Page 12 | 16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote

Whereishenow · 2025-07-17T09:57:54+00:00

Just seen this announcement on BBC now. Amazing news!!! Now we just need to try and get youngsters out USING those votes.

Radioundermypillow · 17/07/2025 12:55

Angrymum22 · 17/07/2025 12:53

DS is 21 this year. He has yet to use his vote. I have tried to encourage him but his answer is that he hasn’t the life experience to confidently vote. His upbringing and education would probably put him firmly right of centre but he wants more time to decide where his affiliation lies. He is a critical thinker and does not feel that any one party provides a firm base for his individual beliefs.

Too intelligent to vote? That's a new one. Tell him to get off his arse and get out there!

MondayYogurt · 17/07/2025 12:55

pucksack · 17/07/2025 12:45

This topic has really brought out a lot of ageism against the elderly.

We must be reading different threads

From this thread:

"Tbf we really need to do something to counter the votes of older people who can't even tell when an image is AI generated and take the word of GB News as gospel."

Plus the comments about taking votes away from people with dementia. As if voting is the priority for anyone struggling in that situation.

hmmimnotsurewhy · 17/07/2025 12:55

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 11:05

It is absolutely disgraceful. These are children. Not old enough to drive at 16, or buy a lottery ticket, alcohol or get married. Because society accepts that they are not responsible enough to do so. But let them vote on how our country is run because of course that's different. No it isn't...it's because the Labour Party recognises they are prime for manipulation.

@Restlessinthenorthso you find it just as ridiculous that they legally can have sex and bring a whole human being onto this earth without a question? Why have you not mentioned this, given this is the very one thing they shouldn’t be doing?!

MounjaroMounjaro · 17/07/2025 12:55

PrincessASDaisy · 17/07/2025 11:01

They can legally have sex and bring children into the world. Voting is the least of their worries.

Show quote history

It's not their worries I'm concerned about!

lifeonmars100 · 17/07/2025 12:56

itsnotabouthepasta · 17/07/2025 11:07

I think its a good thing. We complain that younger generations aren't politically active - that's because they've been told their opinions don't matter.

What we need to do is bring politics into the national curriculum so we can educate younger generations to have a voice, use their voice and learn what their vote will mean.

For those who believe it's wrong, why is a 87 year old's opinion on the coming 4-5 years more valid than a 16 year old?

I was thinking about this. Centuries ago when I was young we had what were called Civics lessons and we learnt about democracy, suffrage, local and national government and some basic law. We had an outing to a council meeting and another to the local magistrates court. I am sure that some of us were bored but I found it very interesting and could not wait to use my vote when I turned 18.

Digdongdoo · 17/07/2025 12:57

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 12:53

@Digdongdoo and she does so in the abstract, because she is a child. Hardly any 16 year olds have lives that allow them to critically contextualise whatever information they consume about politics.

Whilst I'm totally for providing children opportunities to become more politically aware, we are light years away from having systems to do that. Simply chucking them a vote is like throwing condoms at them without giving them the supporting social and emotional education that scaffolds safe use of them (for example). This is not about engaging young people, it's about exploiting them

How do you know if her understanding is in the abstract or not? 18 year olds haven't had lives that allow them to contextualise everything either. Neither have most 21 year olds. And neither have lots of 40 year olds. And honestly, 85 year olds who left the workforce and housing market decades ago don't have any relevant contextual life experience either.
We don't demand that anyone else prove relevant life experience before voting, so it isn't an argument we can use against 16 year olds.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 17/07/2025 12:58

Grammarnut · 17/07/2025 12:54

We say 16 year olds are children. So how can they do an adult thing such as voting? Ridiculous. But of course, they are all brainwashed, so it's obvious why this would be a thing.

Plenty of other "adult" things 16 years olds do, like working, paying tax, joining the armed forces, having sexual relationships, having children, getting married with parental consent in parts of the UK.

As for the "brainwashed" comment, that can equally be applied to any age group. Look at the average age of Tory members for example. No coincidence about the only people who still read right-wing shitrags like the Mail and Express are pensioners.

Grammarnut · 17/07/2025 12:58

itsnotabouthepasta · 17/07/2025 11:07

I think its a good thing. We complain that younger generations aren't politically active - that's because they've been told their opinions don't matter.

What we need to do is bring politics into the national curriculum so we can educate younger generations to have a voice, use their voice and learn what their vote will mean.

For those who believe it's wrong, why is a 87 year old's opinion on the coming 4-5 years more valid than a 16 year old?

We do not need politics in the National Curriculum, we need a good, wide-ranging liberal education including the best that has been thought and written. Music, art, dance, drama, too, along with sport. In short the sort of education the elite of this country get and which is mostly denied the hoi polloi. But we do not need children voting. In fact, given we now know that maturity is not reached until 25, we should put the voting age up to at least 21.

Original poster

Whereishenow · 17/07/2025 12:58

TheCurious0range · 17/07/2025 11:18

Most 16 year olds aren't earning enough to pay anything but the bare minimum in tax is at all and if this is the case and 16 year olds are adults, stop child benefit at 16 even if in education, try them as adults at 16 in the justice system, let them sign up to military combat at 16. 16 year olds aren't even seen as responsible enough to have their own mobile phone contract. We prosecute parents for failing to send 16 year olds to school. They either are adults and need the responsibilities along with the rewards or they're not and can wait until they are 18.

Show quote history

Not sure I understand your thinking here. Surely following this logic would mean taking away the vote at retirement too?

OP posts:

LadySuzanne · 17/07/2025 12:59

Arlanymor · 17/07/2025 12:43

I wonder if half the people on here realise they are making the EXACT same arguments that people made over a century ago when the suffragettes were campaigning for women to have the vote - the EXACT same arguments.

Hugely disheartening (and unenlightened - which is a polite way of saying 'not applying brain cells'). 16-year olds have been able to vote in Wales since 2021 and guess what it hasn't dismantled our whole political system...

Old enough to go to war (and give their lives), old enough to earn and be taxed (I remember getting my national insurance card a couple of months before my 16th birthday), but apparently not to have a democratic stake in the future of their country...

Yes we need more education in schools - because you can't reply on parents to be politically interested or literate - but it shouldn't be a barrier to encouraging younger people to take an interest in politics - it's their future after all.

"Old enough to go to war (and give their lives), old enough to earn and be taxed (I remember getting my national insurance card a couple of months before my 16th birthday), but apparently not to have a democratic stake in the future of their country..."

You are incorrect.

16 and 17 year olds can join the army with parental consent.

They then spend two years in training college (Soldier Academy) as Junior Soldiers. At 18, they can apply to become Regular Soldiers.

They cannot be deployed on the front line until they are aged 18.

So 16 and 17 year olds are not "old enough to go to war (and give their lives)" as you have stated.

jobs.army.mod.uk/regular-army/entry-options/soldier/

Fairyliz · 17/07/2025 12:59

itsnotabouthepasta · 17/07/2025 11:07

I think its a good thing. We complain that younger generations aren't politically active - that's because they've been told their opinions don't matter.

What we need to do is bring politics into the national curriculum so we can educate younger generations to have a voice, use their voice and learn what their vote will mean.

For those who believe it's wrong, why is a 87 year old's opinion on the coming 4-5 years more valid than a 16 year old?

So you mean indoctrination them by left wing teachers?

Gonners · 17/07/2025 13:00

Alexandra2001 · 17/07/2025 11:28

What do you think about people at the end of their lives, with cognitive impairment still getting to vote?

Or is that ok because they'll vote the way you want?

Show quote history

There are fewer of those than there are of the people who are terminally stupid and yet still vote.

LadySuzanne · 17/07/2025 13:00

There is a good deal of misunderstanding in this thread of what 16 and 17 years are legally permitted to do.

Original poster

Whereishenow · 17/07/2025 13:01

Zov · 17/07/2025 11:25

Absolutely ridiculous. 🙄 The voting age should have been put UP - to 21. Not dropped to 16. They're still at school at 16, and know NOTHING about life, economics, finances, politics, what's going on in the news..... How incredibly silly to let children vote. Good grief!

Show quote history

I mean you could argue that 90 year olds know nothing about how the world works these days too. Housing / education / job search / AI.

OP posts:

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 17/07/2025 13:02

Fairyliz · 17/07/2025 12:59

So you mean indoctrination them by left wing teachers?

Show quote history

Oh noes! all those poor teens currently being indoctrinated in Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics and so on!

Teachers are perfectly capable of teaching politics without it becoming about party policy.

Original poster

Whereishenow · 17/07/2025 13:02

Chiseltip · 17/07/2025 11:49

If you're not old enough to be trusted to drink alcohol or take out a phone co tract, then I struggle to understand how you can be trusted to vote.

Show quote history

But also if you're too old to drive / live independently/ work... Could say the same, no?

OP posts:

Goldenbear · 17/07/2025 13:03

SilverHammer · 17/07/2025 12:47

I’ve a feeling this might backfire on Labour when they are all voting Reform.

Show quote history

I don't understand your rationale here, in the July polls the greatest percentage of Reform voters at 35% is in the 65+ age group, the lowest percentage of Reform voters at 9% in the 18-24 age group. What do you think will cause a change so great that these percentages are reversed for the 16-18 year olds? Surely it follows suit that their voting preferences will be similar to the age group above them?

Magnir · 17/07/2025 13:04

Will their parents have to take them to vote because MN posters tend to baby their children, is this widespread or just on here.

Beachtastic · 17/07/2025 13:04

Given that people tend to start out drawn to naive idealism early in life and get progressively crabbier as they are jaded with age, I'd say this is a cynical exercise to boost Labour votes. But then I would say that, I'm 193 years old!

DottieMoon · 17/07/2025 13:05

GasPanic · 17/07/2025 11:13

Probably 87 years of accumulated life experience.

I remember what I was like at 16. I had quite a lot of raw intelligence. But lacked experience, the ability to understand other peoples lives and viewpoints and the struggles others might have. Things like what workplaces are like, the experience of job security, the difficulty of bringing up kids etc.

Show quote history

I know plenty of people 60+ with 'life experience' who are ignorant and stupid.

itsnotabouthepasta · 17/07/2025 13:06

Fairyliz · 17/07/2025 12:59

So you mean indoctrination them by left wing teachers?

Show quote history

Sorry I'm getting frustrated with these ridiculous arguments.

We KNOW there is a huge issue politically whereby people don't understand the implications of their vote, They don't know where or how to get unbiased messages, think critically or just parrot what GB News / Daily Mail / The Guardian /The Sun / TikTok tells them.

The only way to tackle this is through education. It's not 'indoctination'. In fact, it should be taught like RE is taught - access to all sides of the political spectrum and learning and understanding.

If we don't start teaching people how democracy works, how to have a voice and how to use that voice then we have real problems. I couldn't give a fuck whether you vote right or left. I care about people understanding what they are voting for.

EasternStandard · 17/07/2025 13:07

Beachtastic · 17/07/2025 13:04

Given that people tend to start out drawn to naive idealism early in life and get progressively crabbier as they are jaded with age, I'd say this is a cynical exercise to boost Labour votes. But then I would say that, I'm 193 years old!

I think that’s true but Labour made the manifesto pledge pre Corbyn party announcement, and they will be even more idealistic and popular.

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 13:07

@Digdongdoo 16 year olds are still in school. Still children and still barred from many activities appropriate for adults, and require parental consent for nearly all other major choices. The line in the sand is drawn somewhere and in our society it is 18. I'd personally increase the voting age to 21 but that's just me. By your logic, why don't we allow 13 year olds to vote? What's the difference?

Arlanymor · 17/07/2025 13:08

LadySuzanne · 17/07/2025 12:59

"Old enough to go to war (and give their lives), old enough to earn and be taxed (I remember getting my national insurance card a couple of months before my 16th birthday), but apparently not to have a democratic stake in the future of their country..."

You are incorrect.

16 and 17 year olds can join the army with parental consent.

They then spend two years in training college (Soldier Academy) as Junior Soldiers. At 18, they can apply to become Regular Soldiers.

They cannot be deployed on the front line until they are aged 18.

So 16 and 17 year olds are not "old enough to go to war (and give their lives)" as you have stated.

jobs.army.mod.uk/regular-army/entry-options/soldier/

Show quote history

Erm, the brackets was to make that point I know how it works, my ex was a member of the RMP... old enough to join with the implication being that later on in their career they might be in situation where their lives would be on the line. It's the intellectual argument - they are being considered adult enough to pursue a career that could result in losing the life - not what would happen on day one of their employment. If they joined up at 20 with no experience they also would not be sent to the front line the very next day, but would it still be ok for them to have the vote?!

EasyTouch · 17/07/2025 13:08

Yet another laugh in the face of the " their brains , particularly the decision making/ foresight bits aren't fully baked until they are twenty five" massive.
If they are old enough to fuck on a soft brain at sixteen ( thirteen for Gillick competency measures), they are old enough to do mostly anything and accept the consequences yay or nay, innit?

Mind you, I bet that there is a large overlap between the " yay, 16 yr olds can vote!" and " they're still babies at 21 and did not know what they were doing because the frontal lobe is still runny" groups.