Lord Soley refers to the brief debate, during committee stage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, on the issue of votes at 16. Whenever the issue comes up, I normally contribute but on this occasion could not be there – otherwise I would have drawn attention to the problems associated with the arguments advanced for lowering the voting age.
Let us take that put forward in the debate by Lord Soley: you can join the army at 16. No you can’t. You can apply to join the army. The difference is not some semantic point but a rather crucial one. If you allowed any 16-year-old to become a soldier, without having to go through any selection process, then you empower 16-year-olds. If you permit 16-year-olds to apply to join the army, you empower the army. Lord Soley’s argument only has force if you wish to make the case for 16-year-olds to apply to go on the electoral register, having to be assessed for their competence to vote before being put on the register. It does not make the case for all 16-year-olds to be put automatically on the register. Other arguments advances for lowering the voting age tend to be of this ‘if they can join the army they can vote’ type. There may be a case for lowering the voting age, but it needs to be a more powerful one than that trotted out in most debates we have on the subject.
Lord Soley also said recently in debate that we are the sixth manufacturing nation in the world. Another peer took him to task by saying we are in fact the seventh manufacturing nation in the world. The words of Abraham Lincoln spring to mind.
The “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” argument does not convince me in the least. Allowing 16 year olds to join the army is a dreadful necessity that we have because (I presume) we wouldn’t get enough soldiers otherwise. Recruiting people who might not have the fully adult judgement to appreciate 100% the risks and effects of what they are doing is justified only because the whole security and continued existence of the state is (I presume) at stake. Recruitment of 16 year olds should be stopped as soon as it is safe to do so and it should not be used as an argument to justify anything else.
I suspect it has more to do with the length of training and inculcation into the military way needed before people are deployable in combat. Joining at 16 gives them 2 yrs.
‘having to be assessed for their competence to vote before being put on the register.’
As I suspect many people over 18 couldn’t pass that test it rather reflects its absurdity.
“old enough to fight, old enough to vote”
Perhaps I should point out here that, whilst they’re allowed to join the army, they are not in fact allowed on the front line until they’re eighteen. So they’re not, in fact, old enough to fight at all.
Having now watched video footage of the young people debating house reform I was surprised by how many seemed comfortable with appointed peers holding the Commons to account on a power basis.
This does not surprise me because democracy does not feature much in their lives at all. At home they have to do as they are told; autocracy. At school they have to do as they are told; autocracy. In the debate they had to do as they were told and by the Lord Speaker; autocracy. In fact to be a child or young person is to ‘endure’ any amount of benign autocracy.
So is 16 years of age too young? I would suggest it is. Its only as adults experiencing disadvantageous autocracy that we begin to understand the merits and importance of democracy. So are peers that favour an appointed house giving in to their inner child?
This maybe controversial I don`t know. If we treat the Country as Business then taxpayers would be shareholders. There are 16 year olds that run companies and pay tax, there maybe others who voluntarily wish to do so.
Putting into the business/country would make you eligible to vote.
It`s just an off the cuff idea that probably has major faults but I thought I`d float it and see what we came up with.
I love it. A bunch of old gits and babyboomers gravely nodding in agreement at this nonsense.
The judgement of sixteen-year-olds is considered sound enough for them to be able to work full-time (though not, disgracefully, to earn the minimum wage for adults), to consent to sex, and to marry. Yet they have no say in the way these issues, or the countless others that affect their lives, are governed and legislated.
I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage democratic participation among the young, and lowering the voting age seems an excellent first step. I fail to see how this could be a negative change.
David: Your argument is about on a par with Lord Soley’s. Being able to work full-time is not an indication of judgment, there is no minimum age level for paying tax, and sixteen-year-olds in England require parental consent to marry.
I notice you don’t address my point about participation, or try to elaborate on what terrible catastrophe might befall the nation if the vote was given to 16-yr-olds.
If it’s simply a question of judgement surely we should test IQ or reasoning ability before allowing adults to join the electoral register. Clearly such requirements would be absurd and an affront to democracy.
The old and ageing have had their interests pandered to for far too long. It’s time stopped being so condescending to our youth.
David: The argument regarding participation was used to justify the lowering of the voting age to 18. It is not clear why what did not work then with 18-year-olds will work now with 16-year-olds.
No particular catastrophe will befall us if we lower the voting age, not least because – given what I have just said – nothing much is likely to happen. I am not sure that the fact nothing catastrophic will happen is necessarily a compelling argument for a change in law.
Yet they have no say in the way these issues,
============
Neither do adults unless an MP or a political appointee in the Lords.
All you are trusted with is which gets to be the next pig at the trough.
“Is not an indication of judgment.”
You see this is what concerns me. What is an indication of judgement ? A tory would say if a person had tory judgement, labour the reverse. It is an enigma and I really cannot see an answer. I know many people ” I would say” shouldn`t be able to vote – anyone who voted BNP for starters-but it`s only my opinion.
Government appears to have it both ways, it states you must have an indication of judgement but goes on to state it will act in an autonomous way – to a degree for LN`s sake. Now the autonomous way of a coalition, this is the first I`ve seen so can only judge by it, appears total. The voters have not asked for this Government or it`s policies in anyway shape or form.
By asking that the electorate be qualified to judge and then forming a government that wasn`t there to be judged is flying in the face of the logic of the argument.
We simply cannot state that the electorate must be able to judge which of x,y,z they require to Govern and then invent some mongrel – I feel that phrase justifiable at present – to Govern. There is no legitimacy in doing so.
