I don't buy that at all.

 

So your argument against extending the voting franchise is mainly because you feel that the only reason it is being done is to lean on the scales in favour of more progressive parties? So if someone could persuade you that this is a false premise you'd maybe consider the case for it? Many in the Conservative party thought that introducing voter ID would help build an advantage for them but we have seen from recent local elections that it just hasn't made any difference at all, and if anything it may have even had the opposite effect and backfired on them. That was never a serious argument against introducing it for me, but I'm still against the policy for voter ID as I feel it disenfranchises potential voters.

 

Anyone who thinks that extending the franchise to those 16 and older will mean a permanent Labour government or progressive alliance is sorely mistaken, just because at the moment there is much greater support for progressive, left of center parties by younger ppl that doesn't mean it will always hold. In 1983 42% of 18-24 year olds voted for the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, and only 33% voted Labour. The extreme polarisation between generations at the moment has far deeper roots into things like the wider inequalties in society, housing crisis etc.

 

The problem when the voting age was reduced to 18 from 21 in 1969 was that the political education to inform the new electorate was not introduced to go with it. If this policy was seriously brought in then I think it would have to be with a number of other measures including informing and educating children about the responsiblity of having the vote, this would drive greater engagement with the political system and society in general and I feel like it would show immense trust and respect to the young ppl of this country.

 

The 'you get more right wing as you age' meme has been broken for some time, I feel like I'm going the opposite way. I was much more Lib Dem in my younger years but have become more economically left wing as I've got older.

I guess any minimum age is arbitrary to some extent. If you think it should be 16 why not 13? If it should stay at 18 why should it be that and not 21? And of course there are plenty of 16 year olds who think more maturely than adults and there’s no age at which someone suddenly becomes “ready”.

 

That said I kind of feel that children shouldn’t vote and that adulthood doesn’t start until 18 minimum. My first political thought aged 8 was that the tories should win because blue was my favourite colour (although I couldn’t understand why they weren’t called the blue party when the green party were correctly named). Of course by 16 I’d moved on from there but had I really developed enough independent thinking? I doubt it.

I don't buy that at all.

 

So your argument against extending the voting franchise is mainly because you feel that the only reason it is being done is to lean on the scales in favour of more progressive parties? So if someone could persuade you that this is a false premise you'd maybe consider the case for it? Many in the Conservative party thought that introducing voter ID would help build an advantage for them but we have seen from recent local elections that it just hasn't made any difference at all, and if anything it may have even had the opposite effect and backfired on them. That was never a serious argument against introducing it for me, but I'm still against the policy for voter ID as I feel it disenfranchises potential voters.

 

Anyone who thinks that extending the franchise to those 16 and older will mean a permanent Labour government or progressive alliance is sorely mistaken, just because at the moment there is much greater support for progressive, left of center parties by younger ppl that doesn't mean it will always hold. In 1983 42% of 18-24 year olds voted for the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, and only 33% voted Labour. The extreme polarisation between generations at the moment has far deeper roots into things like the wider inequalties in society, housing crisis etc.

 

The problem when the voting age was reduced to 18 from 21 in 1969 was that the political education to inform the new electorate was not introduced to go with it. If this policy was seriously brought in then I think it would have to be with a number of other measures including informing and educating children about the responsiblity of having the vote, this would drive greater engagement with the political system and society in general and I feel like it would show immense trust and respect to the young ppl of this country.

 

The 'you get more right wing as you age' meme has been broken for some time, I feel like I'm going the opposite way. I was much more Lib Dem in my younger years but have become more economically left wing as I've got older.

 

No, I gave examples in my first post of why even the existing age of 18 could be considered too young to vote. As that's the age you become an adult though the voting age of 18 is fair enough.

 

What I'm saying is the biggest argument I've seen for allowing 16/17 year old's to vote is they are more likely to agree with their point of view than the older voters who have ruined their future and will be dead soon. There are examples of this in this thread. That to me is not a reason to change it, had those same people had a different point of view to what 16/17 year old's are said to have they would probably be speaking against their right to vote.

 

I agree that extending it won't necessarily mean the outcome will drastically change, I said something to that effect in my first post when I said young people get older and change their point of view.

 

I never said you get more right wing as you age. I said that a significant number of people change their political views on certain things over time. You saying you've gone from Lib Dem to more economically left wing is an example of this.

 

The government are planning to implement this - excellent, for reasons I've already articulated in this thread, principally that a 16 year old will complete the transition to adulthood by the election after and so at some point in that parliament will be potentially a working taxpayer. Was worried that as it was one of the more unpopular (ludicrous!) policies in the Labour manifesto that they wouldn't get around to it but it will be in place by the next election.

gonna add to this a poll done of 16-17 yr-olds prior to this announcement.

(also alongside this announcement they're expanding the amount of eligible voting IDs which helps neuter the Tories' terrible policy on the matter)

49% of 16-17 yr olds don’t think they should have the vote and only 18% think they will definitely vote. I’m sure super unpopular with the general public too. First thing opposition parties should do is commit to removing this if they win. This is the kind of stuff I expect from the Green Party. I really don’t know who this policy is for other than vote rigging

Yeah not a fan of it either myself.

