Keir Starmer’s Labour party has been derided by some for its lack of ambition when it comes to delivering social and economic change; while some have doubted this, it is harder to question their lack of ambition when it comes to altering the UK’s constitutional settlement. 

Their manifesto specifically details that they will: remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords; implement a mandatory retirement age and participatory requirement for Lords; consult on proposals to make the Lords more representative of the nations and regions; implement votes at 16; strengthen rules around party political donations and devolve further powers to England’s elected metropolitan mayors. This is coupled with a recently announced policy to enrol automatic voter registration – reportedly around 7 to 8 million people are missing on the register or incorrectly recorded. 

Whether these ambitions materialise or prove to be a false dawn, as some have suggested New Labour’s constitutional reform amounted to, is a question for a different day. Rather what is more interesting is Labour’s proposal to expand votes to 16 in ‘all elections’. This policy is already in place in some parts of the United Kingdom, with 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote in Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections. 

However, if Labour is to implement this on a UK wide scale, they need to address two challenges to lowering the voting age to 16 that may stop them from winning the argument.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is unnecessary 

One of the significant objections that face any electoral reform proposals: what is the point? Critics argue that some small pieces of electoral reform, such as none of the above voting, are purely superficial reforms that do little to actually change anything and arguably votes at 16 could fall victim to a similar argument. 

The argument I want to square at votes at 16 is that it is unnecessary as we can achieve its desired aims without implementing it and that it is aiming at the wrong target. 

In their argument for lowering the voting age, the Electoral Reform Society argue that votes at 16 is about improving political education and participation. In essence, by lowering the voting age, we ensure that voters are involved in electoral politics at a younger age, this means they are more likely to be engaged with politics and politically informed. This appeals to a kind of ‘if you build it, they will come’ rationale as by lowering the voting age we effectively put the onus on voters to engage and educate themselves and this is something we believe they will do. You also encourage political parties to tailor themselves to the interests of young voters, which, in turn, may engage younger people with politics.

However, while votes at 16 could easily help improve political awareness and engagement among young people and there is evidence to suggest this, is it the sole means to do this? Might better provision of citizenship teaching in mainstream education serve as a better direct means of improving awareness and education? Moreover, political parties already have to engage with 18 and 19 year old voters as they are part of the voting population, yet some parties fail to properly consider the needs and interests of these voters – might UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s proposed policy of national service encapsulate this. Therefore, what evidence is there to suggest that 16 and 17 year olds would be any different? Perhaps then, improving the political education and awareness of young people is not wholly contingent on lowering the voting age to 16. 

Votes at 16 is also unnecessary as it is simply aiming at the wrong target. The issue with significant levels of political apathy is not the UK’s current extent of suffrage but perhaps more fundamental and wider questions around the voting options that are available to voters and the wider prism that these options sit inside. There are other reforms that could be considered around: the first past the post electoral system; properly regulating campaign finance and donations; implementing a none of the above voting option; further democratisation of internal party politics; or considering changes to how we make policy decisions in the UK, which might be more effective at tackling political apathy. 

Lowering the voting age to 16 is illogical

It is probably a bit unfair and disingenuous to purely dismiss votes at 16 as it does not properly address political apathy – after all, no single policy on its own would. However, a more fundamental challenge to votes at 16 in and of itself is that such a proposition is seemingly illogical. One of the key moral arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 is that it is simply unfair if 16 and 17 year olds cannot vote. In the UK, these people can work, pay taxes and can even serve in the Armed Forces, as noted by Starmer. They will be impacted by key political and policy decisions taken by elected representatives. 

Whether this be a 17 year old in the Armed Forces who will be impacted by decisions by the Government on defence spending or a working 16 year old who would be impacted by any decisions on National Insurance contributions. It’s akin to the taxation without representation argument, except without the gunpowder and colonial relationships. Yet, something is up here. In the UK, there are plenty of people in the UK who will be impacted by the decisions made by elected representatives, but they cannot vote – what makes 16 and 17 year olds any different? 

For instance, what of foreign citizens? These individuals again are going to be significantly impacted by decisions made by the Government on working conditions, immigration or the provision of public services. Does Labour’s plans to reduce the voting age also necessitate a conversation around voting rights for foreign nationals?

Then, put simply, what about those people who do not even exist yet? With the existential threat posed by climate change and the ensuing net zero transition, the policies that are furthered and pursued by the UK Government and elected representatives will determine the world that future generations inherit. Does this then necessitate that we should have a democratic backstop to protect the rights of future generations? While plenty of scholars have argued for something of that ilk, it is unlikely that the Labour party would pursue this. 

Without a wider conversation around the extent of suffrage in the UK, Labour’s proposal to reduce the voting age leaves them open to criticism that they are arbitrarily picking and choosing with no appeal to an underlying moral argument around who should vote in a democracy – this is probably the case. 

Work to be done

Whatever Labour’s plans to reform the UK’s political and constitutional settlement materialise into, they need more than a few lines in a manifesto if they are to convince voters around the moral plausibility and the need to reduce the voting age to 16.