The Government has confirmed this week that the “modernisation of UK democracy will see 16 and 17 year olds able to vote in the next general election”. This fulfils a manifesto commitment, but I still think it is a bad idea.
My basic objection is that almost all people of this age are still children in full-time education or training, paying very little tax, living at home, and dependent on their parents. They have not yet earned the right to vote, nor do they have the life experience or skin in the game needed to use the vote properly.
This view may well be unpopular with some. The case for votes at 16 is often described as ‘progressive’, and 16-year-olds already have the right to vote in local and devolved elections in Scotland and Wales, as well as Jersey and the Isle of Man.
It is also not difficult to see why many on the Left might favour the change for more cynical reasons. A poll by JL Partners before the last election suggested that the main winners from lowering the voting age to 16 would be Labour (obviously) and the Greens (especially among girls), though Reform would do very well too (especially among boys).
The positive case for lowering the UK voting age can be summed up as ‘if young people can work, pay tax and serve in the military, why shouldn’t they also be able to vote on the issues that affect them?’
In my view, this is easy to take apart.
For a start, in England at least it is a legal requirement for young people to remain in school, college or some form of training (such as apprenticeships) until they are 18. Consistent with this, the vast majority of 16-17 year olds are still in full-time education (a record high of 83.6% in 2024).
The tax argument is a red herring too. 16 happens to be the threshold for paying National Insurance Contributions (NICs), if you earn enough, and for receiving some state benefits. It is also the age at which you start to qualify for the National Minimum Wage. But, in general, your liability for personal taxes depends on your income, not your age.
In principle, then, a pre-teen actor in the Harry Potter movies could be earning enough to pay income tax. Should they not also be allowed to vote? And of course, anyone who spends any money is likely to pay some indirect taxes, such as VAT. On this basis, practically everybody should be entitled to vote.
Supporters of setting the voting threshold at 16 might counter that very few people below that age will pay any significant amount of tax – which is true. But few people aged 16 or 17 will be paying a lot of income tax either.
The latest HMRC data show that there were 34,500,000 income taxpayers in 2022-23. Of these, only 224,000 were aged under 20. I would therefore be surprised if more than a few per cent of the roughly 1,600,000 16-17 year olds pay any income tax. The bigger picture is that most people do not start to pay large amounts of tax until their 30s or 40s.
It is worth noting too that you cannot take out a mortgage, credit card or personal loan until you are 18, or gamble, or indeed become an MP yourself! It therefore seems inconsistent that you might be allowed to vote on decisions affecting the finances of other people but not be considered responsible enough to handle your own.
The argument that 16-year-olds can serve in the military can quickly be shot down. You can join up at 16, but the UK is one of very few countries that allows this. Even then, it is only possible with parental permission, and recruits are not supposed to fight in combat roles until they are at least 18. After all, child soldiery is generally frowned upon.
But if we are looking for more precedents, there are lot of other things that society does not think that younger people are competent enough to do until they are 18, such as buying alcohol or tobacco. Again, if you cannot trust a child to make a relatively simple health choice on their own behalf, why allow them to help decide the future of the entire country?
Ironically, the direction of travel here is in the opposite direction. The age for buying National Lottery tickets was increased from 16 to 18 in 2021, and Labour has supported Rishi Sunak’s plan for a generational smoking ban where, in due course, someone aged 25 might be able to buy cigarettes but someone who is 24 cannot. This is considered ‘progressive’ too, underlining just how meaningless that term has become.
Indeed, we will soon be in the odd position where a 16-year-old can be trusted to help pick the next government, but not to buy a ticket for the National Lottery. And as Chris Snowdon has pointed out on X, in 2029 16-year-olds will be able to vote but 20-year-olds will not be able to buy Rizlas.
Many supporters of letting children vote also seem unaware that the minimum age at which you can get married in England and Wales was recently raised to 18. (I had to check myself, but 16 and 17-year olds can no longer marry, even with parental consent.)
Admittedly, this sort of ‘whataboutery’ can only get you so far. It makes sense to have different age thresholds for different types of activity, depending on the balance of potential costs and benefits both to the individual and to others, so there is a danger of ‘false equivalence’. For example, everyone would surely agree that the minimum age for a commercial airline pilot should be higher than 16. (Indeed, it is 21.)
But it is also surely significant that the age threshold for most of life’s major decisions is higher than 16. Moreover, even some of the things that you can legally do at 16 – such as consent io sexual activity – are not necessary activities that society would want to encourage at this age.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto also argued that giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote will “increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy”. The worry here is that the turnout among young people is relatively low.
However, increasing “engagement” by extending the vote to those who are not ready to use it cannot be good for democracy. If you’re really going to prioritise voter engagement over, say, competence to vote, then why not lower the age to 4 and offer them a sticker! That would guarantee a turnout of close to 100%…
More seriously, there are much better ways to increase the engagement of young people than simply allowing them to vote at a much earlier age – such as tackling the problem of low registration to vote among university students.
Above all, supporters of lowering the voting age to 16 have failed to demonstrate that children are ready to vote – and this to me remains the crucial point. Classroom teaching and social media are no substitute for experience of the real world.
With public spending already running out of control, and increasing concerns about fundamental issues such as defence, crime, and energy security, the stakes are simply too high.
ps. for more on the issues raised here, try this presentation from 2024
Plain-speaking Economics 