The UK plans to lower the voting age to 16. Here's what to know
THE British government said last Thursday that it would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, in what it described as a landmark moment for democracy and some of its opponents decried as an attempt to tilt the electoral playing field.
Analysts have described the plan as the country's largest expansion of voting rights in decades. The last nationwide reduction in voting age, to 18 from 21, came more than 50 years ago.
'Declining trust in our institutions and democracy itself has become critical, but it is the responsibility of government to turn this around and renew our democracy, just as generations have done before us,' the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, wrote in an introduction to a policy paper that included the announcement.
The plan also includes promises to tighten laws on foreign donations to political parties and to simplify voter registration.
Here's what to know about the change and its implications.
> Do many places give 16-year-olds the vote?
Several nations do, including Austria, Malta and Brazil, while in Greece the voting age is set at 17. Others allow 16-year-olds to participate only in some elections: In Germany and Belgium, they can help choose members of the European Parliament, but they cannot vote in federal elections. Britain has been in that category: Elections for the separate parliaments that control many policy areas in Scotland and Wales already had a voting age of 16.
> Is this change a surprise?
No. The center-left Labour Party has backed votes for 16-year-olds for some time, and the idea was part of the official platform on which it won last year's general election.
> Will it definitely happen? How long will it take?
The move requires a law, which will have to get through both houses of Parliament, so this change is some way off. But Labour has a large majority in the elected House of Commons, and the appointed House of Lords traditionally restrains itself from interfering with election promises. There's plenty of time, too: The next general election is not expected until 2029.
> Is 16 a standard age limit in Britain?
The government points out that 16-year-olds in Britain can leave school, work, pay taxes and join the military. Critics of the voting age change note that 18 is the legal minimum age to run as a candidate in an election, to take part in armed combat in the military, to marry and to buy alcohol or a lottery ticket.
> Does Britain need to worry about participation in elections?
There are some worrying signs. Turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7% – the lowest since 2001 and 7.6 percentage points lower than in the previous general election in 2019. 'Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. The government has clearly heard these alarm bells,' said Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director of the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research.
> Who would 16-year-olds vote for?
Polls in Britain have long showed younger voters skewing left. So Prime Minister Keir Starmer will hope that his center-left party benefits – while the Greens might also expect a lift. Paul Holmes, a senior lawmaker for the main opposition Conservative Party, described the plans as a 'brazen attempt by the Labour Party, whose unpopularity is scaring them into making major constitutional changes without consultation.'
But some recent polling has found growing support among young people for Reform UK, a new right-wing populist party led by Nigel Farage that is strongly anti-immigration. One survey earlier this year showed almost 1 in 5 of 18-to-24-year-olds favoured Reform, although Labour was still ahead with this age group. Far-right parties in some other European countries, notably France, have claimed growing support among young people.
Also worth noting: The last cut in voting age, in 1969, was also implemented by a Labour government – which then lost the subsequent election.
> How else could the plans increase voter participation?
The government says it will create a more automated voter registration system, reducing the need to provide personal details to access different government services. It will also expand the range of documents that voters can use as proof of identity to include payment cards issued by British banks.
> Why does the government want to restrict foreign political donations?
