The Labour Government has announced that the voting age will be lowered to 16 across the UK for the next General Election, a change pledged in the party’s manifesto last year.
With Labour languishing in the polls behind Reform, and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer facing dire approval ratings and growing opposition in his own party, the move is being viewed as a cynical ploy to boost the Labour vote in 2029 and distract from the Government’s woes.
Opinions on the change have largely split down party lines, with the Right arguing that 16 and 17 year-olds are still minors who are yet to attain the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood, such as marrying, going to war or even standing in elections. While the Left insists that the change is a logical step giving those paying into the system the right to have a say on what their money is spent on.
But how many 16 and 17 year-olds actually pay tax? To pay income tax they would have to be earning above the £12,570 threshold – something highly unlikely for most in low-wage part-time jobs. Young people aged 16-17 are required by law to be in education or training and may only work up to 20 hours a week, leaving very little scope to earn enough to pay any income tax at all.
I am 16 years old and it’s obvious to me that handing the vote to teenagers is not sensible. From my own personal experience, many of my peers have not matured: they waste money, sleep in all day, play games and pay little attention to what is happening around them. During the last election, some at my school did not even know who Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak were. In fact, a 2022 report by the Electoral Commission found that only around 37% of 16-17-year-olds in the UK said they felt “confident” in their understanding of how the political system works. A youth poll last year found that 70% of 8-17 year-olds surveyed did not know the name of their local MP, with 79% unaware of their MP’s key priorities. It makes no sense to give us to vote when most of us have no clue who or what we’re voting for.
The move also risks politicising education even more than it already is, with schools turned into political battlegrounds rather than a place to be educated. And do we really trust Labour and the Left-wing education blob to ensure schools remain strictly impartial during elections?
Starmer may hope to win lots of support among the newly enfranchised youth. But not necessarily. According to a poll for ITV News, 20% of youngsters would currently vote for Reform, while a 2025 youth poll of 16-19 year-olds showed 60% would consider voting for independents. Starmer himself would only gain 1,800 new votes in his constituency.
Lowering the voting age may not help Starmer, and it could even backfire. Teenagers like me aren’t a reliable target; our views are often ill-informed and we can be easily swayed. We still need time to mature in our understanding before we should be trusted with decisions as serious as whom to endow with state power.
The policy reeks of desperation from a Prime Minister panicking about clinging to his majority and his seat. It’s an irresponsible move, and one that, with any luck, will backfire.
Jack Watson is a 16 year-old schoolboy in Year 11. You can read his Substack about following Hull City FC here. Follow him on X here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Your a very level headed young man, you’ll go a long way!
Brilliant article 👏
And he’s plenty smart enough to understand that limits on voting age – however arbitrary (and ridiculous where this young author is concerned) – are necessary. The line does have to be drawn somewhere. And that line obviously must be drawn in the same place as the legal definition of “adult”.
Yes, another Cracker From Jack. Puts us wannabe writers to shame 😉
Daily Sceptic Above The Line and Below The Line are proud to ‘ave ‘im!
Too true 👍
“Yes, another Cracker From Jack.”
I see what you did there…
“And do we really trust Labour and the Left-wing education blob to ensure schools remain strictly impartial during elections?”
Absolutely right; however, a carefully crafted social media campaign on Instagram and Tiktok is likely to be very effective against the lefty narrative. Openly supporting Reform would be a great way of rebelling aginst teachers and “the system”. Tap into pupils’ rebellious natures and Labour may have shot themselves in the foot with their blatant gerrymandering.
Another great article, Jack! Much appreciated.
It seems obvious that left wing teachers will leave kids in no doubt about which way to vote except for those with some towel head patriarch which is hardly any better..
Anyway there is no logical argument- it is all about destroying the UK, and this will advance that process.
All arguments about an age of ‘political maturity’ are necessarily weak, given that most adults take little interest in politics and many can’t even recognise and name prominent politicians. Nevertheless 18 is surely the sensible compromise. From that age you can be called on to fight and die for your country. Although you can join the armed forces at a younger age you can’t go into the front line. A few years ago it was suggested (if not in the UK certainly in Scotland where they did lower the voting age to 16) that you shouldn’t be able to buy alcohol until you were 21. (Many US states have such a law today.) So old enough to fight and die, old enough to vote, but not old enough to buy alcohol!.
The voting age was lowered to 18 by Harold Wilson in 1969 for the same, wholly cynical, reasons. Although undoubtedly justified it backfired then as Labour lost the subsequent election.
And what is the view of those in Scotland, where it has been the practice for 10 years or so, or in Wales that has adopted it more recently? I suspect they would not want to have it removed.
Scotland and Wales, living the socialist dream with English money
Great quote to remember!
But the modern electorate has shown no particular loyalty to any Party recently – the ‘dependable’ voter now expects the Government to be worth voting for.
I would laugh my socks off if the new 16 – 17 year old voters chose to vote Reform.
I wouldn’t. Who wants a Muslim illegally holding the post of UK Prime Minister, after Nige does his classic “Bait & Switch”?
I’m 62 and I don’t know the name of my MP because I have no interest in who he is. My constituency was a decades long Tory stronghold and now its LD, and no way I would vote for that bunch! Nor would I now vote Tory after the long standing respectable Thatcherite MP retired at the last GE, I would have voted for him, had he stood, as I admired him personally, not because of any support for the Tories.
Labour and the other Socialist parties (all except Reform and some minority parties) will be bribing the new voting bloc with promises to shower them with goodies, including university fees and that debt no doubt!
My Son-in-Law is early 30’s and he pays more in student debt repayments than he does on his mortgage! Over a grand a month.
Does his job have anything to do with his degree? So many seem to saddle themselves with debt for something of little practical value these days…
IWHT recent events such as the Afghanistan immigration scandal show that the vote is worthless. And the Opposition is supposed to be a government in waiting. But there is no party other than Labour anywhere near ready to form a government.
Physical, mental/brain and emotional development thanks to puberty and life-experience continue for a period of four to five years depending when puberty starts – and this varies between individuals. That process is usually near complete by age 18/19 mostly (this age group is not noted for excessive, responsible adult behaviour) but very rarely at age 16/17.
Most people born in the 1940s (and before) started full time work often in dangerous, arduous jobs, age 14/15 yet age of majority was 21 because below that age is was believed young people did not have the maturity, life experience, sense of responsibility to be classed as adults.
Working, paying tax is not reason – the same could be said of some children below age 16.
In 1970 (Labour Government) reduced age of majority to 18 because “social conditions had changed” – what exactly? Fewer young people left school age 14/15 to work, more stayed in full time education to 18, then went to university, quite a few school-leavers went on the dole.
At least one could argue young people age 18 to 21 aren’t children, but 16 to 17 year olds certainly are.
And that is clear because whilst the proposal is to reduce the age for voting to 16, the age of majority remains at 18.
This raises the question: if 16 to 18 year olds are sufficiently mature and “adults” to have the competence to engage in the democratic process, why aren’t they sufficiently mature and “adult” to enter legal contracts, get married, buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive cars, stand for Parliament, etc.
Reducing voting age is, as most people realise, an attempt to boost the Labour vote. They will know that in certain culturally enriched constituencies, 16 to 18 year olds will vote as directed by head of household, particularly where postal balloting is endemic.
Shoring up those wafer thin majorities eg Streeting, Phillips et al. No wonder Jess Phillips said in an interview there were “more important” issues than appointing a headfor the rape gang inquiry. Not my idea of “safeguarding”.
To provide some datapoint here: In the German empire, every man from 20 – 45 had a duty to serve in the armed forces when called for. People below the age of 20 were considered to be not yet physicially and mentally mature enough to be fit for service in general, although they could volunteer for early service once they were 17 but this required a proof of suffcient physical and mental development to allow that. During the first world war, the general age limit for military service was gradually lowered to 18 to cope with manpower shortages but special precautions were taken to account for the still limited suitability of people that young.
Standing for parliament is engaging in the democratic process and that should match the voting age. You are also quite correct that all British subjects from birth onwards are liable for tax on income. This has nothing to do with enfranchisement.
I also think giving 16- and 17-year olds the vote is crazy. It is likely most vote as their friends or parents do and they are easily swayed by bribes. They have no skin in the game.
But on reflection some of these arguments can also be used for the wider population.
Maybe at the top of the voting paper there should be 3 multiple choice fact-based political questions (for instance how many MPs are in the HOC) to make sure that whoever votes has at least some grasp of politics.
What a sensible young man Jack Watson is. Unfortunately, as he’s explained (and all parents know from their own experience) the vast majority of 16 yr olds aren’t very sensible and these days, thanks to a decade and a half of molly-coddling, most are incapable of running their own lives, let alone understanding what is necessary to successfully run a country.
Still, I think this policy will backfire on Two-Tier.
Farage rules on TikTok. Reform will gain a large number of votes, many in crucial seats.
The Greens will gain votes in places like Brighton and Bristol.
And 16 yr olds in the Muslim Block Vote Constituencies will have their votes allocated by the Imam/Elder, which will mean more Gaza Independent MPs.
All the above will damage Labour, not the CONs since these youngsters would never vote Tory anyway.
Nigel did say he was counting on “The Muslim Vote”.
So is Mohammed Zia when he takes over in Nigel’s “Bait & Switch”.
Astonishingly clear-headed, honest article from teenage Jack Watson.
Well done to the DS for roping him in to write articles. He’s a good find!
Most people have no clue what they’re voting for, Jack. For reference see current shambles of a government.