Interesting. Note the right-wing bloggers think the age of adult criminal responsibility should remain at 10. Why are all the other minimum ages between 16 and 18, and this one so low?

No.

Some of your facts are not quite right here. BBC policy allows the word “fuck” even at 12/12A: “Moderate language is allowed. The use of strong
language (for example, ‘fuck’) must be infrequent” (BBFC Classification Guidelines). “Cunt” is occasionally justifiable at 15, depending on context, apparently.

You’re right to point to the law’s inconsistency. In Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, the age of criminal responsibility is 15. In Sweden and Denmark, 15 is also the maximum age restriction for a film – not 18. So not all countries are as reactionary as the UK sadly is, although they may have oddities of their own (in Sweden you have to be 20 to buy alcohol from a liquor store, although you can buy beer from a supermarket at 18).

Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and the Isle of Man have already lowered the voting age to 16, as has the German state of Bremen (for state elections, not federal). Perhaps eventually the UK and other countries will see the light, too.

With most progressive reforms one can think of – including changing the electoral system, reforming the Lords, and so on – one can always say that it’s not the country’s top priority. If that were used as an excuse for not doing things, a lot of reforms would simply never get done – ever.

142 countries set 18 as the age at which citizens can vote.

Japan sets the bar a bit higher at 21, wile the world’s youngest voters live in Iran; they get to exercise a democratic prerogative at the tender age of 15.

I dare say it won’t be too long now, before some adolescent political activist in the UK takes the matter to the court of human rights?

Obviously 18 is a purely arbitrary threshold – I would have thought that assumed CAPACITY was a reasonable principle to determining when someone is eligible to vote – if we accept that this idea then why not let 12 year olds have their say?

I’m sorry, but the argument isn’t whether we as a society have ‘taught’ or ‘educated’ someone enough to vote. As an adult you don’t have to take an IQ test to vote or have GCSEs. The argument is whether 16-17s contribute to and are involved in society to the extent that they have a right to have a say in it.

Of course there are ‘more important issues’ but strangely enough the manifesto will have lots of them in it too (if votes at 16 does go in it). What you really wanted to say is that you don’t think that it is an important issue at all and yet still spent the time to wrote a blog post about it… :s

RP’s right: even cunt is permissible at 15 (see the upcoming Kick-Ass for proof).
@ A&E: capacity is an issue, but where do you set the bar on that one? Simple,basic day-to-day functional capacity or something more? You say assumed capacity without an age threshold, but an age threshold is a rough but necessary proxy for actual assessment.The alternative would be having actual assessments.

Voting is different from other things. Political knowledge requires a certain amount of experience. Without that you can judge only by principles and manifestos, and can will find it very hard to assess competence to govern. I would say that someone was old enough to vote when they had witnessed, as an adult, both the promises made by the current government at the previous election, and the reality when they were in power. For this purpose I am not too bothered whether adulthood starts at 16 or 18.
Voting is not just a personal choice, it affects the whole country, so it is not quite in the same class as, say, sex. As for military service, surely few people think it is a good thing that young people are tied into contracts to go war, and kill and be killed. We have this system because it is a dreadful necessity: it seems as if the country cannot be properly defended otherwise. It is hardly a secret that quite a few young people who joined the forces later regret it and have great difficulty getting out. So should we let that system decide how we are governed?

[6] Hi, Alisdair – as you know the “Gillick” ruling determines autonomy for children in medical matters, so why not the vote, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Are Iranian children more politically savvy than our lot – possibly?

Does anybody know what principle governs political franchise – according to Wiki
“Typically citizens become eligible to vote after reaching the age of legal adulthood”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

A number of recent LC posts have highlighted the inherent contradictions in such definitions.

#5. Ben Furber

Ben my attempt was not to say that young people do not have enough education to vote at 16. But it does seem inconsistent to say “we will force you to be in school until you are 18, but here, have a vote”. Note that the government’s proposals are not necessarily to provide the *capacity* and *opportunity* for everyone to have education until 18 (I am very much in favour of that), but to make it a legal requirement that a young person attends. Presumably if they don’t then they become a “young offender” (rather than a criminal).

You have to be 18 to be an MP, is Ed planning to lower that too? Hmmm, if so, would the House of Commons be treated as “being in full time education”? If he plans not to lower the minimum age of MPs, then voters are hardly electing one of their peers, because there will be no possibility of someone their age to be on the candidate list.

“What you really wanted to say is that you don’t think that it is an important issue at all and yet still spent the time to wrote a blog post about it”

There is that too. The reason for the blog was to point out the inconsistencies and to point out that there are inherent problems. But let’s face it, a 16 year old will, in two years, become 18, so the minimum age is simply a delay, not discrimination, nor denying a privilege or opportunity, it is a delay. But since I am an open-minded progressive (I thought I established that in my first sentence) I thought I would write about the general issue and hope that it would stimulate someone to give the argument for lowering the age.

What we also need is an argument that it is wrong to have a gradual transition to adulthood – those supporting 16 for everything (which seems to be the logic) have, apart from ignoring the inherent contradiction in education policy (thanks Richard), assumed that adulthood is a stage we can reach at one stage.

