Votes at 16
There has recently been published a report on the attitude of young people towards devolution. Not surprisingly, it showed that young people are not interested in how Wales is governed. Disengagement from politics is not new but the extent of it amongst young people is a cause for real concern.
Those of us who have been involved in politics for quite a long time, have seen more and more people becoming more disenchanted with the democratic process. In some ways, politicians from all political parties have got only themselves to blame. We all hear – fairly and unfairly – people moaning about broken promises, self-interest and lack of principle. Nowhere are these comments more frequently heard than from young people.
There is no easy answer about how our democracy can be revitalised. Many things have to be done. But one way to encourage young people’s involvement in the political process is to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.
Extending the franchise in this way will oblige politicians to engage with young people and address their concerns.
Last year, I responded on behalf of the opposition to a debate in the House of Commons on votes at 16. The resolution that was debated was a cross-party motion and, to many people’s surprise, it was successful. Unfortunately, David Cameron announced that although the Conservative Party had abstained in the vote, it would not find ‘parliamentary time’ to progress the issue further.
This was a shame because young people have got many other rights at the age of 16, including the right to join the Army and get married, and of course they have to pay taxes. It follows that they should also have the right to vote.
Wayne David
MP for Caerphilly
I agree that there is extreme distrust and hatred towards politicians amongst young people but the solution to this is not extending the franchise.
"…people moaning about broken promises, self-interest and lack of principle."
This is the problem. When MP's vote in Westminster or in the Assembly, they vote according to their own opinions or by the opinions of the party they represent. This is wrong! MP's and AM's should ask the people in their constituency for their opinions and vote according to them. It's time to bring the people into politics and the running of the country and not secluding them by placing all decision making into the hands of MP's and AM's and making them feel as if their opinions don't matter. How can you be sure you best represent your people, Wayne, if you constantly fail to ask them for their opinion on certain issues? I have never seen you post on twitter or facebook asking for feedback.
As an example, let's take the gay marriage debate. Some people in Caerphilly don't agree with gay marriage. As an MP representing them, you should be harnessing their opinions and the arguments they had against gay marriage and put them forward during the HoC debate. You failed to do such a thing! You judged your pro-gay marriage opinion as being the correct opinion and argued for gay marriage without representing the opinions of opponents who live in Caerphilly. You should represent both sides of the argument and put forward all opinion and points that have been given to you by your constituents.
It's interesting that you say extending the franchise "will oblige politicians to engage with young people and address their concerns."
Politicians should be doing that anyway. It's the job of MP's and AM's to represent EVERYONE in their community and not just those who can vote. If certain MP's don't interact with those who are younger then they shouldn't be an MP as they are neglecting their responsibilities.
Are you honestly surprised at the disinterest in politics amongst the people?
MP's expenses scandal, bribery scandals, funding scandals, middle class financial pain, jobs to immigrants before British workers, mass immigration eroding away traditional British culture, less than ideal laws being made in Brussels etc… the list goes on and on.
The above have affected ALL parties over the years and the people are angry. Hence the rise of smaller, fringe parties such as UKIP. Why is Mr Farage relatively popular? The answer is simply because he likes to portray himself as one of us, you see him doing his shopping in a supermarket like the everyday person and you see him in a pub with a pint chatting to locals. When was the last time Miliband, Cameron or Clegg were spotted in such a situation? The leaders of the three main parties seem set on separating themselves from the people of this great country.
At the moment the turnout amongst young people is low. Why will extending the franchise increase turnout and engage younger people in politics?
You read my comment and probably thought that I was another disgruntled voter who complains about minor things, and that my criticisms of the way you fail to represent all people in Caerphilly don't matter to you.
In short, it’s the distorted attitudes of the MP’s that push people away and not the distorted attitudes of the people.
"No taxation without representation" the saying goes. Those words are as true now as they were when first coined. The case for extending the franchise to 16 year olds is clear and Wayne highlights a few reasons in the bottom paragraph of his article why lowering the voting age should be brought forward. We can not expect the Conservatives to vote for it but I do believe votes at 16 will be in the Labour Party's general election manifesto.
