# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
London School of Economics and Political Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joe Higginson, who will turn 16 two days before the General Election, says politicians could do more to reach out to young people. Full story here: http://bit.ly/1E6yTEB Let us know what you think at skynews.com/standupbecounted

# data[].attributes.body
"EU referendum: The fact 16 and 17-year-olds couldn’t vote on the most important decision of their lives is a disgrace"

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/eu-referendum-result-brexit-student-votes-at-16-remain-leave-europe-a7101736.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nicky Morgan said the voting franchised should be lowered from the age of 18PA Images

In what will likely be seen as her first pledge in a Conservative leadership bid, Ms Morgan said the issue was "a nettle we absolutely have to grasp".

The voting age in Scotland was lowered to 16 for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and was extended to all elections north of the border last year.

Peers helped the Government block calls to lower the voting age from 18 for the EU referendum.

But Ms Morgan, who is expected to announce her bid for the Tory leadership by midday tomorrow, said young people felt "extremely let down" by last week's vote for Brexit.

"Lots of young people who did vote... feel their future has been decided for them by another generation," she told ITV's Good Morning Britain.

"And it's really important we think how are we going to make sure our politics work for all ages."

She added: "Everywhere I go I get tackled on 'should 16 and 17-year-olds vote as they do in Scotland'. I think that's a nettle we absolutely have to grasp and I would say yes."

Ms Morgan argued the move would be a "big step" in showing the Conservatives were on the side of the young who had "often borne the brunt" of issues around the economy and housing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nicky Morgan calls for 16-year-olds to be allowed to vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In what will likely be seen as her first pledge in a Conservative leadership bid, Ms Morgan said the issue was "a nettle we absolutely have to grasp". The voting age in Scotland was lowered to 16 for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and was extended to all elections north of the border last year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is it reactionary to oppose the campaign for votes at 16, which a cross-party coalition in the House of Lords endorsed on Wednesday night for the coming EU referendum? Or is it a mixture of featherbrained nonsense and low calculation (the kids will vote my way) to support such a controversial change?

Sensible people, expertise and arguments exist on both sides, including the Guardian's editorial board and the redoubtable Polly Toynbee , which are both in favour. But so do foolish and self-interested ones. The SNP, which pioneered the reform in Scotland's referendum, calculated the teenagers would back them (tentative evidence from pollsters says they narrowly didn't) just as pro-EU campaigners hope they will vote to stay put.

In the Lords debate - you can find it here under amendment 3 - some peers read out long lists of things which under-18s aren't allowed to do. Their opponents countered with the argument that protecting the young from porn or tobacco is quite different from offering them positive civic engagement. They also stress that 16-year-olds are allowed to marry or join the army, as well as pay taxes (eight-year-olds do that) - not quite so since both require parental consent at 16 (Scotland's law has always been different) and most of us disapprove of married, 16-year-old soldiers. We think they should be in school.

And so it goes on. The pro-16 camp says that evidence from Norway and Austria, the only European states to take this step (some Latin American ones too), suggests that the voting habit, inculcated when young people are still at home and able to vote with their parents, is more likely to stick. In Scotland last year, 75% of 16- and 17-year-olds voted, only 54% of the 18-to-24 group, 72% of the 25-to-34s, 85% (the overall turnout) between 35 and 54, 92% over 55.

YouGov claims that only the 25-to-39 cohort actually voted yes, with the 16-to-24s in the no camp by a 51% whisker. There is a long history of politicians trying to tweak the franchise to their own advantage and of it not working. Harold Wilson dropped the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1970 (I voted for the first time at 24), but unexpectedly lost the election to Ted Heath. Decades on I struggle to be enthusiastic about further change and suspect I was slightly sceptical in 1970 too. The voting turnout of the young has been disappointing, dropping from 60% in the 18-to-24 group to 43% on 7 May, slightly up on recent elections, the overall turnout of 66% being the highest since 1997. A close race always helps.

It's the conventional wisdom to say the young are disillusioned with mainstream political parties and drawn to more radical alternatives - from Ukip on the nationalist right to assorted forms of identity politics on the left, with the SNP cleverly spanning the bandwidth. Letting them vote will help. I've never been convinced by that or by Ken Livingstone's cynical remark "if voting changed anything they'd ban it". Ken's cynicism has been on display again this week. The awkward fact is that double the number of oldies vote and are rewarded for their electoral muscle. Pensioners have escaped the worst of the cuts.

Rational choice theory at work, you might say. Let's see if Jeremy Corbyn can enthuse and engage the young more effectively as the SNP has managed so far, albeit by deploying the magic elixir of nationalism.

