I read the opinion piece by Prof Runciman, Jonathan, which I found extraordinarily superficial, uninformed and even stupid. Let's begin with the suggestion he made in 2018 that the voting age should be lowered to six in order to 'shake up democracy'. The idea of six year olds carefully studying party manifestos before casting their vote is really quite funny. But apparently the professor wasn't joking.  In the opinion piece which you recommend, written in June 2024, he doesn't actually withdraw his earlier crazy suggestion. He merely says  it isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever. Well that's good to know. Instead he attempts to justify Labour's policy of giving the vote to 16 year olds. He mentions the objection raised by opponents that 16 year olds are too uninformed to make sensible political decisions but doesn't actually deal with this important point. (If I were marking his paper I would probably leave a question mark in the margin here).  What he seems most concerned to do is counter the suggestion that Labour is trying to gerrymander elections by giving the vote to people more likely to support left wing parties. His argument is that we  cannot assume we know how young people are going to vote. And he mentions that on the Continent many young people support right wing parties. Unfortunately research by the 'Financial Times' has shown that, contrary to trends on the Continent, young people in Britain are predominantly left wing. Only 10% of 18-25 year olds voted Conservative at the last election. Next he suggests that giving the franchise to 16 year olds will help to rebalance the electorate, which in his opinion is presently too dominated by pensioners. Clearly he thinks that old people should be punished for taking the trouble to vote. Finally he says that the idea that adults should take political decisions on behalf of children is Victorian paternalism. What Prof Runciman fails to explain is how 16 year olds who are considered too immature to buy alcohol or take on a mortgage or get married or fight in the army should be able to vote on the licensing laws or on the economy or on marriage law or on matters of foreign policy.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Votes for 16 year olds?	05/09/26 15:11:00	Janis Christine Humberstone
Reply	05/09/26 16:04:00	Martine Guy
Re:Reply	05/09/26 18:45:00	Steven Rose
Re:Re:Reply	05/09/26 20:29:00	Ivonne Holliday
Re:Reply	05/09/26 19:31:00	Lucille Grant
Re:Re:Reply	05/09/26 20:11:00	Jonathan Callaway
Reply	05/09/26 20:56:00	Sue Hammond
Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	05/09/26 20:59:00	Adam Tripp
Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	05/09/26 22:13:00	Jonathan Callaway
Re:Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 18:43:00	Lucille Grant
Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	05/09/26 22:39:00	Michael Brigo
Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 01:32:00	Steven Rose
Re:Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 10:05:00	Jonathan Callaway
Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 16:23:00	Sue Hammond
Reply	06/09/26 17:10:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 17:23:00	Jonathan Callaway
Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 08:49:00	Barbara Stevens
Re:Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 09:46:00	Adam Tripp
Re:Re:Re:Re:Votes for 16 year olds?	06/09/26 11:03:00	Steven Rose

Forum Home