Votes at 16: Right Policy, Wrong Motives?

Labour has announced plans to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the next general election. This will bring the UK in line with devolved and local elections in Scotland and Wales. Labour’s proposal is controversial. Proponents argue that 16-year-olds have the maturity to contribute to electoral politics which will be enriched by the inclusion of younger voters. Opponents argue that this is a cynical move by Labour who have ignored the flimsiness of the arguments in favour of lowering the voting age. Though I initially opposed lowering the voting age, believing people under 18 to lack the maturity and interest, I now lean in support. Lowering the voting age is the right thing to do but it will heap further discord onto the British political system which is already viewed with suspicion.

The central argument behind lowering the voting age is that it will “re-connect an entire generation of young people with our country’s democratic structures”¹. This stems from concerns about political apathy, particularly amongst younger voters, and is a problem that should worry all observers of British politics. Some evidence suggests that lowering the voting age improves electoral engagement. In Scotland young people who first voted at 16 or 17 are more likely to continue voting in later elections compared with people who were enfranchised at 18 or over². Researchers challenged assumptions about the maturity of 16- and 17-year-olds³. They supported the idea that 16-year-olds in Austria are cognitively ready to make voting decisions and found that 16- and 17-year-olds are at least as informed and politically interested as older first-time voters.

Children have rightly been given more education in schools on citizenship and politics. It is important that young people grow up with a sense of how the country works and now that the voting age is being lowered it becomes imperative that we improve this part of their education.  However, young people have a low propensity to vote. Labour’s proposal will make an addition to this part of the electorate. Thus the overall turnout figures will ceteris paribus reduce further. This will weaken electoral legitimacy and make it easier to challenge the mandate of future governments.

Arguments about maturity are compelling but supporters of lowering the voting age have made some false steps. Ministers have pointed out that 16-year-olds can already get married, work, pay taxes, and serve in the military⁴. There are considerable flaws in this line of argument. They can indeed get married, but only with parental consent. Very few choose to do so anyway. They can serve in the military, but again only with parental consent. They are not permitted to serve on the frontlines because the UK signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that they are children. Under-18s do pay tax, but this should not qualify them to vote. The principle of ‘no taxation without representation’ does not deserve blind adherence. Whilst it is true that 16-year-olds may pay tax, most do not pay income tax and are completely financially dependent on their parents. If paying VAT justified the vote, even 5-year-olds would qualify. And if taxation is the qualification for voting, then should the vote be taken away from the unemployed and pensioners? The proponents of lowering the voting age take a small sample of this age group and extrapolate to the wider group. In short, society is not consistent in treating 16- and 17-year-olds as adults. Voting is distinct from other age-based rights and should be assessed on its own terms.

It has also been suggested that politicians are not sufficiently attentive to the needs of young voters and by including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate their concerns will be better addressed. However, many groups in society claim that they are not sufficiently represented in the political system. Disabled people, ethnic minorities, working-class people, and people who live outside of London are amongst the many groups who can make a credible case that their interests are not heeded. And yet, they all have the vote. Again, those who support lowering the voting age need to be more careful when selecting their arguments.

If Labour does not win the next election then the victors do not have to accept this expansion as a new status quo. There has been a tendency in the UK to tolerate constitutional and electoral changes. The Conservatives and Reform will be disadvantaged by the change, and whilst the balance of arguments favours lowering the voting age it is an issue that deserves continued scrutiny. It is too soon to predict who will win the next election but there is a good chance that the Conservatives or Reform could form part of the next government. They may well reject Labour’s change.

Public opposition to expanding the franchise is significant. Only 32% support lowering the voting age to 16; 57% do not. Even 18–24-year-olds there oppose it 44% to 42%⁵. The public overwhelmingly think that Labour is lowering the voting age because it will benefit them electorally⁶. The public are right to be sceptical of Labour’s motivations. Whilst there are principled arguments in favour of the change, we cannot forget that younger voters are more likely to support left-leaning parties than right-leaning parties. That Labour is likely to see some (small) electoral benefit from lowering the voting age is likely to have featured in ministers’ thoughts as they considered this policy.

In sum, the evidence that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote is compelling. This evidence is enough to overcome the counterarguments that focus on inconsistencies in the rights and responsibilities that are given to young people. Opposition parties will fight against Labour as its change to the voting age progresses through parliament. With a large majority Labour will be able to push the bill through and we will see 16- and 17-year-olds voting in the next general election. Labour’s proposal is not a just principled reform but also a strategic calculation – and one that could be reversed when power changes hands. It remains to be seen whether votes at 16 will embedded into the status quo of British politics.

Bibliography and further reading

[1] Folkes, A. (2004) The case for votes at 16. Representation, 41(1), 52-56.

[2] Eichhorn, J. and Hübner, C. (2023) Votes-at-16 in Scotland. 2014-2021. Edinburgh, Sheffield & Berlin: University of Edinburgh, University of Sheffield & d|part. Available at: https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/doc/Votes%20at%2016%20in%20Scotland.pdf

[3] Aichholzer, J. and Kritzinger, S. (2020) Voting at 16 in Practice: A Review of the Austrian Case. In Eichhorn, J. and Bergh, J. (eds.) Lowering the Voting Age to 16: Learning from Real Experiences Worldwide. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

[4] Devlin, K. (2025) 16-year-olds to be given vote at next election in landmark change. The Independent [Online] 17 July. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-year-old-vote-uk-election-teenagers-b2790741.html [Accessed 18/07/2025]

[5] YouGov (2025) Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should or should not be allowed to vote in UK elections? Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/07/17/32a3f/2 [Accessed 18/07/2025]

[6] More in Common (2024) What do voters make of proposals to lower the UK's voting age? Available at: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/voting-age/ [Accessed 18/07/2025]

Cowley, P. and Denver, D. (2004) Votes at 16? The case against. Representation, 41(1), 57-62.