« | Home | »

Votes at 16

Tags:

David Cameron must be confident that his conference pledge to scrap benefits for the under-25s will help the Tories win the next election, even if it leaves a million young people homeless and penniless. His promise that the young will ‘earn or learn’ rather than ‘opt for a life on benefits’ may be popular among welfare opponents, but it’s a nonsensical way to get the young into education, employment or training.

Last month, Cameron asked the Cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, to look into the government’s strategy for reducing youth unemployment, in a tacit admission that their policies aren’t working. Through the billion-pound Youth Contract, employers are offered subsidies if they take on unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds (for some reason giving benefits to corporations is politically more acceptable than giving them to people). In its first year there were funds for up to 160,000 jobs; only 4690 people were hired under the scheme. Ofsted found schools were struggling to provide adequate careers advice after the government handed them this duty from local authorities. University applications were down 6 per cent this year, potential students deterred by the £9000 fees.

Perhaps Cameron thinks he has nothing to worry about. Young people are the least likely to vote: only 44 per cent of those aged between 18 and 25 turned out at the 2010 general election, compared to 76 per cent of the over-65s. And those who do vote are anyway more likely to vote Labour – which is no doubt one of the reasons for Ed Miliband’s plan to lower the voting age to 16. His announcement was met with predictable scorn in the right-wing press: ‘Our children’s generation is astonishingly uninterested,’ Charles Moore wrote in the Spectator. The Labour MP Tom Harris told the Daily Mail the idea was ‘an obsession of a tiny minority’. The British Youth Council (BYC) points out that lowering the voting age will enfranchise 1.5 million people.

Georgina Howarth, a 14-year-old from Cambridgeshire, said at the Labour Party Conference:

The bottom line is that the old men making these changes don’t have to live through them. The very voices that should be heard the loudest in these debates are not heard at all. Is it any wonder that we are branded a generation that is politically uninterested when the politicians have no interest in what we have to say?

One way they try to make politicians listen to them is through the UK Youth Parliament, which is managed by the BYC. The 369 MYPs (at least one from each local authority) and 230 deputy MYPs, aged between 11 and 18, are elected by their peers; a million people have voted in youth elections in the last two years. MYPs represent their constituents’ views to MPs and councillors. Since 2009, they’ve held an annual debate in the House of Commons (the next one will be on 15 November).

UKYP’s key campaigns this year – decided by a nationwide ballot in which 253,000 people voted – called for equal marriage rights for all; more support for young people looking for work and an end to unpaid internships; scrapping the tiered minimum wage (under-18s get £3.72 an hour, compared to £6.31 if you’re over 21); cheaper public transport (once you turn 16 you’re no longer eligible for child fares); and an overhaul of personal, social and health education in schools.

Are the young people involved in UKYP among those likely to be affected by exclusion from housing benefits and Job Seekers Allowance? Some of them are: a recent survey of more than 6000 people involved with the BYC found 20 per cent had received free school meals (while 21 per cent came from black and minority ethnic groups, 13 per cent were gay or lesbian and 10 per cent were disabled – a lot more diverse than the Houses of Parliament). And in 2015, many of them will be old enough to vote.

Comments on “Votes at 16”

  1. Wagner says:

    At 16, one is frequently in charge of the single most deadly weapon in the UK — the automobile. One shops and pays taxes. It is a shame that these people are not allowed the franchise.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement