“If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.” These powerful words were expressed by Sir Keir Starmer last May, advocating for the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in UK general elections. This proposal ignited a passionate debate throughout the election campaign, ultimately earning a prominent place in the Labour manifesto, which led to a significant electoral victory.
However, when the policy did not feature in Labour’s initial King’s Speech, speculation arose regarding its potential abandonment. Yet, government insiders have assured The i Paper that the Prime Minister remains steadfast in his commitment to this policy. One source emphasized Starmer’s public support during the election campaign, stating, “It was something that we did lean into. It’s not as though we smuggled it into the manifesto; it was there in fairly bright lights.” The expectation is that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote by the next general election, which must occur no later than August 15, 2029.
In a recent parliamentary session, Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell stated, “I hope that an elections bill, including votes at 16, will be forthcoming in the next parliamentary session.” This upcoming session is anticipated to begin with the next King’s Speech, which is expected to take place in spring or summer. This timing suggests that MPs could soon vote on the first significant extension of the parliamentary franchise since 1969, when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. It is noteworthy that individuals aged 16 and over are already eligible to vote in devolved and local elections in Scotland and Wales.
Despite this momentum, some political analysts warn that such a measure could inadvertently bolster support for parties like Reform UK and the Green Party, while simultaneously making the government appear disconnected from the priorities of ordinary voters.
Strong Support within Labour
Across the Parliamentary Labour Party, there exists substantial support for the initiative to lower the voting age. Sam Carling, the MP for North West Cambridgeshire and the youngest member of the Commons at age 23, expressed, “It’s a big priority for a lot of us.” Carling resonates with Starmer’s argument that there is a fundamental inconsistency in denying voting rights to young people who are otherwise considered mature enough to take on significant responsibilities, such as joining the military, working, or marrying at 16. He stated, “If you’re paying taxes, you should be able to vote.”
With young people often facing challenges that differ from those of older generations—evident in the contrast between rising tuition fees and the pensions triple-lock—Carling believes that granting votes at 16 would encourage Parliament to pay closer attention to the needs of the younger demographic. “Hopefully, it will be part of that kind of paradigm shift that we need to ensure that people of all ages have their interests properly represented by government,” he added.
Mixed Feelings Among MPs
However, enthusiasm for the policy is not universal among Labour MPs. One unnamed MP shared with The i Paper: “I’m personally not that energised by it. I wouldn’t have put it in the manifesto.” This MP noted that the issue had “never come up on the doorstep” during conversations with constituents, even when visiting schools, and expressed a preference for equalizing rights at 18 instead. While they expect the change to be implemented, they are skeptical about its benefits for Labour. “I’m pretty sure it will happen,” the MP stated, “but I don’t think it will help us.”
Electoral Implications
When Starmer unveiled the policy last year, many in the media speculated it would yield electoral advantages for Labour. This assumption appears reasonable at first glance, as polling indicates higher support for Labour among younger voters, while older demographics tend to favor the Conservatives. For instance, a recent YouGov poll revealed that 32 percent of 18-24-year-olds would vote Labour, compared to 28 percent for the Liberal Democrats, 15 percent for the Greens, 9 percent for Reform, and just 7 percent for the Conservatives.
Public sentiment suggests that Labour would benefit from a lower voting age. In a poll conducted by the More in Common think tank last May, 58 percent of respondents believed Labour proposed the policy primarily to gain electoral advantage, while only 22 percent thought it was intended for the country’s benefit. Labour has consistently denied that electoral gain is their motivation, with Carling asserting, “It’s not about that. It’s very much a principles-based issue for us.” A government source echoed this sentiment, stating it’s a “principled commitment as opposed to one that is based on electoral reasoning.”
Disillusionment with Traditional Parties
Nonetheless, Jim Blagden, an associate director at More in Common, cautions against assuming that votes at 16 will automatically favor Labour. He notes that predicting how 16 and 17-year-olds would vote is tricky due to a lack of regular and reliable polling for this age group. Furthermore, he argues that it is unwise to assume that younger voters will mirror the preferences of 18 to 24-year-olds, as a significant influence on voting behavior in the latter group is the experience of attending university, which tends to correlate with more progressive views.
While there is limited polling data for 16 and 17-year-olds, the Hansard Society’s long-standing practice of conducting mock elections in schools provides some insight. In 2024, over 39,000 pupils participated in a nationwide mock election, where Labour still emerged victorious but with lower support compared to the actual election results. In contrast, the Greens and Reform performed better than expected. Although these mock elections should be interpreted cautiously, Blagden points out that they reflect a broader trend of younger voters becoming disenchanted with established parties.
In the recent federal elections in Germany, for instance, 25 percent of men aged 18 to 24 voted for the far-right AfD, while 34 percent of women in the same age group supported the left-wing Die Linke. Labour sources believe that a similar trend could emerge in the UK, with younger voters gravitating towards third parties. The skeptical Labour MP suggested that the influence of social media on political engagement might lead younger voters to distance themselves from traditional parties, with the Greens and Reform as potential beneficiaries. They remarked, “Votes at 16 was never going to be a slam-dunk for Labour.”
Public Opinion on Votes at 16
While parties like Reform and the Greens might anticipate gains from an expanded franchise, Blagden advises caution regarding the electoral implications. He points out that young voters typically have low turnout rates, and it is reasonable to assume that 16 and 17-year-olds would likely engage even less frequently. “So the electoral impact of a low-turnout group being slightly more likely to vote for fringe parties is probably quite small,” he noted.
However, he also believes that the votes at 16 initiative may prove to be more of a liability than an asset for Labour. It’s not solely about young voters potentially supporting other parties; the policy itself is unpopular among the general public. According to More in Common’s poll last May, 47 percent of respondents opposed the measure, with only 28 percent in favor. Even among 18 to 26-year-olds, support was modest at 49 percent.
Blagden emphasized that the policy is “not at the top of very many people’s list of priorities.” He stated, “When you speak to voters from diverse backgrounds across the country, their primary concerns revolve around living standards, making ends meet, and accessing quality public services for the taxes they pay, rather than constitutional reform. This policy could backfire, not just for its lack of widespread support but also because even among those who moderately support it, enacting it might lead them to view Labour unfavorably, as it could be perceived as a cynical move.”