Historically however, most societies have a series of stages that boys at least (sorry but the past was gender-discriminatory) went through before being a man fully; the transition from child to man involved acquiring greater responsibility and greater knowledge, not waking up one day to a totally different status. I see no particular problem with this, as it is not discriminatory so long as all children undergo the same basic transition. There is however an advantage to such a model – we do not have someone treated as a child one day and expected to function as an adult the next, which does not seem a sensible way to undertake personal development. Gaining rights and responsibilities as you grow up is part of a well-supported childhood (even if these rights and responsibilities might be staying up late, being able to go out on your own or having chores to do); as children approach adulthood the same relationship with wider society starts to kick in, so they start to be able to do more and take on more responsibility.

I am not saying the current ages of voting, consent etc are sensible (I note this is not a blog dominated by rural areas, as driving at 17 (but a tractor or motorbike at 16) has not come up). I am saying that one of the drivers for lowering the voting age is presented as a rationalisation, but only works as such in terms of numbers and not of the development of the child into an adult.

If we decide to lower the voting age while still requiring people to be 18 to stand for Parliament, that’s perfectly defensible. There are other countries where the ages differ – for instance, in the US you have to be much older to be President than to vote for President. The minimum age for UK parliamentary candidates was 21 until quite recently, even though the age for voting had long since been lowered to 18.

Being an MP is arguably a greater responsibility than voting in an election.

Having said that, personally I see no reason why the two ages should not be kept in sync. Whether or not a 16-year-old should be an MP is an issue that the voters can decide. It should be their democratic right to elect a 16-year-old if they feel he or she is the best candidate to represent them.

@ A&E Gillick competence still requires determining when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.
There isn’t an easy solution, for as we all know there are some 14 year-olds more politically and socially savvy than 40 year olds (and we all know some of them whose capacity to take on board the issues is,er,limited), but equally we all know 16/17 year olds whose outlook is still childish,bordering on infantile.
An age limit isn’t ideal by a long,long chalk, but in lieu of individual assessments (and exactly who gets to do them?) it has to do.
Anyhow, this is plain electoral gimmickry.

It’s a thorny subject, but I tend towards the view that if you’re old enough to sign up to get killed for your government, you’re old enough to vote for it (or more accurately, if you’re not old enough to vote for it, you’re not old enough to sign up either). Whether the disparity should be resolved by lowering the voting age or upping the enlistment age is debatable.

[12] Indeed, the Gillick test only comes into play when certain individual conditions arise, so cannot be used as a measure to address the rhetorical question in hand (reducing the voting age to 16) since it cannot be easily applied to large populations.

The only reason I mentioned it was because the principle underlying it (i.e. the capacity of the individual) is one that makes sense, while an arbitrary variable, such as the date on a birth certificate, doesn’t?

The fundamental purpose of voting is to influence the type of society we live in. Surely teens have a big stake in this question?

There was a very interesting thread on extending the vote to those detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure – during it I learnt that it is both illegal and anti-democratic to deny a vote to this group (as determined by the court of human rights) – in which case, why are the inquisitive teens not allowed a seat at the table when the party in power has a direct influence on their quality of life?

One of the concerns of those who favour reduction in voting age is “political engagement”. Their theory (not mine) is that if young people have a vote they will become more civil people and that engagement in politics will become the norm. That if Jo has an opinion, s/he will feel able to express it and that Jo’s mates will join the debate.

But you don’t need to have a vote to become politically engaged. Young people can and do participate in NGOs. They can join the youth wings of political parties. They can volunteer for all sorts of organisations. They can hold contrary opinions (heaven forbids that young people have establishment views, fortunately) and discuss them with their friends.

If the voting age is changed for young people, shouldn’t we also consider extending voting rights for non-UK/Ireland nationality holders who are long term residents?

“If the voting age is changed for young people, shouldn’t we also consider extending voting rights for non-UK/Ireland nationality holders who are long term residents?”

Yes?

@5

16 and 17-year-olds are involved in society to the extent that they are under the stewardship of our government, much like everyone else. The idea behind universal suffrage is rather that you grant the vote to everyone with the capacity to vote, not whether they ‘contribute’.

Should we withhold the vote from the unemployed? From those who have not gone through a period of national service? We cannot put a test on the right to vote in this manner without undermining the principle of universal suffrage.

Any boundary we draw in terms of age will of course be arbitrary, but I don’t see how anyone can really argue that the new voters who enter the electorate if this reform (i.e. lowering it to 16) were passed will be any less capable than any other to exercise their democratic rights, which is why I am entirely in support of it.

@16 Lee Griffin: And if we don’t change the voting age, wadda you think about voting rights for non-UK/Irish nationals?

Give me a hand, Lee. I haven’t entirely made up my mind on either concern.

As a 16 year old I support the idea of letting me vote.
However, there are many 16 year olds who don’t have a clue about politics and go around thinking they are ‘gangsters’ Maybe a bit of responsibility would at least make them think a little bit. It would also mean the school would have to teach something interesting rather than the same sex education rubbish they keep reteaching, year on year.

