Christine Jardine MP writes…We are simply the temporary guardians of their future

‘No taxation without representation’ was the call to arms which shook Westminster to its very core, and drove the American Revolution.

And yet nearly 250 years later here we are again. In this country today 16 and 17 year olds can pay tax and national insurance, and yet they have no say, no representation in how that money they contribute to the public purse is spent.

They can also get married and join the armed forces, but they cannot vote and have no say in our society’s decisions on their future. Yet, nobody has provided a reasonable explanation as to why. There have been plenty of excuses but no explanations.

It frustrates me because I have witnessed first-hand what a difference it makes to our politics, and what a contrast there is when sixteen and seventeen year olds join the debate.

On the eve of the European elections in May 2014, I spent the evening with a group of my daughter’s friends.

It was her 16th birthday. They knew I was involved in both the European elections and the forthcoming Scottish Independence Referendum campaign and wanted to chat.

The conversations I had that night were some of the most enlightened, challenging and informed of the entire European or Independence referendum campaigns.

At one point, I noticed that even though there was a constant stream of questions a few of the people were also all on their phones.

I was on the brink of being disappointed, when I discovered that they were actually texting other friends who were sending back their own questions to ask.

Imagine that? Young people so desperately keen to understand and be involved in the democratic process.

All of them engaged, all of them informed, all of them keen to make a positive difference and yet none of them entitled to vote the next day.

Six months later they were all entitled to vote in the Independence Referendum and I happen to know that every single one of them did.

During that referendum campaign in Scotland, every 16-year-old I spoke to had something that perhaps some older voters, perhaps even some of us in Westminster have lost – a willingness to listen to ideas and an enthusiasm.

It enriched that campaign on both sides and created a genuine feeling that politics at that moment involved everyone, in a decision that would affect all our futures.

In the campaigns since I have met many sixteen and seventeen year olds on doorsteps, quite often they’ve asked where my party stands on the voting age. I’m proud to tell them we support votes at 16.

But more than that I know they are storing that information away for the first, or in Scotland the next, time they go into a polling booth.

Today, we had the chance to say yes and to send out a message which says that we respect our young people.

We had a chance to harness their enthusiasm, the fresh ideas and energetic approach of our 16 and 17 year olds.

All commodities often in short supply these days.

Sixteen and seventeen year olds will have watched the debate today in Westminster and paid close attention to how we dealt with this issue.

The party which failed to support this Bill will be remembered by sixteen and seventeen year olds the next time they go into the polling booths after their eighteenth Birthday.

As an MP, I know that we are the temporary guardians of their future and that they have a right to help determine what that future is.

I will continue the fight for votes for sixteen and seventeen year olds.

* Christine Jardine is the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

3 Comments

  • “Sixteen and seventeen year olds will have watched the debate today in Westminster and paid close attention to how we dealt with this issue.”

    I find that highly doubtful…

  • If they want to join the Armed Forces they need consent of their parent / guardian likewise if they wish to be married (other than in Scotland). I also doubt with the changes in rules around education along with the income tax thresholds whether many pay tax in significant amounts.

    Sorry, you may well have a point about voting ages but when you start your piece with such obviously incorrect (or at best overblown) “facts” you will have little chance of winning over doubters. Typical of the type of tactic that turns youth off politics and politicians…

  • Catherine Jane Crosland 4th Nov '17 - 3:49pm

    Some children considerably younger than sixteen pay tax. Child actors, for example. The Harry Potter stars must have been paying large amounts of tax at the age of twelve, but I don’t think anyone would have argued that this meant that they should have the vote.
    I don’t like the “taxation” argument, anyway, because it suggests that people who are unemployed, or on low incomes below the tax threshold, are somehow less deserving of the vote.
    It is often suggested that it is wrong that people should be legally old enough to get married, or join the army, but not old enough to vote. This is true, but perhaps the wrong conclusion is being drawn. Most people know that sixteen is far too young to be married, or to join the army. As a party, shouldn’t we we be campaigning for the minimum ages for these to be raised?
    On the whole, isn’t it sensible to say that the voting age should be the age at which someone is considered legally an adult?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoeB 24th Feb - 2:55pm
    Peter Martin, regarding the issue of capital expenditure the paper referenced above outlines Keynes reasoning. "Keynes was opposed to deficit spending in the sense of...
  • User AvatarTeresa Wilson 24th Feb - 2:43pm
    I agree with much in this article but I have a problem with the conclusion that "if it all ends in tears, it will be...
  • User AvatarDavid Warren 24th Feb - 2:19pm
    What a healthy debate. Thanks for all the comments everyone.
  • User AvatarPeter Hirst 24th Feb - 1:55pm
    Our policies in the manifesto need to be targeted at all the seats where we were second as it these that provide the immediate springboard...
  • User AvatarPeter Hirst 24th Feb - 1:49pm
    It is essential in my view that there is input into the manifesto process of a wider variety of members so that the various parts...
  • User AvatarBarnaby 24th Feb - 1:40pm
    1. A major elephant in the room will be the status of European citizens who want to come and live in the United Kingdom post-Brexit....