Voting Age Lowered To 16 In The UK

[Hom3r]

So expect the Green party to get in and petrol and diesel engines to be banned, then probably tax aviation out of the UK.


Yet another big mistake by labour

.

[idi banashapan]

I’m not against young people engaging in politics, but giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote in general elections raises some valid concerns. At that age, the brain is still developing, particularly the areas tied to long-term decision-making, impulse control, and critical thinking. While many teens are bright and well-meaning, the ability to fully grasp complex national issues and weigh their consequences is still maturing. This isn’t about intelligence, it;s about neurological readiness.

There’s also the inconsistency of rights. At 16, you can’t drink, smoke, or be fully held accountable in the legal system, but you’d be allowed to help decide the country’s future? That contradiction muddles what it means to be a responsible adult citizen. Add to that the fact that many teens are highly susceptible to external influence, from social media, school environments, and even parents, and it becomes harder to argue that the average 16 year old is making a truly independent, informed choice. We could end up with a government based around narrow opinions fed via TikTok, which is a scary thought. These feeds are not officially composed messages on political agenda, these are often the uninformed, unverified opinons of other 16 and 17 year olds.

If society wants to lower the voting age, it should come with stronger civic education and clearer alignment of legal responsibilities. Until then, keeping the voting age at 18 seems like the more balanced and coherent approach. Let;s not confuse early enthusiasm with long-term political maturity.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

So expect the Green party to get in and petrol and diesel engines to be banned, then probably tax aviation out of the UK.


Yet another big mistake by liebour

Letting the planet die might be a bigger mistake. Guess the young might care about that a bit more than the selfish older generations.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I’m not against young people engaging in politics, but giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote in general elections raises some valid concerns. At that age, the brain is still developing, particularly the areas tied to long-term decision-making, impulse control, and critical thinking. While many teens are bright and well-meaning, the ability to fully grasp complex national issues and weigh their consequences is still maturing. This isn’t about intelligence, it;s about neurological readiness.

Perhaps much the same might be said about those who voted in all kinds of national things.

Clearly, intelligence does not necessarily begin at 18. We allow adults with legitimate mental issues/impairment the vote. Some 16 year olds are mature and rational-thinking. Some 43-year-olds are seriously immature and lack cognitive skills.

As has been said, if you pay taxes, then you ought to have a say in where you think those taxes go.

Originally Posted by Russ

As has been said, if you pay taxes, then you ought to have a say in where you think those taxes go.

If taxes were the only thing their vote counted towards, I'd entirely agree. However, its not.

While I dont agree with it, lets also just remember to get it in perspective.
Only about 3.5% of the possible voters are 16/17, and they will not all vote.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

Perhaps much the same might be said about those who voted in all kinds of national things.

Clearly, intelligence does not necessarily begin at 18. We allow adults with legitimate mental issues/impairment the vote. Some 16 year olds are mature and rational-thinking. Some 43-year-olds are seriously immature and lack cognitive skills.

As has been said, if you pay taxes, then you ought to have a say in where you think those taxes go.

That is one of the most ridiculous things said in this topic.

First, 84% of 16-27 year olds are in education. https://explore-education-statistics...mployment/2024 which totally knocks the assertion on the head.

Second, by corollary, (and equally ridiculous), if the assertion is to hold, then the 16% in the full time labour market, could have the vote and the 84% not.

Third, and taking in the rest of what you've said, how rational can a 16/17 year old be in relation to national issues when they have no experience framework to which the relate and balance their thinking.

18 is already a young age - but they have a two year advantage on their younger cohort. It is well known that the human brain isn't fully mature before the age of 24 or 25. Why on earth give the vote to an immature teenager?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is one of the most ridiculous things said in this topic.

First, 84% of 16-27 year olds are in education. https://explore-education-statistics...mployment/2024 which totally knocks the assertion on the head.

Second, by corollary, (and equally ridiculous), if the assertion is to hold, then the 16% in the full time labour market, could have the vote and the 84% not.

Third, and taking in the rest of what you've said, how rational can a 16/17 year old be in relation to national issues when they have no experience framework to which the relate and balance their thinking.

