16 year olds can’t purchase lottery tickets or kitchen knives in England, so why should they be allowed to vote?

The comprehensive case against lowering the voting age to 16

Lowering the voting age to 16 was included in Labour’s 2024 manifesto. Despite not making the King’s Speech for the current parliamentary session, and despite some rumours that Labour might ultimately drop the proposal, on 17 July, Labour confirmed they were going ahead with plans to lower the voting age.

The reasons Labour have given for why they support lowering the voting age to 16 are illogical. In essence, Labour argue that because 16 and 17 year olds can work, pay tax, and serve in the armed forces, they should be able to vote in all UK elections. At a first glance, this might seem reasonable. However, on closer inspection, the first and second reasons are both inconsistent, the second is simply nonsensical, and the third is highly misleading.

They can work, so why can’t they vote?

Keir Starmer told ITV News that he ‘…think[s] it’s really important that 16 and 17 year olds have the vote, because they’re old enough to go out to work, they’re old enough to pay taxes.’ But there is no absolute age floor on working in the UK; if there was, we wouldn’t have child models or actors. Take someone like Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe was eleven during the production of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the first of the eight Harry Potter films. (Additionally, he was reportedly paid one million dollars for the first film, thus meaning he would have been subject to income tax, but more on this below.) So why shouldn’t the 11-year-old Daniel Radcliffe have been allowed to vote? If you follow Starmer’s apparent logic — namely, that the mere ability to work, regardless of age, should confer the ability to vote — then why not extend voting rights to every child in Britain, regardless of age? And why not extend it to every legal immigrant in Britain?

It is admittedly true that outside of certain fields, it is generally not permitted to hire people under 13 or 14 (depending on your local area), and there are some rather complex restrictions on 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old children working. However, at least in principle, it still remains the case that people under the age of 16, and in some cases even under 13, can work. And perhaps equally importantly, those aged 16 and 17, even though they can in theory work ‘full-time’, nowadays face many practical restrictions on their employment. This is because since 2015, all children in England must be in at least part-time education or training until 18. In practice, this means you can only work ‘full-time’ if you are on an apprenticeship, which in effect means that you will not actually be working ‘full-time’. Unlike people who are over 18, you also cannot work more than eight hours a day or forty hours a week. Labour have announced no plans to change any of this.

As we shall discuss later, it is somewhat ironic to suddenly lower the voting age when teenagers have never been less independent, thanks to cultural, legal, educational, and economic changes. No one historically thought that the mere existence of child labour meant that children were somehow mature enough to vote, so why are we pretending it does now, when fewer children are working than ever before? Voting is a matter of far more gravity than assembling a ham sandwich for money.

On a somewhat related note, if working (rather than the mere ability to work) was the basis for being allowed to vote, then it seems a little strange, if not quite outright inconsistent, to allow anyone who is not currently in employment — regardless of age — to vote. Obviously, Labour would not be keen on taking this principle to what seems to be its logical conclusion.

They can pay tax, so why can’t they vote?

Similarly, there is no minimum age for paying tax — including income tax — in Britain. It is simply the case that nowadays, very few people under 16 earn more than the personal allowance threshold, currently set at £12,570. But just because a 15 year old is unlikely in practice to pay income tax due to their legally limited hours and practically limited pay, this does not mean that someone is actually exempt from tax if they are only 15 (or indeed 5).

That there is no minimum age for paying tax — including direct taxes — in Britain should be obvious from the fact that a baby who inherits millions of pounds will still have to pay tax on it (technically, the tax liability in the case of inheritance tax falls not on the dead person, as is popularly claimed, but on the beneficiary). This argument is therefore even less legitimate than the previous argument, lacking even any of the complex laws and restrictions surrounding child labour to try and build a case from.

It seems odd to implicitly tie voting rights to the vagaries of the personal allowance, which was just £6,475 as recently as 2011, and which Reform UK plan to increase to £20,000 if they win in 2029, with the result that many more working adults would no longer pay income tax. Conversely, if fiscal and/or political circumstances dictated that the personal allowance threshold was instead cut dramatically (in line with many other developed countries) or even abolished outright, then far more 14 and 15 year olds would begin to be subject to income tax. Should they then be allowed to vote?

But the tax argument is also inconsistent in many other ways. In practice, virtually everyone pays tax, even if they are not paying income tax. Forget multimillionaire toddlers: if we broaden our discussion to indirect taxes, a 12 year old could buy something from a shop and pay VAT, as could a tourist, as could an immigrant (whether legal or illegal). Should they all get the vote, purely on the basis they can pay tax in the UK? If you follow Labour’s logic, why not?

But let’s ignore VAT and other indirect taxes for now, and focus again on direct taxes like income tax. Let’s also ignore the question of whether the mere ability to pay income tax should mean you can vote (which, as we have shown, literally makes no sense, as there is no minimum age at which you become liable to income tax, or indeed any other tax). What if we make actually paying income tax the basis for being allowed to vote? This position, which is far more logical than Starmer’s stated position, would not force us to stray very far from his comments. But Labour probably wouldn’t like the obvious, rather nineteenth century, conclusion from this principle: that people — regardless of age — who do not earn enough to pay income tax should not be allowed to vote.

They can serve in the armed forces, so why can’t they vote?

This has more legitimacy than the other arguments, but it’s still weak. The way in which this argument is presented gives the impression that 16 and 17 year olds are being sent away to die in the trenches of Ukraine (or at least they would be if Tobias Ellwood got his way). This is highly misleading.

While those aged 16 and 17 can indeed ‘serve in the armed forces’, they cannot be deployed until they are 18. They must also have permission from a parent or guardian to join in the first place. 16 and 17 year old recruits, ‘junior soldiers’, are effectively put in a special bootcamp (the Army Foundation College in Harrogate). It would be more accurate to say that these recruits are in an alternative form of education or training, as is required for all 16 and 17 year olds in England, rather than ‘serving in the armed forces’ in the way most people would understand it.

16 year olds can’t purchase lottery tickets or kitchen knives in England, so why should they be allowed to vote?

It is standard practice in most Western countries to align the voting age with the age of majority. This is the age when you are legally recognised as an adult. All developed countries, and virtually all countries in general (with the exceptions of Cuba, North Korea, Yemen, and a few South East Asian countries) set this at the age of 18 or, in some cases, higher. In England and Wales, the age of majority is also 18. It would be strange to lower the voting age without also lowering the age of majority.

The sole exception to the rule in the developed world is Scotland. However, Scotland is inconsistent on this matter in ways that are revealing about the real intentions behind these proposals. Although the age of majority in Scotland is formally stated to be 18 in the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, this seemingly conflicts with the basic position set out in the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, which gives certain rights to children aged 16 and 17 that are not held in England. This act was primarily introduced to replace a complex and rather antiquated system of ‘pupils’, ‘minors’, ‘tutors’, and ‘curators’ in Scots law. The most important of these rights are an unrestricted right to enter contracts and the right to get married without parental consent, both rights that you do not have at 16 in England and Wales. This is why most sources state that the age of majority in Scotland is 16.

You can also vote in Scotland from 16, but — crucially — this is actually entirely legally unconnected to the 1991 act. Instead, it was introduced for the Scottish independence referendum in 2013 (through the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013), and then for Scottish parliament and local elections in 2015 (through the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Act 2015). Additionally, despite this mess of legislation, you still can’t, for instance, legally buy most fireworks or use a sunbed in Scotland until you are 18. This clearly makes no sense. The decision to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote should therefore be interpreted not as sincere ideological preference as to when adulthood begins, but as a deliberate effort to tilt politics to the left, given voting patterns by age.

None of this is to say that there is no case to be made for the age of majority itself being lowered, along with the minimum age to do all sorts of things. But it is to say that it makes no sense to lower the voting age to 16 when you still need to be 18 or older in England in order to, among other things:

• Be called for jury service.

• Be tried as an adult in court, with full legal accountability.

• Be questioned by the police without an ‘appropriate adult’.

• Sue someone without a litigation friend.

• Take out a loan or mortgage.

• Take out a phone contract.

• Take out a credit card or get an overdraft (with the exception of an overdraft on a student account taken out at 17).

• Open an ISA or SIPP (you can open a Junior ISA or Junior SIPP earlier).

• Enter into a legally binding contract (with certain exceptions), make a will, or hold a full tenancy (rather than merely ‘benefit’ from it).

• Buy or directly own land or property.

• Get married or enter a civil partnership in England or Wales without parental consent.

• Buy or get served alcohol (with very limited exceptions).

• Buy tobacco, or vaping products and liquids.