What mostly put me in the "no, thanks" camp are two things, one the lack of convincing evidence that the change makes levels of electoral participation better, not worse. Dr Philip Cowley, the political scientist who specialises in parliamentary "revolts and rebellions", is quite waspish on this point. Here's a very solid Oxford University overview of research and inquiry work on the issue which he dug out for me. It suggests weak support across the electorate as a whole and argues that political elites seeking to expand the franchise for self-serving reasons may simply get away with it because most voters are very weakly engaged with the issue. This item reinforces the point.

My second objection strikes me as the more intriguing. It was made in various ways in Wednesday's Lords debate, but is also evident in the media on most days. Young people in their mid-teens are variously described as adults or children - depending on context. If they are victims of a crime or a thoughtless official policy they tend to be called children, if being presented in a less benign light they may be young men or women. Scotland, which has now extended the right to vote at 16 to all elections under Holyrood's control, presents the paradox most neatly. The SNP government has tried to restrict the purchase of alcohol at off-licences for those over 18, it may yet try again to raise the age at which people can buy drink to 21 (as in the US).

We understand why, it has a more acute drink problem than most. But I find that at variance with the voting trend, especially when the Scottish government has - amid huge controversy - legislated to ensure that from birth every child in Scotland has a state-appointed guardian, a named person, there in effect to protect kids from their parents. The definition of a child? You guessed: up to 18. The Observer's Kevin McKenna got quite cross about it here. But it's not just Scotland facing both ways.

In recent decades, all four home countries and Westminster have piled in to protect the under-18s. In assorted legislation they cannot legally gamble, get a tattoo, buy tobacco, drinks, solvents, paint stripper, possess fireworks in a pubic place, use a sunbed, sign a property contract, write a will or open a bank account. They can't serve on a jury, appear in an adult court or overnight in a cell (it must be a children's home ) or watch porn or extreme violence, though they can, of course, have sexual intercourse and join the army (but not buy a penknife). The protective list goes on (councils have a duty of care to homeless 17-year-olds) and we understand why, though some of us doubt the list's wisdom. There is no substitute for maturity and experience, which involves letting kids take risks out of the sight of adults, not have "helicopter parents" hovering at their shoulder on campus. Some will stumble and, hopefully, learn.

Yet Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg endorsed votes at 16, as Corbyn and Tim Farron do today. David Cameron's cabinet conceded the trick to Holyrood over the referendum without consulting parliament. Andrew Lansley (now Lord Lansley to you) favours a compromise: votes at 16 in English local elections. Cameron wants to reverse Wednesday night's 293 to 211 vote by peers. But Eurosceptic Tories in the Commons are deciding whether or not to back the Lords amendment for self-interested reasons: they think the change will be so complicated (data protection is a problem for the electoral roll) that it might - as Nick Watt points out here - delay No 10's referendum timetable to their advantage.

What a shambles, eh? It would be helpful if we stood back and decided to inject a bit of consistency into our attitude towards our young people, who strike me as more sophisticated but less mature than they used to be in harsher times. Why, there's even research saying the age of proper maturity is 25. Shocking! But one unruly peer even contests that simple counterfactual: if maturity is the test then the vote might go "to girls at 10, boys at 25". More work needed?
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it reactionary to oppose the campaign for votes at 16, which a cross-party coalition in the House of Lords endorsed on Wednesday night for the coming EU referendum? Or is it a mixture of featherbrained nonsense and low calculation (the kids will vote my way) to support such a controversial change?

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.votesat16.org/about/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
QT: Should 16 year old's have right to vote (13Jun13)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should 16 year old's get the vote in the Scottish independence vote? Recorded from BBC Question Time, 13 June 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
"EU referendum: The fact 16 and 17-year-olds couldn’t vote on the most important decision of their lives is a disgrace"

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/eu-referendum-result-brexit-student-votes-at-16-remain-leave-europe-a7101736.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
London School of Economics and Political Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Giving 16 year olds right to vote in UK (25Jan13)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Politicians are planning to give 16 year olds the right to vote in UK elections.... more Labour voters! Recorded from BBC Daily Politics, 25 January 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
London School of Economics and Political Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Springburn Academy Vs Our Ladys & St Partick HS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scotland Tonight: Should 16-year-olds be allowed independence vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A class of school pupils at Springburn Academy in Glasgow discussed the issues.

# data[].attributes.body
http://debatewise.org/debates/27594-should-the-voting-age-be-lowered-to-16/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.voteat16.ie/nine_reasons

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/6-reasons-giving-16-year-olds-vote-4316116

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that 16 year old's should be allowed to have the vote. At 16 political history should have been introduced at school and being allowed to vote with their views could encourage more young adults to use their vote,