Will extending the vote to 16-year-olds benefit Labour at the next general election?
Labour have announced plans to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in time for the next general election.
The Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP are in favour, but the Conservatives and Reform UK are not.
If you look at the latest polling, and indeed historical polling, you might be able to work out why.
A ballot of more than 22,000 under-18s, carried out prior to the 2024 general election, had the Greens in second place with the Conservatives in fifth.
In the real election, the Conservatives ended up in second place, recording a vote share 15 points higher among the general population than they received among those not old enough to vote.
The Greens, in contrast, ended up in fifth, with a vote share more than 20 points lower than that recorded in the youth poll.
A year is a long time in politics, and Labour have slipped in popularity since that vote, while Reform have surged to a lead in recent polling. But not so among the youngest age group of currently eligible voters.
Labour still lead with 18-24-year-olds, while Reform sit in fifth, according to the latest YouGov poll carried out for Sky News.
Sky News election analyst Professor Will Jennings says there is no reason to expect that voting behaviour among 16 and 17-year-olds will be significantly different to those closest to them in age.
"Young people tend to vote for parties of the left, but this change will not lead to a dramatic rebalancing of electoral power"
Prof Will Jennings, Sky News election analyst
Giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has significant electoral implications, though the consequences may be overstated.
As a group, young people tend to vote heavily for parties of the left - not just Labour, but also the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP in Scotland.
In the 2024 general election, according to the British Election Study online panel, Labour secured 41% of the vote among 18-25s, with the Liberal Democrats on 17% and the Greens on 16%.
The latest YouGov polling for Sky News puts Labour much more narrowly ahead of the Greens (by 28% to 26%) - a shift that highlights that the government cannot take the support of young people for granted.
For both Reform UK and the Conservatives, young people are the group of voters where they have lowest support - compared to other age groups.
One of the defining characteristics of young people is that they tend to turn out to vote at lower rates than older age groups. In recent elections the percentage of over-65s who have turned out to vote has been approximately 15-20% greater than the share of those aged between 18 and 25.
Also, in terms of the UK's population 'pyramid' - generational differences in birth rates mean there are considerably fewer 16-year-olds than 50-year-olds (750,000 vs 900,000).
Combined, this means that while the electorate at the next general election will now include a slightly more left-leaning demographic, this will not lead to a dramatic rebalancing of electoral power.
Older voters continue to be a dominant part of the electorate and this change will only shift the dial a fraction in a leftward direction.
How significant will their votes be at the general election?
This is another question entirely.
Adding 16 and 17-year-olds to the electorate only adds an extra 2.9% of potential votes. There are fewer 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK than there are people aged 60 or 61, or people aged 86+.
That might still be enough to make an impact in some constituencies, but it's not enough to bring about any huge nationwide swings.
The fact that it's only an extra 2.9% of "potential" votes is significant as well. Young people already turn out to vote at lower rates than older people.
In 2024, people aged 65 or older were twice as likely to vote as someone aged between 18 and 24.
And it doesn't look like 16 and 17-year-olds are about to buck that trend.
A poll of 500 16 and 17-year-olds, carried out by Merlin Strategy this week on behalf of ITV News, found that only 18% said they would definitely vote if there was an election tomorrow, while 49% said they didn't think that they or their peers should be given the chance to vote at all.
What's happened in other countries?
We don't need to look too far for evidence on this.
In fact, we can stay within the UK - Scotland gave the vote to 16-year-olds at the 2014 independence referendum and extended that for the 2016 and 2021 Scottish parliament elections.
Analysis suggests that it has been successful at boosting electoral engagement in both the immediate and longer-term.
At the 2014 referendum, voters aged 16 and 17 turned out in higher numbers than other young voters, albeit still at lower rates than the population at-large.
And voters who were first eligible to vote at 16 also continued to vote in higher numbers than their slightly older peers in subsequent elections - according to joint research from the Universities of Sheffield and Edinburgh, and political participation think tank d-part.
The Welsh government also extended the vote to 16-year-olds for the 2021 Senedd elections, while the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have allowed 16-year-olds to vote in their assembly elections since before 2010.
