You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So, you can vote at an age that's only 2 years away from being old enough to die at war? And people think that's too young to vote because they may not be mature enough? If 16's too young to vote then 18's too young to be sent to war.
I would expect a lot of overlap between those thinking 16 is too young to vote and those thinking 18 is fine to be at war. And considering where we may be in the next 5 years .. I would give those 16 year olds a say in their near future.
Again, I'll preface with that I'm in favour....
But to counter my own preference......it also means that at 16 you are too young to volunteer yourself to go to war (because 16 is too young to make a sensible, mature decision about such a life changing consequence) but you would be considered old enough to vote in a way that means others are sent to war.
seems a lot of fuss about not much. the 18 y'o dont turn out, i dont think the 16y/o will be much better
No problem. However maybe there should be an IQ test and required level to reach for all voters before they are eligible to put their cross in a box. Too many cretins of all ages that have no idea what they are voting on.
seems a lot of fuss about not much. the 18 y'o dont turn out, i dont think the 16y/o will be much better
Think the data from Scotland shows 16-18 year old are more likely to vote than 19-25s
Think the data from Scotland shows 16-18 year old are more likely to vote than 19-25s
Actually, it's slightly more nuanced (and positive). There is evidence that people who had a chance to vote at 16/17 are more likely to vote in early adulthood than those that weren't. Their turnout rate will still drop, but still not to as low as those that didn't have a chance. However - engagement in politics beyond voting remains unchanged.
If 18 year olds and young people don't turn out it's perhaps because they encounter the hurdles I did at that age. Registering to vote is time consuming and slow when you're a student or doing temporary jobs (some abroad) and constantly changing address (which means you're hundreds of miles away and can't afford the tickets). In my case that was followed by poll tax when I was living in a vehicle, then I left the country and lost my rights until they were restored a couple of years back. At past 60 I managed to vote in a UK election for the first time after registering on the basis of a P45 from a temporary job in 1991 and using a postal vote. It's getting easier put could still be a lot easier.
Compare that with France where my ID car makes it a piece of cake to vote. When I'm absent I do a procuration so I've voted in every national election since being granted nationality. Even before that I voted in every local election using my carte de séjour. Easy. Make it easy and people will vote.
No problem. However maybe there should be an IQ test and required level to reach for all voters before they are eligible to put their cross in a box.
Do you have an IQ level in mind?
Controversial, but, I think it's a good idea. OK, if they vote one way, it goers wrong, at least they'll have a better idea in four years time.
It's better than having a load of "old crusties" that only vote one way, especially some of the more 'wealthy ones'. They are from a different 'time' ! Controversial I know, but locally you can tell which way an area will vote due to the local population - the "old" white, middle class only vote one way. I could go on, but I know enough of them - outdated views (bordering racist).
If not a good idea, then we really need toy 18-30's to start to take notice and vote, as it affects them most, not a 70 year old pulling in a nice pension.
Having taught hundreds of 16-18 year olds, including the minister introducing this bill for 2 of her A levels, I'd say they're as rational and clear-headed as anyone else. Denying them the vote is more likely to lead to cynicism and disengagement as rich old bloaters eg take away their student grants and send other people's kids to fight colonial wars
I'm ambivalent about this but I do think voting should be compulsory (like Australia), though with a "none of the above" option for those incapable of making a decision.
I wonder how that would play out if "none of the above" was given proportional representation.
So say the vote went
30 seats to "none of the above"
30 seats to "the winner"
20 seats to "the looser"
10 seats to "the lib dems"
10 seats "the others"
By convention the "none" votes would be assumed to vote for the status quo (just like the chair / speaker is expected to).
Would nothing happen for 4 years, or would politicians cobble together enough of a coalition to get 50 votes on a compromise agenda? Would they do a trump and chase those 30 "none of the above" votes?
It's not that outlandish, it's effectively what the USA has, 100 Senators. If you view them as coming from 4 parties (not 2) you've got a choice between a centrist or an extreme candidate, or the side with only 49 votes. To pass anything the centrists and the extremists have to work together to get their 51 votes because the "none of the above" (whichever party that happens to be that term) is basically irrelevant and will always vote no.
I guess it's a good idea, not sure what % of the population is in the 16-17 age group and how it could effect any outcomes.
I can't help but think it's a bit of a 'move' by Labour, traditionally younger voters are more left of centre and become more right as they age, it's the same sort of shithousiery the Tories played by redrawing constituency boundaries in 2023. I can't quite bring myself to believe it's out of any kind of moral belief that older Children should have a vote. I understand the "if you pay tax, you should be able to vote" thing, but I believe 16yos are no longer allowed to work full time unless they're an apprentice, I doubt many 16/17yo actually earn enough to pay tax.
It does make me think that Labour still see the Tories as their opposition. 4 years is a long time in Politics and they must be planning to have the economy in a much better place by then and get past all the nasty shit they've had to do in the last year. There are a lot of angry young males who starved for decent male roll models are following Farage, Tate, 'Robinson' etc who will post their 'X' for reform.
As for their mental capacity, I've met 14yos with better EQ than 40yos and I know 20yos I wouldn't trust with a tin opener. The safeguard is voting isn't mandatory, I'd bet the daft ones who can't get out of bed or brush their teeth without supervision won't bother.
I doubt many 16/17yo actually earn enough to pay tax.
Plenty of over 18s don't earn enough to pay tax...
You are either old enough to pay tax or you aren't. If you are old enough to contribute towards the economy you have every right to have a say in how that economy is shaped.
With the wrong birthday and a series of unfortunate timings i think you can end up paying taxes without any say until you are almost 23.
You are either old enough to pay tax or you aren't. If you are old enough to contribute towards the economy you have every right to have a say in how that economy is shaped.
This seems dangerously close to coming up with a concept of "if you don't pay tax you don'e get a vote".
Duplicate deleted
I doubt many 16/17yo actually earn enough to pay tax.
I think the idea that if you're in education, rather than working full time, then you shouldn't get a vote, is quite a dangerous one.
Also... indirect taxes are a thing.
Everybody is taxed via VAT unless they buy only the very narrow range of things that are VAT exempt.
The Tories favourite trick is to increase VAT as soon as they are elected, and give tax cuts to the better off.
Sixteen is the age you can leave school, why should you not be able to vote.
I doubt many 16/17yo actually earn enough to pay tax.
Plenty of over 18s don't earn enough to pay tax...
You are either old enough to pay tax or you aren't. If you are old enough to contribute towards the economy you have every right to have a say in how that economy is shaped.
With the wrong birthday and a series of unfortunate timings i think you can end up paying taxes without any say until you are almost 23.
I think I've been misunderstood. It was a tweet by Labour or perhaps SKS supporting the their new law along the lines of "If you're old enough to pay tax, you're old enough to vote" it just seemed an odd argument to make given the laws on 16/17yo and education.
No to lowering voting age, too young. You might as well lower the voting rights further to 14 yr old.
If people wish 16/17 years old to vote then they need to give up their guardianship of young people who have reached the age of 16/17 yr old, assuming they have children with that age.
Remember young people under the age of 18 are still under parental guardianship.
But once young people reach 18 they can do as they wish without the parental consents etc.
Therefore, why do people think it is alright for 16/17 yr old to vote when they are still under parental guardianship, yet consider them good enough to act as the "guardians" of the country?
What's the hurry for young people to vote? All they need to do is to wait until 18 to vote.
Yes, young people are capable but unless the parents relinquish their rights to guardianship, they should only vote when they reach 18.
You may ask why does lowering vote age have to do with parental guardianship, well then ask yourself why we need parental guardianship for under 18.
edit: if young people can vote at 16/17 yr old, they should also be entitled to become an MP.
