Young people don’t need the vote earlier, they need something to vote for

On Monday night, Ed Miliband set out a timetable for the introduction of votes for 16 and 17 year olds. What we learned from this is not that he is in favour of the policy – he’s stated it many times – but that, with the intention of bringing them in within the first year of government, they are a priority for Labour.

It’s not exactly clear why. It is not a popular policy. There is no real clamour for this policy to be implemented at all, let alone immediately. This extract from ‘Sex, Lies, and the Ballot Box’ show how little popularity it has, even among teenagers.

In the Standard last night, Sadiq Khan said that lowering the voting age would “energise political debate”. But it won’t. That’s not how you energise political debate.

Only 44% of 18-24 year olds voted in the last General Election. Given that there seems to be a growing consensus that the public are increasingly disenfranchised from politics, why should we expect it to be any different for young people? As someone who still falls into that age group, I cannot honestly say that there was a hidden desire to discuss politics among my sixth form classmates. By giving the vote to more young people, you will just increase the number of apathetic people eligible to vote.

We know what happens to groups of people who are less likely to vote: they get ignored. It is why only last week Osborne announced he was making it easier for people to access their pensions – compare that to this Government’s policies for young people, and you get an idea who politicians are more likely to make decisions for.

What would happen if you lowered the voting age before 2015? Turnout for young people would be lower. There is no question about that. If that happened, politicians would have even less inclination to act in the interest of young people. And if young people don’t feel they have proper representation, why would they bother to vote next time around? Entrenching disaffection in the electorate earlier is hardly the stuff of political dreams.

Those making the argument for the lowering of the age point to Scotland where, we’re told, it was a resounding success. But that ignores what was unique about the referendum, which is that it was engaging. On both sides, people felt they had something to vote for. If there was a success of democracy there, it’s that the Scottish public felt they had a stake in their country. They didn’t just give 16 year olds the vote, they gave them a reason to vote.

Indeed, if there was one thing we learned about young people and voting from the referendum, it is that they don’t necessarily vote how you expect them to: polling indicates 16-24 year olds were split exactly 50/50 on independence.

So, while every poll shows that Labour have a huge lead among young people, they are less likely to vote. If we want them to turn out on May 7th next year, we will need to offer something more. These are the people who are the “new face of poverty”, after all.

The political franchise means so much more than just the ability to go to a polling. If we’ve not realised that, then we won’t go far.