Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote

1000 replies

Whereishenow · 17/07/2025 10:57

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Digdongdoo · 17/07/2025 13:49

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 13:47

@Digdongdoo quote function won't work on my phone.

Your benchmark is "major life decisions". So which major life decisions do we allow children at 16 to make? I know of precisely none. My benchmark is adulthood; 18 when we actually allow people to make major life decisions.

There is life transition between 16 and 18. As I said, I'd follow the science about brain development and make the voting age older rather than younger, but that's not on the table so no point discussing it. Ignoring what we know in this respect is absolutely ludicrous

I can't engage any further if I can't see the conversation to respond properly. Quote or don't bother.

Zov · 17/07/2025 13:49

The majority of them don't want to vote anyway! 😆 And the ones who do (as I said earlier) know naff-all about politics and economics and finances etc anyway, and have NO life experiences.

How the fuck is this being allowed to happen?! Voting at 16 COME ON! 😂 As I said earlier, and some others have said, it needs to be raised - to 21. Not bloody dropped! (To 16!) Farcical!

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-07-16/votes-at-16-half-of-16-and-17-year-olds-against-lowering-voting-age

GasPanic · 17/07/2025 13:50

Calliopespa · 17/07/2025 13:39

I actually agree with a cut-off in some cases!

Edited

I think in the conclave Archbishops over the age of 80 are not allowed to vote but are allowed to participate. Or something like that.

The argument that some of the electorate not being fit to vote means we should let another section of people who are (potentially) unfit to vote vote too doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny though.

The fact that something is imperfect is not a good reason to justify making changes to make it even more imperfect.

Absentmindedsmile · 17/07/2025 13:50

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:48

I can see why that might be tempting, but next you will be asked to take IQ before you can vote...

Not a bad idea.. after all when democracy was first ‘invented’ it was understood that those voting were intelligent, and informed. As we know, this is certainly not the case these days..

GasPanic · 17/07/2025 13:51

If 16 year olds can vote, why shouldn't they serve on juries too ?

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:52

Absentmindedsmile · 17/07/2025 13:50

Not a bad idea.. after all when democracy was first ‘invented’ it was understood that those voting were intelligent, and informed. As we know, this is certainly not the case these days..

Could you imagine the cost attached to that...

Whatafustercluck · 17/07/2025 13:53

GasPanic · 17/07/2025 11:10

The logic that a 16 year old can be responsible enough to decide who runs the country, but not choose whether they can buy a lottery ticket or drink alcohol is seriously screwed up.

Equally, the logic that they've been able to join the military to defend a country whose democracy and leadership they haven't been allowed to have a say in is equally screwed up.

I'm pleased they've been given the vote. A bunch of predomantly old people voted to strip them of their right to live, travel and study freely in Europe. Our decisions have impacted them heavily.

LaurieFairyCake · 17/07/2025 13:53

It’s a good thing, anyone saying different is just guilty of ageism

I certainly know I was very politically aware at 16 and was working full time

LaurieFairyCake · 17/07/2025 13:54

No taxation without representation

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:54

GasPanic · 17/07/2025 13:50

I think in the conclave Archbishops over the age of 80 are not allowed to vote but are allowed to participate. Or something like that.

The argument that some of the electorate not being fit to vote means we should let another section of people who are (potentially) unfit to vote vote too doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny though.

The fact that something is imperfect is not a good reason to justify making changes to make it even more imperfect.

I don't agree letting 16 year olds vote is making the imperfect system even more flawed. You must have a low opinion of 16 and 17 year olds.

Absentmindedsmile · 17/07/2025 13:55

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:52

Could you imagine the cost attached to that...

A cost that might actually pay dividends.

Calliopespa · 17/07/2025 13:55

OldLondonDad · 17/07/2025 13:43

Great!

Goes at least some (small) way to letting younger people have a say in the generational decisions that are made by politicians, and which often have the greatest impact on the young who have no say, like:

  • who we go to war with / against and who will have to do the fighting
  • the piling up of debt (that our future citizens will have to pay for)
  • prioritising spending on education vs. pensions or social care

How about 12-16 yo's next?

And I say 8-12 thereafter! Wooohooo!

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 17/07/2025 13:56

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'll bite.

A 16 year old is (and likely will be for another 5 years) in the mindset of "I'm given money to do things" and not in the mindset of "the money I earn can go on either option A or option B".

Political parties are always offering stuff (and never talking about the consequences of that offer). Labour particularly so.

