Forum Topic

Labour’s plan to give 16-year- olds the vote

It is difficult to see Labour’s plan to extend the vote to 16-year-olds as anything other than electoral gerrymandering given that 16-year-olds are not considered mature enough to1) get married without their parents’ permission2) play the national lottery3) serve on a jury4) buy fireworks5) earn the full minimum wage6) learn to drive7) stand for Parliament.And before you say anything, Michael B, yes, I know it was in the Labour Manifesto. But that doesn’t make it sensible. The plan to impose VAT on independent schools was also in the Manifesto, but it is still a stupid idea.

Steven Rose ● 26d36 Comments

Ed. Interestingly, I don't recall my teachers expressing political views (in the late 1960s); I'm sure they had a range of views, although I suspect many were conservative with a small "c" but may not have voted for the big "C" party. My English teacher in the 4th/5th years seemed to do little other than sit at the front of the class reading the Daily Express, which he considered a good newspaper, and make sarcastic comments; I doubt, given this choice of newspaper, that he was a Harold Wilson fan!Perhaps he disliked being given a class of science students rather than "arts/classics" ones to teach, but he didn't inspire us like our maths and science teachers did ... our English O level grades didn't match our many O level grade "1"s in maths and sciences - or geography, woodwork, metalwork or even tech drawing - although, interestingly, several of us got higher grades in English literature rather than English language which we were told was unusual ... perhaps results indicating better inherent analysis of meaning rather than lacking knowledge of the basics of sentence construction, punctuation and grammar because of poor teaching?

Michael Ixer ● 21d

Apologies Michael for my inaccuracy, caused by a memory error on my part.The old bubble memory it seems has started to fail.But even when I went to school there was a greater mix of political views amongst teachers than today.Yes, social media will obviously be used to target the new voters.But do we want to give personal contact details of 15/16 year olds and the permission to canvas them, to political parties that have been implemented directly or have participated in the cover up of the mass rape of children?Too many super injunctions to have any faith in the main political parties IMO.

Ed Robinson ● 21d

Ms Holliday'On the whole, university students are greater idealists than 16 year olds just because the latter are not altogether clued into social aspects but yes more into what is in fashion (not only clothes, phones, social media participation)'.As John McEnroe might have replied - "You cannot be serious!"I have never heard a more tendentious, patronising and snobby comment !1) I think you probably overestimate students as being 'idealists'.Idealism cannot be taught especially at our more trendy universities."University of Sussex fined £585k in transgender free speech row"'The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), for failing to uphold freedom of speech.The OfS investigation started with the case of Prof Kathleen Stock, who left the university in 2021 after being accused of transphobia for her views on sex and gender issues.The OfS said the university's policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, including a requirement to "positively represent trans people", could lead to staff and students preventing themselves from voicing opposing views'.Her views lead to death threats against her.2) To what 'social aspects' do you think they are clued into ?3) I think that probably as many students are anti-immigration and anti-Palestinian as are not.They are the ones who DON'T march every Saturday and don't wear a black and white tea towel.4) I suspect many students would vote Reform but they probably keep that a secret from their leftist peers and lecturers. 5) What happens to 16 year-olds in the two years before they go to university ?6) And what is more in fashion apart from rap music than being anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian ?

John Hawkes ● 21d

Mr Hawkes. Sadly, unless some of the more esoteric quantum physics experiments prove time can move backwards further than the fraction of a second, we have to accept time marches forward and things change. Yes, the 1960s was a great time of innovation, although there were reservations from some: "There's one for you, nineteen for me, 'Cause I'm the taxman, Yeah, I'm the taxman" George Harrison, 1966, member of that "beat combo" the Beatles - or perhaps we need to return to 1960s supertax rates of 95% to fix the NHS, etc? :-)But it's good the Stones, McCartney, The Who, Davies et al are still around making music - and money ...https://genius.com/The-beatles-taxman-lyricshttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-of-negative-time-found-in-quantum-physics-experiment/

