Bill to allow 16 year olds to vote to be debated in parliament

Basgetti

Can’t quote for some reason, Oreo.
Yes, I expect mum does vote as stepdad suggests, which goes against the whole point of voting.

I wonder if the carers were influencing my relative. Scary thought.

Can’t quote for some reason, Oreo.
Yes, I expect mum does vote as stepdad suggests, which goes against the whole point of voting.

And reform of the House of Lords (selection and tenure.)
Definitely.

Norah

Graphite

FranP

Never had a mortgage; never had to live alone, pay for rent, fuel or food, possibly not for clothes except fashion items.

Never had to decide if they can ever afford to have children.

Nor had I when I first voted at 19, save handing over some of my wage to my mother as housekeeping.

I worked from age 16 (15 if you count holiday jobs) married at 20; the first time I had had my own home and paid a mortgage. It made no difference to my political views which are no different 50 years later.

Nowaday, many young adults are still living with their parents well into their 30s. By your argument, they shouldn't have a vote either.

I quite agree.

We married when I was 16 and he was 18, had a mortgage.

Certainly old enough to vote!

We married when I was 16 and he was 18, had a mortgage.

But you probably did't have a vote until 21.

In fact, the first time I could vote in a General Election was when I was 25!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

In the US they can hold a driving licence, but legal drinking age is 21. Vote at 18.

Graphite

FranP

Never had a mortgage; never had to live alone, pay for rent, fuel or food, possibly not for clothes except fashion items.

Never had to decide if they can ever afford to have children.

Nor had I when I first voted at 19, save handing over some of my wage to my mother as housekeeping.

I worked from age 16 (15 if you count holiday jobs) married at 20; the first time I had had my own home and paid a mortgage. It made no difference to my political views which are no different 50 years later.

Nowaday, many young adults are still living with their parents well into their 30s. By your argument, they shouldn't have a vote either.

I quite agree.

We married when I was 16 and he was 18, had a mortgage.

Certainly old enough to vote!

We’re in agreement Allira- this drink driving conviction is not representative of all young people and has no relevance to young people’s voting decision.

LemonJam

A horrendous incident and yes Allira as she was old enough to drive she should have got an insurance and driven responsibly. The woman, Liberty Mitchell is 21 now- incident occurred 2/12/2022 just over 3 years ago when she was 18, less than 2 months after passing her driving test. She was driving without insurance so driving illegally and dishonestly. The judge said "you were at the time a reckless and immature young driver suffering from the fairly common teenage delusion that you were invulnerable and free to do as you wish". Thank goodness all early adult drivers are not like her.

Thank goodness also that a voting decision at either 16,17, 18, 19, 20, or 21 can be made by post or walking to a polling station and does not require any driving skills.

The case has only just come to court, that is why I mentioned it.

She is not representative of many young people of 18, of course, and perhaps her brain will not have matured even when she is 25 and one such person does not prove the point.

Whether or not someone can walk to a polling station is irrelevant.
It is whether young people are old enough to vote at 16 or even 18. It used to be 21.

My DS told my DGS after he passed his test to remember he was still learning. It takes time to become an experienced driver and know your limitations.
He did listen to his dad and he is a safe driver.

A horrendous incident and yes Allira as she was old enough to drive she should have got an insurance and driven responsibly. The woman, Liberty Mitchell is 21 now- incident occurred 2/12/2022 just over 3 years ago when she was 18, less than 2 months after passing her driving test. She was driving without insurance so driving illegally and dishonestly. The judge said "you were at the time a reckless and immature young driver suffering from the fairly common teenage delusion that you were invulnerable and free to do as you wish". Thank goodness all early adult drivers are not like her.

Thank goodness also that a voting decision at either 16,17, 18, 19, 20, or 21 can be made by post or walking to a polling station and does not require any driving skills.

MaizieD

^As LemonJam has pointed out, the brain does not mature by 18 or even 21, so that would suggest that perhaps voting age should be in the mid-20s^

See my post a 11.30 am

When is an adult not an adult?

A young woman has just been sentenced to six years eight months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving, driving whilst uninsured and three other counts of causing serious injury. She was overtaking three cars recklessly at 96 mph approaching the top of a hill. She had passed her test two weeks previously.

The case is shocking but she was given the minimum sentence because of her age, apparently.

Simon Stirling, defending, suggested Mitchell’s actions were a result of “inexperience rather than irresponsibility”.

He said Mitchell had only recently passed her driving test and would not have understood the risk of the manoeuvre she was attempting.
Really?

If she is old enough to drive and is an adult, surely she should know and accept that comes with responsibilities?

MaizieD

^As LemonJam has pointed out, the brain does not mature by 18 or even 21, so that would suggest that perhaps voting age should be in the mid-20s^

See my post a 11.30 am

Sorry, MaizieD, I realise that you had said that, and I should have mentioned you , but I hadn't followed the whole thread as it developed, and so there are probably others whom I should have mentioned too.

AGAA4- I have a 16 year old god daughter and share your experience. I remember being a 16 year old and my parents took the Daily Mail and my mother praised Maggie Thatcher to the hilt. I was interested in politics and read things in DM but also read other things at school and watched the news so developed my own opinions and views.

Then I got my vote at 18 and then waited for the election 1979 and did not vote for Maggie Thatcher. My Mum asked me who I voted for I answered its a secret ballot. Then she asked whether I was pleased MT won- I made the mistake in saying no. She hit the roof and I remember her saying 'we brought you up in the proper way- why would you vote for anyone but MT....' Actually, bless her, she brought me up to think for myself - job done.

Having discussed politics with my 16 year old GS I think he knows more about it than many adults.
All my GCs have valid opinions and don't just vote for the party their family have always voted for like so many adults.
A yougov poll suggests that many young people up to age 24 will vote Greens.
I know not all 16 year olds may have the ability to vote wisely but I'm sure many adults don't either.

The brain becomes fully matures in the mid 20s. Thereafter slowly declines/ages. This criteria is not applied to any consideration of voting cessation age- so not a commensurate argument. Plus the brain does not fully mature until mid 20s argument does not take into account 'capacity' in the run up towards full maturation, ie capacity at 16 compared to capacity at current voting age of 18 in England. Scientifically a 16 year old's brain, at that stage of development, is strong and capable of analytical processing. As I posted previously my criteria for making this decision is based on is a 16 year old capable of making a voting decision and would it be bad for society if given the vote. Many 16 years old realistically will not choose to vote- just as many people over 18 don't.

So yes they are capable- and no the evidence suggests in Scotland and other countries it hasn't been bad for society. What the research shows in Scotland is positive voting engagement of 16 years olds proportionately, across socio economic groups, possibly because they value being enfranchised and take an interest. And that their voting interest continues, again across socio economic groups, after they turn 18 and beyond which is of positive benefit to society. No negative outcomes were found.

Feel free to put forward any reasons why you personally may feel 16 year old should not be allowed to vote but the research evidence from Scotland shows it's been a good thing. That cant be argued with easily.

As LemonJam has pointed out, the brain does not mature by 18 or even 21, so that would suggest that perhaps voting age should be in the mid-20s

See my post a 11.30 am

Wheniwasyourage

icanhandthemback

There is ample of scientific evidence that there is a lack of consequences linked to actions in young people caused by the way the brain is maturing. The Prefrontal Cortex which is responsible for complex, rational, and long-term thinking is the last part to fully mature. Politically the parties might have their ideas but you can't just trounce science. That is what I base my argument against voting at 16.

As LemonJam has pointed out, the brain does not mature by 18 or even 21, so that would suggest that perhaps voting age should be in the mid-20s.

I was among those who were newly allowed to vote when we were 18. Society did not collapse. Now 16-year-olds in Scotland and Wales can vote, and - surprise, surprise - society has not collapsed. Anyway, if Nigel Farage is against it, that seems to me to be a good reason to go for it, whether that is voting at 16 or anything else.

True but every year you do get more brain maturity. At 16 that part of the brain is far more immature.

icanhandthemback

There is ample of scientific evidence that there is a lack of consequences linked to actions in young people caused by the way the brain is maturing. The Prefrontal Cortex which is responsible for complex, rational, and long-term thinking is the last part to fully mature. Politically the parties might have their ideas but you can't just trounce science. That is what I base my argument against voting at 16.

As LemonJam has pointed out, the brain does not mature by 18 or even 21, so that would suggest that perhaps voting age should be in the mid-20s.

