Apparently this fisking business is in vogue in the "blogosphere", so I've decided to fisk this post at Labourhome titled "Labour takes the final leap".
The time has come to give 16 year olds the right to voteLeft-wing commentator Ellie Levenson outlines good reasons why this is not the case in her 2004 Independent article. I will not repeat them here for reasons of brevity.
Many politicians and party activists decry the fact that 18-25 year olds are the least engaged voting demographic. However, what many fail to realise is that 16-18 year olds are considerably more interested in politics, and by disenfranchising young adults, we isolate them and many lose interest by the time they are old enough to vote.Two things: Firstly, the logic of this argument points to lowering the voting age beyond merely 16 (for instance - we wouldn't to disenfranchise 14 year olds, say, who may be interested in politics but unlikely to vote by the time they're 16 and so on ad infinitum) which is plainly absurd. Secondly, it is just stupid to suggest that the best way to get 18-25 year olds to vote is to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. This doesn't address the root cause of apathy at all, and will just add to the stock of people who abstain from voting.
The Labour Party has made many positive steps towards engaging young people; the introduction of Citizenship education in schools, the appointment of a Labour Party Vice Chair Youth, currently Dawn Butler MP, and even the amount of money being ploughed into youth services speaks volumes in itself. However, the National Policy Forum, with overwhelming support from both CLPs and Trade Unions, has now taken the final leap, and elected to reduce the voting age to 16.If Labour's "positive steps" have been so successful, you would expect voter turnout amongst younger groups to have increased since 1997. But they haven't. It is voter turnout amongst the under-25s which is taking the final leap (off a cliff):
- Under 25 turnout 1997 General Election - 59.7%
- Under 25 turnout 2001 General Election - 49.4%
- Under 25 turnout 2005 General Election - 44.3%
Oh dear. And giving a whole additional tranche of (largely) uninformed people a chance not to vote is supposed to ameliorate the situation? Give me a break.
In doing so, the party has responded to a wealth of national campaigns on the issue, being run by numerous organisations, from the National Union of Students to the British Youth Council. Not only do these organisations put forward their own compelling cases, but the very fact that teenagers are prepared to run campaigns on this issue should be proof in itself that there is the desire out there amongst young people to have the right to vote.
Read: Labour's NPF has succumbed to a well-organised lobby group with a vested interest in the outcome and who evidently don't represent the constituency they claim to (because most young people don't vote). Just because there exist a handful of political hacks aged 16 and 17 does not mean all 16 and 17 year olds are interested in politics, nor does it mean all 16 and 17 year olds deserve the vote. And the NPF should do better than just accepting any argument put forward to it by a pressure group.
However, if all of this seems too theoretical, there is an even simpler argument for allowing young people to vote. That old adage “no taxation without representation” pretty much sums it up. If young people are working and paying income tax, then they have the right to vote for who they pay those taxes too. Furthermore, if 16 year olds can get married, pay adult fares on transport, and die for their country, they quite simply should have the right to vote.
16 and 17 years olds for the large part don't pay tax, and given Labour has proposed to keep all children in school until 18, this would preclude them earning a sufficient amount to pay income tax. It is confused to argue that we should keep 16 and 17 year olds in school and simultaneously argue that 16 year olds need the vote because they pay income tax.
Moreover, the unemployed don't pay tax either, but I haven't seen a legion of progressives marching on the NPF to demand Labour revoke suffrage from those without a job. Ellie Levenson takes apart other well used fallacies often trotted out in support of lowering the voting age.
Thus, I am hopeful that Annual Conference will respond positively to these arguments and ratify the decision made by the National Policy Forum. The time has come for 16 year olds to be given the right to vote. There is wide ranging support both within the youth movement and outside of it. Young people are more informed about politics than ever before. Please let’s give them a chance to express their interest, before we lose it for ever.
I am hopeful that Labour's annual conference doesn't have a collective brain failure and support this barmy policy suggestion. Giving 16 year olds the vote won't cement their interest in politics (and let's not forget that the vast majority of 16 year olds aren't even politically aware, let alone active). Extending suffrage to 16 year olds is an easy way for politicians to appear like they are doing something about young voter apathy. But the reason 18-25 year olds don't vote isn't because they didn't have the vote when they were 16. It's because politicians don't work hard enough or offer enough to that group to make it worth their while to vote.
The problem with voter apathy lies not with our electoral system, but with our politicians. Let's fix them - the problem - to encourage more young people to vote.
I'm not personally opposed to extending suffrage given legitimate reasons to do so. But I have not seen any compelling arguments on the issue of giving 16 year olds the vote.
So maybe all these 16 years who are so politically aware can come up with better reasons for extending suffrage to them, instead of the lazy and ill-considered argumentation that appears to be on offer.