Michael Ixer ● 21d

Mr Ixer'I know there's been comments about young people feeling entitled but my perception is life is more difficult these day for teenagers. Loans rather than student grants, an expectation that they will have some further qualifications - whether that's educational or vocational - and more competion for employment with few jobs for those without qualifications? (With the growth in robotics and AI many mundane jobs will likely disappear but new opportunities will arise although they will probably require higher levels of education?)Perhaps if the odds are stacked against them they should have some say in their future?.You make some very perceptive points here and perhaps I was too harsh in criticising the sensitivities of today's 'young people'.I was lucky enough to be educated at a new grammar school in Essex built for the East End of London diaspora, from '57-'64 and then go to university from '64-'68.The number going to such was far, far less than today.My time at university was funded by an Essex CC grant for fees and living allowance.Halcyon days for someone from a working class background.And '68 heralded a great demand for educated graduates from the large corporations that dominated industry and commerce, not least in the computer business.And commercial and social change moved at a much slower pace.Today of course, with Blair's plan for 50% of school leavers to 'go to uni', this could not be funded by the state alone but by the individuals themselves.Hence the student loan burden.Also more people have higher expectations of what their qualifications are actually worth.And of course they also compete against AI.That is why choice of sixth-form and university subject is so important.And every generation has its own specific problems to cope with.But I am sceptical that they are not necessarily thinking of immediate benefits for themselves but of improving society as a whole. It's just that 'life' is far more dynamic and competitive. So "cheers to the '60s" - which also gave us the Beatles and the Stones !A period never to be repeated I am afraid.

John Hawkes ● 21d

As far as I can see, Michael, you present  the two arguments in favour of lowering the voting age: 1) it was in the Labour manifesto and 2) young people should have a say in determining the shape of the world they will inhabit. The first argument is not a justification of the principle. It is just saying that the government have a right to lower the voting age  because they said they were going to do it in the manifesto. I don’t question their right, but their logic. Your second argument could used to give the vote to 14- year-olds. Why  shouldn’t they have as much right as 16-year-olds to determine the shape of the world they will inhabit. Why not 12-year-olds? Clearly a judgment must be made about  the maturity of children to make important decisions. At present  society has taken the view that 16 year olds are not mature enough to engage in a range of activities. The government have no plans to allow children to order alcoholic drinks in a pub yet they wish to allow them to vote on the licensing laws. 16-year-olds cannot be trusted to buy a knife yet they would be able to vote ‘(indirectly) on whether this country should go to war. 16 year-olds are not allowed to make financial commitments yet they would have a say in determining how the government spends billions of pounds. It makes no sense at all. It is obvious that the motive for the change in voting age is electoral. Labour thinks that young people are more likely to be left wing and give them their vote.

Steven Rose ● 21d

Ed. I'll take your word for that as I'm not familiar with the current secondary educational system. I suppose we didn't have the distraction of social media although the Internet, Google, Wikipedia, etc would have been useful for checking facts. (Incidentally, I went to a comprehensive school, which had been a secondary modern school, not a grammar school.)

Michael Ixer ● 22d

Steven, if you read my post properly I said I didn't have strong feelings about it as I don't know any 16 year olds but people seem to have voted for what's in the Labour manifesto. Essentially, a fait accompli? I was just putting forward some discussion points which you haven't addressed? Just asked your own questions! For example, do you agree/disagree they may have good reasons to take a longer term view, or the current generations of voters haven't made a very good job of things; or do you just intend to ignore those points?Interesting that you can drive a car at 17 - a year younger than many western countries and a year below voting age. That's already an anomaly. Given that one can't legally drive a car by oneself on a public road without taking a theory and practical test, lowering the age a year probably wouldn't seem to be a major risk. Similarly, with a mortgage one would need a regular and sufficient income to qualify for one; I'd think that would rule out most 16 year olds?Fireworks; personally, I'd ban them from sale to all individuals unless organising a licenced public display - I think many cats and dogs would appreciate that.Knives seem to pose a specific risk so there's a case for a higher age; perhaps it should be raised to 21 unless someone needs it for work, in which case a licence could be issued to allow purchases? Jury service. I guess one wouldn't want to take 16 year olds out of education to serve, so a minimum age of 18 seems sensible, in the same way as there's an exception in that there's a maximum age of 75 but one can still vote.Alcohol: apparently some countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, or Switzerland - allow on- and off-premise sales of beer and wine to teenagers as young as 16 years of age. They don't seem to have many issues with teenage drunkenness as far as I'm aware, but I doubt many 16 year olds could afford to drink in pubs!To be honest, I personally wouldn't be proposing changing any of those ages but, aside from knives and fireworks, I wouldn't be too concerned if there was a majority in favour of lowering the other ages.