Its not a shock that the Conservatives aren't so keen on votes at 16. For them, attracting younger voters has been a historic problem. Hardly surprising when they've recently trebled tuition fees and abolished the Educational Maintainence Allowance (in England). Thankfully the Welsh Labour Government have capped tuition fees and retained EMA for Welsh – domiciled students. A welcome difference between Cardiff and London.
I would say there is genuine scepticism amongst voters of all ages when it comes to politicians. Some of this cyniscism is fair but some is based on a generalised view that all politicians are bad. This is not the case but more needs to be done to win the public back over. Politicians keeping their promise would improve relations.
It is the case that voter turnout at election times is lower amongst 18 – 24 year olds but that doesn't mean that young people aren't interested in how the country is run though. We witness young people demonstrating against government policies regularly. People do this because they want to voice their views. 16 year olds need a say just as much as 66 year olds. Its time we legislated for votes at 16.
The only problem in allowing young 16 year olds to vote is that they haven't really had any life experience at that age. I know you say some sign up for the army at this age but again not all. Only the ones who have a passion for something and a focus. Looking at the 16 year olds around the Area where I live I wouldn't trust them to have a valid opinion on anything other than what drink they will be drinking that evening or what drug they want to try next! I realise this isn't all 16 yer olds but I can't see that giving them the right to vote will do anything more than open a can of wasted worms!
“No taxation without representation” What a stupid argument to use and it's funny how you only use such an argument in certain circumstances. Currently, only UK citizens or citizens of Ireland and other Commonwealth countries residing in the UK can vote. Should that be extended to allow anyone residing in the UK who pays tax to vote? People convicted of electoral malpractice still pay tax. Should they be able to vote? When young teenagers (13, 14, 15)go to town with friends and spend their pocket money on clothes, sweets and fast food they pay taxes (VAT) Should they be able to vote?
EMA is flawed. Students waste the money on partying with friends or on clothes or whatever else they buy. It was originally intended to be used to fund textbooks and school supplies. It would be better if the school or college hands out such supplies to the student and then reclaims the cost from the Welsh Assembly. Such a system would prevent wastage by preventing money being spent on things which the student could go without.
Sixteen year old's can only marry with the permission of their parents. Should they need parental permission to be able to vote?
Sixteen year old's can join the forces but are not sent off to war (some cases of this happening are know but it shouldn't officially happen)
James, your last paragraph is flawed. It was only recently that a few fourteen year old's sent a letter to their local AM protesting against something, should they be allowed to vote too? After all, they were only voicing their views.
It's everyone's country. Ages shouldn't matter. We all need representing.
Maybe we could edit your closing line to '14 year old's need a say just as much as 66 year old's. Its time we legislated for votes at 14.'
OH WAIT! Why stop at 14?
'12 year old's need a say just as much as 66 year old's. Its time we legislated for votes at 12.'
Where do we stop?
Mrs John, I agree with everything you have said. I was watching an interview with one sixteen year old in Scotland. it went like this
Interviewer: Why do you support Scottish independence?
16 Year old boy: Cause Scotland is good and we have lots in the country to be a individual nation and contribute.
Interviewer: How do you feel about the proportion of debt Scotland will inherit if it does split from the United Kingdom?
16 Year old boy: was debt?
Interviewer: The amount of money a country would owe to various people
16 Year old boy: sell stuff to make money
Would you really trust a 116 year old such as the one above to make a sensible and educated decision? Instead of lowering the voting age we should be educating people of all ages about the political world and why decisions and debates are important.
Agreed dean. Nurture what voters we have. Educate the voters we have and gain more of an understanding of what a country needs not what some 'children' think would be a FUN IDEA! 16 is way to young to be trusted with precious votes!
I agree with the principle of votes for sixteen year olds, as Wayne David says, being able to be married, work, pay income tax and serve with the armed forces should be reason enough to expect a vote at election time. Cllr. Pritchard mentions “No taxation without representation." When I was sixteen I certainly felt that, as a tax payer, I should also have the vote.
