Should 16-year-olds be given the vote?

THE question over votes at 16 is not whether they should vote but whether 16 and 17-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland should continue to be barred. In Scotland and Wales they have been voting since 2014 and 2021 respectively. This creates an absurd situation where whether you are enfranchised at that age rests arbitrarily on where you live. The Government's announcement will rectify that unfairness. It will also bring in broader benefits that it will strengthen and future-proof our democracy. Participation is the lifeblood of our democracy - if fewer people vote then it is weaker. This is particularly pertinent after last year's General Election, which had the second-lowest ever turnout since the universal franchise.

- 

LABOUR'S plan to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote isn’t a bold act of democratic renewal. It’s a cynical attempt to rig the system in their favour. Let's call it what it is: gerrymandering in a school uniform.

At 16, you cannot buy a pint, rent a flat, get a tattoo, join a jury, or even leave education.

Last year, the same Labour MPs who now champion “votes at 16” voted to raise the legal age of marriage from 16 to 18, rightly recognising that adult responsibilities require adult maturity.

Why, then, should the solemn act of choosing our national government be any different?