Latest news with #democracy
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Independent
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
What happens when 16-year-olds get the vote? Other countries are already seeing the benefits
The government has announced it will lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections in time for the next general election. In 1969, the UK became the first major democracy in the world to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Few people knew what to expect from this change. Things are different now. In places such as Austria, Argentina and Brazil, as well as parts of Germany and, in the UK, Wales and Scotland, 16- and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in some or all elections. We can learn a lot from these places about what happens when 16- and 17-year-olds get the vote. My colleagues and I have spent years researching this, and our main finding is simple: nothing bad happens when the voting age is lowered to 16. Including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate does not change election outcomes and it does not make elections less representative. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are just as qualified to vote as other voters. Research from Germany and Austria shows that they are able to pick a political party or representative that best represents their views to the same extent as other, slightly older voters. But some things may get better for young people and for democracy overall, especially if young people are taken seriously as voters and receive good education on political issues. Here is what to expect when 16- and 17-year-olds get to vote in the UK general election. When 16- and 17-year-olds get to vote at the next UK election, expect them to turn out in about the same numbers as other voters, and slightly more often than other first-time voters (those aged 18 to 20). In Austria, Latin America, Scotland, Wales and German federal states that lowered the voting age to 16, my colleagues and I consistently find that, when allowed to vote, 16- and 17-year-olds turn out at higher rates than young people who were enfranchised at age 18. Younger people who are in full-time education and often still live at home can make for better, more engaged first-time voters compared with 18- to 20-year-olds, who often experience their first election in a highly transitory phase of their lives, while moving out of the parental home, taking up work or further education. A lower voting age is unlikely to change election outcomes. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds make up between 1.5% and less than 5% of the population in constituencies across the UK. They will have a very small impact on vote shares – and only in the most extreme (and improbable) scenario that all 16- and 17-year-olds turned out to vote and decided to vote in the same way. Those who say that lowering the voting age to 16 is Labour's move to secure more votes at the next general election might be mistaken. Young people as a group have diverse political attitudes; they do not all vote for the same political parties. In Brazil, young people voted quite similarly to other age groups in the 2022 presidential election and in Austria, where young people have been enfranchised since 2007, the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate did not change the political landscape. Even for marginal elections, such as Scotland's 2014 referendum on independence, my colleague Jan Eichhorn from the University of Edinburgh showed that the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds did not change the outcome of the referendum as the youngest first-time voters cast their votes in diverse ways. Any political party can win the support of first-time voters. To do so, political parties have to engage with young people and offer attractive policy proposals. We might also see the media show more younger voters in their reporting. In 2014, BBC Scotland raised the visibility of 16- and 17-year-olds by creating a diverse panel of young first-time voters, who provided input into political programmes, appeared on shows and were among the audience in the final referendum TV debate. Young people who are allowed to vote also influence the adults in their lives. If young people are allowed to participate in elections at 16 and 17, when most are still living at home with their parents, they have the potential to shape political discussions within the family or household. In an ageing society, dinner-table conversations about political issues and across generations can be a good outcome. In the longer term, including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate might make democracy more resilient. In Austria and Latin America, young people who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more satisfied with democracy and democratic institutions – parliament or political parties. The lowering of the voting age also provides an opportunity to address inequalities in who participates in elections. Across all ages we see stark differences in who turns out to vote and who does not. After the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, however, we found 16- and 17-year-olds to be equally engaged with elections, regardless of their social background. Schools and colleges play a crucial role in compensating for the lack of parents or peers to get young people voting. Good and statutory education for all young people makes a big difference for democracy in the long term. Austria has done well in coupling the lowering of the voting age with a big reform of and investment in civic and citizenship education. In Scotland, young adults who remembered taking classes in school in which political issues were discussed were more likely to turn out in elections throughout their 20s. Christine Huebner is a lecturer in quantitative social sciences at the University of Sheffield Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
UK to lower voting age to 16 in landmark electoral reform
By Sam Tabahriti , Reuters The British government says it plans to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. Photo: JONATHAN NICHOLSON / NurPhoto via AFP The British government plans to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections in a major overhaul of the country's democratic system. The government said the proposed changes were part of an effort to boost public trust in democracy and would align voting rights across Britain, where younger voters already participate in devolved elections in Scotland and Wales. "They're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes ... and I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go," Prime Minister Keir Starmer told ITV News. The change will require parliamentary approval, but that is unlikely to present an obstacle because the policy was part of Starmer's election campaign last year which gave him a large majority. Despite that win, Starmer's popularity has fallen sharply in government after a series of missteps set against a difficult economic backdrop. His party sits second in most opinion polls behind Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform UK Party. A poll of 500 16- and 17 year-olds conducted by Merlin Strategy for ITV News showed 33 percent said they would vote Labour, 20 percent would vote Reform, 18 percent would vote Green, 12 percent Liberal Democrats and 10 percent Conservative. There are about 1.6 million 16- and 17 year-olds in the UK, according to official data. Just over 48 million people were eligible to vote at the last election, in which turnout fell to its lowest since 2001. The next election is due in 2029. Research from other countries has shown lowering the voting age had no impact on election outcomes, but that 16-year-olds were more likely to vote than those first eligible at 18. "Voting at 16 will also help more young people to cast that all-important, habit-forming vote at a point when they can be supported with civic education ," said Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. The reforms would also expand acceptable voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards and digital formats of existing IDs, such as driving licences and Veteran Cards. A more automated system will also be introduced to simplify the process of registering to vote. To tackle foreign interference, the government plans to tighten rules on political donations, including checks on contributions over 500 pounds (NZD$1131) from unincorporated associations and closing loopholes used by shell companies. "By reinforcing safeguards against foreign interference, we will strengthen our democratic institutions and protect them for future generations," democracy minister Rushanara Ali said in a statement. - Reuters
Sky News
an hour ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Voter ID won't be scrapped, minister says
When the Conservatives brought in the controversial change to the electoral system which forced people to bring photo ID to polling stations in order to vote, Labour opposed the measure. Sir Keir Starmer said it could risk "locking people out of democracy". Today, the government has decided to continue with the policy, instead announcing it is expanding the forms of ID which will be accepted. Plans are under way for UK-issued bank cards to be included as acceptable forms of ID. This will be legislated for in a new Elections Bill. The democracy minister said the voter ID policy was still in place to prevent "issues from previous elections" including fraud and other forms of election interference. Rushanara Ali said she was aware that legitimate voters, including disabled voters, were excluded from voting at the last election. She added that her plans for expanding which forms of ID will be accepted would be "striking the right balance" of fairness. 4:57 In August last year, the Electoral Commission said some 3% of people do not have photo ID eligible for voting. That includes 14% of people in council housing, 10% of unemployed people and 7% of disabled people. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised questions in previous elections over whether the voter ID policy is discriminatory towards ethnic minority voters and disabled voters. "We are concerned about the impact voter ID had on people who share certain protected characteristics," a spokesperson said. "This could affect the right to free and democratic elections, protected under the Human Rights Act." During the election campaign, both Angela Rayner and the prime minister said the disproportionality of the policy was concerning. Sir Keir told me he would "look into it". The disability charity Mencap welcomed the prospect of a review at the time, but today it seems the government have shelved these plans.
