By Wes Streeting / @wesstreeting
Imagine a country with a democratic deficit, where political elites are struggling to find ways of reversing a trend of declining voter turnout. Imagine that the same elites are simultaneously refusing to open the door to scores of citizens who are actually asking to vote. Sound crazy? Welcome to 21st century Britain.
Earlier this year, the government’s Youth Citizenship Commission, of which I was part, ran a consultation to find out what young people thought about lowering the voting age to 16. A representative survey found that a clear majority of young people supported extending the franchise. The work of the same commission found that a whopping 82% of young people don’t trust politicians to make the right decisions for them and 72% don’t feel that they can influence government decisions.
Who can blame them? How many times have Labour canvassers been out on the doorstep and asked a 14, 15 or 16 year old how the local council can meet their needs, instead of simply asking if Mum or Dad’s home? Even at grassroots level, the Labour Party sends a message to young people across Britain that we don’t care about them because they can’t vote.
This is self-defeating for our progressive politics, when the quality of public services, safer neighbourhoods and tackling poverty matters just as much to young people as any other section of the population. On issues like climate change, the failure of global leaders to act will have a greater impact on the current generation of young people than those charged with making decisions that could make the difference.
Lowering the voting age to 16 is not a tool for increasing the proportion of voters turning out, but it is a way of giving young people who want the vote – who pay taxes, join the armed forces, get married, drive cars – an opportunity to exercise some influence over the political system that currently lets too many young people down.
The Labour Party as a whole now agrees. Only last year, Olivia Bailey led a determined and successful effort to secure the support of the National Policy Forum for lowering the voting age to 16. She did so by mobilising young people inside and outside the Labour movement to support her campaign and gained the overwhelming support of NPF members. Olivia’s campaign – and speech to the National Policy Forum – was cited by Ed Miliband, the man charged with drafting the next manifesto, at Party conference last autumn. The same conference endorsed the NPF’s recommendation and lowering the voting age to 16 is now a Labour Party policy.
Whether or not the commitment will be included in the next manifesto remains to be seen. Much will depend on whether the Party’s policy making process counts for me as much as the opposition of figures in the Cabinet, like Jack Straw. For the Labour Party, however, the inclusion of votes at 16 in the next manifesto is a litmus test as to how seriously the leadership take the youth movement of the Party.
Ed Miliband: we’re watching you.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Wes says that for the Party, "the inclusion of votes at 16 in the next manifesto is a litmus test as to how seriously the leadership take the youth movement of the Party." Maybe. But for the electorate, it will be a test [why 'litmus'?] of how seriously the leadership takes British politics.
There are a couple of blanks there that you can fill in for yourselves.
It will make no difference... Labour are still going to lose.
But as there are fewer voters, we can be bribed with other peoples' money .. and more effectively.
I'm in my forties and it took me a very long time to see past the lies and disinformation, propaganda, smoke and mirrors, social engineering, etc.
How do you expect a 21 year old to achieve this, never mind a 16 year old?
Or is that the point?
I lived in a house where my father was the Father of the Chapel for his printing union and his hatred of Thatcher ingnited my interest in politics and pushed me even further to the right. Odd though that my parents moved house in order that I could attend a grammar school, had his own successful business and are such lefty bigots.
Stewart - I hope the 18-21 yr olds can find 'it' at university. I am not very happy at all about the advertising for the YBNP though it makes me shiver.
They've all contributed to the downfall of the UK.
I'm not too happy about the YBNP or Conservative Future or Labour Youth or whatever the DimLibs have. They all aim to recruit into what has become a bad political system if you ask me.
I don't agree with voting at 16 years old, but I definately agree with voting as it is.
With the vote at 16 though, I go back to when I was in my mid teens. I desperately wanted to be recognised as an adult. I produced business plans that were cast aside because of my age. I wanted to prove I was responsible to drink alcohol sensibly and prove my elders wrong and I stupidly thought that life on my own in the big wide world was preferable to a life under the roof of my parents. A brief spell of homelessness sleeping on the street soon changed my mind.
I understand completely the need for 16 and 17 year olds to have their say politically, but they need to be patient for the right to vote. The political establishment are hungry for any number of new voters, so they will welcome this, but as a society we need to respect that we have the age of majority for a reason. It may seem unfair to the 16 or 17 year old that they have the capability to do so many other things, even working and paying taxes, but their time will come soon enough and hopefully that wait will make their passion for politics all the stronger.
I do feel guilty for having the view I have, I don't really want those under the age of 18 who view the LL to misunderstand me. I do know how frustrating it is to want to do something, feel you're ready but are blocked by those older people who think they know best, but there has to be a cut off somewhere. The system isn't perfect, far from it, but as long as the age of majority remains at 18, so should the starting age for voting.
Younger people should get learning, so that when they are 18, they'll be better equipped. If they learn about the 'false left-right paradigm', propaganda, social engineering and of course learn from history, they could be a blessing and not a curse as so many in politics seem to be.
My eldest is very political, even at the age of 10 years old. He has visited the Houses of Parliament, he has completed projects about the history of politics and is very opinionated about what is going on. He knows when the Magna Carta was signed, why it came about. It may sound strange but he actually debates me about my views and challenges me in some unusual ways. It is refreshing to hear such a young mind's opinion on complicated matters as he often thinks up some very simple answers to very complicated issues.
I dislike the idea that what I have written in reply to this article may discourage young people from engaging and joining in, but at the same time I believe voting is something that is worth the wait for those who are politically minded at a young age.
I hope 16 and 17 year olds don't feel hard done by either. You can debate at any age. You can make a difference at any age.
One of the odder outcomes of New Labour is that a 16 year old can have homosexual sex, but not a post-coital fag.
My 18 month old son has managed to draw basic shapes, so I'm sure I could teach him to mark a cross by the next election. My daughter will be nearly 12 months old by that time, I'm just wondering if I could teach her to do the same.
I do have a backup plan. My eldest will be 11 years old by the time we have an election and he already has his own views on politics. He would be able to mark a box of his own choice, but also give you a valid reason why he chose the politician to vote for. I wouldn't say he is the most mature boy of his age, but as Julian says "neither do I accept that you have to be mature to exercise choice"
No problems then.
You may be right with the way people vote and you are right, there is a slim chance that all the polls are wrong and even given the behaviour and lies present in the Labour government, particularly over the past two years, the electorate will give them another chance. There is also a slim chance that David Cameron will be caught clubbing puppies with a lump hammer, but I doubt it.
The age of majority in this country is 18 years of age. Many laws work towards this age of majority, denying those of minority (minors) a voice on issues such as alcohol, tobacco, areas of gambling and financial issues such as obtaining a mortgage, obtaining most types of finance and even the minimum wage itself is bias towards under 18s.
The only logical way to then say we should give under 18 years olds the vote would be to lower the age of majority to 16 years old at the same time. Is that something being considered?
The argument that 16 year olds can go out to work, pay tax, even join the armed services are positive, but conversely (as I said in a comment below) if you accept the argument, you would need to exclude those who do not work, do not pay taxes and are not capable of joining the armed services surely?
Many areas of our society are inaccessible to those aged between 16 years and 18 years. It may well be deemed unfair by those with a political mind that they can not vote until the age of 18 years, but there is nothing stopping them getting involved in other ways until it is their time to vote. I haven't heard a good argument that really strikes as a reason for them not to wait, and it is unfortunate, but the day that argument is put forward we should then argue why those aged 15 years, 14 years, why not 10 years old should be allowed the vote as well?
Young people are not excluded from politics at all, they are excluded from voting until they reach the age of majority, it really is that simple. If young people began to argue for the right to purchase tobacco or alcohol from the age of 16 on the basis that some pay taxes or some can drive on the public highway, would it be taken seriously?
One final point, and I don't mean to be picky at all, but isn't it fact that to join the armed services or get married before the age of majority, the minor would require the consent of their guardian? It was the case when I went applied to the Army even though I was estranged from my parents. If it is still the case, then these can not be used to prop up a very poor argument for the vote at 16 years old.
I cannot get in a lather about this issue, but neither do I accept that you have to be mature to exercise choice.
Marriage, legal parenthood, tax - all start at 16. True, most 16-year olds do not exercise these options. Perhaps most 16-year olds will not vote either. Give them the vote.
I am not getting into a lather about the issue either Julian, I am simply pointing out why it is ill-concieved. Including those who are serving time in prison and giving 16 year olds the right to vote are completely different issues, but if you wish to debate the former, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Serious question - Do you support the age of majority to be lowered to the age of 16 years?