In the light of this (alarming) recent news report, I was wondering if a persuasive case couldn’t be made for putting the voting age back to 21:

“A third of students do not know Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour Party and almost half are unlikely to vote in the upcoming election, a poll suggests. A similar proportion failed to identify David Cameron as leader of the Conservatives, the survey by student accommodation provider Unite found. The poll of students in England and Scotland found less than half knew Nick Clegg was the Liberal Democrat leader.

“The National Union of Students denied students were apathetic about politics.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8519915.stm

In the light of this (alarming) recent news report, I was wondering if a persuasive case couldn’t be made for putting the voting age back to 21:

“A third of students do not know Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour Party and almost half are unlikely to vote in the upcoming election, a poll suggests. A similar proportion failed to identify David Cameron as leader of the Conservatives, the survey by student accommodation provider Unite found. The poll of students in England and Scotland found less than half knew Nick Clegg was the Liberal Democrat leader.

Compared to how many adults who aren’t students?

Come on, most people neither know nor care about party politics, even though the scum complain about issues in their life which are affected by politics.

@21, 22

Its arguable that lowering the voting age will encourage younger people to become engaged in politics. They are, after all, more likely to bypass the traditional media and find better information and opportunities to organise online.

Oops. I should have said 20,21, Bob B & blanco.

18. I think that if you are going to be affected by a term of parliament, and are able to be affected by the laws of this country without parental consent, no matter how few or many, then you should have a right to the say of how this country is run.

There’s a lot of to-and-fro language in this thread about what constitutes an adult but the way the law is written currently there is no barrier to a 16 year old doing certain things that anyone else would demand a vote for, not least paying taxes (if you’re lucky enough, reality of lack of pay levels to be taxed like most other earners isn’t enough of an argument when the possibility is there).

It is pretty clear that for the government the age of 16-18 is a twilight period where you’re given quite a few rights and responsibilities, generally with provisos to ensure that you’re not exploited or abused during those perhaps more naive years, but you are given those rights and responsibilities regardless.

Similarly if you’re living in this country and intend to do so for more than 5 years, then you will be affected by the laws of this country and, in my opinion, have the right to see that your voice is added to the mix on who represents you. Just because you’re not a national of the country doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right to be represented for all kinds of matters, nor does it mean you don’t have legal recourse in this country for problems you might face (or might cause).

Along with 16+’s and non-nationals, like with the other thread on here, it’s time we gave (at least) prisoners that will be out before the next general election (talking 2015) get the vote too as they as well will be free, slate-cleaned, supposedly productive members of society that shouldn’t be penalised outside of their sentence just because they were inside when the vote happened to take place.

I might be being simplistic in some peoples eyes, but as far as I’m concerned if the state puts reasonable rights, responsibilities and freedoms in your hands, and you’ll be able to use them at some point during a government’s term, then you have a right to decide how that government is formed.

My neighbour often delights in telling me who shouldn’t be allowed to vote – unemployed, students, immigrants, people with learning disabilities, etc. He is a “mature adult”, so nobody questions his competence to vote. Quite right too: competance, maturity or age are red herrings. If someone is a stakeholder in our society, ie they pay taxes, they should be able to vote. A practical solution would be for all people over 16 years to be able to vote. Anyone under 16 should be allowed to vote if they pass a test of competency, where perhaps they show the same knowledge as an average voter.

I’m sorry if i sound idiotic but why must strong or strongest language in a film rated 12/15 be infrequent, once its said its said 12 and 15 year olds will start swearing and its too late the damage is done, they should just use f*** and c*** all the time in 12 and 15 certificates. It’s very silly being infrequent is just madness.

The vast majority of 16 year olds cannot reason or read, let alone make a rational decision about a Political deceision.

They are great as button pushers and can play Game-boy or Arcade video games better than anyother but actually grasp the concept of politics, I suspect not. Even at the age of 18, an ability of a young adult to see above Political Spin.

I would dare to suggest that the Government have dumbed down the curriculum so that people may be easily swayed since their powers of rationale are contained. If TV is anything to go by, it makes The Archers of the 1950s look like a genteel walk in the park. For the record, The Archers was set up by the Government of the day as a perpetual Soap so that the information that they wanted to convey would be heard by the Farmers who did not have TV: almost everyone had a Radio.

Now we have Eastenders, which is roughly on the same level except the concept is conveyed in an audio-visual format. Both the Archers and East Enders are the biggest propaganda operatvies ever invented; whether the ruling party be Conservative or Labour.

The average 16 year old has not enough experience of life to be able to make an informed judgement, and in any case, rather like many 18 year olds will probably not vote anyway because many of that age group are either ill-informed, or alternatively so informed that they don’t trust any of the parties. Political parties love naive, uneducated little people to manipulate who are more likely to vote for sweeties as opposed to understanding the real implications of any parties’ manifesto,

Then again, how many of the members of the Political Parties themselves actually know what they represent?

In hindsight, it may be that actually the case that the voting age should be reduced to 12 years, since the way things stand at the moment, a 12 year old has a better concept of what industry is going to need in the furture, and certainly could not do a worse job than the current brigade!

Hmmmm