16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote

[Whereishenow]

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

Of course Labour want to give younger people the ability to vote; research has shown that they’re more likely to vote Labour (largely because they don’t have the life experience to realise what a mess Labour causes each time they’re elected).

We will have a situation where 16 year olds can vote in choosing who runs the country but they can’t

• drive a car
• get married
• buy alcohol
• Buy cigarettes/tobacco/vape
• take out a mortgage
• Buy a lottery ticket
• fight on the front line
• get a tattoo
• buy fireworks
• Stand in an election they can vote on

There is no logic to this, other than the Labour Party trying to get a higher proportion of the vote share than they otherwise would.

The aren’t old enough to drink, they aren’t trusted to drive, they are not allowed to marry but they can vote? Ridiculous.

I dont believe a 16 yr old child can properly vote on the subjects set out on a manifesto, and I don’t think they have the critical thinking skills to properly scrutinise claims - which in the modern day of Trumpian politics, is essential

I would argue only a very small section of adults have critical thinking skills. If you do possess them you are likely to also have them as a teen.

To be fair, there have been quite a few recent examples of how people much older than 16 (and 18) are unable to vote sensibly. I think it was Churchill who said thr best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. So using age upon which to base arguments about maturity and sense is a completely dead end, isn't it? I know many mature and sensible 16 year olds, and more than my fair share of irresponsible and immature 40 year olds!

Add serve on a jury to that list.

I think that is quite important. Because you might imagine the same critical thinking skills are necessary.

Although there’s about to be another option for that group, well two if you include Reform.

But if they are inclined to go for spending there’ll be Corbyn.

because they don’t have the life experience to realise what a mess Labour causes each time they’re elected).

Does any party not cause a mess?

I think it's great. At 16/17 I was studying A-level politics and very engaged and politically active in a range of issues that were live at the time. I was far from alone; a huge number of my peers were similar. It was enormously frustrating that I was directly affected by policymaking that wouldn't come into effect until I was an adult but had absolutely no say in the matter. I was expected to pay tax on my income, hold a job, could have even joined the armed forces - but again no say in how that tax is spent or the wars the country could be involved in.

My teenage nieces and nephews are similar to how I was. Very engaged, very informed and with strong opinions. Why shouldn't they vote? We don't remove the right to vote from people because they're stupid, or a scrote, or ancient (although I know some think we should). Give teenagers some credit.

The reality is that the majority of the teenagers who actually DO vote will be highly engaged in the democratic process already and it's a really positive step to allow them to have a say in their own future.

Because you might imagine the same critical thinking skills are necessary.

Why are people talking about critical thinking skills? The vast majority of adults don't have them!

I really don't think this will go the way Labour hope it will (if it gets voted in).

Angry lefty youths won't vote Labour, they'll vote Green or Corbyn-type candidates. Andrew Tate types will vote reform. And little stuffed shirts will vote Tory.

I really don't see where Labour are picking up a lot of votes, here.

And I forgot - you've got a big, motivated Muslim demographic, who won't vote Labour either. They'll vote Corbyn/independent.

I’d rather any initiatives on voting expended the time and money getting non voters to use their vote (and make it compulsory if needed) instead of dumping that responsibility on children. When my DC were this age I wanted them focusing on their exams and friendships, not worrying about manifestos and votes.

We don’t allow 16 year olds to marry, drive, sign contracts, go into combat, buy property, get tattoos, live alone without the supervision of a social worker (and they can be taken into care) or even leave school unless they have a confirmed job. As a parent I was responsible for the DC at this age.

Its just meaningless noise rather than action.

As for how they would vote. Typically child voters vote in line with their parents’ votes but veer more extreme. Unsurprising since teenagers tend to be more extreme in their views (including crime and punishment) and only develop more nuanced views with maturity. Of course we all know politicians who never grow out of simplistic solutions. I agree with pp, it will mean more votes for the authoritarian right and left but the reason to keep it at 18 is because we already dump too much of our responsibilities on children.

Whataboutism.

Again.

What's wrong with being 'idealistic', why is it a flaw? Surely it's better to start from the premise of wanting the good life for as many people as possible, better to engage with democracy and it's theoretical meaning than be cynical and short termist.

It will also be interesting to see where the votes for 16 and 17 year olds go. The Green Party could do well- but it is not irrational for young people to care about the environment- they will be needing to deal with climate change and all the instability it brings.

Democracies need nurturing at the moment. Voter turn out is low (i would like compulsory voting with a 'none of the above option')

Polling suggests increasing interest in authoritarian regimes 'a strong leader who can get things done and isn't blocked by Parliamentary Structures'. Extending voting and giving more people a say in how the country is run is a good thing.

Stevie Wonder saw this coming. Kier is shitting himself about Reform so he is trying to secure more votes amongst the indoctrinated youth. You think it is wonderful news for this reason, when in reality wtf do 16 year olds know about life? Nothing. I fully expect the propaganda to ramp up in schools too.

Personally, I think it should be put up to 21. How can a teenager with no life experience, no idea what it is to work, pay a mortgage, bills or tax make an informed decision. There is a reason people become more conservative as they get older and it is usually down to seeing your tax getting spaffed.

Both of my IL's voted "leave" in the Brexit referendum, then promptly kicked the bucket within two years of the UK leaving the EU, but not before both admitted they hadn't a clue why they voted the way they did, and expressing regret that they'd help destroy the freedoms of younger people, including their own children. The line was "I didn't really think, and with hindsight I realise it doesn't really affect us anyway" 😡

So no, it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only 16 and 17 year olds who will vote for a specific person or policy without considering long-term ramifications.

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..

That's ok for some reason!

If it's such a good idea, why are no other countries doing this? Not even the progressive Scandis think it's a good idea.

Austria tried it, they voted right wing populist. Be careful what you wish for.

Dreadful idea. 16 and 17 year olds are too easily manipulated.

Or buy scissors or cutlery!

So no, it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only 16 and 17 year olds who will vote for a specific person or policy without considering long-term ramifications.

And the younger you are the more if the ramifications you will experience.

I’d raise it tbh, perhaps 21? Those still in school don’t have the first idea of the responsibilities of running a country and trying to balance the books.

My 17 year old, who does know what is happening and going on in the world, has just said why have they done this

This is the part Starmer hasn't counted on. There is a huge support for Farage amongst young men in particular. Imagine going through the education system being slyly demonised for being male, particularly a white male. There is a pushback. I've seen it amongst my stepsons and his friends.

Again, 16 & 17 year olds have been voting in Scotland since 2014.

Number of far-right/UKIP/Reform politicians elected so far - nil.

It's scaremongering nonsense to suggest 16 & 17 year olds will cause the downfall of UK democracy. Go and look at the mess created by 14 years of Tory government, a party whose core membership is older than dirt, or the demographics of who, precisely, is being taken in by this Farage clown.