Lowering the Voting Age to 16 is Not Based on Principle, But Pursuit of Political Advantage

In Disraeli’s 1845 novel Sybil, Book VI Chapter 13, he writes, “We live in an age when to be young and to be indifferent can be no longer synonymous.” Continuing, he finishes, “The Youth of a Nation are the trustees of Posterity.”

This is a universally accepted reality: young people carry a responsibility on their shoulders to ensure that the future of our nation is secure. It is not permissible for young people to grow up apathetic and disinterested in what is happening around them, within their own country and community. They must – if the nation is to survive – engage with politics.

The Labour Government has today officially confirmed that it will lower the voting age to 16, conferring the right to vote at the next election upon an additional 1.5 million young people. In justifying the decision, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner posted on X this morning: “Young people already contribute to society by working, paying taxes and serving in the military. It’s only right they can have a say on the issues that affect them.” However, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to misunderstand some of the regulations.

You can enlist in the Armed Forces at 16 years old with parental or guardian consent, but you cannot serve in a combat role on the frontline until you are 18 years of age. The notion that a 16 year old can fight on the frontline is absurd, and those who know their history would be aware of how contentious a topic this was in the past.

The next justification for lowering the voting age was paying tax; no taxation without representation. I have always found this to be a peculiar argument to make, principally because anyone in this country earning a substantial amount of income will invariably be liable to taxation. That includes foreign nationals, who do not have the right to vote. Whilst it is entirely true that a 16 year old can earn a taxable amount of money, it does not mean that we should automatically lower the threshold for voting. The right to vote is not immediately given to those foreign nationals who are earning a taxable amount.

Since the initial announcement of lowering the voting age, Labour ministers have perpetuated the unsubstantiated claim that countless 16- and 17-year-olds pay vast sums of tax into the system. The reality, however, is that most young people in this age group are not working to a level that would make them liable for income tax. The majority are in full-time education, and if they are working, it is typically in a part-time or weekend role in retail or hospitality.

Whilst there is no concrete data specifically for 16- to 17-year-olds, HMRC figures show that only 2.7% of 16–24-year-olds across the UK filed a Self-Assessment tax return, approximately 249,000 individuals. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a significant number. In addition, youth employment has reached an historic low among 16–24-year-olds: ONS data indicates that just 21.3% of 16- to 17-year-olds in the UK are in some form of employment.

In Northern Ireland, the Department for the Economy’s Labour Force Survey (2025) revealed that 9.4% of 16–24-year-olds are NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training), meaning 90.6% are either in full-time education or working.

Let’s deconstruct that figure; according to 2023 NISRA figures, 77% of 16–19-year-olds in Northern Ireland were engaged in education. Unsurprisingly, participation peaks at age 16, with 95% of 16-year-olds in full-time education. This number only begins to drop significantly at age 18, school-leaving age. Yet, this looks set to change, as Education Minister, Paul Givan, announced in October 2024 that he intends to raise the participation age from 16 to 18, requiring young people to be engaged in education, training or volunteering until they reach that stage, reflecting the broader truth that young people are still developing and learning at 16 and 17, and they are in education for that reason, contrary to the Labour myth that all 16 and 17 years are working without respite.

The conclusion is clear: the vast majority of young people are not paying meaningful amounts of tax into the system, principally because they are not working a sufficient number of hours to exceed the personal tax threshold. There is a vast difference between having a part-time job to earn some pocket money, and working taxable hours all while balancing full-time education. The latter is rarely the case.

Now that the taxation claim has been addressed, it is worth considering what 16 and 17-year-olds are actually permitted to do within the law. Admittedly, the list is rather limited. They can opt out of school, learn to drive (17), have a child, and — with parental or guardian consent — marry (in Northern Ireland but not in England). They qualify for the national minimum wage and can choose to take on part-time work, as discussed.

However, a 16 year old cannot take out a mortgage, apply for a credit card or personal loan, serve on a jury, become a police officer, fight on the frontline in the Armed Forces, stand for election, receive Botox in cosmetic surgery, or independently get married. In addition, a 16 year old is not permitted to buy alcohol, vapes, cigarettes, fireworks, knives, certain tools, watch or purchase 18 rated films and video games, or get a tattoo.

The Government needs to explain why they do not trust young people to make simple health and financial choices on their own behalf, yet feel it is right that they are able to vote on whether everyone else can do those things.