Having taught hundreds of 16-18 year olds, including the minister introducing this bill for 2 of her A levels, I'd say they're as rational and clear-headed as anyone else.
Blimey, you think the hundreds of A-level students you have taught (no idea what subjects) one of whom is now a government minister, represents the typical level of political maturity and understanding of the average 16 year old?
At 16 thanks to my father and a much older brother I had a far greater interest of politics than any of my mates, they basically had zero interest, but I was still politically naive and basically motivated primarily by emotions and moral values rather than any rational understanding.
Nothing wrong with engaging 16 year olds politically of course, in fact I believe it's highly desirable and should definitely be encouraged, they should in particularly be encouraged to join political parties imo.
This seems dangerously close to coming up with a concept of "if you don't pay tax you don'e get a vote".
Bring back the property tax vote! And the (original) poll tax!
Labour look like they are going to realise too late, that introducing a form of PR would help their chances going forward, while allowing the UK population to vote for who they really want in power.
I think 16 & 17 year olds should have the same opportunity to be utterly disappointed by ****ers in badly fitted suits like all the adults. It's a great preparatory phase before being legally classed as an adult.
I think the idea that if you're in education, rather than working full time, then you shouldn't get a vote, is quite a dangerous one.
Maybe I am not following this thread closely enough but has anyone actually said that, ie, that if you are in education rather than working full time you shouldn't get the vote?
We are talking about lowering the age criteria for voting, not anything else, although some people seem to think that your tax status should be an issue.
So lets stick to the age criteria, there is nothing "dangerous" about not lowering the voting age, very few countries in the world allow voting below the age of 18. In fact I think there are more countries in the British isles that allow 16 year olds to vote than in the whole of the EU!
First opinion poll which includes 16 year olds
Seems perfectly normal to me. Scots have been voting at 16 for a while.
It's normal in Britain....Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, all allow 16 year olds to vote, but only about half a dozen countries in the rest of the world give 16 year olds the vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age
And? Your point is? Many countries do many odd things
No point, just agreeing that it's normal for Britain. Although it's not very popular with voters
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/07/17/32a3f/2
It's not particularly popular with 16 and 17 year olds either, according this article half support it and half oppose it.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/farage-corbynt-winners-votes-16-17-year-olds-3812157
The arguments in favour of 16 year olds voting are surely stronger than those in favour of 80 year olds.
I suspect most of the ones people are worried about won't bother voting anyway
Most of the arguments applied to 16-17 yo not being able to make good decisions could apply to any age group. Its not age that is the defining characteristic.
Something could be included in the curriculum. It was certainly part of my education but that might have been more about the teachers than the guidelines. Social media wasn't a thing but propaganda and how it is used was a significant part of history - the only thing that has changed is the form it takes. It might still be covered, if not directly, not been in a classroom recently.
This seems dangerously close to coming up with a concept of "if you don't pay tax you don'e get a vote".
Bring back the property tax vote! And the (original) poll tax!
I'm not really sure how you get to that from what i posted. But just for clarity.
I thought i had said if your are eligible to pay tax you should eligible to have a say in how that tax is spent. These two things are both contributions to the running of the government, providing resource and direction/mandate(ish). They are equal they should be treated as such.
Ability is different entirely. If you are unable to pay tax should not in anyway affect your eligibility to vote. If you are unable to vote... Well the bar is pretty low so thats basically a see point 1 situation.
This seems dangerously close to coming up with a concept of "if you don't pay tax you don'e get a vote".
Bring back the property tax vote! And the (original) poll tax!
I'm not really sure how you get to that from what i posted. But just for clarity.
I thought i had said if your are eligible to pay tax you should eligible to have a say in how that tax is spent. These two things are both contributions to the running of the government, providing resource and direction/mandate(ish). They are equal they should be treated as such.
Ability is different entirely. If you are unable to pay tax should not in anyway affect your eligibility to vote. If you are unable to vote... Well the bar is pretty low so thats basically a see point 1 situation.
