Sunday 22 October 2017

Votes at 16 debate in Parliament

According to a report on Labour List, by Young Labour activist Leigh Drennan, on 3rd November Parliament will debate, and vote on, a proposal to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. The proposal for Votes at 16 is supported by the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP in their manifestos, but is opposed by the Conservatives and UKIP. 

Just a week later the UK Youth Parliament will sit in the House of Commons, when
Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons Rt Hon John Bercow MP. They debate five issues chosen by a ballot of young people from across the UK and then vote to decide which two issues should become the UK Youth Parliament’s priority campaigns for the year ahead.
I find it rather ironic that young people from the age of 11 can take part in this, yet are told they cannot vote in Elections or Referendums until the age of 18!

Since May 2016 in Scotland people aged 16+ have been able to vote in Holyrood and local elections, but voting in General Elections and Referendums has been denied to them. 

One of the most frequently heard arguments against Votes at 16 is that 16 and 17 year olds have no clue about life or politics, so giving them the vote is a waste. This is nonsense, as shown by the quote from The Electoral Reform Society, which states, 
Since 2000, Personal, Social, Health and Citizenship Education (PSHCE) has been part of the National Curriculum. PSHCE established three overarching topics to teach students about life outside education: health and well-being, relationships, and living in the wider world. These core themes equip young citizens with knowledge that is found nowhere else in the curriculum. Together they provide young people with the first steps of a political education.
A report on the UK Parliament website states that
Those who support the extension of the franchise contend that citizenship education has made 16 and 17-year-olds more politically aware; that voting at a younger age can create a basis for political engagement later in life; and that there is an inconsistency between denying 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, but legally allowing them to take on other responsible social roles and duties. 
The debate and vote in November is an opportunity to extend the franchise to the more 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds (representing around 2.4% of the total population) who are currently denied the right to vote and thus allow them to have a say in their future, but they are, however, allowed by law to:
  • Give full consent to medical treatment
  • Leave school and enter work or training
  • Pay income tax and National Insurance
  • Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society
  • Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
  • Consent to sexual relationships
  • Get married or enter a civil partnership, with parental consent
  • Change their name by deed poll
  • Become a director of a company
  • Serve in the armed forces but not deployed on the front line
  • Ride a moped
  • Apply for a provisional licence at 16 and drive a car on the road at 17
  • Buy a Lotto ticket
Surely if they are old enough to contribute to society through work, taxes, the armed forces, and undertake a raft of other things, isn't it time that they had the right to vote at 16 as well?