Votes for 16- and 17-year-olds could be extended across Britain – but is it a good idea?

Under-18s already vote in Scotland and Wales, but extending the franchise could soon be policy across the United Kingdom, as Sean O’Grady explains

A young voter leaves a polling station after casting her vote during the 2014 referendum on Scotland’s independence (Getty)

One of the most fundamental long-term changes in Britain’s system of democracy has been promised by at least five political parties in the past week or so, yet with comparatively little attention or debate. The Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, and now Labour have all unequivocally committed to granting full voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, for Westminster and all other elections.

Given the likelihood of a Labour administration with an unassailable parliamentary majority, it’s worth quoting the party’s pledge: “We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.” It seems that only the Conservatives, Reform UK and the DUP want the age for UK general elections left at 18. The implications could be profound, and unpredictable.

Why does Labour (along with other parties) want to reduce the voting age?

A cynic would say it is for pure partisan advantage. Although we don’t know exactly how all 16- and 17-year-olds would vote, it seems a reasonable assumption that the Conservatives and indeed Reform UK wouldn’t do well out of the change, at least in the short term.

According to polling company Redfield and Wilton, present surveys put the Conservatives and Reform UK on 8 per cent and 7 per cent respectively in voting intention among 18- to 24-year-olds (against 50 per cent for Labour, 9 per cent each for the Liberal Democrats and Greens, and 13 per cent who don’t know).

Less cynically, Keir Starmer argues: “If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.”

Will it make a difference?

There are about 1.6 million 16- and 17-year-olds in the UK, of whom about 1.3 million would meet the citizenship requirements; the total electorate is currently about 46.6 million. So, depending on their propensity to vote and party preferences, they would make a relatively modest change to the outcome in most general elections. But in a tight contest, they might tilt things Labour’s way. By contrast, there are more than half a million Britons aged 90 and over, and their numbers are growing.

What would teenage voters want?

A restoration of the educational maintenance grant (for sixth formers and equivalent) in England would seem an obvious ask; and generally improved opportunities for degree places and apprenticeships, including lower tuition fees, improved living allowances and softer student loans (if any). At the moment, they also seem more concerned about equality and climate change (where they have more to lose) than older cohorts. In Scotland, younger voters tend to favour independence, too.

Younger voters are also more in favour of closer ties to the European Union – though polls are inconclusive on whether they would support rejoining. A December 2023 YouGov poll found that 60 per cent of voters aged 18 to 24 believe that Britain was wrong to leave the EU, a higher proportion than in older age groups.

Could it work?

It already does. Younger people were made eligible to vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, a policy now extended to all local and devolved elections in Scotland and Wales (but not Northern Ireland). The franchise has also been set at 16 in Brazil, Austria and the Isle of Man, for example, and in various state and regional elections in many more nations.

What are the dangers?

One is that young Britons might follow the recent example of their counterparts in Europe and swing to the hard right and far right, with concomitant risks to democracy.

A far more damaging effect is the further politicisation of the franchise. When the rules of the game can be rigged for (apparent or real) partisan advantage, trust is eroded and the risk of instability increased. Thus, many believe that the changes to voting rules and other changes brought in by the last Conservative government endowed them with an unfair advantage and suppressed the vote for groups more likely to vote Labour: extending the vote to all ex-pats indefinitely; compulsory photographic ID; moving from preferential voting to first-past-the-post for mayoral elections; and reducing the independence of the Electoral Commission. Now, it would seem, it is Labour’s turn.

Is there a better way?

Yes. All such essentially constitutional changes should only be implemented with cross-party support and a sense of national consensus, and be subject to examination and analysis by the Electoral Commission, a special Commons committee, a Speaker’s Conference, or the like. The alternative is for changes to be reversed every time there’s a change in governing party based on a manifesto promise. Taking votes away from 16- and 17-year-olds in the future would be a controversial move, to say the least. Arguably, such constitutional changes should be subject to a referendum, as was the case with voting reform in 2011. However, the original lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18, votes for women over 30, and then votes for women at the same age as men, were all achieved purely by acts of parliament.