Gerrymandering is as old as the hills, and neither of what have been Britain’s two main political parties for the past century has a clean nose. Why did the Conservatives extend the franchise to long-term expats who are not even paying taxes in Britain? And why has the present government just announced that 16- and 17-year-olds will be granted the vote in UK general elections for the first time? Forget any high-mindedness about fairness, encouraging responsibility and so on – these are raw attempts to swing the political arithmetic in the governing party’s favour.
The big losers from votes for 16- and 17-year-olds look like being the Conservatives and also the Lib Dems
The only trouble is: has Labour made a fatal miscalculation in assuming that 16- and 17-year-olds will vote for the party? It is received wisdom that the young are more idealistic and left-wing than older people – as per the adage often attributed to Winston Churchill (possibly because of his own political transformation): if you are not liberal at 20 you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative at 40 you have no head. Moreover, it is certainly true that in recent elections age has been a very strong determinant of how people vote: the younger a voter, the more likely they are to have voted Labour; the older a voter, the more likely they are to have voted Conservative.
But will that relationship still hold for 16- and 17-year-olds? There have not been many polls asking for the opinions of this age group, but those held over the past year or so ought to fire a strong warning shot over Labour’s bows. They appear to confirm a reluctance to vote Tory among young voters, but also suggest that Reform is remarkably popular among this cohort. A JL Partners poll from July last year suggested that 39 per cent would vote Labour, 23 per cent Reform, 18 per cent Green, 9 per cent Liberal Democrat and just 5 per cent Conservative. That, however, was in the week of the last general election, before Starmer and his government had had a chance to become unpopular.
Another poll was conducted by Find Out Now in February this year. It ought to be emphasised that it didn’t ask 16- and 17-year-olds directly for their voting intentions but instead asked their parents how they thought their children would vote – so it is not necessarily the most reliable of polls. It is also worth adding that today’s announcement will have no effect on current 16- and 17-year-olds, as they will all be over 18 by the next election anyway; it is today’s 13- and 14-year-olds for whom this will make a difference.
Putting that aside, the Find Out Now poll suggested support for Reform at 30 per cent, level with Labour. The Greens were on 17 per cent, the Lib Dems 9 per cent and the Conservatives 7 per cent. The poll also suggested that just over half of 16- and 17-year-olds think immigration is too high – which may help explain their favourability toward Nigel Farage’s party.
Overall, both polls suggest that received ideas about how 16- and 17-year-olds will vote may be biased towards the views of middle-class students. We think of young people as being woke and left-wing because we hear an awful lot about the antics of student activists. Yet half the population do not go to university and may well be less motivated by woke ideas than by the fear that migrants are taking some of their potential job opportunities.
The expansion of the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds could end up being a very big problem for Labour if it means losing the votes of the working-class young. It is also worth noting the strong attraction of the Greens to young voters; that, too, could detract from Labour’s vote.
The big losers from votes for 16- and 17-year-olds look like being the Conservatives and also the Lib Dems. In times past, the latter used to cultivate young votes through conference votes to legalise dope and the like. But they no longer seem to be cutting through; they have become a party of the middle-aged and middle-class. As to who the winners will turn out to be, that is harder to answer. But it is certainly not guaranteed to be Labour; on the contrary, it could conceivably help Reform into power.
Comments