The percentage of tax paying adults who vote isn't that high really . So I don't think that many 16 year olds would be bothered to put in the tiny bit of energy required to get to a polling station with a valid form of id. Unless it unlocked a new emoji on their phone or gained them access to the end of level boss destroying weapons or a new picture frame for insta .
It's a nice idea , but there are many more important things to worry about for the youth of today.
The percentage of tax paying adults who vote isn't that high really . So I don't think that many 16 year olds would be bothered to put in the tiny bit of energy required to get to a polling station with a valid form of id. Unless it unlocked a new emoji on their phone or gained them access to the end of level boss destroying weapons or a new picture frame for insta .
It's a nice idea , but there are many more important things to worry about for the youth of today.
The arguments in favour of 16 year olds voting are surely stronger than those in favour of 80 year olds.
Here we go.
Some discussion here of what actually happened in Scotland. 16 yr olds did vote
Link didn't work}
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/what-impact-did-lowering-the-voting-age-have-for-scottish-elections-what-will-keir-starmers-election-move-mean-4649171
People vote with their behaviour as much as with their voting paper. The under 30s I know have gone on holiday on the train, many don't own a car and a good number are veggy - carbon footprints small, they're worried about the future. Two of the over 60s I know have just got back from having driven 14 000 and 10 000 kms in camper vans to beyond the polar circle, they heat with gas and are heavy meat eaters, they frankly couldn't give a flying **** about their carbon footprints despite having grandchildren. Let the young people have a say in the future they're going to live in.
The arguments in favour of 16 year olds voting are surely stronger than those in favour of 80 year olds.
Here we go.
Ironically Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular UK politician among 16-17 year olds so it is probably fair to say that some are likely to vote for him at the next general election when he will be, yup, that's right, 80 years old.
Let alone reason with himself to cast a vote.
To be fair that applies to a large % of the voting population regardless of age......just look at how many votes reform got last time for evidence!
^^ This.
Labour are quite aware of this, and are well aware of the disposition of Reform voters (most don't realise that the days of the Raj are over). It's therefore no surprise that shortly after Reform made significant gains, Labour released some surprising anti-immigration PR in the hope that they may win some people over.
I'd also trust the judgement of a 16 year old compared to someone who never leaves their nursing home, watches GB news and has a postal vote at the other end of the spectrum
^^This.
I'm quite at odds with a population of people whom generally did well out of the promises that were made to them (promises that were largely kept)... voting for the destruction of the UK? I can't understand it.
Younger generations have absolutely no chance of retiring so young or living so long... but it is the younger generations who are working and paying for what could be considered excessive funding of our past. With a huge national debt - we're spending our future... on our past.
It was shown (in a study years ago - and granted they compared relatively stressful jobs) that, for example, if you retired at 65 - you only lived for a few years (on average)... and if you retired at 60, you lived to see an older age than those retiring at 65.
Hence the retirement age increasing... and it will keep increasing. Not only do they want us working for longer, to pay tax for longer... they don't want us to live as long.
This news has really brightened my day. It was a joy to watch the right wing extremists on GB news totally lose their shite over this.
^^This. 😂
It's interesting to note how the lads appear to have quite a liking for Farage/Reform compared to the girls. I reckon Farage needs to find a female influencer equivalent to Andrew Tate to draw in female support.
Sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but if you look at the immigration riots - most of the participants were lads who probably had dad issues. Having taught such youngsters, there is an element of blaming their problems on others. When you're vulnerable and looking for someone to blame, social media is wonderful at convincing you what the answer is...
....but how and where does this influence come? See below.
I believe that far-right support is a growing phenomenon throughout much of Europe. And that's hardly surprising they do after all provide simple solutions for the political naive and they also claim to be anti-establishment, so you can understand the appeal that might have among naive rebellious youth.
Let's look at our not-so-distant past for clues. All of these things happened at roughly the same time (give or take):
1) DJT gets elected for the first time. There were concerns RE Eastern interference with their elections.