Dean also makes some pertinent points. It is not just the young that are disenfranchised but many older people feel that they are too. Looking back since the time I first became aware of politics and the affect it has on our lives, for me this was the early 1970's, I sense a change in the way parties interact with the electorate.
Forty years ago the main parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberals had a 'brand' which was easily understandable and distinct from one another. Within the political ethos of each party there were factions who, whilst feeling they belonged, had certain distinct views on particular issues. These issues were often constituency or regionally based as the elected representatives took into account the prevailing feelings of the electorate in their constituency. This appears to have been lost and the main parties seem to have a consensus based upon the culture, customs and desires of metropolitan London.
This is wonderful for Londoners, who get the policies they favour imposed on all the UK, but not good for the rest of us. This is not solvable by devolution either as Wales is quite a diverse country in its own right. I worked in the North East of England and was made very welcome and felt an affinity for the people there. This is probably because I and they shared a tradition of heavy industry, non conformism and radical politics. I felt I belonged there far more than in the birthplace of my great grandfather, Ynys Mon.
Rather than the current form of devolution which, although I voted for it, does not work well, I think we need to give young and old a wide choice of political candidates who have a distinct brand of politics and also reflect the views of the constituency they are elected from.
Dean mentions UKIP, which is scaring the wits out of the main parties. Why is this? It is because the issues of immigration and the European Federal state, which are talking points in any pub in the land and yet were not debated by our elected representatives. If the parties do not learn this lesson UKIP, or some group like them, will shock the political establishment. No bad thing as they need to wake up and do what they are paid for, which is representing the people; all the people.
Richard has highlighted the fundamental issue. In an ideal world we would all be enfranchised as we all share a country and all deserve to have a say in decisions that will affect the future of our country. Historically, only selected people could vote but over time it turned into people over the age of 21. It was later lowered to 18. Now there's a movement to lower it to 16. Where does it stop? It would be impractical to have a 10 year old voting. The case for lowering the age to 16 is as convincing as the case for lowing the voting age to 14 and even lower. The arguments used for lowering it to 16 could be used to lower it to 14 or 12 or 10 etc…
What is the maturity difference between 18 year old's and 16 year old's. Or even 16 year old's and 14 year old's.
Regarding the voting age I would deem payment of income tax, rather than VAT, as a reasonable qualification. I do see Mrs. John's point about whether a sixteen year old is educated and worldly enough to make a rational voting decision.
Alas, this also is applicable to many older people who, although having an encyclopedic knowledge of soap operas, 'celebrities', and fashion would not be able to identify the prime minister and leader of the opposition.
We have regressed over the years in our public level of political understanding. In my father's day (he was born in 1916) many people used to gather at halls and outdoors to hear politicians speak. Even those who chose not to were engaged in discussion and argument over the merits of various policies by those who did attend. There were fewer distractions then, no TV or internet, and hunger was often a spur to make ones voice heard.
It is a great shame that our modern day comforts, welcome in so many ways, have left many of us poorly educated and equipped to make a rational choice when offered a vote.
What an utterly stupendous notion that politicians should canvas their entire constituencies on every single issue and present every single argument. How would such a preposterous system ever work?
Perhaps we should scrap the summer recess of parliament in favour of what could be termed the pitchfork sessions. Where the minority views of the overtly vocal could be aired. Thus the concerns of the odd baying mob could be addressed if not pandered too.
People are inherently lazy, they don't want to be informed or presented with issues they have to think about. They want populist tripe that confirms their suspicions and aligns with their prejudice. Thus we have rabid EU loathing Tories milking the EU bandwagon. Happy to spread and further misinformation when it suits but all surprised when it bites them on the ass. Now UKIP have forced them in to offering a referendum and backing up their own rhetoric.
It was much the same with immigration, politicians spew rhetoric that panders when they know the reality to be very different. Free movement of people within the EU? Oops but a cap sounds better! Was it not Blair that told us that tax on fuel saved lives and provided hospital beds? Not that he needed funds for his little jaunts abroad and wars.
You can fool some of the people some of the time. Alas, as yet something no politician has realised.
