I’m glad the Tories filibustered the youth vote bill. If we can’t trust 16-year-olds with a pint, why should we trust them with a vote?

Today, a private members’ bill introduced by Labour MP’s, seeking to reduce the voting age to 16, got its second reading in the House of Commons. As well as Labour, it received the backing of the Liberal Democrats, Green Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru, and was championed by such luminaries as Vince Cable and Lord Adonis.

The Tories filibustered the debate, meaning that there was no time for a vote on the voting age being reduced to 16. However, the question remains as to why left-leaning parties are so determined to let under-18s vote.

It has been touted as something to bring younger people into society earlier, giving them a say over their futures, recognising they can be responsible. But rather than welcome this idea, the public should view it with real caution. Though it appears a liberal policy to widen the reach of democracy, the reality is that it is patronising and opportunistic.

Though wanting 16-year-olds to vote, the parties arrayed in favour of it remain staunchly opposed to legalising a raft of other things they currently cannot do. Below the age of 18, it is illegal for people to smoke, vape, drink alcohol, buy fireworks, knives, gamble, get a tattoo or even use a sun bed. You cannot inherit money, nor can you buy a house. Below the age of 17, of course, you also cannot drive, whilst until you are 18 you can’t be sent to an adult prison. None of the parties plan on changing that any time soon, whilst plenty of government bodies actively encourage raising some of these age limits.

How can it be that a 16-year-old is mature enough to make head or tail of complex political decisions, but immature enough to be prevented from buying a pint, learning to drive a car, getting on the property ladder, or just getting a tan? If 16-years-olds are to be allowed to vote like adults, they should receive all the other freedoms voting adults receive.

Meanwhile, a recent Labour Party advert advocating giving 16-year-olds the vote highlighted that they can join the armed forces, get married, and get jobs, but not vote. This is not the full story. In England, you can’t be in full-time employment until 18; until this year, the number of 16 to 18-year-olds staying in education was rising steadily. You cannot marry until you're 18 without parental permission, nor can you join the army, and in the latter case, even with permission, you cannot be deployed to the frontline until you are 18.

If political parties distrust the young so much, why are they so keen to give them the vote? The answer is the same as why they want to keep them away from drink and fireworks: they think they’re immature, making them easier to mislead. Perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad if youngsters began learning about politics and government from an early age, but the overwhelming majority who do so take it up when they start sixth form – when they are already 16.

Perhaps learning about politics from the age of twelve, say, would equip youngsters with the knowledge needed to vote at 16 – but that would surely reveal to students earlier on the duplicitous nature of political parties, making them less impressionable. I wonder how the Lib Dems would feel about that?

Young people vote overwhelmingly for left wing parties and policies, so it’s no wonder these parties want to give 1.5 million more of them the vote. Cable, Adonis and Labour’s Jim McMahon see them as easy prey, in much the same way as Jeremy Corbyn did at the last election, with his promise to reduce tuition fees, or Nick Clegg when he promised to oppose raising them. In both cases, the politicians went back on their word, but no doubt, come the next election, the same impossible bribes will be dangled in front of them again. If Labour and the Lib Dems seriously thought these people were mature enough, they’d never dare to mislead voters in such a way. This isn’t empowering, it’s child exploitation.

Giving youngsters a vote doesn’t involve them in society. By accident or design, most are blissfully naive about politics. It is, in fact, a trick to give paternalistic politicians more power over the young. All that will happen is that they’ll be screwed by the same politicians – they just won’t be able to drown their sorrows afterwards.

The proposal is not all it seems. You may think it’s innocent and inclusive, but the oversized butterfly net is hidden out of sight. It’s a cynical ploy by politicians to trick the gullible into giving them a majority. If you want to give 16-year-olds more of a role in society, give them more freedom. Invest in education, lower the driving age, let them own property, and have a pint. But if you don’t feel comfortable with that, you shouldn’t feel comfortable letting them vote.