If they can train as soldiers, we should let them vote
Bubble — By Julie Morgan MP on December 30, 2009 7:00 am
How could we make this time of life even sweeter?
IT WAS Robert Kennedy who said that “This world demands the qualities of youth” and who would not agree? Kennedy saw this age as “not a time of life but a state of mind … a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease”. It’s true that people can keep these qualities alive throughout their lives, but I think that it’s time that we valued these qualities in the young themselves – their imagination, courage and engagement with society.
In 2007, I presented a Private Members’ Bill to the House of Commons which tried to do just this: it called for the voting age to be lowered from 18 to 16 for all public elections in the UK. In June 2008, there was a robust debate on the Bill on the floor of the House, but unfortunately, due to lack of time, the Bill fell. Since then, I have continued to campaign on this issue and I’m pleased to say that in 2008, the policy of votes at 16 was debated and approved at Labour’s National Policy Forum and was voted through at the Labour Party Conference. I hope very much that the policy will be included in our election manifesto.
Whenever the topic of votes at 16 comes up, I find that people have strong reactions one way or the other. It’s one of those issues that people seem to have a gut reaction to and sometimes those not in favour are very forthright in their opposition. Once the case has been made, however, I find that people can be won over.
Votes at 16 is an idea whose time has come, and there are many good reasons to extend the franchise. In general, this is the age when many young people start to make key decisions about their lives and when many rights and responsibilities come into play. For instance, many 16-year-olds work and pay taxes and should have some say in where their taxes go. There should surely be no taxation without representation – wars have, after all, been fought over such things. The Department of Work and Pensions estimates that in the past decade, the tax liability for 16 and 17-year-olds was a considerable £550 million, and it seems only right and fair that those who help to pay for our society to work should have some say in the direction that it takes.
Young people can also do a lot of other things at 16 – join the military and marry, for example – and to deny them the vote seems very inconsistent. (In April 2007, there were 4,560 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK armed forces and in 2006-07, 30% of all new recruits were under 18 years of age). As one young person said to me: “Either leave us out or take us in”. At the moment, we seem to be giving mixed messages and it is now time to invite young people in.
I also think their participation in the democratic process would provide just the shot in the arm that our democracy needs, given low voter turnout. Getting people to vote from a young age means that they then participate in the democratic process throughout their lives. Those who start young usually continue the habit of voting.
In addition, since most young people of 16 are still in full-time education, we would have a wonderful opportunity to make what happens in the classroom extraordinarily relevant to life outside school. Young people would have the chance to discuss key election issues with both their peers and their teachers in citizenship classes and then they would be able to vote. The abstract would become concrete and we’d have a whole group of people making very informed decisions about who to vote for. As WB Yeats said: “Education should not be the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”, and I can’t think of a better way to spark the interest of our young people.
I also think that if 16-year-olds had the vote, politicians would have to take more notice of the concerns of young people and that this would not be a bad thing at all. Too often, young people are either ignored or spoken for and this needs to change. I’m always struck when I meet with students from schools in my constituency of Cardiff North just how well-informed and enthusiastic they are about politics – and how little we hear from them.
We would not be going out on a limb by giving the vote to 16 year-olds. It’s become a reality in several parts of the British Isles – in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote. In 2008, the National Assembly for Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of lowering the voting age to 16, and the Scottish Parliament also backs votes at 16 for all elections in Scotland. There are also some international precedents – young voters in Austria and some German Lander are able to take part in elections. Votes at 16 is also backed by over 40 organisations working for young people and democracy, including the Electoral Reform Society, Funky Dragon (the Young People’s Assembly for Wales), the UK Youth Parliament, the British Youth Council, and the Children’s Rights Alliance in England.
I think that we need to give young people the vote – this in itself would provide a vote of confidence in them and help to counter the many unfair negative stereotypes of young people that are often peddled in the press. I think that they would live up to our expectations.
Over 1.5 million 16 and 17 year-olds are denied the vote in the UK – let’s make them count. Let’s make 16 even sweeter.
Tags: 2010 General Election, engagement, Julie Morgan MP, taxation, voting, young people
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
7 Comments
But they can’t fight until they are 18. It’s bad enough seeing an 18 year old return home in a coffin. Just imagine the effect of 16 year olds fighting in Afghanistan. I’m assuming that if the voting age is changed to 16 then logic would suggest that this means that the age when a person is considered to be an adult will also be reduced. This will mean the repeal of recent government legislation which makes it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone under 18. It should also mean that anyone over the age of 16 should be able to purchase alcohol. I’m sure the drinking palaces in St Mary’s Street and Wind Street will be the first to support the reduction of the voting age to 16. At the moment CRB checks are required for anyone working with a 17 year old. This would have to stop if 16 is now the new age of adult hood. I also can’t see how those who are allowed to vote can be debarred from driving a motor vehicle until they are 17. As for young offenders institutions then they will have to close. If you are old enough to vote then you are probably old enough to do the prison sentence with other adults.
This is a typical piece of gesture politics which does not even touch the real issue of the disengagement of so many people with the political process. At the moment less than 40 % of the 18-24 age group bothers to vote. In recent Assembly elections the majority in most constituencies have shown by their lack of interest that they couldn’t care less who represented them in Cardiff Bay. The turnout in most UK constituencies is not much better. If I were someone under the age of 18 I would be more interested in politicians who were prepared to develop a policy agenda which might give me a chance of employment than give me the vote. A third of those unemployed at the moment are under the age of 24. The real issue for many young people in the valleys is will they ever work.
