Labour Party Conference: Votes at 16

After the closing of the Labour Party conference last week there’s really one thing that stuck in my mind as a young person. From all the proposals and policies that were presented by notable members of the Labour Party, the topic that struck me the most was the proposal by leader Ed Miliband to enfranchise 16-year-olds. He projected plans for the upcoming election manifesto to include giving “16- and 17-year-olds...a part in our democracy” by giving them the vote. According to the BBC this would affect 1.5 million teenagers across the UK.

But votes for 16-year-olds isn’t a new campaign, it’s been peddled by the Liberal Democrats for some time...which begs the question: why now?

The issue of lowering the age of voting has split opinion; some people are all for it, since by 16 most other rights have been acquired; some are against it, thinking it isn’t necessary, while others are ambivalent. From my experience all these things are true of young people’s own opinions, in my opinion particularly the last. Young people are notoriously known for being apathetic to party politics, perhaps a generalisation, but this is often true of the current electorate let alone making voting possible at younger age.

Since the turnout in elections for the younger portion of the electorate is so low election after election, I find it difficult to see why politicians think it will be a different story for younger members of our society. I feel like they need to do more to engage with young people and to get them really interested in party politics before encouraging even younger people to vote. If the people that can already vote aren’t inspired to vote, why would a younger group of people be?

It may be a bit cynical, but it feels like giving the vote without actually engaging with those people they’re giving them to could be more of a political manoeuvre than a democratic one. As I mentioned before, extending the vote would mean a 1.5 million extension of the electorate.

Since the media keeps reporting there’s a decent chance of us having another coalition government after the next election, this could explain why now to extend the vote to 16-year-olds. It would mean that there’s another 1.5 million votes up for grabs there wasn’t before.

The argument for giving 16-year-olds the vote seems to be focused on the fact that by this age so many other rights have been acquired, so it’s only fair they also have this right. As MP’s like David Lammy have said, at 16 people can be in employment, serve in the military, own a house and get married.

They believe since they have all these crucial rights by this point, it’s natural and democratic that voting should also be extended to them. While all that is true, I do see some holes in the arguments of people like David Lammy. Although at 16, a person can get married, in order to do so they need the consent of parents.

Furthermore, if the vote is extended to 16-year-olds does this mean the law in other areas regarding 16-year-olds should change too? If 16-year-olds are given most of the same rights as an 18-year-old, is it right that in the eyes of the law they should be treated differently in other areas?

At 16 if you’re arrested for a crime, you’re dealt with in the juvenile justice system, in youth courts with different sentencing. If the vote is extended to them and they share so many other rights with 18-year olds, is it fair for them to be treated differently in criminal law?

We keep being told that young people are dependent on their parents until they are much older than previous generations, especially financially.

According to a study by The Children’s Mutual and the Social Issues Research Centre, they found nearly half of those aged between 16 and 25 haven’t severed the “parental purse strings”.

Similarly, the Office for National Statistics figures show one in three “adult kids” are still living with their parents.

With all this in mind, I’m not sure why now is the time to give more responsibility younger when lots of other responsibilities are being delayed later in life.

I recently took a class on adolescence and juvenile justice where we were taught about why countries like the UK and US have multiple ages of majority. The age of majority is a collection of laws bestowing adult status at a certain age and in countries like the UK a system exists where there are several milestone ages upon which different “adult” rights are given. In my opinion this makes sense because growing up is a process of development, you don’t just wake up on your 16th or 18th birthday as an adult.

Maturing into an adult is a process that develops as you learn to deal with more and more responsibility, hence I think graduating rights over a few different ages is good for the development into adulthood. While I’m not opposed to votes at 16, I would just wonder with all this in mind, why now?

Natasha is blogging on behalf of Kids Count, a think-tank focused on the practical rather than the theoretical. Find out more at www.kidscount.org.uk