Voting at 16: A step too far?

Labour has recently announced their intention to lower the voting age, giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. This will be the first franchise change in the UK since 1969, when Harold Wilson’s government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The UK is set to follow other countries that have already made the change including Austria, Argentina, and Brazil. This move will also bring England in line with Wales and Scotland, where the minimum age is already 16.    

This idea isn’t new, with efforts to lower the voting age to 16 dating back to over 40 years ago. It became a core policy for the Liberal Democrats in the 1990s, before gaining considerable momentum in the 2000s through the formation of the Votes at 16 Coalition in 2003. As prime minister, Gordon Brown backed the proposal in 2007, and in 2013 Ed Miliband publicly expressed support. Two years later, Labour’s manifesto pledged to lower the voting age to 16. This brings us to 2025, where the government plans to introduce legislation to change the law.

This announcement has been met with outrage, both from the general public and other parties. A YouGov poll held after the announcement found that 57% thought 16- and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote, with only 32% in favour. The Conservatives condemned the move as a power grab, with James Cleverly, the former Home Secretary, claiming the change is because Labour is “tanking in the polls”. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform, also accused Labour of trying to “rig the political system”. Even those who stand to benefit from the proposal have opposed it, with a poll of 500 16- and 17-year-olds finding that 49% don’t want the vote.

16-year-olds are barred from purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, and getting a tattoo. Even sparklers are deemed off-limits for those under 18. Yet Labour thinks they are now ready to decide who runs the country

Labour’s reasoning is that this will make voting a lifelong habit for the next generation and strengthen British democracy, especially after the 2024 election saw the lowest turnout in more than two decades. They also believes that since young people contribute to society “by working, paying taxes, and serving in the military”, they should be allowed to vote. While it is technically true that 16-year-olds can do these things, these claims require further examination.

Take the military, for instance. 16-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental permission and cannot be deployed on the frontline until they turn 18. Parental permission is also required to marry before 18. 16-year-olds are barred from purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, and getting a tattoo. Even sparklers are deemed off-limits for those under 18. Yet Labour thinks they are now ready to decide who runs the country.

One of Labour’s core arguments is this idea of fairness, with Starmer stating, “if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say how your money should be spent”. Put simply, those who pay taxes should have the right to vote. However, the amount of 16- and 17-year-olds paying tax is around a mere 0.9%. Starmer’s argument of fairness, therefore, only applies to less than 1% of the age group, which is hardly consequential enough to warrant electoral reform.

Should the age of jury duty change? It seems inconsistent that 16-year-olds are deemed mature enough to decide the fate of the country and shape legislation, yet cannot sit on a jury

Similarly, the claim about 16- and 17-year-olds in employment only applies to a very small minority. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told the BBC: “I was a mum at 16, you can go to work, you can pay your taxes, and I think that people should have a vote at 16.” While it is correct that, historically, people could leave school at 16, times have changed. Now, young people must stay in full-time education until the age of 18, whether that be an apprenticeship or studying for A-Levels. “Only 29% of 16 to 19-year-olds are working full-time now”, according to Lucinda Platt, a professor of social policy at the London School of Economics. This “contrasts the late 1960s when you would expect around four-fifths of that age group to be in work”. It is notable that young people are growing up slower and are reaching key milestones later than previous generations – people are leaving home later, holding their first regular job later, starting family life later, and so on.

This delay in reaching key milestones can have a developmental impact on young people who may be more easily swayed by parental views. Many have yet to leave their familial bubble and form independent political perspectives. This certainly doesn’t apply to all youngsters, and some adults are just as easily swayed by friends and relatives or by disinformation on social media, lacking the digital literacy skills of the younger generation. It is true that some 16-year-olds are more mature than 18-year-olds, yet some 14-year-olds are more mature than 16-year-olds. When taken to the extreme, this reasoning could be used for setting the voting age at five years old – something, I’m sure, most would be outraged at.

Changing the voting age raises numerous questions about other societal duties and how we should define adulthood. Should the age of jury duty change? It seems inconsistent that 16-year-olds are deemed mature enough to decide the fate of the country and shape legislation yet cannot sit on a jury. We would then have to also look at the position of the offender. Should more lenient judicial sentencing for under-18s also be scrapped? Ultimately, there does need to be a cut-off point to allow for a clear and consistent legal framework. Given that 18 is defined by the UN as the legal age of adulthood and is the age of majority in the UK, this seems to be the most logical threshold.

Labour may be overestimating the number of votes from young people in its favour. Teens on the left are not limited to Labour and are looking to other parties like the Greens or Corbyn’s new party to cast their vote

Whilst not stated in their justification, Labour is perhaps gambling on the fact they have the support of younger voters – who have historically been left-leaning – to give them the edge at the next election. Labour has denied these claims, with a No 10 spokesman stating: “No, I absolutely reject those claims.” In most areas of policy, there has been a trend of raising age limits, with lottery tickets and the Online Safety Act 2025 as the most recent examples. Lowering the voting age does appear to be an anomaly, making it all the more likely Labour is trying to boost their voter pool. However, such a gamble may not pay off as Labour may be overestimating the number of votes from young people in their favour. Teens on the left are not limited to Labour, and are looking to other parties like the Greens or Corbyn’s new party, Independent Alliance (UK), to cast their vote.

It also cannot be overlooked that some teens are abandoning the left altogether, instead aligning themselves with the right. One only needs to look to Europe to see this pattern emerge. 16% of 16- to 24-year-olds in Germany voted for the hard-right AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, and in France, 26% supported Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally. There is a very real possibility that this trend could be reflected in British voting patterns, with a YouGov survey indicating Nigel Farage’s Reform could win the most seats.

Farage has taken full advantage of TikTok, with Reform getting 14 times the engagement per post compared to the main UK parties, as he hopes to emulate AfD’s success. Farage’s personal account alone has 1.3 million followers. Young men in particular, who are feeling “increasingly disillusioned”, have been drawn to his party. The rise of ‘incel’ ideology and the views of toxic influencers like self-labelled misogynist Andrew Tate are targeting young men, “translating into political outcomes”. Labour is clearly playing a risky game, one which could easily backfire.

Such a monumental decision to change the franchise must be taken with caution, given that it is far easier to give people rights than it is to remove them, and it may be impossible to ever revert the voting age to 18

Furthermore, Labour cannot rely on the youth, as recent elections have consistently shown that young people simply don’t vote, with older generations having a much higher voting turnout. A poll by Merlin Strategy found that only 18% of the young people surveyed said they would definitely vote if there was an election tomorrow. Whilst the Scottish independence referendum had a high turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds, in Wales at the last parliamentary election in 2021, barely half of this age group even registered, let alone voted. The group of 16- and 17-year-olds who voted in the Scottish referendum are now voting in local and parliamentary elections at rates similar to their predecessors who could not vote until 18, indicating that granting the vote to younger people does not necessarily create a lifelong habit.

With all this said, young voters are unlikely to significantly change the outcome of an election result as they only make up around 2% of the electorate. However, such a monumental decision to change the franchise must be taken with caution, given that it is far easier to give people rights than it is to remove them, and it may be impossible to ever revert the voting age back to 18. Changing the electorate becomes a slippery slope and may set a precedent for altering other civic responsibilities or result in other unintended consequences.