[Abernathy]

I nicked this from a guy called Jack Dart on The Fleecebook. It is sound.

Let’s Talk About the Ridiculous Arguments Against Giving 16 and 17 Year-Olds the Vote.
The right is in meltdown over plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote by the next general election. Reform calls it a cynical left-wing power grab. The usual suspects in the press warn of “childish” voters flooding polling stations with TikTok slogans. The Tories complain because they know exactly who this generation is likely to vote against.
Let’s break it down, because none of their arguments stand up to scrutiny.

“They’re not mature enough.”
This is their go-to line. The same people who think 16-year-olds are responsible enough to pay tax, join the army and work full time suddenly insist they cannot tick a box on a ballot paper. We trust them with employment, exams that shape their futures and, in some cases, weapons. Democracy is hardly more dangerous. They are not worried about maturity, they are worried about who these young voters will choose.

“It’s just a political stunt to help Labour.”
Labour may benefit, but that does not make it wrong. That is democracy. If your policies do not appeal to young people, the solution is not to bar them from voting, it is to offer something better. Scotland and Wales already let 16-year-olds vote in local and devolved elections. If this is a coup, it happened years ago and democracy survived.

“They don’t know enough about politics.”
Neither do plenty of adults. That is not a reason to deny the vote. Studies show that people who start voting early are more likely to stay engaged for life. We do not quiz 45-year-olds before they vote or ban people who skip manifestos. Voting is a right. If you pay into the system, you deserve a say.

“It will distort the electorate.”
No, it will expand it. Roughly 1.5 million new voters will join the register. That is participation, not distortion. If your party is terrified of a fuller electorate, your platform is the problem.
“They will just follow social-media trends.”
This is rich from movements that thrive on memes and YouTube rants. Trump, Farage and Reform have all relied on digital platforms to radicalise and recruit. Spare us the concern about influencers.
Yes, we do need to keep our eyes open. Reform and other far-right actors are already active in the online spaces young men inhabit. They are using gaming platforms, podcasts and social media to spread conspiracy, anti-migrant rhetoric and hard-right ideology. We know how that pipeline works. We have seen what it leads to. So yes, we need to watch it closely, invest in education, and build credible alternatives to fill the vacuum. But that is not a reason to keep young people locked out of the democratic process. It is a reason to bring them in, give them a stake, and start listening to them before the far right does it for us.

Let’s talk about Brexit.
One of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history was taken without input from the very people it would affect most. Brexit was forced through by a narrow margin, with lies on the side of buses, foreign interference, and no coherent plan. It cut off opportunities, gutted freedom of movement, wrecked trade links and decimated entire industries, and young people had no vote on it. Millions of 16 and 17-year-olds were told they were too immature to decide their future, while pensioners who would not live with the consequences were courted like royalty. If this country can drag an entire generation out of Europe against their will, it can damn well let them have a say in what happens next.
This generation is politically aware, angry and ready for a voice. They have grown up through austerity, climate crisis, lockdowns, rising rent and stagnant wages. They have watched older generations make decisions that shape futures they will have to live with. Giving them the vote is not radical, it is overdue.

If 16 and 17-year-olds leaned right, Reform and the Tories would rush to lower the voting age. This is not about principle, it is about power. They fear a generation that has seen through their nonsense.
The vote at 16 is basic democratic fairness. If you can pay tax and serve your country, you should have a say in how it is run. If that makes certain politicians uncomfortable, good. That is how democracy stays healthy.

[Spoonman]

I think it's worth remembering that when a Labour government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, they lost the following General Election.

[Abernathy]

I think it's worth remembering that when a Labour government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, they lost the following General Election.

Worth remembering, but I don’t think you can identify any direct causation or correlation. 1970 was a strange election, and there were many factors at play in the resultant Tory victory in the face of good Labour opinion polling prior to the election. The Wiki entry even cites England losing to West Germany in the World Cup as a possible factor.

[Youngian]

The Tories also had a leader in Ted Heath who lived in the late 20th century instead of 1850.

[slilley]

I think it's worth remembering that when a Labour government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, they lost the following General Election.

Several of the Right have said this change to voting at 16 should have been subject to a referendum, given it is as they see it a major constitutional change.

I have pointed out that this government is doing just as the the 64-70 Labour Government did when it changed the voting age from 21 to 18 and doing it by parliamentary legislation. Notwithstanding people have already voted on it as it was a plank of their manifesto. parties get slated for not sticking to manifesto commitments and here is this government enacting a manifesto commitment and they are still wrong.

[davidjay]

The will of the people is sacrosanct, unless they're the wrong people.

[Boiler]

No. More. Fucking. Referendums.

Ever.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The will of the people is sacrosanct, unless they're the wrong people.

"No, not that will of the people!"

[Abernathy]

No. More. Fucking. Referendums.

Ever.

Hear, hear, and fucking hear again. The Indy Referendum in Scotland was utterly poisonous, setting family members against family members, neighbour against neighbour. The Brexit Referendum was even more toxic, as well as bogus, questionably legal, and gerrymandered, and the damage it wrought is still being felt nearly ten years later. If there were never to be another, I’d be very happy.

[Spoonman]

No. More. Fucking. Referendums.

Ever.

If there's ever concrete talk of a united Ireland potentially happening, there will be a referendum on it - no question about it (It's also doubtful if the Good Friday Agreement could have stuck without a referendum to approve it taking place either.)

Same will go for any potential future Scottish or Welsh independence movements of a similar vein.

However I agree that referendums are not a natural part of the UK political system and shouldn't be used at a mere suggestion of needing one. After all, Parliament is sovereign.

[Abernathy]

I think that referenda are a mandatory part of the Irish constitution, are they not ?

In the UK, they’ve been used purely as manipulative tools to justify base political ends .

[Boiler]

In the UK, they’ve been used purely as manipulative tools to justify base political ends .

“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism."

[davidjay]

Any party pledging to outlaw referenda forever gets my vote.

[zuriblue]

No. More. Fucking. Referendums.

Ever.

The day after the Brexit referendum my then boss (Swiss) told me we should leave referenda to the grown ups. As he pointed out in Switzerland there would have been a good chance that the Courts would have annulled the vote because of Vote Leave’s shenanigans.

(This has happened a couple of times, usually resulting in wails of protest from the SVP - Swiss Peoples Party, a bunch of rechtspopulist cunts- who are the usual offenders)