Votes at 16: the UK government has a fight on its hands – but are politicians all missing the point?

The UK government has unveiled plans to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections, heralding the delivery of a Labour pledge first made in 2010.

The intent of the UK government’s electoral reform is understandable. Faith in politicians and democracy is at an all time low. Keir Starmer’s election promise to restore trust in politics has been compromised by recent events. The introduction of the bill offers an opportunity to refresh Labour’s election promise and respond to public support for reforming the electoral system.

The three-decade campaign for the universal lowering of the voting age to 16 might not have a smooth passage through parliament, though. Labour’s support for the policy has proven lukewarm and sporadic, reflecting concerns over public opinion and also division on the policy itself.

The public has long been resolute in its opposition to such a change. And while young people have, historically, proven largely supportive of votes at 16, recent survey evidence suggests they are evenly divided. Many say they feel “unprepared” for the responsibility of voting.

Some within an already divided parliamentary Labour party will question why the government is focusing on electoral reform.

The strength of opposition to the bill in parliament will be key both in determining the nature of its passage and public acceptance of votes at 16. The Conservatives and Reform both formally oppose voting age reform. The Conservatives claim Labour is “hopelessly confused on whether 16 year olds are adults or not”. For them and many other opponents, the age of maturity, adulthood, and therefore enfranchisement still coalesce at 18.

But depicting 16 and 17-year-olds as too immature and lacking sufficient cognitive development runs the risk of politically alienating young people and fracturing the cohesion of the electorate. As votes at 16 advocates note, voting rights are not denied or taken away from those who have disabilities or deteriorating cognitive abilities (particularly in old age) which might limit their cognition, competency and comprehension.

The Conservatives also appear just as confused as they accuse Labour of being on this point. They empowered both the Scottish and Welsh governments to lower the voting age. And they allowed under-18s to choose three prime ministers in the past decade via party membership ballots.

There’s contradiction in Reform’s position too – and its actions from here will be interesting to watch. Recent polling indicates a growing number of young men support Reform above all other parties, and in more numbers than their older male counterparts. The party may have been opposed up until now, but a pragmatic U-turn may well be on the horizon. That in turn will likely defuse some of the political and public opposition to the bill.

Quantity over quality?

Ultimately, votes at 16 is likely to be passed into law due to Labour’s huge parliamentary majority. But how the government and supporters of the change decide to frame its success will be important. A focus on the numbers of young people signing on the electoral register and voting will tell us much about the quantity of participation but not its quality.

Evidence from Scotland indicates that the modest increases in voting of 16-to-17-year-olds when compared with 18-to-24-year-olds does not translate into more extensive political engagement. Lowering the age of enfranchisement has had no significant impact on the low numbers of young people who join political parties, trade unions, or who participate in their communities.

In Scotland, votes at 16 has had little impact on how party politics is conducted or how politicians engage and represent young people. Most young people do not believe politicians prioritise their needs. A growing number express disillusionment with democracy.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is, on its own, no panacea to the complex causes of youth political disengagement and is unlikely to strengthen the resilience of democracy in the UK. The government’s bill also sets out plans to improve youth democratic education and make electoral registration easier. Such measures will not create the drivers for young people to vote or participate in party politics.

Indeed, there is a collective failure of political parties of all hues to accept that they are in part responsible for the current youth democratic crisis. They need to look past a potentially divisive passage of votes at 16 in parliament and accept that now is the time to collectively improve the responsiveness of the current political system to younger voters and the public more widely.

Andrew Mycock has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust (2019-2021) in the past to support research into lowering the voting age.