I was among those who were newly allowed to vote when we were 18. Society did not collapse. Now 16-year-olds in Scotland and Wales can vote, and - surprise, surprise - society has not collapsed. Anyway, if Nigel Farage is against it, that seems to me to be a good reason to go for it, whether that is voting at 16 or anything else.

Tuliptree

knspol

16 year olds have far too many other things to deal with, GCSE's, school, friendship groups, online activity, music, socialising, boyfriend/girlfriend issues etc etc. Imo they do not have the time (and probably the inclination) to spend the requisite amount of time to understand and decide which party they should vote for.

Whereas their parents have nothing to do but go out to work, raise the children, do the shopping, cook the meals, clean the house, do the washing and ironing, help out friends snd family, organise summer holidays, plan a birthday party, help with the homework, get quotes for house snd car renewal insurance. take thr car for its service … thank goodness they're not too busy

Tuliptree

As adults we all do all of those things and often many more but to us as adults they are our priorities/necessities. I think 16 yr olds have many different priorities and calls on their time that at their age are probably much more important to them rather than listening to the manifestos of various politicians and spending enough time to make the right decision for them.

As only about half of adults actually bother to vote now then I wouldn’t think that most 16 year olds will bother!

"Cynical of the Labour Party to pursue this 16 year olds vote idea and the Koke will be on them if as predicted they vote for the greens".

More the case its cynical of those who seek to pin this "idea" on the Labour Party alone"- its a multi organisation coalition campaign, of some 18 years, including other political parties. It took until 2024 till Labour was in power to take action as the Conservative Party is one of the few parties that did not support the coalition and sought to vote the coalition down in debates.

Wikipedia: Votes at 16 is a campaign in the United Kingdom which argues in favour of the reduction of the voting age to 16 for all public elections. The campaign espouses several principles in favour of lowering the voting age.[1]
The Votes at 16 Coalition is a national group of major UK youth organisations, political parties and other supporters that campaign for 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote in all UK public elections.[2][3] The coalition is led by a steering group of active members who include the British Youth Council, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, The Co-operative Group, the National Union of Students and the Scottish Youth Parliament. This group of organisations have been campaigning on Votes at 16 for a number of years and meet regularly to plan and develop the campaign. Other member organisations of the coalition consist of the Electoral Reform Society, YMCA, the National Youth Agency and the European Youth Forum among many more. The many, many, current member organisations supporting the coalition (listed on Wikipedia) including for example TUC, Barnado’s, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Scottish Greens, Electoral Reform Society, Liberal Democrats UK, Liberal Party, Unison etc etc.

Parliamentary activity
Aside from youth organisations, The Votes at 16 coalition has a vast supportive network of politicians who have backed the call to lower the voting age to 16 in the UK. These politicians range from local UK councils, Members of Parliament, Lords, and Members of European Parliament to Members of Scottish Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly and Welsh Assembly Members. In 2008 members of the coalition met a few MPs ahead of the second reading of the Voting Age (Reduction) Bill in the UK Parliament, but the bill was talked down by Stewart Jackson, Conservative MP for Peterborough.[4] The Labour Party's Conference in 2008 voted to accept the recommendation of Labour's National Policy Forum to support Votes at 16.[5].

If we're going to use brain development as a reason not to give the vote to 16 yr olds then perhaps we should delay giving the vote to anyone under 25?

From AI

The human brain is generally considered fully developed around age 25.

Why 25?

The last major part of the brain to finish developing is the prefrontal cortex — the area responsible for:

Decision-making

Planning and long-term thinking

Impulse control

Risk assessment

Emotional regulation

This region continues maturing through the early and mid-20s.

The impact of 16-18 year old voters on the results will be minimal. It’s a price Labour will have to pay if young people who would have chosen to vote for them vote elsewhere, and that’s fair enough I think. The point is though, Labour haters would be criticising them for not doing another thing that has been their policy for years and was in the manifesto if they didn’t do it - so they can’t win for some on this one whatever they do.

Casdon

It’s been Labour policy for years Oreo, it’s not something Starmer dreamed up.

I actually said ‘ if Starmer thinks it will help his cause’ i.e. Labour.
It’s quite cynical for them to pursue this 16 year olds vote idea and the joke will be on them if as predicted they vote for the Greens.