Starmer Gives Children the Vote: 16 Year-Olds to Vote Despite “Rigging” Claims and Half of Teens Opposing the Move
Keir Starmer is to give children the vote as he lowers the voting age to 16 at the next General Election, despite claims that it’s “rigging” the result and half of teens themselves opposing the move. The Mail has more.
Ministers today unveiled plans they said would “modernise our democracy” by widening the franchise to bring national elections in line with those held in Scotland and Wales.
But the move, a manifesto pledge from the party, has been criticised as a cynical ploy since a large proportion of young voters support Labour.
In a blow to the party, however, it has emerged that almost half of teenagers do not even want to be given the vote.
In a poll, some 49% of those questioned said they disagreed with the move. Only a few more of the 500 youths questioned by Merlin Strategy, 51%, backed Labour’s proposal.
In addition, only 18% of the 16 and 17 year-olds polled said they would definitely cast a ballot if there was an election tomorrow – with 13% saying they would not take part.
But of those who would vote, 33% would back Labour, the highest support for any party.
Sir Keir Starmer told ITV News: ‘I think it’s really important that 16 and 17 year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in.
“And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the Government should go.”
But a Tory source said: “This is bare-faced ballot box stuffing. It’s a sign of desperation this failing Labour government is resorting to underhand tactics and rigging extra votes to try and cling on to power for longer.'”
Ministers are also proposing to introduce automated voter registration, which is already used in Australia and Canada, and making UK-issued bank cards an accepted form of ID at polling stations.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said “far too many people” had been put off voting by the voter ID rules introduced by the previous government, with the Electoral Commission finding around 750,000 people did not vote due to a lack of ID.
The Government has already made the Veteran Card an accepted form of voter ID, and intends to allow digital forms of ID to be used when they become available.
Pollster Luke Tryl tweeted that the public were strongly opposed to the move: “When we asked about lowering the voting age to 16 last year the public tended to oppose the proposals. By a 48% to 27% margin.”
Former Tory Cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke called it “Shameless gerrymandering.”
If we don’t think 16 is the age of adult maturity, why is the Government doing this?
Paul Holmes, the Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government, called it “hopelessly confused”. He told MPs:
This strategy has finally revealed their ambition for allowing a 16 year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party.
So why does this Government think a 16 year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry or go to war or even stand in the elections they’re voting in? Isn’t the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?
Richard Tice, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK, said Labour had handed the vote to “children”. He told the Telegraph:
Totally wrong that children, by legal definition, should be allowed to vote whilst almost all still in school or college.
But will the next Conservative or Right-wing Government reverse it? Has the Right ever reversed any of the Left’s ill-conceived social reforms?
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is being reported as if it’s a done deal. Won’t it have to be debated in Parliament, or is the “rigmarole” of democracy irrelevant?
Since Labour has a vast majority “democracy” is irrelevant because the outcome is certain.
Democracy has been a sham for a long time. It’s a game to them.
And the HoL. ?
It was in the manifesto, so they can revise and delay the proposal but ultimately not block it.
I expect there will be a great deal of revision and delay.
I pay my taxes, why is it fair that the Government can just ride roughshod over my wishes.?
Unfortunately, enough other tapayers were taken in by Labour’s promises at the last free and fair election.
Except that many Labour voters are not paying tax but are a net drain on those who do. They’re happy to continue getting free stuff.
less people voted for this lot than Magic Grandpa
Other than the pubic sector, few taxpayers would have voted for them, the rest will be benefit claimants.
Perhaps we should all withhold our taxes, and council tax, after all they are not being used to benefit us, they are being used to import the worlds problems, to pay those who have contributed zilch, to prop up a parasitic and crumbling public sector I could go on. Yet we bow our heads and continue to abide by the rules,who are the biggest mugs? There won’t be any election any time soon. Labour has a huge majority so frankly they can get anything through from killing the child whilst in labour, to killing the elderly and sick, to covering up pedophile torture gangs, allowing children to vote, rejoining the EU (surely a mark of treason). Lord only knows what other delights they have in store, Islamophobia laws or shall we just call it blasphemy for protected people, then there will no doubt be a heretic law for those that deny climate emergency, and of course all round good old censorship of speaking out against them. Labour is turning the country into a totalitarian state, the British do not on the whole riot, and so our only recourse to get them out is to resort to civil disobedience and refuse… Read more »
Now which cultural group is likely to have the most 16, 17 year olds who will vote as directed by head of household – on their postal ballots.
Doing something because it is so in Scotland and Wales is not a good reason.
Labour are losing the muslim vote faster than Abbacus can count to ten. And if there ever is another GE those muzzies will be voting en masse for their own MP’s so Liebour are screwed on that front big time.
According to the UN there are 195 countries in the world. We are now in a group of just 16 that allow voting at 16 years old. We are now on a par with countries like Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Well done Labour for the most blatant piece of gerrymandering ever.
I warned you this would happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJr1ife5bUA
I think most of us knew this was coming after Scotland and Wales.
It might be a hard sell for other parties like Reform to say that we don’t think you should be allowed to vote, but please vote for us.
Didn’t I read somewhere that strangely enough Reform would pick up a decent amount of votes from the 16-17 year olds? (Not what you’d expect, but it seems many of them CAN think for themselves)
A lot of them where I live are sick of the identity politics it’s true, but Labour will still do best out of this.
Exactly, and we all know that’s the real reason for doing it – shameless really
Labour could be on for a good hiding. If there is another GE that is.
thats judging by todays demographic, 5 years down the line the non native and the imported migrants will have the vote, and they aint going to vote Reform
They will if Nigel steps aside for Mohammed Zia, in a classic “Bait & Switch”.
That’s why Nigel is so confident of getting into No. 10, as he said himself: “The Muslim Vote”.
It’s not necessarily that they can think for themselves. It’s maybe just that kids like shiny new things – like the Reform Party.
You could be right – ‘the latest thing’
Why? There’s only 18% of them who would definitely cast a ballot, as abovementioned statistics show! (I’m guessing the remaining 82% would rather vote in Britain’s Got Talent).
Therefore anything Reform UK says will fall on deaf ears within this demographic, but so will anything the Labour Party says.
If engagement and critical thinking about politics and current affairs changes dramatically among teenagers during Labour’s term in office, then what you say is very true. In which case Reform will have to put their thinking caps on.
But I think for the most part, 16-17 year olds if given the vote would most likely just vote for whoever their parents vote for (and always have).
Reform will do well in this demographic regardless of the merits of the Labour gerrymandering.
When they find out Labour and Conservatives cancelled county elections there likely will be anger from the newly enfranchised.
Allow them to vote right out of their indoctrination (school), and before they realise they have been taught a crock of sh!t. 16 year old should be allowed to vote; in 2 years when they are 18.
Plus, there is this to consider, which I think many are already aware of but it serves as a reminder. It also further supports the rationale for increasing the voting age, never lowering it;
”The brain undergoes a “remodeling” process until about age 25, finishing developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions, is one of the last parts to mature.
Recent research has found that adult and teen brains work together, and the rational part of a teen’s brain is not fully developed until age 25 or so. The brain’s frontal lobe, especially the prefrontal cortex, is not fully mature until around age 25.”
https://storychanges.com/when-does-a-person-s-brain-reach-its-full-potential.html
For the D-Day landings certainly one of the American generals said he didn’t want any soldiers aged 25 and above. He knew why.
Wow. That’s a staggering historical snippet.
Will Labour also launch a bid to introduce a maximum voting age? It is widely believed (whether or not supported by evidence, I do not know) that older voters tend to favour more right-wing policies.
Don’t give the so-and-sos ideas!