Michael Ixer ● 22d

Hello Michael,Thank you for your post.I do not entirely disagree with what you say.  On the whole, university students are greater idealists than 16 year olds just because the latter are not altogether clued into social aspects but yes more into what is in fashion (not only clothes, phones, social media participation).Student loans are not new (introduced in full in 1998 by a Labour Government?) but most certainly crippling. Their parents know all about it, though. AI at the moment is exciting for many 16 year olds as it helps them no end in writing essays. I am not too sure 16 year olds are that clued on odds stacked against them in the future as they believe that they are invincible.  A very cold (perhaps odd?) thing to say but it is true.  The idea of odds against them has not really dawned on them at that age, other than perhaps getting the new pair of trendy jeans or trendy shoes or latest mobile phone.  16 year olds are not brainless, not in the slightest, but their priorities do not necessarily fall within the list of important issues adults have.  At that age the idea of rights is understood but the idea of obligations is a bit of a slippery slope still.Yes, previous generations have not shown a lot of common sense in many things.  I think that avarice has grown enormously in the last 30 or so years.....As for the Labour manifesto....  I do not think the NHS waiting lists have reduced considerably, delivery of economic stability is questionable, crack down on antisocial behaviour and recruiting 6,500 new teachers have certainly not materialized.  Personally, I would not use a manifesto as the basis for discussion because a lot in it lacks of common sense...... 

Ivonne Holliday ● 22d

Ate you also in favour, Michael, of allowing 16-year-olds to drive,  to serve on a jury, to order alcohol in a pub, to buy knives and fireworks and to take out a mortgage? And if not, why not?

Steven Rose ● 22d

"Why would politics be a distraction to the education of 15 and 16 year old? When the voting age dropped to 18 at the start of my last year of A levels it didn't affect my results.."Michael I'm not sure your grammar school education in 1969 at the age of 18 can be compared to today's average secondary school experience.There is already too much distraction away from core subjects.Adding canvassing by political parties which are riddled with instances of inappropriate behavior towards younger people is the last thing they need!

Ed Robinson ● 22d

Ivonne, I don't have strong views on the topic, mainly because I don't know many (any?) 15 or 16 year olds. I would guess they fall largely into two groups: those that think politics is boring and won't be bothered to vote while others will have strong feelings about politics. It's possible that with their lives ahead of them some will be more forward thinking and take a long term view and not necessarily be thinking of immediate benefits for themselves but improving society as a whole? I'm sure when I was younger the social aspects appeared more important than financial ones as I didn't have much money for anyone to take it away from me by taxing it! I know there's been comments about young people feeling entitled but my perception is life is more difficult these day for teenagers. Loans rather than student grants, an expectation that they will have some further qualifications - whether that's educational or vocational - and more competion for employment with few jobs for those without qualifications? (With the growth in robotics and AI many mundane jobs will likely disappear but new opportunities will arise although they will probably require higher levels of education?)Perhaps if the odds are stacked against them they should have some say in their future? Let's face it, with pollution, traffic congestion, sewage in the water, rising energy costs, climate change, creaking health services, expectations of final salary pensions, removal of freedom of movement rights, no sovereign wealth fund, etc, the current generations of UK voters haven't done too well with their decisions!It seems different from the drop in age from 21 to 18 in 1969 as that was a shift in the age of majority. However, it was a manifesto pledge so there's presumably a mandate for it to happen; hence it will?

Michael Ixer ● 22d

So lots of people of voting age sitting on their inheritance that they can't take with them are more worried about that than than the state of the planet that  they are leaving to future generations?  What are they going to do about mitigating their excesses to reduce the damage?

Philippa Bond ● 22d

Hello Michael,I agree, politics would not be a distraction of 15 and 16 year  olds.However, I am not convinced that at that age the vast mayority have the maturity to make serious political decisions, let alone cast votes.

