I am not sure anyone has clamoured for a lowering of the voting age to 16, as Labour is now promising.
I have heard vast numbers of people say they would like votes that count, as proportional representation would deliver, and which Labour is not proposing.
Why does it keep failing so spectacularly?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Firstly I see few if any calls for voting at 16
Secondly while the age of majority is now 18, if anything things have rolled slightly backwards with the raising of the school leaving age to 18
It looks like an attempt to ‘do something’ when that something is not a widely supported move, or has a moral imperative.
On the other hand there is so much that could be done that would either have widespread support OR a moral case for action – two child rule being a prime example
Labour is failing a lot of us, but in its own world it is succeeding in delivering for its paymasters – and delivery of that is simply holding the line that is driving austerity and increasing rent extraction opportunities for the rich.
Probably Labour is hoping that most of the 16 – 18 year olds might vote Labour and PR would lead to less voters preferring Labour to any of the alternatives. It may be wrong about the first, but right about the second. As a result the political sh*t show will rumble on whilst the UK continues to crumble. I have no problem with giving the vote to 16 year olds – after all they have their futures ahead of them unlike me in my late sixties. I was also impressed with the level of political awareness amongst that group in the Scottish independence referendum. They seemed far more informed than the average Reform voter.
Labour probably do hope that lowering the voting age will benefit them, but I have my doubts about it. Being an ex-teacher, I have a number of teacher friends and all of them tell me that generally boys would vote Reform and girls the Greens. They all tell me that girls and boys have never been politically as apart as they are now. I really can’t see 16 and 17-year olds voting en masse for Starmer and Reeves.
I think that divide is really interesting – and worrying
Thank you.
I have heard about that, too, and similarly in the US.
It’s 20 years since I worked in FE and was a Head of Department that only taught 16-19 year olds and I think you would be shocked and horrified at how right wing that age group of boys can be!
I strongly suspect there is a difference N and S of the border. Yes,16 year olds were aware of the independence issues in Scotland.
Tom and Peter have stated that (down South ?) there is evidence of young men are going towards Reform….
We shouldn’t forget that, generally there seems to be an even lower level of political awareness “down South”. Dumbing down any political assessment and refusing airtime to non-neoliberal views are clearly working! But what is the end game? A basket case society in one generation with a wealthy minority with nowhere to go? Far from the desirable societies of N Europe…….
England needs an Independent Scotland to show a positive example ………….
”Clamouring” would be overstating it. Sure it’s a step in consistency and fairness but there are bigger fish to fry. As you indicate, Voting reform to more proportional results would be more on the ‘clamouring’ scale
How many 16-18 year olds have some kind of ID acceptable for the new voter ID requirements? Surely many have fake ID claiming they are 18 in order to be served alcohol in bars or see films that are classified as 18. Who is going to scrutinise these at voting sites?
Though to vote you don’t just turn up with ID, you have to be on the electoral roll. This requires you to provide evidence that you are entitled to vote. If you turn up with however-correct ID at a polling station and you’re not on the relevant electoral roll list for that district, you’ll be turned away. Of course previously you just needed to say who you were and confirm your address (and often present your polling card) and that was enough. There were very few suspicions of ‘personation’ however flimsy that system appears on paper.
If Labour think these young people are going to vote for them they have seriously misread the room.
Probably going to cook up some policies that appeal to young voters. Probably policy launch later this year, early next in an effort to head off the disasters facing them in Scotland and Wales (= electoral wipe out).
translation = bribe
Trouble is Mike, Labour have lied too often and reneged on publicly statwd pledges, missions, visions, (fill in any BS think tank speak of choice) they think the proles will fall for.
The kids aren’t stupid. It will be great to see them give Liebour the two fingers they deserve, hopefully voting for whichever genuinely left of centre candidates are standing.
“Labout”
Great typo, great slogan.
My wife thought so too….
The main hope many will have from that change is that it shows willingness to introduce voting changes. If that then translates to ending FPTP, great. If not, then I suspect 16 a d 17 year olds will generally lean more left than the general population, which would be good, but they may also be vulnerable to dishonest but polished calls to their feelings. As such it also risks an increase in populism.
Boys of this age are now, very often, very right wing.
I was going to say the same thing. Young white men have picked up a real sense of victimhood in recent years, leading to some very toxic beliefs. It’s just another case of bad actors exploiting inequality. Can’t get a job? Work harder. Can’t get a house? Immigrants. Can’t get a woman? Feminism, or gold digging women who only respect wealth. All very predictable, and solvable by giving people access to self esteem again, but still the government asks “how has this happened?” While continuing to perpetuate the conditions that ferment it. Many boys and young men are broken and it’s really sad, and a timebomb waiting to go off. Look at all the well dressed young men in Reform.
