![\"Statistic:](\"https:\/\/www.statista.com\/graphic\/1\/1379439\/uk-election-polls-by-age.jpg\")
<\/a>Find more statistics at Statista<\/a>\n\n\n\n
Younger people have a preference for left-wing (or ostensibly left-wing, like Labour) parties. It would thus seem that opening the floor up to 16 and 17 year-olds will see a greater pool of voters favouring Labour and the Lib Dems. More importantly, it gives young people more of a voice over their futures. The present trend is for those who are older to vote for policies and parties that won’t have much of an impact on them, but will affect the lives of younger generations. Brexit is a prime example of this, with a lot of people from older generations voting for it, despite not having to face the long-term consequences of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I can hear the squeals from the right already. ‘They’re kids, they’re too young to understand what they want and what they vote for!’ Well, they’re old enough to go to work, old enough to get married in some circumstances, and old enough (at 17) to be trusted to drive. They’re old enough to start paying taxes and National Insurance. They’re impacted by political and economic decisions. Does this not give them the right to a voice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some people argue there is a disconnect between not permitting 16 year-olds to stand as MPs (you must be 18 for that), but I see no issue here. There is a broad difference between voting, and taking on responsibility for running a constituency. What I see is an effort to give a voice to people whose futures are more at risk by government decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Could it backfire? Of course! We might see a rise in efforts from right-wing populists like Farage to court young, impressionable minds. However, as per the chart above, it seems like as a rule, Britain’s youth have a preference for compassion and equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n