Votes at 16

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

The government plans to lower the voting age for all elections to 16 before the next general election.^[1] At the moment, there is a patchwork of different voting ages across the UK. In Scotland and Wales, 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved parliament and local government elections, but the voting age for UK parliamentary elections and other elections in England and Northern Ireland is 18.^[2]

The government argues that votes at 16 will strengthen democracy and empower young people to participate.^[3] There is also a view that certain adult responsibilities should go hand-in-hand with the right to vote. During the 2024 general election campaign, Sir Keir Starmer said that “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”.^[4] Some of Labour’s political opponents—the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru—supported lowering the voting age to 16 in their manifestos.^[5] But others have claimed Labour supports lowering the voting age for its own political advantage. Then Conservative leader Rishi Sunak said that lowering the voting age was “electorally helpful” to Labour rather than a “principled” change to the rights and responsibilities associated with being an adult.^[6] Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has accused Labour of trying to “rig future elections” by lowering the voting age.^[7]

1. An electoral advantage?

Such suggestions are likely driven by the way age is seen as a force that shapes political choices. The most recent British social attitudes survey found age was the biggest demographic dividing line between the two main parties in the 2024 general election.^[8] Within the 65+ age group, 36% supported the Conservatives.^[9] This was six times higher than Conservative support among 18- to 24-year-olds. Conversely, Labour fared better with younger voters than older ones: 42% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted Labour, compared to 29% of over-65s (although the highest level of Labour support was among 25- to 44-year-olds, at 49%). This has been a trend over recent elections—research by the British Election Study on reported turnout patterns in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections also suggested that age was one of the most important predictors of how people voted, with younger people more likely to vote Labour and older people more likely to vote Conservative.^[10]

However, the age gap in party support is a relatively recent phenomenon. The British social attitudes survey found that in most years between 1983 and 2010 there was typically only a relatively small age difference in the pattern of people’s identification with a political party.^[11] Researchers concluded it was only from around 2015 that age emerged as a major demographic divide.

Other research has suggested that the age-based voting divide seen in recent years is not necessarily a fixed feature of politics. Rather, it could be influenced by factors such as the extent to which political parties—including emerging new parties—adopt policies that appeal to young people, and the age at which young people reach milestones known to influence political attitudes and behaviours, such as leaving the parental home, starting full-time work, buying a house or having a baby.^[12] David Runciman, honorary professor of politics at the University of Cambridge, argues that “no-one should assume they know how young people are going to vote—the point of any democracy worthy of the name is that it should be unpredictable”.^[13]

According to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, there are around 1.6 million 16- and 17-year-olds in the UK.^[14] While this sounds like a big number, it is equivalent to less than 3% of the UK’s entire over-16 population, so it would represent only a small increase to the overall size of the electorate (though not everyone included in the ONS population estimates is entitled to vote—for instance those who do not meet nationality requirements).

In Westminster’s first-past-the-post electoral system, what would matter is not just the total number of potential new voters created by lowering the voting age, but also their voting pattern across individual constituencies. ONS analysis of the 2017 general election results found there were 88 constituencies (around 14% of seats) where the number of 16- and 17-year-olds was greater than the winning margin.^[15] House of Lords Library analysis based on the same methodology found this rose to 120 constituencies for the 2024 general election (around 18% of seats).^[16] Writing about the 2017 election, the ONS noted that if 16- and 17-year-olds had been able to vote in such seats, it would not necessarily have changed the outcome—it would depend on their rate of turnout and which candidates they decided to vote for.^[17] Dr Christine Huebner of the University of Sheffield and Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh—academics whose work examines the impacts of lowering the voting age—observe that “no voter group participates at 100%, and young people do not vote homogenously, so the actual number of constituencies with potential changes to election outcomes would be much lower”.^[18]

2. A question of fairness?

Sir Keir Starmer implied there was a fairness angle to enfranchising young people at an age where they may already have other societal responsibilities.^[19] Aligning the voting age with changing social ideas of the “age of adulthood” was one of the main drivers for the UK’s pioneering move to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969.^[20] However, writing in 2014, Andrew Russell, then head of politics at the University of Manchester, suggested such arguments were less persuasive in relation to lowering the voting age to 16, given the legal thresholds for activities such as leaving full-time education, buying tobacco and getting a tattoo had been raised to 18.^[21] Furthermore, parental consent is required for under-18s wishing to marry (except in Scotland) or join the armed forces, even though the ability to do these things at 16 is sometimes cited as a justification for lowering the voting age. Unicef has argued that lowering the voting age to 16 should not be used as a justification for lowering other legal thresholds that exist to protect children.^[22]

On the other hand, Unicef also suggested there is a question of “intergenerational equity” in deciding where to set the voting age.^[23] It suggested political systems that exclude under-18s from voting but set no upper age limit are inherently biased towards an older electorate and “act against forward-looking policy-making”. Votes at 16 could, it proposes, “fulfil an ethical imperative” of allowing those with the longest life expectancy to have a say, especially “at a time when the main crises impacting the world require long-term thinking”. This echoes arguments put forward in the UK Youth Parliament’s manifesto for 2024–26.^[24] Members of the UK Youth Parliament characterise their demand for votes at 16 within the context of ensuring that youth voices are “central to the decisions that shape our world”.

3. Stronger participation?

Research has also suggested that a voting age of 16 could strengthen electoral participation over the long term. Turnout among young people is typically low. However, research in Scotland and Austria—where the voting age has been lowered to 16—indicates that those who first got the vote at 16 or 17 are more likely to vote than people who experienced their first election aged 18 or over.^[25] This higher turnout among those enfranchised at 16 or 17 may persist for years after they first get the vote.^[26]

There are arguments on both sides about whether lowering the voting age entrenches or reduces inequalities in political participation. Huebner and Eichhorn and the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the LSE point out that most 16- and 17-year-olds still live at home, so their voting habits and interest in politics are likely to be impacted by their parents.^[27] Young people from households with higher income and education levels are more likely to be politically engaged than their peers from less advantaged backgrounds. On the other hand, the researchers suggest that a voting age of 16 could provide opportunities to address socio-economic disparities in democratic engagement, as schools could have an important role in providing democratic education. More political education at school is an integral part of the UK Youth Parliament’s manifesto campaign for votes at 16.^[28]

Huebner and Eichhorn argue though that more democratic education is not the only policy required to successfully implement a lower voting age.^[29] They suggest voting age reform should be undertaken as part of a “multi-dimensional process”, for instance by supporting political parties to better engage with young people, and streamlining voter registration requirements that can present particular barriers to 16- and 17-year-olds. This is echoed by other researchers who analysed the lowering of the voting age to 18 in 1969. The lesson they drew was that “to be a catalyst for young people’s political engagement […] it is vital that voting age reform is part of a more holistic approach to young people’s citizenship and engagement with the political system”.^[30]

The government published its strategy for elections on 17 July 2025.^[31] This sets out its plans to legislate for votes at 16, reform voter registration and support democratic education.

---

Cover image by Red Dot on Unsplash.