Actually, referencing my previous comment, I just had the horrible thought that it is Labours intention to go after these young right wing males in yet another misguided attempt to not be outflanked on the Right by Reform.
Quite probably
Tom B
I am not sure how recent a development that is, or whether it is more young men are now open about it.
NF and the BNP were predominantly men.
My elder brother who is now 71 always claimed that white men were the most discriminated group in society, from around the 80’s.
He is wrong, and absurdly so
Cyndy Hodgson
Back then the far Right got at men through the punk scene, and football hooliganism. Now they just need to get them through their phones and computers. The amount of young men who I hear say things like “feminism has gone too far” is quite chilling. It hasn’t gone far enough in my opinion, and how exactly do they think they will put women back their place? It’s very worrying.
Agreed
I don’t know how many here are close to the young men demographic (in lived experience) but the young have always been easily led down the wrong path with the right message, absolutely nothing about that has changed over time as history teaches us. At a time when teenagers are coming of age, becoming adults, what message are we giving them about their role in society? What is it to be a man in 2025? Ask what it is to be a woman and most people at 15 can give you an answer, even if it might not align with gender definitions you might hold.
At the end of the day the young want change, they can see the system isn’t working and no-one is helping them. So they reach out to whoever is and unfortunately it’s guru like figures, Mr Tate, Mr Farage, Mr Stevenson etc offering the hand. As I mentioned in another post, it’s no surprise critical thinking, economics, taxes, our very chequered past and many other things are not taunt.
I guess they’re hoping to make the 2029 disaster less bad than it’s going to be. Unfortunately for them, most of this cohort will vote for Corbyn’s new party.
The idea that 16 and 17 year olds aren’t informed is just ludicrous. I’d happily wager they’re more informed on issues than the average Reform voter, or 90-year old Tory voter.
I couldn’t reference the relevant source but I think this is part of Labour’s pretend ‘cleaning up politics’ initiative.
Obviously they should (but wont) produce a brief report listing what’s wrong – corrupt money funding political parteis and politicians , distorted voting system, revulsion from politics among the population, MP’s second jobs, corrupt honours system, revolving door for ex ministers moving to corporates they were previously ‘regulating’ etc etc.
They should then say what they think they can or cant do about each issue. But that would be inviting a conversation with the public – and among politicians – and thats anathema to this Labour govt.
I have never understood why no recent government has changed the actual method of voting.
Every other major system is computerised, so why, when they are trying to encourage younger people to vote, is the only way to do that, the same that has existed for several hundred years.
Many people now would never go through that process, of indicating something on a piece of paper, for anything else in their lives
Votes on paper counted in public are the only reasonable way to avoid voter fraud.
IT systems can be hacked and there have been numerous claims about voting machines in the US changing votes or failing to register votes. How to verify remote IT voting?
Even with paper votes, there have been claims of ballot stuffing and boxes getting ‘lost’ on the way to the vote counting centre. But paper votes are probably the least hackable system.
Maybe the clamour is at his breakfast table and nowhere else, his two children being teenagers and affects them.
From wiki :
Keir Starmer has two children, a son born in 2008 and a daughter born in 2010. Both children are being raised in their mother’s Jewish heritage and culture.
No need to move the age from 18 because of all the other things you can’t do until then. If you aren’t allowed to learn to drive a car until you are 17, or have an alcoholic drink in a pub until you are 18, it is perverse to say that you can help elect a government at the age of 16.
What I do favour, however, is making voting compulsory as they do in some countries such as Australia, under pain of a small fine. Make it a public holiday, make it easier to vote with the option, “None of the above” and you’ll get a better representation from a wider electorate.
No doubt this theory is full of holes, but it seems more desirable than not to me.
All are better than what they are doing
From an interview with Danny Dyer, by Ed Cummings in the Telegraph today:
“Dyer said of the Prime Minister: “He’s a f—— non-entity. I feel sorry for the people when he goes to a factory and they put these poor people behind him and you can tell they all hate his guts.
“We need a leader. He’s not a leader. I don’t know what the f— he is. He’s only in power because the Tories were such c—s.”
Going on to say “nobody in politics is likeable”, he added: “Where’s the working-class people? They should be running our country, not people pretending they’re working class because they’ve had a pint in a pub.”
Harsh but fair I feel, Danny!
Agreed
In my humble opinion PR is definitely the way to go but this blog is primarily about tax, yet nobody seems to have mentioned that 16 and 17 year old people are able to earn their own wages and so could pay income tax & NI. Perhaps their rallying cry should be “No taxation without representation”.
Agree it might not be the most useful reform but in their defence – I guess – it was in their manifesto so it is not unsurprising that they will attempt to deliver it.