Only a politician could jump through hoops on a mythical quest to explain their waning popularity, so long as it does not reflect upon themselves or their actions. Rather than cut the spin, half truths and wilful misinformation. Let's just add more people, because that will work right?
Bread and jam for the masses, free house and expenses for the MP.
It's simple Heli. You could create a little poll for the people of Caerphily and see where the general views lie. Then, when it's time for the debate in Parliament, the MP's produce an argument for and against the notion using the arguments of people in their constituency. If tens of thousands of people signed a petition and handed it to Wayne David, will it effect how he votes? Probably not, it should do as that would be a large part of Caerphilly's population.
Quite agree with scrapping the summer recess. I receive 30 day's holiday. Some people in the state sector receive less. MP's and AM's should no be any different.
Have you ever thought that the Tories and UKIP push the referendum idea because they see it is important to give the British people a say on, what is fast becoming, a federal Europe? Far from the common market we voted for.
In a similar way the immigration idea is pushed because foreign workers receive priority in jobs (think back to what Labour said earlier this week)
I am bewildered by the amount of time that has been invested by our elected MP in debating this subject within the HoC. But then again, why am I not surprised? Wayne David must have time on his hands. There are far more important issues facing this country and we are wasting time debating whether 16 year olds should have the right to vote.
The point has been clearly articulated by Mrs John, that 16 year olds are not mature enough. It’s obvious and common sense, something that our elected MP’s, AM’s and Councillor’s appear to lack.
It has been reported that there are around 1.5 million 16 to 17 year olds.
However, the Ministry of criminal justice statistics for England and Wales reports:
In 2010 there were 74,000 indictable offences (i.e. cautioned or convicted) between 10 to 17 year olds.
50% of these offences were committed by 16 to 17 year olds. And 50% were committed by under- 16 year olds.
Moreover, high reconviction rates of those aged under-17 discharged from custody illustrate the greater risks of young offenders developing criminal careers which may exclude them from mainstream society on a long-term basis.
The figures are police-recorded crime only and should not be taken as accurate estimates of the total extent of crime carried out by children.
Statistics for underage pregnancy reveal that Britain still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe despite being one of the world's biggest users of contraceptives.
Britain, nevertheless, has a sky-high level of teenage pregnancies, with 2.9 out of every 100 girls aged between 15 and 19 giving birth every year.
Last year more than 48,000 babies were born to teenage mothers in Britain.
They cost the taxpayer an estimated £125 million in income support alone every year, apart from other costs such as assistance with rent and council tax.
Since 2002 and 2010 there have been 63,487 pregnancies among under-15s in England and Wales
The figures, released after a Freedom of Information request, show that between 2002 and 2007, there have been 268 pregnant girls aged 12; 2,527 aged 13; 14,777 aged 14 and 45,861 aged 15.
But the figures could be just the tip of the iceberg – as many young children could have had or miscarriages or illegal abortions meaning they never show up on the official statistics.
Statistics for 16 year school leavers without qualifications shows:
At the lowest threshold (no qualifications): 1% (6,000) of pupils in England obtained no qualifications in 2009/10.
At the middle threshold (less than 5 GCSEs of any grade): 7% (47,000) of pupils in England obtained fewer than 5 GCSEs in 2009/10.
At the highest threshold (less than 5 GCSEs at grade C or above): 25% of pupils did not achieve the higher threshold of 5+ GCSEs at grade C or above in 2009/10.
In summary, are these the 16 year olds you are campaigning to lower the voting age for? This represents only 3 elements – young offenders; those with no qualifications to show for their education; and underage mothers.
I think Parliament should spend time in resolving these issues than wasting time in discussing whether the voting age should be lowered to 16.
The issue of a what age a person should be granted a vote does deserve the attention of our MP. To my mind the maintenance of democracy comes only after ensuring the security of the country and its people. I am well aware that sixteen year olds are often immature but don’t believe that at 18 years of age they suddenly achieve the capacity to make a rational voting choice according to their own beliefs. What is the answer? Do we enfranchise only those over 25 years old? Do we return to the days when only property owners have the vote?