Wether or not someone pays taxes is also a pretty poor reason for extending the franchise. If you use that logic then all university students would not be able to vote and where does this argument leave the unemployed. In fact failure to contribute to society was exactly the reason goiven a hundred years ago by those who argued that free school meals should see the loss of the franchise. If politicians wish to help young people then they should look at the suggestion that perhaps they should be excempt from NI and even tax in order to encourage employers to help the UK avoid another lost generation .
Excuse me while I disagree with you Jeff.
Are you seriously suggesting that lowering the voting age will lower our sense of what age is adulthood? Surely not only is voting still not a massive enough participation sport to affect things in such a manner, but also the horse has bolted.
Consumerism, the media, the internet and the general shift towards an information society have made the young seem older. You seem to have adopted a rather silly view that this is a ‘slippery slope’ to all rights we get at 18 being shifted to 16 – what about smoking? what about the minimum wage? Where 16-18 year olds flip burgers, work in shops and probably for councils for less than 18 year olds. My sister’s best friend is 16, abandoned by her parents, the father of her child and works as hard as she can for £3.57 an hour for working in a bakery. The vote should be the beginning of a revolution in the way we treat young people – i largely think the ruling class are scared of what empowered young people might seek to change.
To argue ‘they cannot fight until their 18′ is a disservice to those brave people, they are still serving the UK, be they a cook in the army or in the marines. An army is far wider than those poor buggers dodging bullets.
Your point on political disengagement is right, but I think the points Mrs Morgan makes about it linking to education is important. It would be a solidifying influence for those who have undertaken political literacy would be able to vote in some election in the May they finish school (well some of them, age allowing).
To return to the article. Mrs Morgan loses steam when talking about political disengagement – the votes at 16 argument is about rights, not bringing ‘da yoof’ into politics. It is linked to the demonisation of young people that occurs – state sponsored and societal – as they enter the hardest economic climate since WW2. Fact is that anyone who pays tax HAS to have the ability to vote in elections to see how that tax is spent, how their children are educated, how they access public services, transport, further education and anything their hard earned wages are spent on.
Interestingly, no one has mentioned the referendum. I find it even more galling that a devolution referendum in 2011 will more than likely exclude the very 16-18 year olds that will be the next custodians of the way Wales is Governed. I am sure it scares the hell out of the older generation – but my generation is coming!
Jeff confuses direct and indirect taxation – students and the unemployed probably pay a higher proportion of their income in indirect taxes (VAT, duties) than many a millionaire (who only pays an accountant). The rest of his argument is pretty dodgy as well but it’s new year’s eve and I’ve got a drink to finish…
No one serves on the front line in any capacity unless they are 18 I’m afraid. Not even a 17 year old in the catering corps would be sent to Afghanistan. This has been the case I think for past 60 years after a number of under 18s were killed in the conflicts during the 1950s.
All I’m trying to point out is the mixed messages some of those who want to lower the age of voting send out to young people. They want to give them the power to decide who runs the country but then argue that they are too young to decide whether or not to use tobacco. You can’t have it both ways. If they are old enough to vote then automatically any restrictions which at the moment limit certain activities to the over 18s have to be looked at.
Having spent the best part of my adult life teaching 16 to 18 year olds I would probably raise the age of voting to at least 30. Joke! Happy New Year to everyone and now off down the local with the rest of the Labour core vote.
“No one serves on the front line in any capacity unless they are 18 I’m afraid. Not even a 17 year old in the catering corps would be sent to Afghanistan. This has been the case I think for past 60 years after a number of under 18s were killed in the conflicts during the 1950s.”
Right so are you still suggesting that a 17 year old doing his marines training is not in the process of becoming a brave soldier? Is his work less valid than an 18 year old doing the same training? Surely they should be able to vote in an election which includes whether we stay in afghanistan. I assume the ‘Labour core vote’ will mull heavily over the wars we got took into.
“They want to give them the power to decide who runs the country but then argue that they are too young to decide whether or not to use tobacco.”
But they are fundamentally different rights, whose harm (and age range of suitability) are drawn from different measures.
The point about tobacco is relevant, but then most definitions on age are rather blunt anyway – hence the reason why votes at 16 is important. Paying tax is the crucial difference – when you ran a council, do you think it was justified that 16/17 year olds would pay tax to fund your wages, but should be denied a say in who runs that council? Did the council under your watch employ any 16/17 year olds?
Anyway, no more politics for me.
It would be pretty poor “gesture politics” seeing as most young people don’t vote! Of course we should get the vote at 16. Citizenship and democracy lessons should be compulsory as well, but it’s easy to see how that kind of education could be abused especially when alot of citizens (rightly or wrongly) don’t have confidence in the established political system in the UK.
I see no contradiction in differentiating between the ability to safely drive a motor vehicle and the right to cast a vote. There are many older people that have the right to vote but not to drive a motor vehicle.
This is a great discussion point; sound arguments on both sides that have not convinced me either way. Certainly don’t believe any “silly” views were contributed, as Marcus suggested.
I’ve seen similar calls for a reduction in the voting age from Nick Clegg, but nothing from the Tories (do correct me if I’m wrong), which leads me to ask the question, what effect would extending votes to 16 and 17 year olds have on electoral results?
As someone who is increasingly exchanging idealism for realism as I get older, my vote has changed since becoming enfranchised over ten years ago. And it is a Tory, Winston Churchill, who is often attributed to have said that young conservatives have no heart, while elder liberals have no brains.
Would lowering the age on enfranchisement therefore benefit the more liberal minded parties, or will children simply vote as their parents do?