The current state of politics can be seen as a turn off for many young people, as policies and government decisions are often skewed towards older generations. The Conservative Party at the last election ran on a policy of national service while improving the triple lock; and Labour, whilst taking some steps to improve the youth minimum wage, still made important services for young people, like bus travel, more expensive so they can pay for another increase to state pension. It’s no wonder voter turnout and interest is only decreasing, and more and more people today are turning to the far right for change. There needs to be change, but that doesn’t come in the form of Farage, but instead in the enfranchisement of voters aged 16-18.
Some of the policy benefits are very clear. Would there be an increase in bus fares if those who must use a bus to get to school could vote? Would the government cancel large rail projects to pay for road works if a portion of the electorate was too young to drive? For years now, successive governments have created policies which, first and foremost, harm under 18’s because there’s no electoral risk to it. As of right now most young people aged 16-18 have no influence over government, and so nobody speaks for their voice. As a result, modern day politics spends more time and money on pensioners than young people, despite the far greater benefit to the economy and society that young people hold.
One of the things that young people are often criticised for is their lower turnout in elections, after all 18–24-year-olds are the least likely group to vote, so it appears to make sense to assume 16-18-year-olds to be much the same. However, this is disputed by data from the Scottish independence referendum. Data from the Electoral Commission in 2014 stated that 74% of registered people aged 16-18 turned out to vote, over 20% higher than their 18-24 counterparts. A year later, polling ahead of the 2015 general election demonstrated that 67% of Scottish 16–18-year-olds would be likely to vote in the next election, compared to just 39% of non-enfranchised young people in the rest of the UK. The strength of a democracy comes from the participation of its electorate, and as such, giving the franchise to voters aged 16 and up would work to strengthen our democracy, not weaken it.
But by far the largest source of struggle for current democracy, is in the increased support for right wing, populist parties like Reform UK; their rise supported by the flurry of misinformation across social media, not least the use of ai to falsify events. Once again, this is a point that critics will claim young people are more susceptible to, being more invested in social media. However, this is found to be plainly untrue, and one could argue the truth is entirely opposite to this. Unlike older generations, which grew up before the advent of social media and have had to adapt to it, young people today have grown up in a digital age. From the start of their schooling life young people have been told to be sceptical of what they see online, and to study a range of reliable sources. If young people can be critical of sources in their history essays, why wouldn’t they do the same for their decision on the leadership of their country? A study by Breeze and colleagues for the University of Edinburgh found that, when considering the idea of Scottish independence, young people aged 16-17 “held nuanced and well-founded views on Scottish independence” and Eichhorn found in 2014 that young people “used a variety of information sources”. Young people, as it turns out, often hold more mature and well-founded beliefs than many of their older counterparts; their vote would be a win for information, not a loss.
The issues in politics today are caused by politicians abusing social media, voters not having an interest in politics, and policies being designed to help the past of this nation, not the future. The solution to the problems of today, lie in the youth of today, and if we wish to make a fairer, more engaged, more informative society, then we need only open the doors of politics to our young people.
* Scarlet Threadgold is trans representative and East of England chair for the Young Liberals, working for the voices of young people"
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tories tack right as they seek to compete with Reform
Wells to Walsingham: The world's smallest public railway
Funding Political Parties
Government says it won't tackle election turnout blindspot
David Allen
Peter Hirst
Mrs Rita Baker
8 Comments
For years now, successive governments have created policies which, first and foremost, harm under 18’s because there’s no electoral risk to it. As of right now most young people aged 16-18 have no influence over government, and so nobody speaks for their voice.
But that’s not right. Young people aged 16-18 do have influence over government, because within at most two years they will turn 18 and be able to pass electoral judgement on the government for what it did during those two years.
Anyone aged 16 now will be able to vote in the next general election, whether it happens in 2028 or 2028; therefore the government today must pay just as much attention to how their policies affect those who are 16 today as they do to how those policies affect any other voters who will be able to vote at the next election.
I agree.
In terms of political knowledge and awareness, 16-18 year olds will vary, just as adults vary. We don’t make pensioner’s take an economics or politics exam before giving them a vote.
I regularly speak to groups of school students for the charity Speakers for Schools, and my view is that on average they would be no less capable as voters than the average adult.
Would there be an increase in bus fares if those who must use a bus to get to school could vote? Would the government cancel large rail projects to pay for road works if a portion of the electorate was too young to drive?
‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’…Those who use a bus to get to work outnumber those using it for school and far more use the trains to get to work than school…
Following up on Mohammed Amin’s post – do we actually spend enough time listening to young people – asking them what they think rather than making assumptions that they’re not interested?
Yes.The future belongs to the young, therefore convincing them we are the ones to vote for is there.More effort should be put into talking to them to learn.
Perhaps the reason why young people can be said to have mature views is that they have first hand current experience of answering questions in their education?
The age at which people become able to vote is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but there are good reasons for setting it at 18: 18 is the age at which large numbers of people stop being effectively cared for by their parents and either leave home to go to University, or leave education to start full time work. It’s therefore the age at which most of the population start having to support themselves as adults. That seems a good benchmark for also giving people the responsibility of voting. Is there any comparable change at 16 that justifies giving the vote to 16 year olds but not to 15 year olds? I don’t see one. I think those who want the voting age to be lowered need to answer the question, what’s special about age 16?
If we can’t become the preferred Party for young people what is our function in modern politics? If our policies do not entice young people to join us then we have our policies wrong. The idealism, vision and clarity that young people bring to political debate can only be admired and copied.