18 is already a young age - but they have a two year advantage on their younger cohort. It is well known that the human brain isn't fully mature before the age of 24 or 25. Why on earth give the vote to an immature teenager?

If you pay tax on your earnings you ought to be able to have a say on how you think it should be spent.

It’s as easy as that.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Perhaps much the same might be said about those who voted in all kinds of national things.

Clearly, intelligence does not necessarily begin at 18. We allow adults with legitimate mental issues/impairment the vote. Some 16 year olds are mature and rational-thinking. Some 43-year-olds are seriously immature and lack cognitive skills.

As has been said, if you pay taxes, then you ought to have a say in where you think those taxes go.

You raise a fair point and I completely agree that age doesn't automatically determine intelligence or capability. There are absolutely mature 16 year olds out there, just as there are adults who make consistently poor decisons. My argument isn't about excluding anyone based on intelligence, but about where we draw the baseline for civic (for want of a better word) readiness in a system that needs to be consistent, scalable, and protected from negative influence.

We already accept that certain adult rights (like buying alcohol or serving on a jury) have age restrictions because they require a degree of judgment, emotional regulation / intelligence, and responsibility that typically develops over time. The ability to vote in general elections, with all its long term national impact, seems to fall into that same category, does it not?

As for paying taxes, I get the logic. 'No taxation without representation' is a powerful principle. But I'd argue that a 16year old working part-time and paying a small amount in tax isn;t quite the same as managing a household, paying national insurance, or running a business. If we were to lower the voting age based on tax contribution alone, we'd also need to define what level of contribution grants that right, which opens up a different kind of inequality.

I’m definitely open to the idea of change if it’s paired with comprehensive civic education and a clearer alignment of legal responsibilities across the board. But until then, I still think 18 strikes the best current balance between inclusion and long-term national consequence. If we could get away with it, I'd almost suggest increasing that age. We know the brain and it's cognitive functions are not fully formed until the mid 20s, whcih gives that train of thought a fair arguement, I think.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

If you pay tax on your earnings you ought to be able to have a say on how you think it should be spent.

It’s as easy as that.

I just don't agree it is that simple. There are so many complexities involved that it cannot be that black and white.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I just don't agree it is that simple. There are so many complexities involved that it cannot be that black and white.

We’re constantly being told that Britain needs change. This is change.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

We’re constantly being told that Britain needs change. This is change.

Absolutely. But does any kind of change consitute good change, or the right change? Just because we can does not mean we should.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

If you pay tax on your earnings you ought to be able to have a say on how you think it should be spent.

It’s as easy as that.

If only 16% of 16/17 year olds are paying tax, then why would you award the vote to the other 84% (based on your argument)O?

There is no logic to giving a child the vote other than political gerrymandering by Labour (in this case) relying on the probability that children tend not to care for Conservatives until they have their own house and car etc.

Do you not acknowledge the lack of wisdom and judgement of a child, including 16/17 year olds?

Btw, as regards 18 year olds, not only do they have a 2 year drop on the children, but they have the advantage of 6th form education or two years in work since the age of 16.

On all levels, votes for 16 year olds is wrong.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Absolutely. But does any kind of change consitute good change, or the right change? Just because we can does not mean we should.

Any kind of change has been suggested plenty of times of late. It should follow that just about everyone should be in favour of this.

I don’t see why people are getting their tits in a twist over this. As has previously been said, it won’t add that many to the electorate numbers.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

We’re constantly being told that Britain needs change. This is change.

That's not the needed change. We need economic growth, not political gerrymandering.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Any kind of change has been suggested plenty of times of late. It should follow that just about everyone should be in favour of this.

I don’t see why people are getting their tits in a twist over this. As has previously been said, it won’t add that many to the electorate numbers.

In your opinion, what are the benefits and strengths of allowing 16 years olds to vote on the direction of the nation in a general election?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's not the needed change. We need economic growth, not political gerrymandering.

Ah change, but only your change?

The Tories tried a bit of gerrymandering before the last election altering boundaries to favour themselves. Didn't work and this change may not work in Labours favour.
Getting more people to vote is surely good.

As for young minds still developing/being immature, you could say over 60's minds are declining - should they be refused a vote? Some pensioners pay little or no tax, should they also be barred from voting?