Ivonne Holliday ● 22d

Ms Bond'Where are the courses to learn skills, the apprenticeships and jobs that were there when I left school?  Where is the music, art, cookery and sport in schools which gave children a healthy outlet to let off steam and be creative away from the classroom andcto carry onnwith into their adult lives?We have children leaving school who don't know how to look after themselves let alone look after anyone else'.Good questions.Suggest you direct them to Kier Starmer, Fleur Anderson and Bridget Phillipson.

John Hawkes ● 22d

Where are the courses to learn skills, the apprenticeships and jobs that were there when I left school?  Where is the music, art, cookery and sport in schools which gave children a healthy outlet to let off steam and be creative away from the classroom andcto carry onnwith into their adult lives?We have children leaving school who don't know how to look after themselves let alone look after anyone else.

Philippa Bond ● 22d

Ms Bond'Unfortunately age doesn't necessarily bring wisdom.  It can bring entrenched views and prejudices which many 16 year olds hopefully won't have.  Youngsters need to be able have the dreams of a future for themselves and the world which many older people have failed to work hard enough to secure.'Age may not bring wisdom but it does tend to bring the experience of reality - though not always.So as regards 'dreams for the future' every generation has its own dreams but experience will cause a realisation that these have to be worked for as one will not get 'owt for nowt'.Not sure many 16 year olds who have never worked would recognise this fact.They are part of our 'entitlement' culture where '"they" should provide what I want at no cost to me personally'.Watch them on the buses or worse nicking from supermarkets.

John Hawkes ● 22d

Ed. Why would politics be a distraction to the education of 15 and 16 year old? When the voting age dropped to 18 at the start of my last year of A levels it didn't affect my results that I needed for university. Anyway, we were already involved in discussing politics in the age of flower power, peace and love :-)Now, girls, beer and rock & roll ... 

Michael Ixer ● 22d

Unfortunately age doesn't necessarily bring wisdom.  It can bring entrenched views and prejudices which many 16 year olds hopefully won't have.  Youngsters need to be able have the dreams of a future for themselves and the world which many older people have failed to work hard enough to secure.

Philippa Bond ● 22d

Mr Robinson'..that all you got?"Clearly Michael B. you did not read the whole post or my previous one for that matter'.And his grammar is pretty awful too !

John Hawkes ● 22d

..that all you got?"Clearly Michael B. you did not read the whole post or my previous one for that matter.

Ed Robinson ● 23d

"Can you imagine the distraction that will occur to 16 years olds and 15 year olds (soon to be 16) education as political forces try and get their vote?"I don't really care either way but this is hysterical - that all you got? Teenagers might get distracted?

Michael Brigo ● 23d

There are lots of legal issues such as those listed below.Can you imagine the distraction that will occur to 16 years olds and 15 year olds (soon to be 16) education as political forces try and get their vote?"Parental responsibility ceases when a child reaches 18 years of age""The law says that in order to start learning to drive a car on UK roads, you must be at least 17 years old""The legal drinking age is 18 across all of the UK, including London. Those under 18 cannot purchase or drink alcohol in licensed pubs, bars, clubs etc."

Ed Robinson ● 23d

Thank you for clarifying :)

Michael Brigo ● 23d

@MB 21.7.25 11.18Of course, why wouldn't they?  If 16/17 year olds are to be treated as adults and given the privilege to vote they must expect and accept the responsibilities and consequences that go along with it.

Sue Hammond ● 23d

Mr BrigoStrange logic here.'Perhaps I did miss the point but it would need Sue to clarify. Thanks for your pointless interjection though.'If you did miss the point my interjection can not have been pointless.

John Hawkes ● 23d

Perhaps I did miss the point but it would need Sue to clarify. Thanks for your pointless interjection though.

Michael Brigo ● 23d

Mr Brigo'Aren't you normally calling for child criminals to be treated as adults Sue?'As usual Mr Brigo you seem to have missed the point.I think Ms Hammond is saying that if 16 year olds are to be treated as adults for many social and political circumstances why should that be the case with the Criminal Justice system ?Especially as so much gang and knife crime in London seems to be perpetrated by those at or below that age.

