Britain will lower its voting age to 16 in a bid to strengthen democracy
The centre-left Labour Party pledged before it was elected in July 2024 to lower the voting age for elections to Britain's Parliament. Scotland and Wales already let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in local and regional elections.
Britain will join the short list of countries where the voting age is 16, alongside the likes of Ecuador, Austria and Brazil.
The move comes alongside wider reforms that include tightening campaign financing rules to stop shell companies with murky ownership from donating to political parties. Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali said the change would strengthen safeguards against foreign interference in British politics.
The government also said it will introduce automatic voter registration and allow voters to use bank cards as a form of identification at polling stations.
The previous Conservative government introduced a requirement for voters to show photo identification in 2022, a measure it said would combat fraud. Critics argued it could disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly the young, the poor and members of ethnic minorities.
Elections watchdog the Electoral Commission has estimated that about 750,000 people did not vote in last year's election because they lacked ID.
Turnout in the 2024 election was 59.7%, the lowest level in more than two decades.
Harry Quilter-Pinner, head of left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the changes were 'the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969,' when the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21.
The changes must be approved by Parliament. The next national election must be held by 2029.
'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline,' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said. 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in U.K. democracy.'
The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
33 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
LONDON (AP) — Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's center-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50% on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work. The hotels have become flashpoints for tension, attracting protests fueled by a mix of local concern, misinformation and anti-immigrant agitation.
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
Daniel Manandhar: I'm 17. I shouldn't be allowed to vote
Article content Article content Supporters of this argument might respond with a Scottish study which found that teenagers allowed to vote at 16 are more likely to continue voting into their 20s. It's difficult enough to get teenagers to attend school these days, but even if the study's conclusion is true, turnout for the sake of turnout alone is not a noble goal if it does not represent an improvement to the function of our democracy. This country does not need an influx of uninformed new voters who largely get their news from TikTok. Article content There are many other cases for lowering the voting age that make equally little sense. Some propose that since 16-year-olds can drive, it's only fair that they have the vote. Ask these people how driving and voting are alike and they will seem perplexed. Another absurd notion is that 16-year-olds can consent to sex, therefore they must be mature enough to vote. It's witless. Article content Article content More creative individuals have suggested that the right to vote for 16-year-olds could be given as a reward — in exchange for passing a civics test, for example. I wonder how much this test would cost taxpayers, and what might be considered an appropriate level of knowledge for teenagers to vote. If voting were a privilege for academic 16-year-olds, teenagers not allowed to vote would be forever discouraged from it. Critically, voting isn't meant to be a reward for the smart — its purpose is to give Canadian adults an equal say in determining the direction of the nation, irrespective of their qualities and flaws. If the safe way to give the vote to 16-year-olds is as a prize, then it shouldn't be given to them at all. Article content Moreover, if you allow 16-year-olds to vote, they should be allowed to run for office. But how would 16-year-old parliamentarians do their job, since we also expect teenagers to be in school? Article content The crux of the argument for lowering the voting age is that teenagers have a stake in our country, and there is no way for them to have their voices heard other than the vote. Isn't this piece proof to the contrary? Article content Article content Elections are fickle things. They have real consequences for everyone, including teenagers. Much can change in four years. Beyond the tired old arguments, Canadians need to consider the cardinal question of trust. Article content I am uncomfortable with the prospect of anyone my age influencing four years of vital policy. Do you trust that impressionable teenagers will settle on the right vision for Canada? I would have been delighted to vote in the last election, but this isn't about my self-interest — it's about the national interest. If you wouldn't trust your 16-year-old child to manage the finances of your household, you shouldn't trust 16-year-olds with the deciding vote over the purse strings of the nation. Article content Article content Article content
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: How the Helsinki Accords helped end communism
Article content Carter agreed with Brezhnev on that reading and attacked Helsinki as 'legitimizing Soviet domination.' Reagan considered the accords a moral abandonment of the enslaved nations of what he would characterize eight years later as the 'evil empire.' Article content Everyone got it wrong. As Kissinger himself would write later: 'Rarely has a diplomatic process so illuminated the limitations of human foresight.' Article content To get his de facto recognition of empire, Brezhnev conceded to the inclusion of 'basket three' in the Helsinki accords. Those provisions committed the signatories to permitting the peaceful changes of international borders, allowing states to leave or join alliances (NATO and Warsaw Pact) and, most remarkably, committed the Soviets to 'the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms … in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.' Article content The Soviets had solemnly signed a promise to honour human rights. Brezhnev thought he had made an easily ignored concession to gain a hard-won recognition of Russian imperial ambitions. He was wrong. Article content 'Helsinki became, in short, a legal and moral trap,' in the judgement of leading Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis. 'Without realizing the implications, Brezhnev thereby handed his critics a standard, based on universal principles of justice, rooted in international law, independent of Marxist-Leninist ideology, against which they could evaluate the behaviour of his and other communist regimes.' Article content By 1976, a 'Public Group to Promote Observance of the Helsinki Accords' was operating in Moscow with the endorsement of Andrei Sakharov, the leading scientist-dissident. 'Helsinki Groups' were established in other communist countries, and the regimes were unable to silence them, given that they existed to monitor what the Soviet regime had itself promised. Article content Contrary to Brezhnev's securing the legitimation of communist rule at home and in the near abroad, Gladdis concluded that, 'the Helsinki process became instead the basis of legitimizing opposition to Soviet rule.' Article content Five years after Helsinki, Pope John Paul II had visited Poland and shook the regime to its foundations; Lech Wałęsa was leading the strikes that would lead to Solidarność, the Polish trade union that heralded an end to communist rule; Václav Havel had formed Charter 77 to advocate for human rights in Czechoslovakia; Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street and Reagan was on his way to the White House. Article content The Cold War had always been at heart a moral argument, but the realpolitik of the 1970s sought to minimize that. Helsinki was realpolitik in intention, but massively not in effect. It restored the language of morality, of good and evil, to the Cold War. And once that was done, the end happily came sooner than expected. Article content