The age of 18 is acknowledged to be the age when someone reaches maturity. Once you reach that stage, you have officially entered adulthood. Young people need time to develop and learn before they make decisions on behalf of the entire country through voting. If anything, the two-year period between the ages of 16 and 18 is arguably the most politically formative. My own experience, having been involved politically since 16, was just that.

There is no reason why young people cannot be taught about democracy, the voting process and how our governmental system works. That is not where my opposition lies. I think parents, guardians and teachers should encourage their children and students to observe what happens in their country and to consider culture, ideas, and values.

Young people can still make a difference in their local community, their school and in politics, without necessarily requiring the vote. There are innumerable ways to get involved: you can join one of the many youth forums, join a political party, campaign for a political candidate, or run for student council. These avenues are open to all. The wiser move would be to focus on engaging young people rather than bestowing the right to vote without the prerequisite understanding of how the system works.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues are not pursuing this policy out of a sincere devotion to the principle of youthful enfranchisement. They are pushing this because they believe – erroneously – that it will guarantee them an increase in support. However, their policy rests on a major fallacy: it cannot be guaranteed that young people will turn out to vote in the numbers hoped for once the franchise is extended.

For example, the BBC reported on 16 and 17 year olds being able to participate in Senedd elections in 2021 for the first time. In total, there were an additional 70,000 teenagers who now had the right to vote. As has been reported, less than half that number took the step of registering. In the end, the overall turnout rose from 45.4% in 2016 to 46.6% – not exactly a game changer.

In Northern Ireland, the announcement of voting franchise being extended to 16 and 17 year olds has been met with acclaim by some political parties who believe that it will accelerate a United Ireland. Once again, the same point must be repeated – enfranchisement without engagement is unlikely to yield a significant crop. Professor Jon Tonge made the point on X last week that in the 2024 General Election, turnout amongst registered 18-24 year olds was only 29%. Electoral Commission breakdown figures staggeringly reveal that only 45% of 18-19 year olds are on the register to begin with, meaning, as Lord Weir pointed out, the average person is therefore 4x more likely to vote than the average 18-19 year old.

Those political parties that endorsed this move from the Labour Government should cede their devotion to cynical political aims, and instead focusing on engaging our young people and tackling the stagnant educational underachievement that exists across working class communities in Northern Ireland. They are the young people of the future; the trustees of posterity, and they need all the support that can be given to them. This move does not advantage them in any way.

Social media has helped to increase the daily consumption of politics to an unprecedented level. Consequently, young people are more immersed in politics than ever before. It is on their phones when they open X, Instagram and TikTok. Whether desired or not, it is unavoidable. The Government should tread carefully on this matter for this exact reason. By lowering the voting age, the Government is giving consent to political parties, organisations, and groups to advertise and canvass young people. This decision will open the floodgates for the politicisation of our young people.

Our young people deserve to enjoy the final two years of their teenage life before adulthood, without having to endure political advertising and appeals. They can take this important development time to learn and advance their knowledge, but it should not be used as fertile ground for political parties to sow the seeds of attraction, nor should we risk political parties directly involving themselves in the political education in our schools that will inevitably come, in an attempt to reach their newfound voter base.

When Disraeli wrote those words in Sybil, he did not do so for political point-scoring. After all, it was a novel, not a manifesto. He wrote them as a moral appeal: young people must care about what happens in their country because, one day, they will be responsible for its future.

But to care for the future does not require immediate political enfranchisement. It begins with awareness, education, belief in nation, and responsibility. Engagement! Think of the vital work that takes place at community level, in health, education, technology, policing, and the justice system, all these areas contribute to our long-term national stability and require young blood to take them forward.

We live in a democratic country that values young people, and that can be observed in how outwardly pro-youth our society is constituted in its thoughts and actions. Raising young people up to be the best they can is vital, and Disraeli’s message was rooted in a firm belief that we must foster a sense of duty in our young people. As trustees of the nation’s future, they need to be prepared; and part of that preparation, eventually, will include political participation. But for Disraeli, this was not a move grounded in short-term political gain. It was a principled call to awaken pride and responsibility in the younger generation. That is, I believe, the appropriate way to approach the engagement of young people.

We should, by all means, encourage young people to take an interest in politics, to educate themselves, and to get involved in their communities. But we do not need enfranchisement, we need engagement.

Jack Steele is a current International Relations and Politics student at Queen’s University, where he has been involved with on-campus politics for some time. With a strong interest in Unionism, history, cultural issues and defending our heritage in the modern world, Jack has been consistently active in the Northern Irish political sphere for several years.