The arguments over maturity would apply whichever dividing line you pick.
I certainly resented paying tax at 16 when I had no entitlement to any benefits etc.
This would exclude several Lords who have catagorised themselves as non-doms with the Revenue, countless directors of companies who have done the same, not to mention millions of men and women who are in full time education or have never had a job for whatever reason. And wouldn't it exclude severly disabled people who can not work because of their disability.
Excellent point with the education to 18 years old though, hadn't considered that at all.
Have you considered for .3 of a second the unintended consequences at lowering the voting age?
Can you answer the other point I raised about tax and foreign nationals voting rights?
The vote at 16?
Then do you also support smoking at 16?
Drinking at 16?
Watching hardcore pornography at 16?
18 certificate films being moved downwards to 16? (the abolition of the current video/cinema rating system)
Appearing in pornography from the age of 16?
I am sure there are various financial / banking arrangements that only become viable at 18 or older - would all these be lowered to 16? Could a 16 year old apply for a mortgage?
Is the drive to lower the voting age based simply upon the belief that tribalistic older voters will still have enough influence on their children / power over their children (who will probably still live at home, have a part time job at best, no assets to speak of, no debts, no savings of note, have little 'real world experience' and have displayed little interest in national and international politics) to make them vote for their personal tribe?
What about the vulnerable? We have seen how certain communities and party representatives have abused postal voting. There is a clear and obvious case that those who owe their shelter, food, safety, warmth, amenities and everything else will be at risk of pressure or direct threat from their guardians / parents.
Will education on how to vote happen at school? If so how will impartiality be maintained? How much will this cut into the overloaded curriculum? You can't get enough 18+ year olds interested in politics so does it automatically follow that extending the franchise by another 2 years will encourage more voting?
'Scores' of citizens asking to vote is a pathetic level of interest or terrible writing skills.
It would make more sense to increase the voting age to 21 to allow them to learn a wee bit about the real world, if they can find it.
First of all, it's necessary to take a broad view about when people are able to vote. Although many 16 year olds (and for that matter 15 year olds) are intelligent enough to cast a vote, by no means all of them are. There's a general age at which people are regarded as being adults. That age is 18. It makes sense to keep the voting age there.
Secondly, the Americans started a revolution on the basis of 'no taxation with representation'. This government has raised, or is planning to raise, the school leaving age from 16 to 18. Lowering the voting age would mean that we in effect have 'representation without taxation'. Is it right that a group of people should dictate how government spends taxpayers' money (which is its primary job) when they are prevented by law from being major taxpayers themselves? I suggest not.
Thirdly, this Government's approach to young people has not been even-handed. Under this Labour Government, two 16 year old boys have the right to have sex with each other but have been forbidden from having a cigarette afterwards. I don't see how any proposal to lower the voting age can be squared with taking away the rights of 16-18 year olds to do things (and it doesn't matter that smoking is harmful. If you give people a right, if follows that they may exercise it in a way with which you disagree).
Fourthly, children have more and more responsibility these days. A lot of people say that children don't have the opportunity to enjoy life because of social pressures, exam pressures and so forth. Do you want to give these people the further pressure of choosing a government? Let's give kids the chance to enjoy childhood. They only get it once. There's plenty of time for the agonies and strains of adult life.
If a 16yr old is not responsible and mature enough to make those kinds of decisions over their own lives, I certainly don't want them making decisions that could affect mine.
the YCC was asked to look at reducing the voting age to 16.
3 out of the 13 people on the Commission were young.
They surveyed young people by:"People were invited to give the Commissioners their views on citizenship and youth engagement through various channels such as this website and consultation events that took place around the UK"
And who was researched:"Who was involved?
The research involved 90 young people and 90 adults from different age, ethnic and socio-economic groups from across the UK. "
Not a big enough sample with a target audience of 1.6 million.
Case dismissed: methodology false.
Frankly a polling company should have been employed. A professional one. the fact that none was used means that leading questions could have been asked and the sample was probably unrepresentative.
There is a single word to describe this exercise. It is "flawed".
It's ridiculous to reduce the voting age if you don't also reduce those other age limits as you're saying that a 16yr old can make decisions about the future of the country but can't be trusted to drink responsibly.