Should 16/17 year olds be allowed to vote in the UK?

Fred Lindsay

On June 13th 2024, the Labour Party released their manifesto titled ‘Change’. No proposed policy in the manifesto summed up the title better than the party stating that if they were to win the upcoming general election, they would give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in subsequent general elections. One year on from their landslide victory, Keir Starmer announced in July 2025 that 16-year-olds would be eligible to vote in time for the next general election, which of course led to many raising the question: Should 16- and 17-year-olds be allowed to vote? 

On the one hand, it seems a sensible and progressive move from Labour to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds. It follows in the footsteps of a previous Labour government, led by Harold Wilson, who in 1969 passed the Representation of the People Act, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, which is looked back on as a positive step for democracy in the UK. Keir Starmer himself raises a good point when he states that 16 and 17-year-olds are “old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes”, so why shouldn’t they be able to choose how their taxes are used?

 Furthermore, with the rise of social media, information on politics has never been so accessible to young people, allowing them to make an informed decision despite their age and what some might presume to be a lack of knowledge on the subject. The decrease in voting age may also lead to mainstream parties making their manifestos and policies more orientated towards the youth of today, meaning an increase in political participation among younger age groups, potentially leading to higher overall turnouts in future elections, increasing the fullness of democracy and legitimacy of governments in this country. 

Moreover, 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the vote as a matter of principle. Labour won a landslide majority at the 2024 election, meaning people voted for their manifesto and hence for 16 and 17-year-olds to get the vote, and so, as a matter of democracy, a principle the UK has always believed in, 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote. 

Meanwhile, there are prominent and reputable voices within politics, particularly among the right, who oppose the policy. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, who despite potential to gain from the policy due to his popularity among young people due to his prominence on platforms such as TikTok, has taken a stance against the policy, given that 16-year-olds are not allowed to stand for Parliament. 

The Conservative Party has taken a similar position, claiming that 16-year-olds shouldn’t get the vote if they can’t also marry or go to war. Both Parties raise valid concerns with the policy, as if 16-year-olds aren’t given certain privileges which were previously mentioned, why should they get what some would see as the biggest of them all by allowing them to vote? 

It could also be argued that by lowering the age to 16, it sets a dangerous precedent. With the age already having been lowered from 21, this next drop could lead to the potential to drop the voting age even further, potentially to 14 or 15, which would be universally seen as a dangerous rather than a progressive move. 

There are also concerns about the dangers of social media for younger people. While the positives of social media, that it provides more accessible information on politics for young people, which were mentioned earlier in the article, are still valid, it is also true that there is a lot of false information spread on social media, with there being no better example than the Southport attacks last year. This could be used by politicians and older politically active users of social media to unethically try and brainwash impressionable 16 and 17 year olds, a trick that is particularly used by populists on the far right of politics, leading to benefits for not just such parties in the UK, but also across Europe if they were to follow suit on the UK’s stance on voting age, for example the AFD in Germany which would undoubtedly create further instability and division within society.

In answer to the original question, “Should 16 and 17-year-olds be allowed to vote?” I believe the potential consequences outweigh the benefits. There are too many inconsistencies within the UK constitution on how 16-year-olds are treated in terms of the responsibilities they hold. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent, with the policy giving scope for potential decreases in voting age down the line. Most importantly, while there are undoubted benefits to social media with it giving young people better access to information on politics, it is also true that it is clouded with false information which impressionable young people will use to help inform their decision on who to vote for, when in fact they would be better served having that responsibility in 1 or 2 years time.