There's one big reason the Tories will never allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote - but they won't admit it

As a Scottish resident, I saw personally the level of engagement from other teenagers during the independence referendum as we debated the arguments meticulously before coming to our own informed decisions. It's a shame those people will be shut out because of party politics

Members of Generation Yes - a youth and students campaigning for a Yes vote in Scotland's independence referendum last year. Labour and Liberal Democrat peers want the voting age lowered to 16 in time for the EU referendum (Getty)

The conflict between the two chambers in Westminster continued last month when the Lords backed plans to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the upcoming EU referendum. The support from the Lords was welcomed by many who saw it as an opportunity to increase political engagement among teenagers. As a 17-year-old myself who will be refused the right to vote in the referendum next year if it is held before December, which is very likely, I also welcomed the news.

However, the government – which opposes extending the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds – were again not pleased with the decision made by the Lords and made it clear they would block the amendment when it was put before the House of Commons. With a majority in parliament, they did exactly that.

In the process of refusing 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the EU referendum the Government has denied the younger generation a say in their own future. The arguments against allowing this age group to vote, in general, not just in this referendum, are very weak indeed. When you are old enough to pay tax, join the army, get married or register a civil partnership with consent, enter the world of work and leave home, then surely you should be able to vote on such an important issue that will inevitably affect you in the future.

Claiming that teenagers over the age of 16 are incapable of making sensible decisions is simply untrue – and if it were true, then all the aforementioned rights would never have been granted to 16 and 17-year-olds. As a Scottish resident, I saw personally the level of engagement from other teenagers during the independence referendum as we debated the arguments meticulously before coming to our own informed decisions. These are people that will be engaged politically now for the rest of their lives, which can only benefit our democracy.

So why did the Conservatives refuse to back the amendment? If they had allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the EU referendum then inevitably pressure would have mounted on them to allow this specific age group to vote in future elections. This would mean 1.5 million more young people voting in the next general election. And the reason this prospect is deeply unpopular among Conservative ranks is because they know young people are far more inclined to vote for Labour.

According to Ipsos-MORI, 43 per cent of 18-24 year-olds voted for Labour in the last general election, compared to only 27 per cent for the Conservatives. Following the trend in the Ipsos-MORI figures, which shows that the younger you are, the more likely you are to vote for Labour, it would therefore be conceivable that the percentage of those voting for Labour among 16-17 year-olds would be even higher than in the 18-24 age group.

Given the amount of young people who would be allowed to vote as a result of any change, and their clear preference for left-wing politics, future general elections could be decided by this age group. Therefore, to allow 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the EU referendum, along with subsequent general elections, has the potential to be a strategic disaster for the Conservative Party, hence their rejection of the amendment.

Clearly, to provide such a reason in public is not feasible, but it is clear that strategists have good reasons for happily sending teens off to war while denying that they have the capacity to make sensible voting decisions. Nobody wants to score an own goal, after all.

Nevertheless, decisions regarding voting eligibility should never be based on party politics, which makes the decision even more reprehensible. We should always strive for more involvement in political decision-making, especially the notoriously disaffected youth. This amendment provided the government with the opportunity to engage thousands of teenagers in politics. Instead, they simply chose to prioritise the future of their own party.