Should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote in a general election?

A report from Labour’s National Policy Forum (NPF) includes a proposal to lower the voting age in general elections to 16, from 18. This has been party policy in the last three general elections, albeit often overshadowed by other issues. Despite the familiarity of the proposal and the arguments associated with it, the idea has triggered some mild hysteria.

Is Labour about to give kids the vote?

It is possible. As noted, it was Labour policy in 2019, 2017 and in 2015 (when an improvement in citizenship education was also advocated, the better to prepare our youthful new masters… not needed, as it turned out). Labour’s National Policy Forum isn’t therefore making a radical departure, and a party spokesman is quoted in the media as saying: “Labour will introduce votes for 16- and 17-year-olds, in line with Scotland and Wales, so that young people feel empowered and can fully engage in our democratic processes.”

He added: “At the age of 16, many young people are paying taxes, working, and engaging in all parts of society – it is right that they get a say in who governs them.”

However, the final say on the manifesto rests not with the NPF but a kind of mini-conference. According to Labour’s constitution: “The National Executive Committee, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Leaders of the Scottish and Welsh Labour Parties, and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF and eight Trade Union members of the TULO Contact Group shall decide which items from the Party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the Party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto.”

In current circumstances, that means Keir Starmer determines what is and isn’t in it. In his current ultra-cautious mode, Starmer might be inclined to weaken the commitment to ‘‘examining the case of change’’ or putting it out for consultation and cross-party agreement.

What are the arguments in favour?

Young people have as much a stake in society as anyone, and most are no more or less able to form a view than their elders. They pay income tax if they work or spend money, can join the armed forces, and can have sex. On current polling, they are also much more likely to vote Labour.

What are the arguments against?

In the words of Greg Hands, the Conservative party chairman: “Everyone knows that adulthood starts at 18 – that’s when you can get married, start drinking and smoke. Labour only wants to lower the voting age for their own political advantage.” On current polling, under-18s are also much less likely to vote Conservative.

Shouldn’t altering the franchise be a matter for cross-party consensus?

Ideally, yes, but that hasn’t always held. New rules on photographic voter ID, for example, were only supported by Conservatives, and the timing of the implementation of (impartial and independent) constituency boundary changes have been influenced by party considerations.

Who will it favour in the long run?

It is sometimes argued that the opposition of the Liberal government in Edwardian times to votes for women was fuelled by a fear that it would favour the Conservatives, and so, initially, the move was restricted to females over the age of 30. As things turned out, at various general elections, women proved more and less likely to favour one party or another, and the male-female divide is much narrower than it used to be.

The same variability was evident after the general voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 under legislation passed in 1969, but the generation gap has widened recently, not least on attitudes to Brexit.

Despite the likes of the schoolboy activist William Hague addressing the Tory conference in 1977, the young tend to be more progressive (and, dare one say it, ‘‘woke’’) than pensioners, though they are also less inclined to vote. In any case, extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds will yield a marginal rather than absolute advantage to the left; even today as they shelter from falling concrete in their schoolrooms, some sixth-formers are convinced Conservatives.

What about the devolved administrations?

In what was a nakedly partisan move, Scotland’s SNP government widened the franchise for elections and referendums just in time for the 2014 vote on independence. In Wales, a similar change was made by the Labour-dominated administration in 2019. In Northern Ireland, they’ve stuck with 18.

Has any country got full votes for children?

No, and a fairly small list of territories have gone for 16. Aside from Scotland and Wales, they are: Brazil; Ecuador; East Timor; Greece; Indonesia; Austria; Cuba; Guernsey; Isle of Man; Jersey; Malta; Nicaragua; and Argentina. A number of German states also allow local voting at 16. Iran apparently experimented with votes at 15 for a while. Argentina was the first country to lower voting from 21 to 18 (in 1863) while the first to move to 16 was Nicaragua (from 21, in 1984). In the United Arab Emirates you need to be 25.