George Barnes is a member of Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces and has just completed a course in War Studies and Command.
What were you like aged 16? Let me guess. A bit of a know-it-all? Someone who acted first and thought second? Perhaps you felt that backing down and admitting you were wrong was sacrilege, regardless of the evidence at hand. You may also have been terrified of the world around you, and desperate to figure out your role in society.
The teenage me ticked all the above. I was both oblivious yet very aware of how little knowledge and life experience I had.
That’s why a large amount of hot tea sprayed across my newspaper last week. I had just read Labour’s most recent headline-grabbing announcement – a desire to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.
I believe people of that age are not yet mature enough to possess a full stake in our democratic society. They are impressionable, and we must protect them appropriately during this critical period of their development. We should let them get on with growing up; they must not become legitimate targets for the relentless political machine, targeted ceaselessly by politically-aligned algorithms on social media.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest my view on the relative immaturity of 16- and 17-year-olds is shared by society writ large. For one, it is reflected in our criminal justice system. Over centuries of evolution and titivation, this system has settled on the view that when it comes to the age threshold for criminal liability, hardly an insignificant or unimportant view, this demographic should not be treated as adults – it would be too much, too soon.
This view is mirrored in other areas of the law. No one under 18, for example, can get married or have a civil partnership. In fact, Parliament abolished the ability for 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent in 2022, citing the dangers of forced marriages.
This important and welcome change in the law reinforces my view: they are vulnerable people, frequently reliant on parents or guardians, and easily influenced. They need time and space to develop, without the burden of a full adult’s responsibilities.
Labour’s arguments for this change in voting age are both specious and ill-thought through. Sir Keir Starmer claimed that “if you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.”
These self-declared criteria should not equate to the right to vote, and fall down under minimal examination. There is a feasible situation for example where a 13-year-old actor could be conducting full time work, and would therefore be liable for tax. I think most would agree that such an individual should not qualify for the vote.
In addition, someone who has arrived here on a work visa from outside the EU would be working and paying tax. They do not get the vote however, and Labour is not suggesting they should (at least not yet). The logic of Labour’s argument is already beginning to crumble.
As for the Armed Forces, Sir Keir is choosing to ignore critical caveats. Firstly, 16- and 17-year-old soldiers can only join with parental consent. Secondly, they cannot be “deployed on operations outside of the UK, except where the operation does not involve personnel becoming engaged in, or exposed to, hostilities.”
Although these young soldiers are serving the UK (and all credit to them for doing so), they will never be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice or put themselves in harm’s way for their country – often the traditional argument for a democratic stake. In other words, being in the Army aged 16 or 17 is in many ways no different to other forms of employment.
Labour’s support for this policy may, at least in part, come from a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided desire to develop a more politically-engaged youth. Alastair Campbell has described how his support for the proposal stems from his time on the Scottish independence campaign in 2014, when he walked past a bus stop and heard school pupils arguing about housing and nuclear weapons.
That may be so, but I think we all know the real reason why Labour is plugging this policy: votes.
Extending the voting age to 16 is highly likely to give Labour an advantage in forthcoming elections. Not only would the few remaining Conservative constituencies in London come under even greater pressure, psephologists have pointed to tens of other constituencies, predominantly in the Midlands and the South East, which could flip to Labour.
Labour is simply doing what most political parties do – trying to cement its power. The problem is that they don’t recognise the dangerous precedent and costs this policy would set if implemented.
One of the broad criteria to obtain the vote should be maturity. Society has come to view maturity as synonymous with being an adult. And there is a reason why our society has decided to delineate this at 18 years old.
If you are to say 16- and 17-year-olds are mature enough to vote, then surely by the same logic, you must argue for jury service to be reduced, for 16-year-old soldiers to fight in the trenches, and for adult criminal liability to kick in at sweet sixteen.
Our society rightfully treats 16- and 17-year-olds as vulnerable people, who are still developing, and are trying to make sense of the world and their part in it. Labour, please don’t use them as a political tool. They deserve better.