I was never interested in politics, let alone bothered to vote, for most of my younger years, least of all as a teenager, but it would be such a satisfying experience if most of the 16yr olds who do decide to vote voted Reform, or anyone but Labour, really. Talk about a kick in the teeth or political suicide; ”So here it is – Labour’s long game laid bare. First, they opened the borders. Now they’re opening the ballot box to children. Sixteen-year-olds – still in school, legally barred from buying a pint, getting married, or serving in the military – will now get to vote on who runs the country. Why? Because @UKLabour know they’ve spent the last decade turning classrooms into indoctrination centres. These kids have been spoon-fed a steady stream of anti-British bile: that our history is shameful, our culture oppressive, and our institutions systemically racist. They’ve been told that patriotism is dangerous, Christianity is colonial, and Britain is to blame for every evil under the sun. The curriculum doesn’t educate – it agitates. It creates foot soldiers, not citizens. This isn’t about enfranchisement. It’s about entrenchment. A permanent bloc of pliable young minds – radicalised through… Read more »
And to add to the concerns, the decision they make at the ballot box will be driven by a combination of woke education and social media. Hardly reliable sources of information.
Exactly, but still a big gamble for Labour, though. It could all very well go tits up for them when the time comes.
Indeed – I’ve yet to meet a teenager that doesn’t do the opposite of what they are ‘told’ to do… hopefully they continue that natural approach
Labour are determined to destroy this country. Every day a new shock to the brain. It’s relentless.
Now they’re opening up the vote to children and expanding the list of approved forms of ID… I wonder what I did with my Tufty Club badge….
So according to government statistics, only 25% of sixteen and seventeen year olds are in part time employment, therefore very unlikely to be paying tax on their limited earnings, but the gerrymandering Labour party say that they should have a say in the way their money is spent – what money? It was different forty and fifty years ago, when under eighteens were likely to be in full time employment but not now. They don’t work, don’t drink, don’t smoke, can’t gamble, can’t drive, can’t fight for their country. They just take, many until well after their twenty first birthday, which is another point. When we started working as teenagers, we were contributing from an early age, promised a pension at 60/65, but now we won’t get it until 67/68. No one talks about the lack of income from the young just the burden of the elderly.
I think Labour’s already making progress on lessening “the burden of the elderly”. Assisted / promoted / encouraged dying, anyone?
What was the C1984 if ut wasn’t a culling exercise?
Good point. My first job at 15 was working as a restaurant dishwasher on weekends and after school. There was no air conditioning then, and it was sweltering in that kitchen in the summertime, but it was good to be working and helping out the large family.
Modernise our democracy? Over 17 million people voted for BREXIT. The Labour Party is completely ignoring this and getting us to rejoin the EU as fast as possible. Is that what is meant by a modernised democracy?
The Liebour party is not “getting us to rejoin the EU” it is wilfully overriding a democrat mandate.
Kneel and his government are committing Treason.
Yes, but the Tories did exactly the same.
I suppose Labour will bribe them with free sweeties and ice cream, just like they do with their parents.
16 and 17 year olds who vote in the next election are currently 13/14 year olds… assuming Labour make for another 3 years of so.
It is questionable whether they will be sufficiently interested to vote at all.
Some suggest that only net taxpayers should get to vote whatever their age. And to be completely fair, if a 16 year old has a job and is paying a decent amount of tax then I think that they should vote. The real question is: should 19 year olds get to vote if they’ve never had a job?
…erm….
