Local MP gives thumbs down to lowering voting age to 16 ... what's the context?
Welcome to The Ilkley Journal Explainer 📰
Labour recently announced that it was beginning the process of lowering the voting age to 16. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, described the initiative as “generational step forward in restoring public trust and boosting engagement in UK democracy”.
In response, the Conservative MP for Keighley and Ilkley said that he “didn’t agree with the policy”. As quoted by Keighley News, Robbie Moore, explained that he was “sceptical of the government’s intentions”.
However, he conceded that because of Labour’s thumping majority in Parliament, the proposed bill legislating this fundamental change will inevitably come to pass – and, in light of that fact, every effort should be made to ensure that young people have the knowledge and understanding of elections and politics more generally – especially locally.
In light of his comments and this being one of the most topical and important issues of the summer – and a historic moment in the waiting – we’ve put together our first ever The Ilkley Journal Explainer, where we answer key questions about the headline grabbing things that everyone is talking about (and always with a local angle, of course).
If you like this kind and thing and want to see more of it, do consider becoming a paid-up member or a one-time supporter in 2025. Help us fix it, fund it and future-proof local news.
Why doesn’t Robbie Moore agree with the policy?
Your guess is as good as ours. It could be that he thinks Labour isn’t being sincere (his “sceptical of the government’s intentions” comment) and that it’s lowering the voting age for its own benefit. Perhaps it’s a strategic play to demonstrate his loyalty to the Conservative Party’s still influential older voter base (the average Tory voter is said to be 62) as well as potential Reform voters.
Or maybe he simply believes that young people don’t have the maturity or the real world life experience to be granted the right to vote. If so, this would beg two questions: One, why are 18 year olds considered mature enough to vote (the age of majority)? And two, are (older) adults any more mature, sensible or worldly? The truth is we don’t know what Moore is thinking, but we would be eager to find out.
Is Labour playing politics with this announcement?
Yes and no. Yes because politics is always a bit of a game – how you position things, getting your timing right, having a sense of where you stand. With Labour having very little to shout about a year into government – and still no overarching story about what the party stands for – this seismic announcement gives them an opportunity to focus on more historic achievements it’s pushing through.
As for the no, this isn’t new – Labour promised in its 2024 manifesto, as part of wider reforms to modernise and secure elections, to lower the voting age in all elections to 16. In fact, in recent history, the party promised this as far back as 2015 when Ed Miliband was its leader.
Hang on a sec – can’t 16 year olds vote in Scotland and Wales?
They sure can. Although the messaging that’s been picked up has focused on 16 and 17 year olds being given the right to vote in “all elections”, young people in Scotland and Wales have been able to have a say in who runs their local authorities and devolved parliaments since 2015 (the former) and 2021 (the latter).
Accordingly, England has been lagging in extending the franchise to 16–17 year olds – and, as a policy paper outlining the proposed elections and democracy bill notes, as profound a change as it is, it’s also a practical one. It will simply bring English legislation in line with its Great British neighbours.
What’s the global picture with voting at 16 and 17?
It’s actually not that common. According to UNICEF, 90% of countries give people the right to vote from the age of 18. It lists Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Indonesia, Nicaragua, North Korea and Timor-Leste as countries that have extended the franchise to 16–17 year olds.
In some countries, the minimum voting age is higher than 18. In the UAE, for Federal National Council elections, it’s 25, the highest anywhere in the world. In countries like Kuwait, Lebanon, Samoa and Tonga, it’s 21, while in Cameroon, Taiwan, Bahrain and Nauru, it’s 20.
What does the UK public think?
Generally and surprisingly they’re against it. Moore said that 57% of the public believes that young people shouldn’t be allowed to vote and that “half of 16–17 year olds … don’t think they should be allowed to vote”. He seemed to be referencing a recent YouGov poll, which confirms the former but not quite the latter.
