UK Government accused of gerrymandering over plans to lower voting age to 16

Abbie Llewelyn, Press Association Political Staff

The UK Government has been accused of “gerrymandering the franchise” over its plans to lower the voting age to 16 as peers in Westminster debated the draft legislation.

Gerrymandering usually refers to the strategic manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give political advantage to one party or group.

However, the phrase was used by Conservative peer Lord Udny-Lister to suggest Labour is lowering the voting age to give itself a political advantage in elections.

He said: “The essence of this Bill is sadly more about gerrymandering the franchise than it is about strengthening the electoral system.”

Lord Udny-Lister, who is a former Downing Street chief of staff for Boris Johnson, argued that the Bill is “fundamentally flawed” because it would allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, but would not allow them to stand for election themselves.

The Tory peer also argued that lowering the voting age is such a major constitutional change that a referendum should be held before implementing it as a “democratic safeguard”.

Lord Udny-Lister said: “I recognise that the Government made a manifesto commitment to lowering the age of voting, but I caution Your Lordship’s House that in such major constitutional matters that we have and should still utilise the process of taking the question directly to the people through a referendum.”

He added: “If the Government has confidence that the majority of people in this country support increasing the franchise by 1.7 million, then surely putting this to a complimentary vote of the British people would uphold the integrity of our future elections…

“The integrity of our constitution should not be seen as a political experiment to be conducted at the whim of whichever government happens to hold office.”

The Conservative peer also urged the Government to “turn its focus to civic education prior to any national law change”.

His comments came as peers in Westminster started their line-by-line scrutiny of the Representation of the People Bill.

Conservative former deputy prime minister Baroness Coffey said she also believes 16 was chosen because “the Government thinks there’s an electoral advantage to them, it’s as simple as that”.

She added: “I’d say to them, be careful what you wish for. The polling not that long ago showed as many people were going to vote Reform and Green as they would for the Labour Party, if not in fact even more.”

Labour former cabinet minister Lord Murphy of Torfaen pushed back on the idea that the Government should hold a referendum.

He said: “To say that there is no mandate, no constitutional basis, no political support for this measure is absolute nonsense.

“It was in the manifesto of the Labour Party, and when people voted in Northern Ireland, in Wales, in Scotland, and in England, they voted, amongst other things, to agree to voting at 16.

“So I see no conceivable argument constitutionally, because it is a constitutional principle, the bedrock of our constitution, that a manifesto commitment is the same as a referendum.”

He added: “Anything we can do, as a Parliament or as a Government, to increase the number of people voting, to increase the number of people interested in politics, is to be welcomed.

“Wales and Scotland have had these measures for some time, and the world hasn’t collapsed.

“The constitutional heavens haven’t come in, and in fact, there’s been an enormous increase in the interest in politics as a result of it.

“But I do agree with him (Lord Udny-Lister) very much on one point, and that is this has to be accompanied by a really serious improvement in civic education amongst young people.”

Shadow communities minister Baroness O’Neill of Bexley said the Conservatives would not oppose the Government’s plans to lower the voting age to 16, as it is a manifesto commitment, but “would encourage government to seriously consider all the impacts of the implementation”.

She added: “Referendums are of course not a requirement, nor are they legally binding, but they are used to decide major constitutional issues…

“Lowering the voting age is significant and so it’s reasonable to ask whether a referendum should be held.”

Responding, communities minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said the Government is lowering the voting age because “it is the right thing to do”.

She told peers: “We believe 16 is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right, and extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the government that shapes their future and set them up for a lifelong engagement in democracy…

“We shouldn’t fear expanding the franchise to younger people.

“In 1969, the UK was the first country in the world to lower the voting age to 18, and extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds now is the next natural step in the evolution of our democracy.

“Young people are the future of our country. It’s only right that they have a say over it.”

On the claim Labour is changing the law to obtain a partisan advantage, the minister said: “I’m afraid I’ve heard from the other side both that we are doing this as a gerrymandering exercise, and that it will let in votes from smaller parties like Reform and the Green Party, and so on.

“You can’t have it both ways. We’re either gerrymandering it, or we’re opening out the franchise to a wider group of parties.”

On holding a referendum, Lady Taylor said that the Government already has a “clear mandate” because it was “elected on a commitment to make precisely this change”.

She added that lowering the voting age to 16 will “create consistency” between UK parliamentary elections and those for the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales.

However, the age requirement for candidacy in elections will remain at 18 because “the ages of 16 and 17 are a particularly important time to continue personal development and education”, she said.