• Buy solvents, including certain types of glue and paint thinners.

• Buy most fireworks.

• Buy a knife, including a kitchen knife.

• Buy any other legal weapons (axes, blades, crossbows, etc.).

• Buy corrosive substances.

• Buy or rent an 18-rated film or game (like Call of Duty), or watch an 18-rated film in a cinema.

• Buy a lottery ticket or scratch card.

• Gamble or place a bet.

• Get a tattoo.

• Use a sunbed.

• Get botox, or fillers, or most other types of cosmetic procedure.

• Have a full, rather than partially restricted, capacity to consent to medical treatment.

• Get hypnotised for public entertainment.

• Legally change your gender.

• Obtain a gun license, or possess a firearm (with certain exceptions), or purchase a firearm or ammunition, or buy, own, or hire an air gun.

• Drive certain larger vehicles.

• Leave all education or training in England.

• Claim benefits, including universal credit, in most circumstances.

• Stand for public office.

If Labour were proposing to lower the age of majority from 18 to 16 and allow you to do all of the above from the age of 16, then at least they would be logically consistent — but they are not. The idea that a 16 year old is mature enough to vote and influence the future of this country, but they are not mature enough to buy a lottery ticket (the minimum age was increased by statute from 16 to 18 in 2021) or a kitchen knife (the minimum age was increased from 16 to 18 in 2016 following a voluntary agreement with retailers) is just completely asinine and not something a serious country should be considering.

Indeed, that both of these restrictions on the activities of children are relatively recent shows how bizarre Labour’s proposed change is, as it goes directly against almost all other cultural and legal trends (with perhaps the only recent exception being a 2024 decision to launch a consultation with the intention of relaxing restrictions on 18 to 20 year olds driving buses or coaches). This cultural tendency can be seen in many facets of everyday life. Consider:

• The aforementioned 2015 decision to force all 16 and 17 year old children to be in at least part-time education or training. This has come alongside an extension of adolescence in British culture.

• The general desire at universities to undermine the idea that undergraduate students are adults by pushing the notion that universities should be acting in loco parentis.

• The cultural paranoia surrounding ‘age gap relationships’, which seeks to cast doubt on whether even 18 or 19 year olds (let alone 16 year olds) can consent to sex in increasingly numerous circumstances.

• The attempt to extend lenient sentencing into older and older age groups, often well into adulthood, on basically pseudo-scientific grounds (e.g., that the frontal lobe supposedly does not close until you are 25).

• The plans, inherited from Rishi Sunak but never actually abandoned by Labour, to create a ‘smokefree generation’ by banning anyone born after 1 January 2009 from ever purchasing a tobacco product.

It is also notable that the list of things you can do from the age of 18 is significantly longer than that of other ages, even if we accept that 16 is still an important milestone year:

• At 10, you are of the age of criminal responsibility, and thus can be convicted of a crime and serve a custodial sentence. (In Scotland, the age of criminal responsibility is 12.)

• At 14, you can give evidence under oath in court (those under 14 must give unsworn evidence).

• At 16, you can consent to sexual intercourse, leave home without parental consent (in most circumstances), enter into a legally enforceable housing contract (but not hold a full tenancy), obtain a passport without parental consent, change your name via deed poll, obtain a national insurance number, claim benefits in certain narrow circumstances, access some basic banking services (but not overdrafts or credit), buy premium bonds, buy aerosol paint, buy chocolate liqueurs, buy a pet, and drive a moped and certain types of tractor.

• At 17, you can drive most vehicles, apply for a private pilot license, and give blood.

By contrast, there are just a few things that are only possible from the age of 21: adopting a child, obtaining a commercial flying license, and supervising learner drivers.

As in most other countries, then, our rules are not completely clean and neat. Yet it remains true that current general British practice on what age at which someone is presupposed to be mature enough to be granted the rights and liberties that allow someone to live as they choose is actually very clear indeed — except, so it seems, to Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. That is, of course, unless they somehow think that voting is of less gravity than purchasing a lottery ticket.

Why do Labour want to lower the voting age?

Most people agree that lowering the voting age to 16 is an awful idea. A poll conducted by ITV News and Merlin Strategy has found that 49% of 16 and 17 year olds oppose lowering the voting age. According to a recent poll from YouGov, 57% of the general public oppose lowering the voting age, and not even a majority of Labour voters support the plan to lower the voting age, with 46% in favour and 43% opposed.

