Voting at 16?
News that Labour plans to extend voting to 16 and 17 year olds in their next election manifesto – as the Liberal Democrats did in 2001 and 2005 - almost made me choke on my Coco Pops. As an announcement, it may pass the test of generating headlines however as even a slight vote winner or a sensible policy to rectify any perceived ills in our political system it fails before the first hurdle.
In terms of winning the next general election, this part of their platform is likely to hinder Labour’s chances rather than help them. Any campaigning upon this issue can only help to galvanise the Tories’ core vote and steer the election towards “youth issues” e.g. knife crime and binge drinking. Neither of these areas will show the government in a positive light. And thinking ahead to the election after – would 16 and 17 year olds be more likely to vote Labour than its alternatives?
I started University during Tony Blair’s first term, a time at which the ranks of Labour Students were swollen, the Tories were as fashionable as herpes (but they did have much higher calibre politicians come to speak at their meeting) and the Lib Dems barely existed as a force. But the real political activity was on the far-left, split between Socialists, Communists, Trotskyites and various other Workers’ Alliances. These groups spent their days selling their 3rd rate newspapers and competing over who could wash their hair the least. More importantly though, they did not support Labour. And they had possibly the most visible and vocal presence on campuses. Have things really changed? The strength of these groups – and of Labour Students – came from 18 years of Conservative government. After 11 years of Labour I suspect the drift has been rightward. And where the University students go so – no doubt – will the sixth-formers. This happened in my secondary school where a straw poll of pupils revealed no interest in the main political parties, but a fascination with those on the fringes.
This reaches the crux of the matter. Proponents of this constitutional change – such as the Power Commission (which, despite investigating our political structure did not contain a single political scientist) argue that 16 and 17 year olds are not less able to make mature political decisions than those of ages 18 and above. They also point out that these age groups can get married, smoke, pay taxes and join the army. But they ignore that fact that few actually do the above (with the exception of smoking). So with few real responsibilities will younger people really vote responsibly? Returning to University campuses, I find this unconvincing. In short – if Labour give 16 and 17 year olds the vote it is by no means certain that these votes will be given to Labour. Or to any reputable party.
More fundamentally though, it is not at all clear that the under-18s particularly want to vote. Voter turnout is lower amongst younger age groups and higher amongst the older. If 18-25 year olds, say, don’t bother to vote in droves, why would 16 and 17 year olds? As Professor Philip Cowley pointed out in his now defunct “Votes for Adults” website (which campaigned against lowering the age of enfranchisement), if voting is habit forming, and so voting young would encourage a continuation of this civic duty, it is also possible that not-voting could be habit forming. Such a policy would thus reduce – rather than increase – direct involvement in the political process. Permanently.