If Starmer is going to press ahead with this, then he needs to make the following changes Make the age of Adult criminal liability 16 Put 16 year olds on the front line of any military campaign Allow them to smoke Allow them to buy alcohol make them fully responsible tax paying citizens, who are measured exactly the same as any other Adult Allow them to Marry without parental consent (this should please certain communities who vote big for Labour and marry children as young as 12 to Adults) Allow them to apply for mortgages, sign legal documents, etc Allow them to bet In summary if he wants them to be able to vote and decide for the Adults in the Country then he must make them Adults who are no longer wards of the State, who are no longer Parents responsibility and who must take on the full financial and legal responsibilities associated with Adulthood. Of course the reason he is doing this, is that in 5 years time, the non native British population will have continued to explode, they breed larger families than the indigenous population, and will vote Labour as long as Labour continues to favour them… Read more »
That line of reasoning makes a Labour victory not only certain, but an overwhelming foregone conclusion! Add to that the good possibility that those voters-on-the-right who hold British values close to their heart and believe in low taxation, low immigration and limiting the reach of the state, will simply leave the country in vast swathes. It will be abandoned as a sorry cesspit of fanciful ideologues preaching to the converted – where all are equal but less educated, poorer and reliant on foreign imports of just about everything. A highly taxed, Net-Zero wasteland.
The scenario you describe is unfundable.
There is absolutely no chance that this country will have the means to fund the gimmigrants in three years let alone four or five and secondly as the muzzie Independents build ever stronger political enclaves the votes they will be hoovering up will be Liebour’s.
I don’t think many will end up wanting to vote, the majority of them are just sneaking fags and trying to get off with each other.
Compound that for 3 years until they’ll be able and I can’t see it being an issue at all.
Straw. Grasp.
But, surely…. any substantial change to our democratic process such as this should require a referendum with at least 50% of those eligible to vote, voting in favour of the change. Have not previous proposals to change our democracy been tested by a referendum?
Absolutely agree.
That such a fundamental change to the Constitution has been adopted by Kneel as he scoffed this morning’s Rice Krispies does not make it legitimate but then when has Kneel ever been concerned about the small things such as ‘legalities?’
This seems to be the way of things now, we just wake up one morning to be told that so-and-so is happening and there doesn’t seem to be any way to debate or register disagreement.
So now we get the next stage in the Socialist grooming gangs.
We love you. Oh go on, it’s a grown up thing to do. Show us how grown up you are. We really do love you; vote for us. If you loved us you would…
If anything the voting age should be increased – to 25 or preferably 30.
Seconded 👍
If you take as an assumption that all new policy and legislation is a factor of what will most likely put Kier Starmer back into No.10 in 2029, this all makes perfect sense. The self-fulfilling logic here is similar to that of importing immigrants whose devout allegiance will be spent on that political party who generously let them in and accommodated them.
Similarly (for the minority of teenagers who have any inking of a desire to engage in politics), would a similar motivation not be present to vote for the party that allowed you to have a vote?
Plus the obvious and consistently observable trend that young people tend towards left-wing progressive ideals, until they grow up and life experience demonstrates how impractical it all is. An ageing population is an increasingly right-wing electorate – therefore expand your voter base downwards, and you’ll get all the naïve, young, unthinking left on your side.
Interesting that most of the handful of countries that have lowered the voting age to 16 are Communist, like Brazil after it lowered the age in 1989, leading to a succession of Marxist Traitors as leaders: Dilma, Temer, and Lula the Nasty Gnome.
Starmer & his Marxist Gang evidently think their decades of brainwashing Britain’s children have been successful enough to trust the teens to vote for them.
Interesting point about later reversal. Reform is strongly supported among younger age groups.
An aspect in sufficiently discussed is the scope for additional political campaigning by teachers in schools. Just as with the forced education service in WEII the teachers will push socialist policies.
Excellent point.
Another lie from Starmer. Just how many 16, or even 17 year old pay tax? They can’t buy booze or fags, can’t fight in the army or get married, yet they get to vote. It’s bullshittery of the highest order.
I thought they had to stay in some sort of education or training until 18 now? How often is that actually paid?
We have crazy checks up to 25 if you want to buy a slightly caffeinated fizzy drink… clown world
Starmer will be giving the right for children under sixteen to be sexually abused and exploited next…….oh, hang on 🤔
Having the right to vote when you cannot stand is the same as having the right to buy alcohol but not to drink it.
The argument that sixteen year olds pay tax and so should have the vote is spurious. All ages from birth are liable for tax on income.