Thomas Borwick: Votes at 16 displays a glaring policy gap

Thomas Borwick is Director of College Green Group.

We say a 16-year-old can’t get a tattoo because it’s irreversible, but voting shapes lives. Are we being consistent, or just convenient?

Labour has now announced the intent to have votes at 16, a manifesto commitment of theirs. The case for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote has gained increasing traction in the UK. From youth-led climate marches to the active political engagement of young people on social media, there is no doubt that teenagers today are more informed and passionate about public issues than ever before — and some data is indicating they will be equal parts anti government as supportive of Labour.

I was struck a few weeks ago hearing songs by children lamenting the VAT rise that meant some students had dropped out over the last year.

While the moral and democratic arguments for lowering the voting age are widely discussed, far less attention is paid to the practical consequences – and the legal inconsistencies that would follow.

If we are going to enfranchise 16-year-olds, we must also be ready to reform the laws and systems that underpin our democratic processes. And two key areas stand out as being completely unprepared: data protection law and the right to stand for office.

The Data Dilemma is such: GDPR and Underage Canvassing. Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), individuals must be at least 16 years old to give valid consent for their personal data to be processed by organisations including political campaigns and affiliated entities without the involvement of a parent or guardian.

This creates a major hurdle for democratic engagement. In practice, political parties and campaigners often start their outreach many months/years before polling day. They speak to residents, gather data on voting intention, and build databases to support their Get Out The Vote operations. All of that requires collecting names, addresses, contact preferences, and political opinions – all of which are protected under data law.

Now imagine a campaigner knocks on the door of a household in a marginal ward and speaks to a 15-year-old who will turn 16 just days before the election and therefore be eligible to vote.

Legally, unless the parent is involved, the campaigner may not be able to record that interaction, use it for follow-up, or store any of the information, even if the teenager gives verbal consent. That’s not just an administrative headache; it’s a potential breach of data protection law.

This is not a hypothetical issue. We already allow people who are not yet 18 to be added to the electoral register with a note indicating when they become eligible. A similar approach would likely be adopted for 15-year-olds. Unless data legislation is reformed in parallel, campaigners will be left walking a legal tightrope every time they engage with future voters under 16.

Put simply: if we don’t align the GDPR consent rules with the new voting age, we will undermine the ability of campaigns to reach young voters effectively and legally.

It leaves a Democratic Disparity: Voting Without Representation. Beyond data, there’s a deeper philosophical problem — the mismatch between the minimum age to vote (proposed: 16) and the minimum age to stand as a candidate (currently: 18). Yes America has rules on age to stand but this is usual.

This creates a situation where young people are deemed mature enough to choose their representatives but not mature enough to become one themselves. It’s a contradiction that weakens the principle of political equality. In a healthy democracy, the right to vote and the right to stand should go hand-in-hand.

This disparity becomes even more problematic when we consider how candidates shape political discourse. If young people cannot stand, they cannot influence manifestos from the inside, challenge their elders through debate, or act as authentic representatives of their generation. The effect is silencing – however unintended.

Recent controversies have shown that the UK is still uneasy about young people in positions of power. One young councillor in their early 20s became council leader and faced intense media scrutiny, not about their decisions, but simply about their age. If we expand the franchise to 16-year-olds without changing candidacy laws or improving political education, we risk setting young people up for tokenism or backlash, rather than meaningful leadership.

There’s international precedent here too. In Austria, both the voting age and the candidacy age are 16 for local elections. In Norway, trials have been run with 16-year-old voters, and in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in local and Scottish Parliament elections — though they still can’t stand until 18. The UK should not aim to lead with half-measures. If we trust 16-year-olds to vote, we must also trust them to participate fully.

If we are serious about votes at 16, it cannot be introduced as a symbolic gesture alone. It must come with legal and institutional reform.

• That means:
  Amending the UK GDPR to reflect the realities of democratic engagement, potentially lowering the data consent age for electoral purposes to 14, or creating a legal exemption specific to political canvassing.
• Ensuring that the electoral register clearly distinguishes between 14 and 15-year-olds who will become eligible and providing strict guidance for how campaigners engage with them.
• Lowering the minimum candidacy age to 16 to reflect the new franchise, and supporting this with a proper framework for youth leadership training and public communication.
• Votes at 16 is not just about empowering young people; it’s about modernising our democracy. But to do it well, we need to think beyond the headlines and fix the legal blind spots that could turn a noble idea into a logistical mess.

Lifetime votes still have serious implications as a fairly new piece of legislation and it is likely to raise even more questions when we factor in that it could start at 16.

Young people not voting is not the problem in our democracy — disengagement is. By enfranchising 16-year-olds and giving them a path to leadership, we can make politics more relevant, representative, and resilient.

But if we give 16-year-olds the vote without the rights or systems to make it meaningful, we risk delivering a half-democracy. And that serves no one.