Wow! The Mayor of Welwyn Hatfield and I, only a week or so ago, spoke with students from Stanborough School about whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. We divided the Council Chamber into two groups and we encouraged a healthy and respectful debate on a topic, which is truly important and fascinating.
Who would have said that the Labour Government will propose potentially the biggest reform of the electoral legislation since 1969? Have they secretly listened to our conversation? Who knows!
Interestingly, the minimum voting age is already 16 for e.g. local elections in Wales and Scotland. Lowering the voting age to 16 was part of the Labour’s party manifesto, however it didn’t feature in last summer’s King’s Speech, which sets out government priorities.
There are quite a few advantages and disadvantages of this Election Bill. If you can work or pay taxes, you should be allowed to cast your vote. Many others would disagree and argue that if you are not allowed to get married, buy an alcoholic drink or if you are simply not “mature enough”, the voting age should remain the same, at 18. Our Welwyn Hatfield debate was won by the students, who were in favour of lowering the voting age.
We all agreed that we all must do so much more to civically empower our residents. The democratic education has to be at the heart of it. The turnout at some elections, particularly local, is alarmingly low. Many people are fed up and tired of the “same old”. HOWEVER, we need to demonstrate how politics at all levels influences our lives and we all need to take an active role in understanding the political process, which will enable us to impact our communities, and the country as a whole.
Interesting times ahead; that’s for sure
* Michal Siewniak is a Lib Dem activist and councillor for Handside ward, Welwyn Hatfield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
30 Comments
Young people are old enough to choose to leave home at 16, to work for a living, and to get married (in Scotland). Adding the right to vote makes sense.
However, if someone is deemed old enough to vote, they should also be regarded as old enough to stand for election.
When I was 16 I did consider that I should be able to vote. On the other hand I thought most of my school class mates shouldn’t be.
I’m not sure that my opinion would be that much different if I met up with them again now but I have to accept that they are entitled to a vote even though I might disagree with them. So, whilst we might all have some reservations on giving the vote to a typical 16 year old we may as well just go along with the idea.
It’s going to happen anyway sooner or later.
I don’t see the logic that being able to vote should mean being old enough to stand for election. If you stand for election and then get elected, you have a huge responsibility to represent other people, put yourself in the shoes of people who live in very different circumstances from yourself or have different beliefs from yourself, figure out the best way to help those people when they ask for it – which in turn means understanding how the administrative procedures of the group you’ve been elected to work etc. etc. Those are responsibilities that aren’t necessary in order to vote, and they all tend to suggest a certain amount of adult life experience is appropriate. For that reason, it seems perfectly logical to me that the minimum age at which you can stand as a candidate should be higher than the minimum age at which you can vote.
I mean, would you be comfortable explaining some difficult personal problems concerning – say – your rented accommodation – to a 16-year old councillor in the hope that he/she can help you out?
A couple of observations:
1. Politics has been dominated for the last 50-60 years by boomers. The 60s, Thatcher, New Labour, Brexit and more have essentially been functions of how old the boomers were at the time. This might be coming to an end. Votes at 16 would have been a good counterbalance all this time.
2. When I was 16, I’d been bussing or cycling around my city independently for about 4 years, I’d had a holiday job, I could have smoked (but didn’t), I could have left school (but didn’t). Today you can’t smoke, you can’t (in practice) leave school and you are infantilised by society in so many ways. Can we make up for that with votes? No. The past wasn’t better, but it did have something we have lost in terms of understanding adolescence as a time to become ready for the world not just to be protected from it. Have we also made it harder for 16 and 17 year olds to understand the gravity of their vote?
Can’t drive, can’t have a bet, can’t marry, can’t smoke, can’t vape, can’t have an alcoholic drink, can’t watch an 18 movie, can’t have a tattoo…But hey, mature enough to vote ..
In response to @Craig Levene
Okay, then we’ll have all those same people who, in your view, aren’t mature enough, as that is the perception you’ve created with your “But hey, mature enough to vote” final comment, and have them stop paying tax if they are already doing so.
If they’re not mature enough to vote, then they shouldn’t have to contribute to the economy, since they don’t have a voice on where their money goes, since they’re not mature enough, right?
Also, on the topics you raised, why would we want more people to gamble their money away? Why would we want more people to smoke and vape? Sure, it’s personal freedom and all that jazz, but why are they such vital points that you felt the need to include them?
Additionally, you can get married at 16 in Scotland.
If they contribute to the economy – then why can’t they have the freedom drive on a road , smoke a cigarette , have a vape , buy a pint, place a bet …In a liberal and free society where 16 year olds can decide who governs, then why can’t they enjoy the freedoms an 18 year old has ?
Voting at 16 is fine but should be accompanied by more provisions in our school curriculum for politics and citizenship lessons. The curriculum is already full, but this is so important that room should be made for it by reducing the content of other subjects. indeed our curriculum is being reviewed by this government and we Lib-Dems should be contributing to ideas for change that better prepare youngsters for life and work.
@ Simon,
You make a valid point about the discrepancy in the ages of being able to stand for election and voting in the election. I expect the two will be brought into line at some point.
I’d say a 16 year old would be unlikely to win, if they did stand, but if the electorate does decide otherwise we should allow them that choice.
@ David Warren Reducing the voting age from 21 to 18 became Liberal Party policy when I was Vice Chairman of the National League of Young Liberals way back in the early sixties (when Jo Grimond was our Leader). I’m guessing, but I think down to 16 was done years ago as well.
No taxation without representation is a pretty simple concept to understand though freedom to vape seems to me to be stretching the elastic somewhat.
In response to @Craig Levene:
I agree with you on that. They already pay tax for jobs they work, they SHOULD be treated as adults.
In favour of standing and voting at 16, coupled with Mandatory Civic Education Course
To the people saying, if you can pay tax then you should have the right to vote: A 14-year-old can work part time and have to pay tax on their earnings. A 7-year-old will indirectly be paying tax whenever they buy something that is subject to VAT. Should the 14-year-old and the 7-year-old therefore be given the right to vote?
Of course 16/17 year olds should have the vote. Democratic participation has to start early to become ingrained and responsibility is important for young people to get used to.
What nonsense SimonR. No 14 year old will earn £12500+ and have to pay tax. I worked as a manual worker in the late 60s and early 70s in my school/university holidays and never paid tax – and allowances were very much lower then. You are using the reductio ad absurdum argument which simply won’t wash.
I wonder what “mature enough” means in the context of voting? Maturity is gradually acquired, and a mature switch is suddenly flipped on your 18th birthday.
The reality of our FPTP voting system is that across the country as a whole at General Elections, no single party ever gets 50+% of the vote. That means that whichever party you support, the majority of the population is voting the “wrong” way every single time….
Whatever reason future 16 and 17 year olds have for arriving at their voting decision (if they bother), it won’t be worse than some of the stupid and/or spurious reasons I have heard on the doorstep from much older adults while canvassing over the years.
If we wanted to play Devil’s Advocate here, we should be arguing for a voting age of 25 on the grounds that the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s. After all we all know about the risky behaviour that teenagers engage in; it’s why they have to pay higher premiums for their car insurance. Perhaps that same risky behaviour might make them more likely to vote for Reform UK or whatever the Corbyn/Sultana party will be called. We already have a range of ages at which minors are suddenly treated as adults and going from votes at 18 to votes at 16 does not extend that range, just moves from one edge of it to the other.
When I was at school, some 60 years ago, the voting age was still 21 and we had what would now be called Civics classes in the sixth-form. That was an interesting experience as it largely involved us doing our own research. I was allocated the Liberal manifesto for the 1964 General Election and had to present on it to the rest of the class. I learned a good deal about the Liberals from that, including that they were unilateralists. Those were the days when Parties published election manifestos with the intention that they be read by the general public; how times have changed.
The change, which was a Labour Party manifesto commitment, is highly desirable.
It will make it more likely that the young people concerned will remain voters as they grow older, since the habit of voting tends to stick.
Obviously levels of knowledge and quality of thinking amongst sixteen year olds varies, but the same is true of older people. Indeed, since educational standards have risen over time, there are many pensioners with votes today who will be far less well qualified to vote than the average sixteen year old.
II totally disagree with Mohammed Amin when he says “since educational standards have risen over time, there are many pensioners with votes today who will be far less well qualified to vote than the average sixteen year old.” Not because it is ageist even though it is, but because it is simply wrong.
As a nation, lots of people in the UK have been pretending for decades that education standards have improved steadily and have led to younger people being somehow better educated. However there is no evidence that rigorously shows that. Indeed many young people are in a terrible situation now, taking drugs (including alcohol, tobacco and vapes) to ridiculous extents with huge damage to their health, suffering terribly with mental problems making ever more of them unable to work, and getting drawn deeper into crime at a younger age, and expecting society to solve problems that past generations solved for themselves.
Now most of these things are not uniquely their fault, because it is past governments who have let these things happen, but to pretend that older people are inferior because they do not have so many of the paper certificates that our younger generation have is just naive self congratulation. For, with the clear exception of those suffering with dementia, I would say that older people generally have a much better understanding of what is important in the world and how to survive and even thrive in it than so many 16 to 18 year olds.
If we combined votes at 16 with removing votes for those over the age of 65, then would be able to get rid of the fiscally onerous triple lock.