The poll didn’t survey that age group but reported that 44% of 18–24 year olds were against the proposal (with 42% of that age bracket in favour of lowering the age). There’s definitely an age bias, with 62% of 50–64 year olds and 78% of people aged 65 and over opposed to the idea. The poll didn’t specify the Yorkshire and the Humber region but recorded 56% of the north as being against it.
Wowser. Surely then they’re of the opinion that election turnout is pretty good?
Maybe, but the truth is that fewer and fewer people are turning out to vote. According to the House of Commons Library, last year’s election was the lowest since 2001 (this was the first election after Blair’s landslide in 1997 and saw 59.4% cast their ballots). The lowest recorded was in 1918, following the end of the first world war (57.2%). The highest ever recorded was in 1950 (83.5%).
Generally, 21st century voting numbers have been lower than they were throughout the 20th century. The reasons why people don’t vote – and can’t – are numerous and the dwindling numbers is a serious concern. Every vote counts and it’s one of the most powerful things a citizen in a democracy can do because it genuinely gives people an opportunity to elect people and parties who can shape the fortunes of the country (even if in reality governments invariably disappoint when in office).
What kind of impact will lowering the age actually have on elections?
Hard to say, as the number of 16–17 year olds in the population is very small (2.8%). However, what’s relatively certain is that around 1.5 million 16–17 year olds will be eligible to vote at the next general election, enough to influence, perhaps, marginal or swing seats. To put that number into some context, turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7% and there were 48.2 million registered voters.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, this was “the second lowest voter turnout since the universal suffrage in 1928”. On that basis, adding more people to the electoral register who actually want to vote is, therefore, a good thing for a democracy. Who these youngsters actually vote for is really up for grabs. Traditionally, there’s the understanding that left-leaning parties are popular with young people, but there is also a lot of talk about the voting power young males can bring to the right in a populist era.
What can’t 16 year olds do – and does it matter if they’ll soon be able to vote?
There are many things you can’t do when you turn 16. For instance, they can’t get married (you could with parental consent until 2023), learn how to drive (it’s 17), get a tattoo, serve on a jury or apply for a credit card. And no, it doesn't matter. None of this has anything to do with the ability and right to vote. It’s a sort of false equivalence.
Consider, for instance, another argument given against lowering the voting age to 16 – they can’t stand for Parliament. This makes no sense. Voting is about participation in the democratic process and selecting representatives – not necessarily being one. Moreover, you can be in full time employment paying taxes from 16. By that reasoning, don’t taxpayers have a right to determine who spends their cash?
A slight aside – let’s talk about Brexit. Could young voters have swayed it?
Potentially (and this is a great question). Overall, the EU referendum was very close, with 52% in favour of leaving and 48% against. But in Yorkshire and the Humber it was more stark: 57.7% of voters backed Brexit. It was the same story in West Yorkshire, except for Leeds. People throughout the country wanted out.
So, nationally, maybe. Locally in our region, probably not. Overall it would have given young people an opportunity to have a say on a decision that has and will continue to have a negative impact on their lives, a truth compounded by the fact that Brexit was decided by an older electorate (60% of 65 year olds and over, 57% of 55–64 year olds and 56% of 45–54 year olds voted to leave, while 73% of 18–24 year olds, 62% of 25–34 year olds and 52% of 35–44 year olds voted remain).
One final question. Can you give us a quick history of voting in the UK?
We’ll try. In the olden days, very few people could vote. Things started to change (very slowly) in 1430 when freeholders of land worth at least 40 shillings were given the right to vote. However, it would be another 400 years before things kicked up a notch with the Great Reform Acts of the 1800s.
In 1832, that extended the franchise to men (approximately one in five) who paid a yearly rent of £10. In 1867, effectively extended it to urban working class men (i.e. removed the “property ownership qualification”). In 1884, it extended this to counties (two in five men could now vote). In 1918, women (over 30) were given the right to vote, with all men over 21 now eligible to vote. In 1929, the voting age for women was lowered to 21. In 1969 the voting age was lowered to 18 and further still to 16 in 2015 for Scotland and 2020 for Wales.