I don’t buy the argument put forward by Lord Norton. The judgement of a 16 year old may be just as good or better then many who are considerably older. I agree there is no absolutely logical argument for any particular age but by joining the armed forces you can put your life at risk even though you are not on the front line until 18.
Paying taxes also suggests a right to vote – no taxation without representation?!
I’m not sure if Lord Norton is asking for a IQ or general knowledge test before you can vote. Didn’t George Bernard Shaw suggest this once?
Why 16 then? Anyone of any age can pay income tax! Let alone Vat.
Is it Labour Party policy to give the vote to rich children, then? Interesting.
I’d have thought the IQ test requirement would win more support from the Labour left. After all, as you suggest, the eugenicists did spring up from the ranks of the Fabians.
The flipside of your argument that the average 16 year-old is too incompetent to vote, Lord Norton, is that the rest of us are therefore competent. I rather think that, given the way the last election went, the codgers who’ve managed to age enough to earn the franchise are in no position to lecture the young about “judgement”.
The whole thing sounds dangerously close to being a competence test. If we only opened the vote up to those who the central government deems suitably sensible it would surely be limited to a mere handful of carefully vetted people. Should we also exclude people who read the Daily Express and people who phone up “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here” on the grounds that their judgement is likewise suspect?
Indeed, what precisely is so magical about 18 that makes “judgement” happen? Does the judgement fairy visit according to a carefully scheduled timetable?
I am not sure that everyone who has quite understood the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing that the test should be one of competence but rather that this is the logic of those who use the argument about being able to apply to join the army.
Also, as Anon points out, of those 16-year-olds who are selected to join the army, they are not sent to the front line until they are eighteen, so I am not quite sure what Lord Soley is talking about when he refers to still putting your life on the line. In any event, his response does not impact on the point I was making in my post.
There has to be some dividing line, which I accept is always going to be somewhat arbitrary. My point is that the arguments put forward for lowering the age to 16 are not particularly compelling. There may be a case for lowering the voting age, but it needs to be better than the one presently advanced.
So if not a test of competence what should it be ?
I believe we state 18 as a sign of adulthood therefore competence.
I also believe no matter where or how the line is drawn it could be questioned. I am at present of the mind if the Government is able to take money from you, in the form of taxation you are paying their wages and therefore should rightly have a say. Else what are you, gangsters taking protection money from the young ?
Carl.H: Of course, wherever the line is drawn can be questioned. My point was that the logic of those arguing for change was that there should be a test rather than a blanket presumption of competence.
You are not put on combat operations at 16 but you are on and in military establishments (ships,airfields, army units).
My argument is that although there is no logical point age 16 is better then most other age points for voting.
I meant to add in the above comment that one of my constituents (when I was an MP) was blinded by an IRA bomb at 16. He was on the White City TA base.
Teenagers can pursue different activities that may involve some element of danger and civilians, including some under the age of 16, have been killed or injured by terrorist bombs. The point about applying to join the army also applies, as far as I am aware, to joining the TA.
I can back up Lord Soley`s point. I was just 17 when at the Royal Tournament part of our duty was searching for IRA bombs in the Arena. Not that we`d have known what one looked like.
The problem we have in this Country is Parliament makes individual pieces of law without looking how it affects others and the bigger picture. This gives us things like this :
http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/yourrights/whatagecani
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/employment/young_people_and_employment.htm
This makes the system extremely complex, indeed 16 year olds are misled into thinking they are free to do as they choose at that age. Whereas the reality is they are still need parental consent but parents are often unable to control them.
The system creates a lot of problems for parents and is far too complex.
If voting age is NOT about competence then what is it about ? Why for instance did women get the vote or indeed the ordinary working man if we can answer those questions we have a starting position.
The Reform Act 1867 is pertinent and one can see from this that it was based not only on competence in that it automatically included Graduates and Professionals but also those with over £50 savings. It was also due greatly to public support and revolts.
The Representation of the People Act 1918 was bought about because it was thought wrong that many men who had fought for the Country were still disenfranchised. This gave the vote to me over 21 however soldiers as young as 14 had fought in the Great War.
Now the important and interesting part of all these Acts and further, although it won`t be news to us, is that they were passed by Governments who had their own interests at heart. They all believed they would gain more votes from these new voters.
There never was competence test, there were some financial tests but in the main to ensure the continued Governance by those already in power.
So let`s turn this on it`s head for a moment: Why should 16 year old`s be disenfranchised ?
They aren’t taxed.
Erm…They are and you know that LB. Even the very basic, crappy minimum wage for a 16 yo takes them over the allowance and into the tax mans hands.
School leaving age has been or is about to be raised to 18.
Very few make it to paying taxes.
There in lies the problem. People voting for all the benefits, with none of the costs.
The disaster presided over by the Lords by not regulating the commons is that there is a massive transfer taking place.
A being screwed to pay B, the feckless (including Peers)
A being screwed to pay B, because they are left with the 6.8 trillion in debts to pay off, and that excludes bailing out the feckless in their retirement because they haven’t saved. {Same as the Lords, since its a retirement home for failed politicians}
When there are those on benefits with no savings, who taken half a million over a few years, still having to be bailed out with another half a million in retirement, its screwed.
Your argument rests on the assertion that the criteria to join the army as a private is in some way high – from my experience this is not the case. Therefore, this makes the “assessment” argument irrelevant. Essentially, most board, (reasonably fit) 16 year old (males) could join the army.
Equally, your blog does not tackle the overwhelmingly positive arguments around giving 16 year olds the vote (empowerment etc) – see http://bit.ly/f3nfNb