I think that as working sixteen year olds have certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes from income, they should also get a vote. They will make mistakes, they will cast votes they regret later but they will get in the habit of voting. Or at least about 30% of them will.
This has to be a good thing. In a mature democracy it makes sense to extend the franchise to all people of working age. We have reached our current situation by gradual increments that provoke no argument today. When my grandmother was young there were many that argued that women should not be permitted to vote because they lacked education, judgement, were hysterical, etc. Less than 60 years later a woman was prime minister. I never voted for her but she deserved the chance.
All the above comments make interesting reading and raise some valid points. Unfortunately I believe that Wayne David will not take any comments on board and will pursue the issue of votes at age 16 regardless if the majority of his constituents feel the age limit for voting should not be lowered.
In the not so distant past Wayne David wrote a piece in the 'Local View' magazine justifying the way he votes in HoC. To paraphase Wayne….as a committed Christian my religious beliefs give me the guidance to vote HOW I SEE FIT.
No where in the article did he mention voting as to how he believed his constituents, the people who elected him to represent them, would want him to vote.
It appears that Wayne David has his own agenda.
All politics aside, this is an argument for young people about young people. We all know that young people are our future? So why not introduce young people into the building of their future. Party politics is one this but regardless of party young people want to vote of what they think sounds good for their future. I'm 17, at the last general election I was scared about the conservatives and what their new government were going todo to young people what they were going to do for old people an worst of all.. Crush so many young people's futures. Not only raising university fees so young people with a low income family couldn't afford Fees, then again there is grants available. But the argument is, how can young people from a poor family background, young people who live on or under the poverty live, young people who are scared of the debt after uni.
"No taxation without representation" now that's a quote. My friends and myself are paying taxes to a government who dislikes young people, were paying for a government who we had no choice but to only accept their changes to Britain's youth. We had and still have no say in what our current and failing government does with the money.
Voting opens so many doors for a young persons independence, for a young persons stability and for a young person to grow and achieve something, something that they've
Been apart of. The changing of their future. Voting allows political party's to gather more members. It allows non political young people to have an understanding in government. It allows young people to feel listened too.
Can I argue the point Wayne made about how young people didn't really want to know about government and the way Wales is government. That's correct but young people only have this attitude because all types of political party's don't reach out as much as they should. Young people do want to know about local politics, national, European and world wide politics. If only they have the education to discover what they really believe in.
So having young people vote is crutial to a better future. Not only for themselves but for everyone's future.
Thanks for reading.
Joel price.
a Dear MR David, i am writing this to ask you if you can find out why c.c.b.c likes wasting thousands of pounds on me as they keep wasting public money on taking me to court for ridiculous things like a 350.00 pound sundry debt for a house that was in a bad state of disrepair which they had to move me out of for works to be done like under pinning as well as totally gutting the property 130 oak place, as i am counter suing them for just under 15 thousand and as i act on my own i receive all paper work i just had there solicitors bill through for the last few months which was 21,127,60p. when in court 2 weeks ago the judge even told them as i have no money they will not get a penny off me and to make me an offer and that if it goes to trial they could be penalized for wasting money and for the time it has gone on,but as it is going to trial tomorrow we will see what happens, i want to know why the council waste so much public money on someone they know they wont have a penny off and its not just solicitors fees for a few months as it has gone on for 6 years for just this 1 case and there has been many of them over the 8 years that they have victimized and discriminated against me and my family,i would like to know why i am so special or is it just personal to them as i am that important enough for them to waste such large sums of money when at a time of them not supposed to have any money then i think it is time for the public to be aware of where there money is going,also i think its time for these bodies in question to get on with there jobs and stop invading my life or be dismissed for not doing there job,can show you all evidence of everything that i am saying and a lot more. kind regards mrs belinda gingell. ps.i know we dont agree with harry andrews, tudor davies,and bargoed labour for covering up, but it is in the interest of even theyre own associates , friends and familys also who are paying for their mistakes as well as all the hard working people whom pay there taxes copy of letter to mr david watch it get swept under the carpet to its all your hard earned money..