren’t choosing to vote, leading to more unrepresentative governments due to low turnout.

However, all is not lost. The Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 gave 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and 75% of them turned out to vote with 97% reporting they would vote again in the future according to the Electoral Commission’s post-referendum report. This is evidence that 16 and 17-year-olds want to be heard but aren’t. I see this as a massive missed opportunity.

The future prospects for our democracy can be improved by enfranchising and thereby engaging 16 and 17-year-olds. If this can be achieved, they will become engaged adults who want to vote, leading to higher turnout and more representative governments. 

Not only this, but 16 and 17-year-olds can profit from being enfranchised because political parties craft policies that will benefit, and thereby appeal to, a particular group of voters in an attempt to persuade that group into voting for their party; a good example is the ‘triple-lock’ pension scheme (first introduced by the coalition) that featured in the 2015 Conservative manifesto to sway pensioners to vote Tory. This was rewarded with a 78% turnout among over-65s with 47% of them voting Conservative compared to 23% voting Labour – a 5.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives compared to the 2010 election.

Of course, the Conservative majority allowed the triple-lock scheme to continue and the state pension is, as of 6 April 2016, at £119.30 a week, which naturally benefits pensioners. If 16 and 17-year-olds were enfranchised, the same could be true for them. Parties would have to contend with a million or so more voters, prompting them to develop appealing policies to gain their votes. These parties would then become governments and those appealing policies could be realised, much to the benefit of 16 and 17-year-olds.

However, I think there is another opportunity, this time to combat the rise of populist nationalism.

Voters aren’t stupid; more often than not, they elect governments that greatly benefit the nation. Populist nationalists can mislead voters to factually incorrect conclusions because voters don’t have the information they need to combat the lies.

So I would propose a compulsory subject involving debating, critical analysis and political history for Years 7 – 9 and an optional GCSE across the state sector. A 2015 study by Edinburgh University supports this, with the University’s official website stating that ‘no other factor has greater influence in determining the civic attitudes of 16 and 17-year-olds (than classroom discussion)’.

Dr Jan Eichhorn of the School of Social and Political Science added

Through good political education in schools and early voter enfranchisement, we get the next generation of young people to understand the relevance of politics better and engage in it more extensively. But we need to ensure that all young people can discuss political issues in a qualified way in classroom settings. It can’t be left to chance, because of where they live, whether they are supported in their first engagement with politics.

To conclude, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would give them a say in their future and benefit them by forcing parties and governments to craft appealing policies. In addition, eveloping critical analysis and debating skills in children and politically educating them would create a much more informed electorate which would not so easily fall prey to populists.

A minimum voting age of 16 has been Lib Dem policy since 2001; I’d like to see political education in there too.

* Scott conducted his Year 10 work experience with the Sutton Lib Dems in the summer of 2016 in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, became a party member soon afterwards and is now a committed activist