Globally, however, there are only seven sovereign nations that currently allow 16-year-olds to vote in national elections. Two are in Europe (Austria and Malta), while the remainder (Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua) are all in Latin America.
The United Arab Emirates has the oldest voting age in the world, at 25, a full four years older than the next set of countries.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘A huge human cost': Labor criticised over delays to aged care reforms as waitlist grows
Labor is facing a backlash over aged care services as a delay to landmark reforms prompts calls for urgent funding for 20,000 additional home packages and warnings that a two-speed system is locking out poorer elderly people. The Albanese government lost its first parliamentary vote of the new term on Monday afternoon, when the Senate voted to establish an inquiry into delays for home care packages, including unmet needs and the wellbeing of seniors waiting for assistance. Proposed by the ACT independent David Pocock, the vote was supported by the Greens and the Coalition, and comes after the aged care minister, Sam Rae, rejected calls to bring forward an additional 20,000 home care packages. Labor's reforms to the sector, originally slated to come into force from 1 July, have been pushed back to November, delaying the release of more than 80,000 home care packages. More than 87,000 elderly people are on the waitlist for care at home, with wait times up to 15 months. Labor has promised an end to lengthy delays by 2027, with maximum wait times of 90 days. Sign up: AU Breaking News email 'There is a huge human cost to delaying the release of more home care packages,' Pocock said. 'For some people that means being stuck in hospital longer because they can't get the support they need to return home safely. For others it means entering residential aged care earlier than they otherwise would have, others are struggling at home without the help they need.' The push follows warnings from the sector that Labor's changes risk squeezing out elderly people with limited financial means. Tracey Burton, chief executive of Uniting NSW and ACT, told Guardian Australia early this month equitable access for poorer Australians remains an unmet promise of changes passed by parliament last year. After a royal commission and a taskforce report to the federal government, Labor introduced new rules requiring wealthier people to pay more for their care and boosting access to support services for people who choose to stay in their own home. Residents who can afford to pay for their own care do so using a payment known as a refundable accommodation deposit (RAD). The average RAD is $470,000, with the lump sum refunded to family members when a resident dies. Elderly people whose care is paid for by the government rely on a supported accommodation supplement, worth $70 per day. The Greens aged care spokesperson, Penny Allman-Payne, is set to chair the Senate inquiry. She said the difference in value between RADs and supported placements, combined with a shortage of available residential beds and a rationing of home care packages, has led to fears of a two-tier system. 'You shouldn't have to be a millionaire just to guarantee care in your old age, but that's exactly what's at risk from Labor's new aged care system. 'Far from fixing the residential aged care system, Labor's changes coming this November mean wealthier homeowners may soon be worth twice as much in revenue to an aged care facility as an older person who lives week to week.' In a letter to crossbench MPs, Rae said the government acknowledged high demand for home care places, and said it was expected to continue up to November. But he rebuffed calls for bringing forward extra places. 'We also recognise that waiting to access a [home care package] has a real impact on older people and their families, as well as on the care providers. 'The Support at Home program is designed to bring down wait times for care and deliver more tailored support, giving older people the flexibility and choice to stay at home for longer.' Demand for aged care services is expected to surge, with the country on track for a doubling of people over 65 and a tripling of those aged over 85 within 40 years.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Swinney to press Trump on Scotch whisky tariffs exemption
Scotland's First Minister has vowed to press President Donald Trump to exempt Scotch whisky from US trade tariffs. John Swinney said the 'uniqueness' of whisky made in Scotland justified the exemption from the 10% tariff applied on UK exports into the US. The First Minister, who is due to hold talks with Mr Trump during his ongoing visit to Scotland, said the tariffs were currently costing the local whisky industry £4 million a week. 'Tariffs are very important for the Scottish economy and obviously scotch whisky is a unique product,' he told BBC Breakfast. 'It can only be produced in Scotland. It's not a product that can be produced in any other part of the world. So there's a uniqueness about that, which I think means there is a case for it to be taken out of the tariffs arrangement that is now in place. 'Obviously the trade deal with the United States provides a degree of stability for economic connections with the United States, but the application of tariffs is increasing the costs for the Scotch whisky industry. 'So one of my objectives will be to make the case to President Trump that Scotch whisky should be exempted from those tariffs. 'It's a product that is uniquely produced in Scotland, and it's a product that is much welcomed and supported within the United States. And I think there's a really good case for exempting Scotch whisky, and this is an opportunity that I have to put that case to President Trump on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry, which is a significant part of the Scottish economy. 'And the tariffs just now are costing the industry about £4 million each week, so it's a very significant burden on the industry. It would help growth and development within the Scottish economy if we could secure that deal. And, obviously, I'll be using every opportunity I have to try to put that across to President Trump.' Mr Trump's five-day visit to Scotland is largely a private one that has seen the president play golf at his course at Turnberry in Ayrshire ahead of opening a new course at his property in Aberdeenshire on Tuesday. Mr Swinney said the final cost of the policing the visit has yet to be worked out. 'Obviously, we're working very closely with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority about the arrangements for this visit,' he said. 'The security arrangements have gone well since President Trump arrived on Friday, and that's as it should be, because we've got an obligation to make sure that when we have major international visitors, when they come to Scotland, that they are protected and able to go about their activities. Pressed to reveal the bill, Mr Swinney added: 'All of that will be worked out and we'll address that with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, and we're talking to the United Kingdom government about these questions, but it's important that we have a secure policing operation. 'It's also important that members of the public who wish to express their point of view, who want to protest about the visit or about other issues, are able to go about their exercise of their democratic right to protest. That's exactly what they've been able to do since Friday, and that's the way it should be.'
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Sir Keir's wife punting at Ascot while government threaten to destroy racing – it's D-Day and we need a leader
IT'S apparently D-Day for British Racing in what appears to be a Brexit moment for the sport as its major power forces respond to proposals for radical change without really knowing what they are getting themselves into. Sound familiar? 1 This is all to do with whether Labour peer Lord Allen is thrust into the position of BHA chairman. Should he come or will he go now? That depends on how much everyone clashes! Those considering Lord Allen's many demands - in order for him to take up the role - include the Racecourse Association, Racehorse Owners' Association, Thoroughbred Breeders' Association and Licensed personnel. Lord Allen has basically said take my ideas or leave them and I won't bother with you all. He doesn't need the money and he's not a massive horse racing fan. As has so often been the case with those in charge at the BHA, it appears he's not too fussed about it. We have got used to leaders coming, messing up a few things, and going in a fanfare of what a marvelous job they have done. On ITV Racing's Opening Show on Saturday I asked four questions about Lord Allen and his objectives, and what help he might be. Usually when I do that my phone goes mad with people answering my observations and putting me right. On this occasion it was silent. Lord Allen and racing appear in favour of an independent BHA Board. Indeed this seems to be an absolute necessity. But no one has said who would be on it? I can't see how you could ever have one. Someone please explain. Who are you going to have - who is independent? Secondly, in recent days the Jockey Club and Ascot have come out insisting Lord Allen must be appointed. Have they done this knowing he won't join the BHA or he will? If you know he's not going to be on board then it would look as though you wanted to do the right thing for the sport but others stopped you. In some eyes that would give an organisation credit. Equally if he did become BHA chairman you will have Lord Allen's backing. It's clever if you think about it. And trust me, behind the scenes, whatever anyone says, this is about individuals rather than the good of the sport. It always will be and anyone who kids themselves otherwise is delusional. If Lord Allen is the savior, why is racing in turmoil about a current new tax on the sport? What is Lord Allen doing about it? Has he talked to Sir Keir Starmer? Again silence. And finally once again, how is it with all the people in horse racing we have who love the game - from the King and Queen down - no one seems to get through to Sir Keir that he might be on the verge of destroying British Racing? Sir Keir's wife, Victoria, was at Ascot on Saturday for the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes. It seems quite bizarre to me when you think what Government is threatening to do. Answers on a postcard please. By the way, enjoy Glorious Goodwood. All the best coverage in The Sun! Commercial content notice: Taking one of the offers featured in this article may result in a payment to The Sun. You should be aware brands pay fees to appear in the highest placements on the page. 18+. T&Cs apply. Remember to gamble responsibly A responsible gambler is someone who:
