There was relief in many quarters when Labour’s manifesto promise to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote in all UK elections was left out of the King’s Speech last July. Alas, it now appears to be back on the agenda. Last week, prime minister Keir Starmer appeared at the House of Commons Liaison Committee, where he said that his manifesto pledge to lower the voting age to 16 would ‘definitely’ be honoured in time for the scheduled 2029 General Election.
Cue all the familiar arguments. Labour, of course, will argue in favour, on the grounds of generational fairness and teenage competence. Meanwhile, the Conservatives will complain about cynical vote-rigging, as younger voters supposedly tend to veer to the left. All these myths, however, must give way to reality.
Whatever evidence there may be that younger people lean leftwards, there is also evidence to the contrary. Some of this comes from Austria, which, in 2007, became one of the first European countries to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds. The following election results, in 2008, showed a sharp turn to the right. Nearly 20 years on, the right remains strong, and was kept out of power earlier this year only by a coalition of practically every other party.
In the UK, the left-wing ‘youthquake’ that so scared the political mainstream in 2017 reflected the very specific appeal of then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Young people’s enthusiasm then was for a particular brand of leftism and a particular exponent of it. Labour’s landslide in the 2024 General Election, by contrast, had more to do with across-the-board disillusionment with 14 years of Tory government than with the youth vote. Youth turnout in general had already slipped back in the 2019 election and failed to rebound in 2024. The answer to increasing that turnout may have less to do with lowering the voting age than with the appeal of a particular candidate, who could come from either left or right.
Whether 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote can also be contested. Starmer’s riposte to a question along these lines at the Liaison Committee was to say that ‘the sky didn’t fall in’ when the voting age was lowered for local and regional elections in Scotland and Wales. This is true. But while Starmer has been arguing in favour of the good sense of teens, he has also been sounding warnings about the supposed risks that social media pose to teenagers.
On the one hand, Starmer is advocating for votes at 16. On the other, he is asking whether under-16s should be kept off social media for their own, and society’s, good. The upshot of this could be that, at 15, young people are blocked from most social-media platforms. Then, when they turn 16, perhaps the very next day, they are suddenly sent off to vote. The only context they would have to help choose the next government would be the juvenile content on their limited-access mobile phones. How sensible is that, really?
My biggest objection to extending the vote to 16-year-olds, however, is not because of how they might or might not use that vote. Nor is it because of what seems to be a glaring inconsistency between demanding that teens be ‘protected’ from social media while also saying they deserve a say in the way this country is run. It is rather that the law has finally, and not before time, reached a point where individual rights, obligations and age are reasonably well-aligned.
As it stands, adulthood begins, in most respects, at 18. An 18th birthday confers a host of rights. Right now, 18-year-olds are able to marry, buy cigarettes or an alcoholic drink. They can place a bet at a betting shop or casino and drive any sort of vehicle with the appropriate licence. If you were adopted, you can find out your birth parents at 18. You can get body piercings or tattoos without adult consent. You can even stand for election as an MP or fight and die for your country in the armed forces. At 18, you can serve on a jury, stand trial in a magistrates’ court and be sent to an adult prison if convicted of a crime. In fact, there are now very few things that you cannot do at 18.
Lowering the voting age will inevitably increase pressure for 16-year-olds to be able to do all the things you can now only do legally at 18. After all, if a 16-year-old can vote, why shouldn’t he be able to marry, drink or gamble? This could lead to some serious missteps. It was only two years ago that the marriage age, with or without parental consent, was increased to 18 – partly to prevent forced marriages. On another tack, should 16-year-olds have their names released to the public if charged with a crime? If convicted, should 16-year-olds be sent to adult prisons? All these will become issues if the voting age is lowered.
I was one of those in the first cohort to benefit from the voting age being reduced to 18 in 1970. I tend to think that is as far as it should go – even at the risk of being accused of pulling up the drawbridge behind me. All these years on, I am not convinced that anything has happened to change either the experience or the mindset of younger people that would justify chopping another two years off the voting age.
If anything, you could perhaps make the case for returning the legal age of adulthood to 21. After all, various anxieties and afflictions currently prevent large numbers of young people from working and being independent. And so many normal adult milestones – such as leaving education, getting married, buying a home, having children and even qualifying for the state pension – now tend to happen much later in life. That is not the argument I’m making. But it does make my point that we should leave the voting age well enough alone.
Mary Dejevsky is a writer and broadcaster. She was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China.