We have pushed people to staying in full time education or training until 21. Once upon a time 15 year old joined the workforce, as workers or apprentices. They started to understand how the world actually works.
16 year old don't understand that they are living on everybody else's dime (health, education, police, etc)

What 16-21 year old is rationally going to vote against government handing out money (to anyone) when they're currently living with the "be kind" mantra.. It simply doesn't affect them.

The 87 year old is almost certainly living off their own money as well as their state pension. They have 70 years of experience about making choices and unintended consequences.

Sure, they'll probably vote for triple lock and WFP, though many don't, but I'd guess most of them can make more rational and considered decisions than a 16yo

Cakeandusername · 17/07/2025 13:56

I’d class my dc as politically switched on, she’s studying politics. Lots of her classmates in A level politics were same - very engaged on sm, debating etc.
But the actual logistics of registering for a postal vote or turning up at polling station with correct ID not so switched on.
She didn’t register for a postal vote and was away at uni. Was spouting away and didn’t like me saying well you cba to vote. She fell back on the wouldn’t have made a difference (reform landslide) but in one area near us it literally went to one vote in it. Didn’t like me saying kids her age weren’t bothered as I’d seen virtually no yp her age in the 15 hours I’d sat at polling station. One kid had gone to trouble of getting a voter authority certificate for council for ID but she was a one off.

Absentmindedsmile · 17/07/2025 13:56

Although of course we know that those in power love a dumbed down masses. Easier to control and all that.

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 13:56

@Digdongdoo oh I see. I thought I'd be waiting a while for this list of major life choices that we permit 16 year olds to make

PrincessJasmine1 · 17/07/2025 13:57

I think all the people who are permanent residents of this country should also be able to vote. We live here, so we should decide who rules this country and it's laws. I don't understand why Commonwealth citizens can vote and not the others, what's the logic?

Calliopespa · 17/07/2025 13:57

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:54

I don't agree letting 16 year olds vote is making the imperfect system even more flawed. You must have a low opinion of 16 and 17 year olds.

It was predictable people would make this about a "put-down" of 16 year olds.

Noone thinks not letting 5 year old votes is having a low opinion of them. On the contrary, its accepting them as being at the time of life that they are at.

Its not belitting them to accept they aren't fully mature.

Whatafustercluck · 17/07/2025 13:57

PandoraSocks · 17/07/2025 13:48

Can you prove that Labour's core vote is "state subsidised families"? What exactly do you mean by this? Families who receive child benefit?

Exactly. Also, benefits bashers have a tendency to bang on about 'taxpayers funding their benefits' when plenty of those in receipt of benefits do actually work and are therefore also taxpayers. My dcs receive DLA. I've worked and paid taxes since leaving university nearly 30 years ago, and I still do.

PandoraSocks · 17/07/2025 13:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Labour vote is pretty evenly spread across social class If there is a "core vote" it is abc1.

16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote
Digdongdoo · 17/07/2025 13:58

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 13:56

@Digdongdoo oh I see. I thought I'd be waiting a while for this list of major life choices that we permit 16 year olds to make

If you could bother to quote properly, you'd see that I already listen several. But selective reading and poor tech skills is your affliction, and I can't be arsed to repeat myself and search for my previous posts.

IthasYes · 17/07/2025 13:59

I hope this doesn't increase attempts by some naughty teachers to tell children how to vote and keep perpetuating the myth that Labour is the nice party and the Tories are the nasty party

SinisterBumFacedCat · 17/07/2025 14:00

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 13:38

I work in FE and have plenty of experience of working with 16-18 year olds and yes it's just my experience, but I would say they are definitely ready to vote and would take would take it seriously.

If we're going down the route of questioning whether young people are mature enough to vote, maybe we ought to ask whether some older people with memory impairments should be allowed to vote... Or perhaps we ought to have a cut off age at 85 as you're not likely going to be around to see the impact of your vote...

Edited

Agree. My Mum has her polling card sent to her care home every election. She Alzheimers and does not know where she is or what’s happening from one moment to the next, just about recognises me but no one else. And yet she’s expected to vote. In the early days of her illness this was a major cause of anxiety and stress for her.

Ladybowes · 17/07/2025 14:01

Calliopespa · 17/07/2025 13:57

It was predictable people would make this about a "put-down" of 16 year olds.

Noone thinks not letting 5 year old votes is having a low opinion of them. On the contrary, its accepting them as being at the time of life that they are at.

Its not belitting them to accept they aren't fully mature.

I'm ok with being predictable.

It is incredibly patronising to suggest they're not mature enough.

Many adults I have met are not fully mature - perhaps we should give eligible votes maturity and intelligence tests before allowing them to vote.

Restlessinthenorth · 17/07/2025 14:01

@Digdongdoo what a convenient response Smile

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread