Young People Have Been Politically Marginalised: Why the Voting Age Should Be Lowered to 16
23/07/25
Embedded Files
16 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO HEAD TO POLLING STATIONS FOR THE NEXT UK GENERAL ELECTION, IMAGE: PHIL HEARING
Last week, the government confirmed its plans to lower the voting age to 16, which will mean around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote at the next UK general election. This major franchise extension came in a package of reforms, including automatic voter registration, expanding accepted forms of voter ID, and preventing foreign interference in political donations by shutting loopholes used by ‘shell companies’. Yet this attempt to enhance democracy, chiefly the headline announcement of lowering the voting age to 16, has stirred controversy and an outcry by some politicians and media figures who seek to belittle and make a caricature of an already marginalised youth population in this country.
This was demonstrated by Julia Hartley-Brewer as she broke into a tirade on Talk TV when announcing the news live, “just when you think things couldn’t get any worse…we’re going to let kids vote…” whilst also listing all the things those below 18 cannot do. However, 16 and 17-year-olds can enter full-time work and pay tax, have consensual sex, open a bank account, join the military, consume wine and beer with a meal in a restaurant, and are deemed by the NHS to have the capacity to consent to their own medical treatment. In spite of this, as a 16-year-old, you are simultaneously not allowed to vote on policies affecting the job market that you are now entering, nor for the public services you would like your taxes to pay into, or how you want education to be managed as a full-time student. You may be a member of the Armed Forces but not elect the party which represents your view on military intervention, and you can consent to medical treatment but not vote with regard to the very NHS which provides you with care. These contradictions strip young people of their agency and reinforce the notion that politics is not for them, further increasing apathy whilst undermining political engagement.
The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum serves as a clear example of what happens when young people are enfranchised and encouraged to participate, as, according to the Electoral Reform Society, “over 89% of 16 and 17-year-olds registered for the Scottish Independence Referendum”, with a survey from the Electoral Commission detailing that 75% claimed to have voted. A staggering 97% of those who reported having voted said that they would participate again in future elections and referendums. This was so successful that in June 2015, the voting age was lowered to 16 in all Scottish local and parliamentary elections, and this has been replicated in Wales from May 2021, with researchers finding 72% of Welsh 16 to 17-year-olds wanted the right to vote, with only 12% against. Therefore, a UK-wide voting age of 16 creates consistency between the different nations, offering complete parity rather than a radical disjuncture, as Julia Hartley-Brewer and GB News commentator Carole Malone, who called the change “a desperate attempt by a government that knows its stuffed”, would have you believe.
Furthermore, Malone’s sentiment was echoed by Farage who accused Labour of “an attempt to rig the political system”, but their arguments fall incredibly flat as votes at 16 was in Labour’s 2024 manifesto – of which they won a majority of seats – meaning they have a mandate to deliver this policy (albeit under our flawed FPTP electoral system). Moreover, lowering the voting age was also endorsed by the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, who, along with Labour, received 52.6% of the vote at the last election, meaning a majority of the public endorsed parties supporting votes at 16, demonstrating why Labour is right to confirm their commitment to it. Additionally, this represents an extension of the franchise to around 1.5 million extra people, which, combined with mandatory political education and mock elections in schools, could bolster political knowledge and engagement, fostering the democratic process. Contrast this to the Conservative government introducing voter ID laws under Boris Johnson’s tenure in 2022. Government-commissioned research found roughly 2.1 million people do not have recognisable ID and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s (the Commons Leader at the time) own admission after the 2023 local elections that the Conservatives tried to “gerrymander” the results – yet where was the outcry from right-wing commentators here for such a brazen attempt at restricting the franchise for their own electoral gain?
THE CRAVEN ARMS POLLING STATION, SHROPSHIRE, IMAGE: ELLIOT STALLION
Labour’s new changes bring England in line with other nations such as Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Wales, Scotland and parts of Germany, where, when combined with civic education, they have seen positive outcomes, including boosted youth turnout, a media more engaged with younger voters, and strengthened faith in democratic institutions. Recent YouGov polling also indicates that it is simplistic to state that these changes only benefit Labour, as there is a split between who dominates out of the centre and left-of-centre parties: Labour (28%), Greens (26%) and Liberal Democrats (20%), with the Conservatives only polling at 9% and Reform only polling at 8% for 18–24-year-olds, meaning the youth vote is by no means a single homogeneous block supporting Labour and that they cannot take it for granted anymore.
Crucially, lowering the voting age will mean that politicians have a greater proportion of overlooked and marginalised young voters to contend with. The older generation at present consistently turnout to vote far more than young people – in the 2024 general election, IPSOS estimated those aged 65+ to have a 73% turnout, whereas 18-24-year-olds had almost half this amount with a turnout of 37%, ensuring young people are disregarded whilst politicians must offer concessions to the older demographic. This forces their interests to be represented, with no better example being the comparison between the triple lock on pensions and university tuition fees. The triple lock, introduced in 2011, ensures that the value of the state pension increases every year and has been maintained by both the Conservative Party and the incumbent Labour Party since its inception, with the OBR estimating that the annual cost of the policy will reach £15.5 billion by 2030.
Meanwhile, the cost of abolishing tuition fees has been reported by the IFS to be £11bn – with the fee introduced under Blair’s premiership at £1000 and then tripled to £3000, tripled again to £9000 in 2012 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition, increased further to £9250 in 2017 and finally to £9535 in 2025 by Starmer’s Government. This is in addition to the abolishment of the Education Maintenance Allowance (2011), which helped students from low-income families attain tertiary education, and IFS findings that between 2009-10 and 2019-20, per pupil spending in England fell by 9% in real terms. This stark contrast highlights the marginalisation of young people in policymaking, as it is deemed acceptable to slash real terms education funding for the young, yet absolutely unacceptable to scrap the triple lock, whilst it costs a similar amount to maintain as it would to abolish tuition fees, which has not been a political priority and instead have risen by 853.5% since their introduction.
Lowering the voting age, alongside automatic voter registration, and mandatory political education in schools are vital electoral reforms to offer parity to 16 and 17-year-olds across the nations of the UK, and to foster political participation. It has been proven to help the democratic process in numerous nations, such as Austria and Scotland, as evidenced by the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. If you can work, join the military, and consent to your own NHS treatment, you have a stake in society and your interests should be adequately represented rather than marginalised. With a 2022 Report to Parliament detailing that 18-25-year-olds are the most dissatisfied age group with how democracy operates in the UK and that 60% of them believe politicians “don’t care”, it is essential that this dissatisfaction is curbed, and young people realise their potential in becoming active participants rather than apathetic observers of the political system.
Google Sites
Report abuse