2) UKIP gains popularity. Populism in general became... popular.
3) UK votes to leave the EU (overwhelming majority). Again, concerns RE Eastern interference with our vote.
4) Crimea annexed.
And it all seems to happen yet again, at roughly the same time (again, give or take):
1) DJT elected for the second time.
2) Reform gains popularity.
3) Right-wing riots (no need for a vote this time).
4) Special military operation east of Europe.
Too many coincidences.
I'd put my money on it being an Eastern influence that has led to 1-3 on both occasions. Divide people, turn them against each other, let them fight amongst themselves, weaken them... and while that's happening you're planning to resurrect the SU. Heck, it's working.
And here's the thing - we have no sovereignty. We cannot control it. The influence from the East makes it into our houses and our pockets... through the magic of social media.
Whilst many countries were desperately trying to deal with a pandemic - it was noticed by others that we consumed huge amounts of data in quite an addictive way.
Now that a change in voting age is proposed, undoubtedly people of that age will be targeted/influenced quite effectively. So who knows, there might well be no change in the voting balance at all.
I guess I'll just ride my bike and hope for the best.
You cannot get married until 18
@Johndoe Oh yes you can in Scotland since 1929
Under Scots law you are an adult at 16. Some UK wide law supersedes this ie drinking and driving ( not at the same time). You have full access to medical decisions, you can leave home, vote, etc as well as getting married. You don't need your parents permission to do anything.
At 16 I would certainly have been well informed enough to vote and like over 18s only those who are interested will actually bother to vote
Its just a no brainer to me. Youth nowadays are much more mature and much more informed than they were 50 years ago. I see no reason why not
Need to stop the vote for anyone over 75. Because on balance of probability they'll be dead before the consequences of their vote comes to fruition.
Need to stop the vote for anyone over 75. Because on balance of probability they'll be dead before the consequences of their vote comes to fruition.
Oh I don't know some of our recent cock ups have had well instantaneous consequences
I won’t say this is yet another political news distraction. It is a long-running notion though.
Seems fair enough. Would have made more sense before compulsory education to 18 years old was legislated for. Government should push for this legislation harder than for the ‘thought police’ legislation in another thread.
would be good to accompany this with some ‘civics’ education in schools. It’s not just the young who suffer from ignorance of government and politics. Education on civics to 16 years old would start to create a better informed and potentially more politically literate electorate.
Education on civics to 16 years old would start to create a better informed and potentially more politically literate electorate.
Which is why it won’t happen 🙂
we’ve had 16 year olds voting here in Scotland for years now.
This. But not Westminster, which is possibly why Stirling has such a dick of an MP.
Makes perfect sense to me (parent of a 16 and a 19-yr old). Also - If parents believe kids are uninformed they should blame themselves.
Need to stop the vote for anyone over 75. Because on balance of probability they'll be dead before the consequences of their vote comes to fruition.
Suspect semi-trolling, but as an aside this came up in pension reviews - if you've got to 75 then your average expectancy is another 11 (men) to 13 (women) years. Plenty of time to regret the monumental ****ups you made in 2016 (whoops, wasn't going to do politics!)
And as a healthy 56 year old, with no major vices, but a bit fat, I have sth like a 25% chance of getting to 92 and a 10% chance of 97. Having said healthy, my knees and hips are ****ed and frankly another 40-odd years of creaking and groaning doesn't actually sound that great. Maybe I need another 10 good years and then take up cave diving....
Back on track - I can see an argument (don't necessarily agree with it) that the elderly are making decisions that won't affect them but you would have to go a lot older than 75 for that.
Double post
If parents believe kids are uninformed they should blame themselves.
Maybe they think other people's kids are uninformed? 💡
It’s getting all the news coverage (old reactionaries in the media writing copy for old reactionaries that read/listen/watch non-shocker), but it’s not the only election reform going through…