Starmer Gives Children the Vote: 16 Year-Olds to Vote Despite “Rigging” Claims and Half of Teens Opposing the Move
WILL JONES
Keir Starmer is to give children the vote as he lowers the voting age to 16 at the next General Election, despite claims that it’s “rigging” the result and half of teens themselves opposing the move. The Mail has more.
Ministers today unveiled plans they said would “modernise our democracy” by widening the franchise to bring national elections in line with those held in Scotland and Wales.
But the move, a manifesto pledge from the party, has been criticised as a cynical ploy since a large proportion of young voters support Labour.
In a blow to the party, however, it has emerged that almost half of teenagers do not even want to be given the vote.
In a poll, some 49% of those questioned said they disagreed with the move. Only a few more of the 500 youths questioned by Merlin Strategy, 51%, backed Labour’s proposal.
In addition, only 18% of the 16 and 17 year-olds polled said they would definitely cast a ballot if there was an election tomorrow – with 13% saying they would not take part.
But of those who would vote, 33% would back Labour, the highest support for any party.
Sir Keir Starmer told ITV News: ‘I think it’s really important that 16 and 17 year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in.
“And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the Government should go.”
But a Tory source said: “This is bare-faced ballot box stuffing. It’s a sign of desperation this failing Labour government is resorting to underhand tactics and rigging extra votes to try and cling on to power for longer.’”
Ministers are also proposing to introduce automated voter registration, which is already used in Australia and Canada, and making UK-issued bank cards an accepted form of ID at polling stations.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said “far too many people” had been put off voting by the voter ID rules introduced by the previous government, with the Electoral Commission finding around 750,000 people did not vote due to a lack of ID.
The Government has already made the Veteran Card an accepted form of voter ID, and intends to allow digital forms of ID to be used when they become available.
.
Pollster Luke Tryl tweeted that the public were strongly opposed to the move: “When we asked about lowering the voting age to 16 last year the public tended to oppose the proposals. By a 48% to 27% margin.”
When we asked about lowering the voting age to 16 last year the public tended to oppose the proposals. By a 48% to 27% margin. There were however stark age divides; younger voters more likely to back the proposals, older voters dead against. pic.twitter.com/pKZ7iyH6VQ
— Luke Tryl (@LukeTryl) July 17, 2025
Former Tory Cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke called it “Shameless gerrymandering.”
If we don’t think 16 is the age of adult maturity, why is the Government doing this?
Paul Holmes, the Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government, called it “hopelessly confused”. He told MPs:
This strategy has finally revealed their ambition for allowing a 16 year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party.
So why does this Government think a 16 year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry or go to war or even stand in the elections they’re voting in? Isn’t the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?
Richard Tice, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK, said Labour had handed the vote to “children”. He told the Telegraph:
Totally wrong that children, by legal definition, should be allowed to vote whilst almost all still in school or college.
But will the next Conservative or Right-wing Government reverse it? Has the Right ever reversed any of the Left’s ill-conceived social reforms?
Worth reading in full.
See Related Article Below
Starmer’s Hail Mary: 16-Year-Olds on Tide Pods Might Save Labour
FRANK HAVILAND
It takes a lot for me to defend Keir Starmer. The phrase ‘wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire’ automatically springs to mind, the minute our Pillsbury Dullboy of a Prime Minster waddles into the conversation. However, the accusation that Labour’s votes at 16 are a crude attempt to “rig the political system” seems a bit harsh. Of course Starmer wants to rig the political system – along with every other Westminster wallah, tragically bereft of the audacity and the ‘spiritual influence’ of trailblazing Tower Hamlets’ Caliph, Lutfur Rahman.
Gerrymandering has, after all, long been an established feature of the electoral landscape. The rumours are that Keir Starmer is so concerned about losing his seat at the next election to a pro-Palestine candidate, he attempted to redraw the Holborn and St Pancras boundary to exclude everything beyond his own residence. Alas, the PM couldn’t even rely on the votes of his own family after he was assured by Lady Victoria that she “wouldn’t vote him if he were the last Ukrainian rent-boy this side of The Donbas”.
With his government tanking in the polls, and Starmer himself marginally less welcome than a bout of chlamydia (at least you’re guaranteed a good night out beforehand), clearly the man had to do something. Unfortunately, there’s only so many thousand illegals (sorry, voters) you can ship across the Channel each week. And with Labour chickening out on votes for EU citizens, Starmer is running out of potential supporters moronic enough to cast a vote for him. In fairness to Starmer, votes for 16-year-olds was actually in the Labour manifesto.
Still, ‘votes for morons’ was never going to be a particularly easy sell to the British public, hence the Labour Party bullshit machine has been in overdrive over the past 24 hours. First up was wannabe leader Ange Rayner who, unlike most of the Cabinet left school up the duff at 16, and is therefore unusually well-acquainted with this particular demographic. “16-year-olds contribute to society” she said, “they should be able to vote”. So do illegals working in the black economy luv, but no one’s suggesting they should be given voting rights are they? My bad, of course they are!
Next up was the SNP’s finest, John Swinney, who couldn’t resist crowing that the UK was “finally catching up with Scotland” in lowering the voting age. Give us time John, and I’m sure we can match you on the lowest life expectancy and highest drug death rate in Europe as well. We were then treated to the wisdom of National Association of Head Teachers’ secretary, Paul Whiteman, who employed the “Young people will be most affected throughout their lives by decisions made by future governments” canard. Indeed they will Paul – how about offering votes in utero, and maybe foetuses could start voting against late-term abortion?
On a personal note, I’ve got no problem with the gerrymandering and the bullshit; my objection to Starmer’s votes at 16 is merely that it doesn’t rings true with Labour’s general approach to da yoof. The government doesn’t trust 16-year-olds with much these days: energy drinks are out, as are fags (unless they’re Starmer’s brand), smartphones, social media, and junk food. The government even expects children to provide two ID’s before buying a zombie knife on Amazon and organising their next massacre. Christ, you can’t even cut your dick or your tits off anymore, thanks to the Cass Review. Bloody killjoys!
Moreover, as Churchill might have said: “the best argument against votes at 16 is a 5-minute conversation with the average teenager”. I haven’t used TikTok myself, but those of you who have may be familiar with the ‘trends’ of teenagers eating laundry detergent pods, giving themselves ‘Kylie Jenner lips’, or taking excessive dosages of Benadryl to induce hallucination. Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good recipe for voting Labour. Incidentally, don’t think I’m needlessly bashing the young. You don’t want to know what (and whom) I was doing at 16 – but I definitely didn’t deserve the vote. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I’d trust myself with the vote now!
An interesting wrinkle in this debate, is the possibility that the young might not even want the opportunity. The last time the voting age was changed was way back in 1969 (before even I was born), when it was reduced from 21 to 18. High time for a change you’d think, except a recent poll of 16 and 17-year-olds by Merlin Strategy revealed only 51% believe the voting age should be lowered, while a paltry 18% confirmed they would ‘definitely vote’ if there were an election tomorrow.
Like so many things Starmer turns his hand to, votes at 16 could come back to bite Labour on the arse. Thanks to his social media popularity, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is comfortably polling around 20% within this demographic. But even if the 16-17-year-old voter base turns out to be reliably left-leaning, there is likely to be a much more radical (and appealing) alternative fighting for their vote come 2029. Whether it’s the Greens, Gaza, Jezbollah (or some amalgamation thereof), Starmer may find himself struggling to contend with the ‘Free stuff’, ‘Free Palestine’, ‘Free armaggedon’ on offer at the ballot box.
If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee – it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!
This article (Starmer’s Hail Mary: 16-Year-Olds on Tide Pods Might Save Labour) was created and published by Frank Haviland and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply