Len began the discussion by asking what the objective was in lowering the voting age. Various possibles were considered: widening the involvement with democracy; (it is estimated that 1 million young people would become eligible for voting), or as an issue of social fairness; (since, at 16, one can marry, pay taxes or go to war). The assumption that young people have a left wing tendency, thus benefitting the Labour party is questionable with the fragmentation of the 2 party system, and with polls suggesting that many of the young are tending to be sympathetic to right wing ideology, as in Farage’s Reform party.
Keith pointed out that since the pledge to lower the voting age was part of Labour’s manifesto, it must be honoured. The Conservative’s position was that there were too many inconsistencies to make it practically viable: buying lottery tickets or alcohol or standing for elections (local and general) is illegal until the age of 18, so why lower one aspect and not the rest.
The responsibility of participating in elections assumes a degree of maturity, which the majority of 16s probably won’t have, but then, the label of political ignorance/indifference can be levelled at a large chunk of the voting population anyway! Would there be much difference in maturity or experience between a 6th former or a first year University student? It remains too broad a spectrum to make any viable assumptions. Certainly, the inconsistencies in the legal rights of young people muddy the waters further: Barbara noted that legally 16 and 17 year olds are still ‘children’ and as such qualify for various State support measures, including Child Protection, In Care provision and CAMHS support.
Looking abroad, many countries (including Scotland and Wales) have a voting age entry at 16. And most with mixed results: true, there was a surge of interest for the Scottish Independence Referendum, but enthusiasm fell away with the UK general elections; Welsh 16s and 17s revealed a plateau of apathy and, judging by the rise of popularism across much of the Western world, one can perhaps look at the rising influence of the ‘sound bite’ headlines and unchallenged misinformation spewing out of social media platforms which fuel resentment and disenchantment. There were, of course, pockets of optimism: the Youth Parliament is successful in promoting future voices and many places of education run General Studies programmes that include political discussion.
Our discussion meandered off into the need of voting reform, all agreeing that the ‘First-past-the-post’ system does nothing to enhance democratic involvement, though Bryan informed us that even the start of democracy with Cleisthenes in Athens in the 6th Century BC was flawed. We reflected on the fact that political leaders need to be strong and charismatic to strengthen the appeal for younger people – which is possibly why Farage is more successful than Starmer, and why newer figures, like Gary Stevenson, could be encouraged to encourage a greater interest and participation.
Len, echoing his opening pondering, wondered what the risk to society was in lowering the voting age? Not a lot was the general consensus, and remaining inconsistencies would stay on the agenda to be tackled another time. Would it increase young people’s motivation to become more involved with a society which at present seems a little bleak from their standpoint: (global erosion through climate change, growing inequality in wealth and opportunities, an inaccessible housing market and turmoil in the labour market with the onset of AI).
The majority of the group thought 16s and 17s ought to be given a voice, though stopped short in suggesting that it be compulsory.