Thread by @JamesCleverly

Other than “it might be popular with young people” can you give me one credible reason that votes at 16 should be introduced?

I’ve let the votes at 16 thread run for a while and there have been a good number or responses.

The pro votes at 16 arguments cluster around a number of areas which I will address and then explain why I think it’s not a good idea. 1.

“Decisions made by politicians will affect them longer.”

This is true, but it’s just as true (even more so) for 15, 14, 13 year olds etc. If we accept that children (I’ll come on to this later) aren’t the same as adults we need to have a cut off age. 2.

“They can pay tax, no taxation without representation”.

Lots of people under the age of 16 also pay tax. Children pay VAT on lots of their purchases and if they earn enough (child actors, child models, etc)

Paying taxes is not the definition of adulthood. 3.

“It’s like votes for women, it’s a fairness thing.”

This argument centres on the premise that 16/17 year olds are equal to adults in the same way that women are equal to men.

British and international law doesn’t agree. (More later) .4

“They can vote in Scottish elections.”

Devolution means Scotland can do things differently from other parts of the UK, & vica versa. Also Scotland is an international outlier, 26/27 EU states have votes at 18 as do vast bulk of other countries. 5.

So if we are going to copy the electoral precedent of elsewhere why not one of the (much larger number) of countries that have votes at 18? 5a.

“They are as switched on a adults”

In very many cases thus us true, but as a society, and internationally, we define 16/17 year olds as children. In the UN charter on the rights of a child, a child is defined as a human under 18 years of age. 6.

“They can join the army and get married”

In both these it must be with parental consent, recognising that 16/17 year olds are not ready to make such significant decisions unaided. The armed forces won’t send 16/17 yo to war as it breaches UN conventions on child soldiers 7.

16/17 year olds can get married in Scotland without parental consent but as I said in point 5, devolution means that “they do it in Scotland” is a weak argument. 7a.

My fundamental reason for opposing votes at 16 is that, both the UK & international community agree that people under 18 are defined as children.

I feel that voting should remain in the basket of activities that are reserved for adults. 8.

If we want have a conversation about redefining 16/17 year olds as adults then let’s do that but we would also need to talk about removing a host of current legal protections and limitations. 9.

If 16/17 year olds are mature enough to vote surely they are mature enough to smoke, drink, but knives, get a mortgage, book a sunbed, get a credit card, get a mobile phone contract etc etc all of which they are currently prevented from doing by law. 10

And if 16/17 year olds break those laws should we sent them to adult prisons instead of to young offenders institutions? 11.

Labour’s current passion to give votes to 16/17 year olds stinks of opportunism. Why didn’t they take use their 13 years in government and huge majorities to make this change? 12

Labour are only interested in 16/17 year olds voting now because they think it’s in their political advantage to do so.

As we’ve seen all over Europe, it’s the young who are disproportionately hurt by failed left wing politics 13

So even if 16/17 year olds vote Labour the first time (& not all will), I have little doubt they will reject them in future elections once they feel the impact of surging youth unemployment and economic collapse.

Young people may be inexperienced but they’re not daft. 14