Whether 16-17 year olds make good decisions will hardly ever make a difference to who gets elected. This change is about inclusion. Politicians will include them in the electorate whose interests they have to represent and they will feel more part of society. School is also a great place to have your first political discussions.
As a pensioner with a PhD, I think I might dispute the less qualified argument advanced by some. Also many educated in the university of life have arguably as many skills as those who have paper certificates but no real experience of life, as yet.
The triple lock may be onerous, but it has gone some way to improving our pensions, which are arguably still the worst in Europe.
@David Evans – actually the data is very clear that the prevalence of smoking, drinking and drug taking amongst young people has been declining for decades.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/smoking-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england/2023
And when you say “I would say that older people generally have a much better understanding of what is important in the world” remember that their better understanding manifests itself by most of the electoral support for Reform and the Tories coming from those aged 50+, whereas votes for the Lib Dems peaked amongst the under 30s at the last GE.
Voting at 18 came in the year I became 18. All the arguments made then about lowering the age from 21 to 18 are being repeated now. I support the change and it won’t make a scrap of difference to the dominance of any particular party in future elections. Back in 1970 older people were worried about Labour winning every General Election from then on and that turned out to be alot of nonsense. If you pay taxes you ought to have a say through the ballot box about how elected representatives are raising and spending that money.
@Mick: I’m simply demonstrating, by using an absurd counter-example, that the ‘if you can pay tax, then you should be able to vote’ argument actually makes no sense. You discounted my point by (correctly) pointing out that although 14 year olds are theoretically liable to pay income tax, very few actually do. Unfortunately you’ve missed two crucial things there: Firstly, most 14 year-olds will be paying VAT on stuff they buy, so they are paying tax. And secondly, that very few 16-17 year-olds are likely to be actually paying income tax – since most will still be living at home, attending college, and relying on Mum and Dad for their accommodation and all their financial needs. So in practice there’s very little difference between a 14 year old and most 16 year olds when it comes to tax. So where does that leave your argument that 16 year olds pay tax therefore they should be allowed to vote?
Whatever age you pick is somewhat arbitrary, but there’s a good reason for picking 18: That’s the age at which many people leave home, become somewhat financially independent, and start having to manage their own affairs – and therefore are likely to become very aware of how the Government impacts their lives. Can you point to anything similar that happens at age 16, which justifies a 16 year old having the vote but a 15 year old being denied it?
Exactly Simon. In the eyes of the law 16/17 year olds are treated as children, & are tried, and if found guilty are convicted as such.
If 16 is acceptable – why not 14/15 etc ..18 is the best compromise – you can drive , drink beer in a pub, get married, etc etc ..
Hi Nick (Baird), thanks for responding. The NHS report you rely on is very interesting, but it seems you have missed the key sentence in it – the first sentence in the Summary on Page 1 which states
“This report contains results from the latest survey of secondary school pupils in England in years 7 to 11 (mostly aged 11 to 15)”
So sadly *not* the age group we are discussing.
Age-based restrictions exist primarily to shield young people from harmful consequences. So what harm would befall 16 or 17-year-olds if they could vote? They’re already allowed to leave home and work full-time at 16—there’s no principled reason to exclude them from having a say in their governance.
@David Evans – you can also find the data for 16-24 year olds here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/drugmisuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023
Which, unsurprisingly, shows the same trend.
Every time there is a change the same arguments are rolled out; “They are not ready for the responsibility”
When I was younger I couldn’t vote until I was 21 and bringing it down to 18 was the end of civilisation… Before 1928 women under the age of 30 weren’t mature enough and until 1918 No women were mature enough..
As for being a child at 16???? Shamima Begum, who at 15 ran away to join ISIS, was refused permission to return to the UK because the government/courts decided that at 15 she was adult enough to understand the ramifications of her decision..
BTW there are pensioners in my local who boast about never following ANY news.. They revel in their political ignorance but are allowed to vote..
@expats: Why is a 16 year old ready for the responsibility but a 15 year old isn’t? I’ve pointed out what (for most people) changes at age 18 that justifies giving people the right to vote then – that’s the age at which most people will become independent from their parents and start looking after themselves – for example, going to University. But so far no-one arguing for the right to vote at 16 has explained what changes at age 16.
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and Wales, and 12 in Scotland. But across Great Britain you’ll be treated differently if you commit a crime before the age of 18, because the law bakes in an assumption that up to 18 you are still to some extent a child and therefore can’t be held as responsible for your actions as an adult. That does seem relevant to the question of whether you should be treated as an adult when it comes to voting.
I think Shamima Begum is a poor example to use in this context because her treatment by the Government was exceptional, draconian, and arguably completely wrong in the light of her age when she went to Syria. The problem there is inappropriate use of terrorist legislation against a child by the Government – and that’s the thing that needs fixing.