F Andrew Wolf: Is the Labour Party gerrymandering the system?

The polls have not been kind to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government, so he’s decided to try a quintessential American political innovation.

Under UK law and The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a “child” is any person below the age of 18. But if the Labour government has its way, 16 and 17-year-olds will receive the franchise to vote in the next General Election. They will cast a ballot for the next Members of Parliament.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner exalted the prospect:

“For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline.”

The Prime Minister’s obedient ally is implying that the perennial trust issues in British politics are caused by limiting elections to “adults only”. Pay no attention to the decades of scandals and forced demographic changes orchestrated through out-of-control immigration.

The franchise in Britain, along with other major issues judged to require a higher level of cognitive maturity, has historically been no less than age 18. Youth under that age are generally not prosecuted as adults in criminal cases, and a soldier cannot be operationally deployed until the age of 18.

The inconsistency in this new government-imposed age limit status is glaring. Why does Starmer’s Labour government think a 16-year-old should vote but not be allowed to purchase an alcoholic beverage or a lottery ticket; not be deployed overseas in the military or seek political office in an election in which he or she is casting a vote? It seems to this writer that the Labour government’s position on the new age of majority is not just confused – it is both irrational and agenda driven.

The expanded franchise will add roughly 1.5 million people under the age of 18 to the voter rolls, marking the largest expansion of the electorate since the voting age was lowered in 1969 – from 21 to 18 – by the Labour government of Harold Wilson.

Nigel Farage spoke against the idea this week. He remarked that, although his party stood to benefit from it, he still believed it was wrong. The Daily Express cited his remarks thus:

“It’s an attempt to rig the political system…even though we’d get lots of votes.

“I don’t think you should be able to vote in an election unless you’re also eligible to be a candidate, and I don’t think 16-year-olds should stand for Parliament.”

Despite the Prime Minister’s advocacy that expansion is the right decision, a poll by Merlin Strategy found that almost half of 16 and 17-year-olds disagree with the PM.

A significant 49 per cent said the voting age should not be lowered, while a scant 18 per cent said they would vote if permitted.

The poll also showed 16 and 17-year-olds favour left-wing parties; roughly 33 per cent said they would vote Labour, followed by 20 per cent to Reform, 18 per cent Green, 12 per cent Liberal Democrats and only 10 per cent Conservative.

Less than half of the young people (46 per cent) said they had a positive view of democracy, with over a fifth (22 per cent) saying they view a military strongman – with no government or elections – positively.

A study by Joseph Kahne, a professor of education policy, and Benjamin Bowyer, senior researcher at the Civic Engagement Research Group, showed that there was a direct correlation between social media use and political affiliation.

The way social media operates, students can be easily influenced – pressured – into voting a certain way without deeper examination. In a study by Ipsos Mori, a UK research group, more than a third of young people admitted that their vote was influenced by something they had seen on social media.

The science is clear: the brain of a 16-year-old is not fully developed. On average, brain development continues until one’s mid to early 20s; hence, even at 18, one’s views and cognition are still “in formation”. A section of the brain called the amygdala, along with other structures in the temporal lobe, are thought to be more “in charge” during adolescence, because they develop earlier. These sections of the brain trigger emotions and immediate – not reasoned – responses to stimuli.

This means that even for an average 18-year-old, voting is still heavily influenced by emotion rather than primarily rational thought. Given the science, enfranchising a 16-year-old with the vote would be, at the very least, counterintuitive.

Prominent constitutional law professor, Anne Twomey, has warned against lowering the voting age to 16, arguing it could lead to schools becoming “more politicized”. This would come with the risk of schools becoming political battlegrounds as a new market for voters, while teachers and schools would increasingly be “accused of activism”.

But the criticism the law professor is most sanguine about is the issue of “maturity” and whether young people are as “sophisticated” as they believe they are.

“I was thinking back earlier…about how I was as a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. I was actually pretty switched on to politics – partly because of studying politics at school, but I did actually read newspapers and follow current affairs,” Professor Twomey began.

“And yet, nonetheless, I am very embarrassed by some of the views that I had at that age – as probably we all are.”

“So, there is a real issue: You know, much as young people will genuinely believe they know everything and should have the right to vote, I suspect all of us who have been young – when looking back – think maybe we weren’t as sophisticated as we thought at the time.”

Wrestling with economic issues, especially rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson’s Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age.

The economic and social conditions in the late ‘60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour government, while the latter’s intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been heralded as the biggest reform to Britain’s electoral system since 1969.

Some historians suggest an expectation of an advantage at the ballot was, at the time, not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson’s administration.

But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was “less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative”.

Is history repeating itself?