
UK to lower voting age to 16 – but not everyone is convinced
Votes at 16 has grown from a niche concern to become a salient – if contentious – issue supported by most UK political parties and electoral reform groups.
The Conservative Party remains a holdout, but has never acknowledged the contradiction of its continued opposition to the universal lowering of the voting age while empowering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to enact the measure during its time in government.
This is a policy response to concerns about declining youth democratic engagement since the late 1990s. Since 1997, the UK general election turnout rate for those aged 65 years and over has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24.
Some opponents argue that the Labour government is lowering the voting age to 16 for its own electoral interest, but we should remember this was a clearly stated election manifesto commitment. Votes at 16 was part of the package that delivered Labour to government in 2024 on a huge majority.
That said, public opinion remains steadfastly opposed. The government will need to handle this tension carefully, ensuring that 16- and 17-year-olds are not treated as second-class members of the electorate as this debate pushes forward.
For and against
As when the voting age was universally lowered to 18 in 1969, the case for change has pivoted on perceptions of maturity and markers of adulthood. There was considerable political and public consensus in the 1960s that 18 was the appropriate age of majority and enfranchisement. This link has endured, and many people continue to think under 18s are too socially and politically immature to vote responsibly or regularly.
Supporters of reform emphasise the need to align enfranchisement with other rights realised before or at age 16 – such as paying tax, medical consent, working, autonomy to make decisions about future education and work lives, and undertaking military (if not frontline) service.
Opponents respond by noting the age of majority remains 18, and that the minimum age for many protective and social rights, such as marriage and leaving full-time education, has been pushed upwards to 18 in the past decade or so.
But while 18 remains the legal marker of adulthood, transitions from youthhood to adulthood have become extended and complex. There is no single age point at which young people realise all the social and economic rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood.
Biological maturation extends from late-stage childhood until early adulthood (mid-20s). Traditional markers of adulthood, such as financial independence, owning a property, or getting married and having children, are occurring later in life than in previous generations.
It is more than 50 years since parliament last reflected and reviewed how society understands and frames issues of adulthood and citizenship linked to the ages of majority and enfranchisement. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a timely opportunity to do so again.
Extensive parliamentary debate lies ahead as this bill makes its way through to becoming law. MPs should take that time to discuss and build consensus around what British democracy should offer young people, and how enfranchisement should be conceptualised for future generations.
Lowering the age is just the start
Now that 16- and 17-year-olds are part of the electorate, we can hope that political parties will improve their responsiveness to the interests of young people.
Unfortunately, where the voting age has already been lowered, we've not yet seen parties address their skewed decision-making, representation or electoral behaviour, which continues to favour older voters. The average age of elected representatives has remained around 50 years of age in all UK national and devolved parliaments, and higher in local government. Few young people join political parties or are active in their campaigning.
There is also significant evidence that, regardless of whether the voting age has been lowered or not, young people are not appropriately supported to be politically and media literate to understand how and when to vote, and to make informed and independent voter choices.
So, lowering the voting age should only be the first step in a more concerted effort to improve political literacy and democratic engagement as young people grow up. This should begin in primary, not secondary, school and continue through further and higher education.
Elected representatives should hold regular school surgeries where they meet children and young people, and listen and respond to their issues and concerns. Young people need to learn to discuss political issues in school settings, and political parties should host election hustings in schools and colleges. Young people should also be involved in decision-making in their schools and communities.
Lowering the voting age offers an opportunity to reinvigorate how we host elections to ensure young people enjoy voting for the first time – and encourage their future participation.
Making electoral registration automatic, as the government has promised, will help. But joining the electoral roll is a significant civic moment in young people's lives. Schools should host electoral registration ceremonies where pupils are welcomed into the electorate by local elected representatives, and automatically given a voter authority certificate so they have an appropriate piece of voter ID.
Political parties need to embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity that voting age reform presents to secure the future health of British democracy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants
An elite team of police officers is to monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment amid fears of summer riots. Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest. The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering after police forces were criticised over their response to last year's riots. It comes amid growing concern that Britain is facing another summer of disorder, as protests outside asylum hotels spread. On Saturday, crowds gathered in towns and cities including Norwich, Leeds and Bournemouth to demand action, with more protests planned for Sunday. Angela Rayner warned the Cabinet last week that the Government must act to address the 'the real concerns that people have' about immigration. But critics on Saturday night branded the social media plans 'disturbing' and raised concerns over whether they would lead to a restriction of free speech. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Two-tier Keir can't police the streets, so he's trying to police opinions instead. They're setting up a central team to monitor what you post, what you share, what you think, because deep down they know the public don't buy what they're selling. 'Labour have stopped pretending to fix Britain and started trying to mute it. This is a Prime Minister who's happy to turn Britain into a surveillance state, but won't deport foreign criminals, won't patrol high streets, won't fund frontline policing. 'Labour are scared of the public, Labour don't trust the public, Labour don't even know the public.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: 'This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous and must be fought. Reform UK will do just that.' In a further sign of dissent over the Government's approach to social media, campaigners claimed on Saturday that posts about anti-migrant protests in the past week had been censored because of new online safety laws.


The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. His oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. The parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed in the US. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi, there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for Farage's critics. US pro-democracy campaigners says Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggests this is the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further complicating the problem in the US has been Trump's appointment of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories. As Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, he is in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak, but campaigners say that does not make the problems insurmountable. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'


Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind
Here's one for the aficionados: 26 July 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Labour's landslide victory in the 1945 general election. Trade unionists and Labour MPs are celebrating, claiming the nation still owes a debt of gratitude for the historic achievements of Clement Attlee's government. Yet today, as the world watches the humanitarian crisis in Gaza with horror, it's worth recalling that one of Attlee's biggest failures was his Israel - Palestine policy. (Oh, and while Attlee's health minister Aneurin Bevan boasted he "stuffed their mouths with gold" to overcome doctors' opposition to the NHS, today doctors are on strike over pay again.) The 1945 election took place on 5 July, the same date Sir Keir Starmer entered 10 Downing Street last year. But with British armed forces still serving overseas in 1945, it took until 26 July to declare the result. 9:30 Labour won 393 seats in 1945, compared with 411 last year. But while Sir Keir's Labour only won 34% of the votes, Mr Attlee won nearly 50%. But then, there was no insurgent Reform UK back then. Celebrating the 80th anniversary, Joanne Thomas, who became general secretary of the shopworkers' union Usdaw in April this year, said the Attlee government left a lasting legacy. "Usdaw's predecessor unions were proud to play a role in the 1945 election victory and to see 18 of our members elected," she said. "Not least a hero of our union 'Red Ellen', a fiery trade union organiser who led the Jarrow hunger march and went on to serve as education minister." Wilkinson was indeed red. Attlee biographer Trevor Burridge wrote: "Ellen Wilkinson was made minister of education despite the fact that she had actively campaigned against his leadership." She was MP for Jarrow, not a million miles from the current education secretary and Starmer super-loyalist Bridget Phillipson's Houghton and Sunderland South constituency. But not even her best friends would call her red! Ellen Wilkinson was also the only woman in Attlee's 1945 cabinet. Last year, Sir Keir made history by appointing 11 women to his cabinet. Labour MP Marie Tidball, elected last year, joined the tributes to Attlee. "He transformed Britain for working people and this legacy laid the foundations for Britain today - our NHS, welfare state and homes for heroes. "Those public services meant I could grow up to fulfil my potential. Labour legend." But if Attlee's NHS, welfare state and nationalisation are viewed as successes by Labour trade unionists and MPs, his government's policy on Palestine is widely agreed to have been a failure. In his acclaimed biography of Attlee's foreign secretary, "Ernest Bevin: Labour's Churchill", former Blairite cabinet minister Andrew Adonis wrote: "Why did Bevin get Israel/Palestine so wrong?" Adonis says Bevin's policy on Palestine "led to the precise opposite of its declared intention of stability and the peaceful co-existence of the Jewish and Palestinian communities within one state at peace with its neighbours". He concluded: "Instead, Bevin's legacy was a Jewish state of Israel, much larger than even most of its advocates previously favoured, in periodic war and perpetual tension with both its Palestinians and its Arab neighbours." Where did Bevin go wrong? Adonis wrote: "In the first place, because, during the three key years 1945-48, he did not agree that his central policy objective was 'good relations with the United States'." As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump in Scotland, 80 years after the historic Attlee victory, that's clearly not a mistake the current Labour PM has made in his relations with the US president. " I like your prime minister," the president said as he arrived in Scotland, "he's slightly more liberal than I am, but I like him". So, 80 years on from Attlee, lessons have been learned. So far, so good, that is.