There was speculation late last year that technology billionaire Elon Musk might donate to Reform UK, though he then cooled on Farage. But that episode raised concerns with some lawmakers about foreign interference in British elections. In the proposals outlined Thursday, the government said it would tighten checks on some donations and prevent a foreign donor from setting up a shell company in Britain to channel cash to a political party. — ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
India-UK trade deal signals Modi's priorities as New Delhi eyes EU, US pacts
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India speak during a press conference after signing a free trade agreement at Chequers near Aylesbury, England, Thursday, July 24, 2025. Kin Cheung/Pool via REUTERS NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India's trade deal with Britain is a sign of New Delhi's new gradual shift to opening up its markets while shielding crucial sectors from competition and could be its template for future agreements, government officials and analysts said on Friday. Signed on Thursday and hailed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as "a blueprint for our shared prosperity", the deal with the UK represents India's biggest ever strategic partnership with an advanced economy. It comes at a time rising global trade tensions and at a pivotal moment for India's historically protectionist trade strategy, as the Asian giant looks to strike similar deals with partners including the EU, U.S., and New Zealand. Under the pact, India notably agreed to cut tariffs on imported British vehicles, opening up competition for a domestic industry that makes up nearly 7% of the Indian economy. "This is a policy shift, especially as India has long used high tariffs to protect domestic manufacturers," Ajay Srivastava, founder of Global Trade Research Initiative and a former Indian trade negotiator, told Reuters. The easing of its protectionist stance also applies to government procurement and pharmaceuticals and will likely be replicated in deals with Brussels and Washington, he added. But it remains a cautious shift. Under the UK deal, auto imports will be capped under a quota system to shield local manufacturers, and tariff reductions will be gradual. India has committed to reducing auto tariffs from over 100% to 10% over 15 years, within an annual import quota starting at 10,000 units and rising to 19,000 in year five. Tariff reductions on whisky and other goods will also be phased over several years to allow domestic industries to adjust. RED LINES India has stuck to its red lines in the deal, making no concessions on agricultural items such as apples and walnuts or dairy products including cheese and whey. "There is no question of opening up the agriculture or dairy sector in any trade negotiation — be it with the EU, Australia, or even the U.S.," a senior Indian official said. The calibrated strategy aims to leverage trade for economic growth, the official said, but the government will continue to shield millions of Indians dependent upon subsistence farming and low-margin work. Indian farmers are eyeing broadened access to the UK's $37.5 billion agriculture market under the deal. And Indian exporters will benefit from zero tariffs on goods including textiles, footwear, gems, furniture, auto parts, machinery, and chemicals. "With zero tariffs, India's garment exports to the UK could double in three years," said N. Thirukkumaran, general secretary of the Tiruppur Exporters Association. "This also paves the way for the EU agreement, which could bring even bigger gains," he added. But the strategy could face a major test in negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which has used the threat of steep tariffs to pressure trading partners into making concessions. Trade Minister Piyush Goyal told Reuters on Thursday that India is also hopeful of reaching a trade agreement with Washington that includes "special and preferred treatment". But the U.S. is pushing for greater access to India's agricultural and dairy markets. (Additional reporting by Dhwani Pandya; Editing by Joe Bavier)
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court
(Reuters) -Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. MOUNTING PRESSURE Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases - about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year - and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. EPSTEIN'S DEAL Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but committed suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another - and courts let it happen - that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus told Reuters. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham)
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists with bounties
HONG KONG: Hong Kong's national security police announced arrest warrants for 19 activists based overseas, accusing them of subversion under a stringent national security law, marking the largest such tally yet. They are accused of organizing or participating in the 'Hong Kong Parliament', a group authorities in the Asian financial hub say aimed to subvert state power, under the law Beijing imposed in 2020 following months of pro-democracy protests in 2019. The activists are accused of having launched a referendum or run as candidates in the unofficial 'Hong Kong Parliament' group, which authorities say aims at achieving self-determination and drafting a 'Hong Kong constitution'. Police, who said the organisation sought to overthrow the governments of China and Hong Kong by unlawful means, said they are still investigating and further arrests may follow. Among those named are businessman Elmer Yuen, commentator Victor Ho, and activists Johnny Fok and Tony Choi. Four of them are subject to previous arrest warrants, each carrying a bounty of HK$1 million ($127,000). Among the remaining 15, for each of whom police are offering a bounty of HK$200,000 ($25,480), are those said to have organised or run in the election and sworn in as its councillors. None of the accused could be reached for comment. The former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech, under a 'one country, two systems' formula. Critics of the national security law say authorities are using it to stifle dissent. Chinese and Hong Kong officials have repeatedly said the law was vital to restore stability after the city was rocked for months by sometimes violent anti-government and anti-China protests in 2019. Police reiterated that national security offenses were serious crimes with extraterritorial reach and urged the wanted individuals to return to Hong Kong and surrender. 'If offenders voluntarily give up continuing to violate the crime, turn themselves in, truthfully confess their crimes, or provide key information that helps solve other cases, they may be eligible for reduced punishment,' they said in a statement. Police also warned that aiding, abetting, or funding others to participate in the 'Hong Kong Parliament' could be a criminal offense. ($1=7.8488 Hong Kong dollars) - Reuters
