I spoke last week to students at Franklin College, Grimsby, and to Hansard Society scholars in London on the British Constitution. The topic, as it tends to, generated a range of questions. Yesterday, I spoke on the role of the House of Lords to Y12 and Y13 students at Brackenhale School in Bracknell, Berkshire. What was interesting – though not surprising – was that the first two questions were on religion and law lords. Religion in the House is one of the issues that comes up most regularly in questions. It doesn’t tend to figure much, if at all, when I talk about the House, but the place of religion in the House – and the continued presence of the Lords Spiritual – appears to fascinate people.
However, what was most interesting yesterday was the response to two questions I put to the students. I mentioned a range of issues on which people have decided views, including the voting age. I asked if they supported the lowering of the voting age to 16. They were overwhelmingly against it. Only three, out of approximately forty, students voted for it. I have known other post-16 groups where there has been a majority against lowering the age, but not quite on such an overwhelming scale.
Later, in discussing the agenda-setting role of the House, I mentioned some issues brought on to the agenda by individual peers. I offered as a recent example Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill, designed to enable someone who is terminally ill and in chronic pain to be assisted if they have a clear wish to die. (The issue is again topical because of a current court case.) The students were overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of assisted dying. Only three or four people voted against. I wasn’t sure what the vote would be, but the scale of support was remarkable.
i am alawys interested as to why people are so against lowering the voting age? The argument that it would not increase the numbers of voters seems to me slightly irrelevant as that argument has never been put forward for any other extension of the vote (women etc). Did the group say why they were so against lowering the voting age?
ade: no I didn’t expore the reasons. There has to be some arbitrary cut-off point (though you can find the odd individual who is against any age limit!) and 18 accords with reaching the age of majority. The arguments generally used for lowering the age (16-year-olds can marry, join the armed forces, and pay tax) generally don’t hold much water (you can only marry with parental consent, you can apply – an important distinction – to join the army but even if selected will not be sent to the front line, and very few 16-year-olds pay income tax). The argument that it will encourage young people to vote is not demonstrated by the experience of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969. It is an issue we have variously debated in the House.
Those are exactly the way I would have voted as well.
I don’t think that anyone under 18 is in a position to make a proper informed decision. I think it just comes across as an extremely cheap (and poorly thought out) method of trying to gain support. As if politicians think that because they gave such important rights to 16-year-olds, they would just rush to support them.
To be honnest though, I’m not sure when the appropriate age should be. Perhapse we should create a cut-off point too, or limit the number of elections you could participate it. That would increase support, surely.
***
With regard to Assisted Dying, I’m also thoroughly in support of it, and not just for the ill. Anyone should have the right to die whenever they wish to.
I disagree, I think that at 16 you are definately able to make an informed decision and the Youth Parliament proving that. Also at 16 you do make some critical decisions as what to do with your life, and with Apprenticeships taking more precedence as an alternative to further education/Uni I think this supports this further.
According to Department for Children, Schools and families 21.3% (19 June 2008) of 16 year olds are not in education. By which I guess they are either working or unemployed, either way perhaps they should have some kind of say in the benefits they receive or where their tax is going in the form of a vote.
The annoying thing is though, I cannot find out the number of 16 year olds who pay tax – so I cannot press my point further! o well 😀
DW: The Youth Parliament shows that 16-18 year-olds involved in it may be able to make informed decisions. It does not prove that all those in the age group are capable of doing so. People make critical decisions at different points in their life (sometimes younger than 16 when it comes to selecting curriculum choices that may shape your future career). You may find interesting some of the submissions made to the Electoral Commission, which recommended against lowering the election age.