John Hawkes ● 23d

Aren't you normally calling for child criminals to be treated as adults Sue?

Michael Brigo ● 23d

Your comment about sentencing is a really good point Sue.  The only change they should make is standardise all these legal ages to say 18  This is clearly a gerrymandering tactic along with the Islamophobia definition that Rayner is trying to bring in.  All to save Labour seats.Why not try and improve the lives of the electorate.

Robert Wheeler ● 23d

All good points Ed.  Also will they be treated as adults by the criminal justice system and be subject to adult sentencing?

Sue Hammond ● 23d

It seems that there are movements exerting political pressure to do away with childhood in this and other western countries.Once you define them as adults they will be eligible to fight in the armed forces. It wasn't that long ago we raised the recruitment age so we didn't have child soldiers.Loans. Although the government has blurred this with educational loans I think most people would agree 16 is too young to take on debt.Gambling: Will they be permitted to gamble? Although voting seems to be a bit of a gamble.State Assisted Suicide: Will an anorexic 16 year old be able referred or seek state assisted suicide?What other things should we consider?      Housing & other benefits perhaps??    Minimum wage? Currently set at £7.55 for 16-17 year olds but £10.00 for 18 year olds."Child soldiers refer to individuals below 18 years of age who have been recruited or used by armed forces or groups for various roles, including combatants"https://www.sciencedirect.com › topics › social-sciences

Ed Robinson ● 24d

Blatant gerrymandering of the voting system😡but it will backfire on him for several reasons in my opinion 1. Corbyn's new far-left party will inevitably prompt the resurgence of Momentum which could split the Labour vote.  This potential split will be even more likely if Diane Abbott joins his party. 2. Farage is very popular with the young male demographic, (inexplicable to those who do not follow him and therefore do not see his positive interactions with them), and he already has over a million followers on TikTok.  Farage detractors will no doubt scoff and dismiss this as some kind of irrelevant cult following, but Labour should beware as cults by their very nature gather momentum, especially via SMS platforms.3. Although younger people tend to vote for left-leaning parties Labour will face significant competition from the Greens and the LibDems 'YouGov's latest voting intention poll puts Labour in the lead amongst 18 to 24-year-olds at 28%, followed by the Greens on 26% and the Liberal Democrats on 20%.'https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5362v5762o4. Half of 16 and 17 year olds don’t want the vote, despite government giving it to them https://www.itv.com/news/2025-07-16/votes-at-16-half-of-16-and-17-year-olds-against-lowering-voting-ageOoops !!

Sue Hammond ● 25d

I agree, 16 yr old's should be either studying without other things to worry about and also enjoying themselves. The youngsters will have enough problems trying to find places to live etc, when they get a bit older. Also certain children would not bother to vote as their too busy stabbing somebody fighting, or having to watch their own back.  We may live in a decent area but some children don't.

Barbara Stevens ● 25d

There is a good reason why 16-year-olds are not allowed all the privileges enjoyed by adults. It is because at that age many teenagers have not attained sufficient maturity to make sensible decisions. I don’t think it makes sense to resolve all the paradoxes implicit in Labour’s proposal - e.g. that teenagers who  are not allowed to take out a mortgage and cannot be trusted to order drinks in a pub will be able to decide on billions of government expenditure and vote on the licensing laws etc -  simply by abolishing these sensible prohibitions.

Steven Rose ● 26d

The first 16 year olds in the UK to be given the vote were in Scotland whose SNP government was able to bring that in for the independence referendum in 2014. The polls indicated that younger voters were more persuaded of the merits of independence. It didn’t work, obviously, but neither did the world come to an end. Since then Wales has taken the same decision for their own local elections. Yes, there are a lot of things 16 year olds can’t do in the UK but there have always been these age anomalies. Maybe revising some of those restrictions might be the way forward. I tend to agree this will not necessarily help Labour at future elections - young people might vote Green, LibDem or even Reform, if current polls mean anything. But I don’t think it is fundamentally a step in the wrong direction. If there’s a proviso, it is that citizenship lessons need to become part of the national curriculum but that too could be contentious if such lessons get politicised by those doing the teaching.

Jonathan Callaway ● 26d