I’d rather a 16-17 year old, who stands to be impacted more by any political change, to be able to vote vs someone over the age of say 70/80 who is voting for other peoples future

34 minutes ago, Liam Sota said:

49% of 16-17 yr olds don’t think they should have the vote and only 18% think they will definitely vote. I’m sure super unpopular with the general public too. First thing opposition parties should do is commit to removing this if they win. This is the kind of stuff I expect from the Green Party. I really don’t know who this policy is for other than vote rigging

Yeah, declaring that you will strip people of their rights will definitely get them to vote for you.

Lots of people of various ages don’t use their vote so I don’t see why that would be a reason to not allowed 16/17 year olds to vote.

I am pleased to see this but I would also like more time and resources to go into educating 16 and 17 year olds about the importance of voting and political education and making an informed decision. From working with this age in my job, I would be concerned as it stands that many either wouldn't be engaged enough to vote or be susceptible to misinformation.

The whole "can't get 16/17 year olds vote" is fecking ludacris. So it's legal for them to have sex and bring a child in to this world, but they're not trusted to vote 🤥 Please make this make sense.

Excellent! Should’ve happened years ago.

3 hours ago, Chez Wombat said:

I am pleased to see this but I would also like more time and resources to go into educating 16 and 17 year olds about the importance of voting and political education and making an informed decision. From working with this age in my job, I would be concerned as it stands that many either wouldn't be engaged enough to vote or be susceptible to misinformation.

Definitely! One of the benefits of this should be that it allows schools a meaningful opportunity to include this in say, a PSHE lesson about your first vote and thereby actively educate people about the vote while in school - if it's something abstract that is beyond the point schools have a duty of care to people it can be overlooked. Hope that education boards can find a space for that, probably a good number of current 16-year-olds think they shouldn't be given the vote because of how they presume their peers are informed on politics.

As it stands, most of those that use the opportunity to vote I would imagine would be the well informed young people who are probably better informed on the issues than plenty of adults tbqfh.

That's who this is for and this is what I want governments to be doing, expanding the franchise to everyone who has a stake in our society, and these young people will have more of a stake in the next parliamentary term than many pensioners.

(oh and PLEASE let Reform or the Tories put reversing this in their manifesto, nothing will motivate the young more)

7 hours ago, Iz 🌟 said:

The government are planning to implement this - excellent, for reasons I've already articulated in this thread, principally that a 16 year old will complete the transition to adulthood by the election after and so at some point in that parliament will be potentially a working taxpayer. Was worried that as it was one of the more unpopular (ludicrous!) policies in the Labour manifesto that they wouldn't get around to it but it will be in place by the next election.

gonna add to this a poll done of 16-17 yr-olds prior to this announcement.

(also alongside this announcement they're expanding the amount of eligible voting IDs which helps neuter the Tories' terrible policy on the matter)

Finally!! Those 49% are echoing what the Tory teacher and parents are ssying rhough with, but we shouldn't vote! They'll change their tune once voted.

They really should get rid of thst terrible id policy.

5 hours ago, Chez Wombat said:

I am pleased to see this but I would also like more time and resources to go into educating 16 and 17 year olds about the importance of voting and political education and making an informed decision. From working with this age in my job, I would be concerned as it stands that many either wouldn't be engaged enough to vote or be susceptible to misinformation.

Thode same classes would be needed for modt of the public.

This will benefit Labour as they're more likely to voter for them.

20 minutes ago, CRAZY CHRIS said:

This will benefit Labour as they're more likely to voter for them.

WILD.

I agree with Chez that more education around how voting works, the importance of an election, the impact government has on the UK etc and relating it to their individual lives is critical for making something like this a success. We've all been 16 so will remember how we felt on things, generally or politically, but someone who is in their 30s or their 70s might choose not to vote "because there's no point" and that can be for a number of reasons, including simply not wanting to., something a 16 year old may or may not choose to do too. Empowering an individual to vote and understand its importance is what's key here, despite some loon online running away with it and going "what so we'll let babies vote next?!1?" because they don't understand that someone aged 16 can and does have the faculties to understand this sort of thing. As a 16 year old in this country there are plenty of things one can do legally and this should definitely be one of them but it has to be rolled out properly.

It's hilarious that Reform think 16- and 17-year-olds are too young to vote, but also think an 18-year-old is old enough to run a County Council with a budget of hundreds of millions of pounds.

1 hour ago, CRAZY CHRIS said:

This will benefit Labour as they're more likely to voter for them.

Even if every 16- and 17-year-old in a constituency voted for the same party, it would only make a difference in a very small number of seats.

The hope has to be that schools and colleges encourage their students to register and to vote. Most people who vote in the first election after they are eligible to do so continue to vote in subsequent elections. Most people who don't bother the first time continue not voting. Anything that incerases participation should be encouraged (within reason).

Also also this has come with a good set of unambiguously good voting reform policies that are, well, my bare minimum UK voting reform list completed. I don't know if they're going to be the same Bill as voting for 16-yr-olds but perhaps a trap for opposition as they have been announced together.

Those being, as I mentioned earlier, voting ID being expanded to UK-issued bank cards, which makes the chances of voters not having any ID to vote with much lower of course, great for democracy and helping to reverse the glaring issue of voting ID disenfranchising voters to crack the infinitesimally small nut of alleged voter fraud. And as I did not mention earlier, further restrictions on foreign donors, to get around foreign billionaires interfering in our democracy like say, making a donation to the British office of Xwitter. Good set of changes to strengthen democracy against threats, somewhat incremental but that's Starmer's Labour, it's incremental in the right direction and I'll take it.