So why are they doing it? One answer is that they are just fumbling around for something relatively easy to do, with clear levers to pull, given the total failure of Keir Starmer’s policy agenda thanks to poor leadership, backbench rebellions, and the fiscal crisis that continues to roil this country. How many quicker and simpler ways are there to get a ‘win’ to boost morale?

There is probably some truth to this, but it is likely that Labour’s primary motive is altogether more cynical. The polling expert John Curtice has noted that in the 2024 General Election, Labour achieved the ‘lowest vote share of any majority Government in British history’. Their majority, while huge, has thus proven to be very hollow. It should perhaps not be entirely unsurprising that according to YouGov, 66% of people now disapprove of the Government, with just 12% approving. Some polls project that two-thirds of Labour MPs are now on track to lose their seats.

It can therefore be reasonably assumed that one of the main reasons Labour want to lower the voting age is desperation; that they believe this will help them electorally. At least if current polling is anything to go by, they aren’t wrong: a poll conducted by ITV News and Merlin Strategy showed that 33% of 16 and 17 year olds would vote Labour, 20% would vote Reform, 18% would vote Green, 12% would vote Liberal Democrat, and only 10% would vote Conservative. It is still, of course, an open question whether Labour would still have such a commanding lead among this demographic if the new Sultana-Corbyn political vehicle actually properly launched.

There is another reason for Labour’s decision. Above, we asked whether Labour thinks that purchasing a lottery ticket is of more gravity than voting and determining the future of our country. Sadly, the answer to this question, intended to be rhetorical, might be ‘yes’. Labour have shifted away from the old theory of democracy, which was one that was underpinned by the notion of a rational citizenry deliberating and making a choice about their country’s future. Rather, voting for Labour is about ‘expressing yourself’ and ‘having a say’ (though preferably mediated to the greatest possible extent by some various left-wing state or quasi-state employees so the ‘say’ isn’t too raw for the incumbents to digest). This turns the act of voting into something that is much more juvenile, and thus totally appropriate for a 16 year old, even if that same 16 year old is not to be trusted with superglue because he could really hurt himself.

In reality, it is highly unlikely that votes for 16 and 17 year olds will have any substantial effect on elections. While objectionable for all the reasons outlined above, this is ultimately a relatively small number of people whose turnout will also be very low if past experience is anything to go by. But that Labour are doing this with the intention of tilting the next election in their favour, if only very marginally, is strongly supported by the other, far less discussed, proposal announced on the same day: automatic voter registration.

This will almost certainly be of far more significance than votes for 16 and 17 year olds. As noted by More in Common’s Luke Tryl, constituency boundaries are drawn based on the number of voters on the electoral register for that area and are reviewed and redrawn every eight years by the Boundary Commission. Automatic voter registration will mean more constituencies (and subsequently MPs) for urban areas at the expense of rural areas. This will benefit Labour electorally, as most of their voters are in places like London, Birmingham, Manchester and other urban areas, whereas the Conservatives and Reform win most of their support from less densely populated areas.

Max Tempers has also noted that if automatic voter registration includes so-called ‘Commonwealth citizens’, this would benefit Labour to an even greater extent. Commonwealth voters will mostly be ethnic minorities, who are more likely to vote for Labour: according to YouGov, at the 2024 General Election, 53% of ethnic minority voters voted Labour, 14% Conservative, 14% Green, 7% Reform, and 6% Liberal Democrat. In 2013, Migration Watch UK estimated that there could be as many as one million ‘Commonwealth citizens’ in the UK who were eligible to vote. This figure is no doubt much higher today, given record levels of immigration in recent years, much of which has come from Commonwealth countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. If automatic voter registration includes ‘Commonwealth citizens’, this will further diminish the voting influence of British citizens.

We don’t need votes at 16, and we don’t need automatic voter registration. If anything, we should be seeking to shrink the size of our electorate by removing outdated and undemocratic Commonwealth voting rights, which aren’t reciprocated anyway (see this article for more details). If politicians are concerned about the lack of democratic accountability and participation, then perhaps they should look inwards, and not try to tilt the franchise in their favour.

---

Image credits: Jebulon, Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedication

This article was written by Charlie Cole and Nigel Forrester. Have a pitch? Send it to pimlicojournal@substack.com.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing. If you are already subscribed, why not upgrade to a paid subscription?

You may also like: