In a bold and historic shake-up of the democratic landscape, the UK will lower the national voting age to 16 before the next general election giving nearly 1.5 million teenagers the right to help shape the country’s future. For the first time, British South Asian youth, many of whom already juggle studies, jobs, and civic responsibility, will also have a direct say at the ballot box.
Labour’s landmark move is being pitched as a vote of confidence in young people, many of whom already pay taxes, serve in the military, and care deeply about issues from climate justice to education reform. Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls it a matter of fairness and inclusion.
“If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on”, he said.
With Scotland and Wales already ahead on this front, the change brings all four nations of the UK under one franchise and marks the biggest expansion of voting rights since 1969 and Britain joins a small but growing list of countries allowing voting at 16, including Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. Some EU nations such as Germany, Belgium and Malta also permit 16-year-olds to vote in European Parliament elections.
Along with the announcement came the backlash as the opposition claiming that the move is politically motivated, accusing Labour of expanding the franchise to boost its electoral prospects. Conservative MP Paul Holmes questioned the inconsistency saying, “Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not buy a lottery ticket, drink alcohol, or stand as a candidate?”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called it an attempt to “rig the system”, while former Conservative foreign secretary James Cleverly claimed the government was “tanking in the polls” and acting out of desperation.
While the government rejected the idea this is the motivation behind the change, polls do suggest Labour enjoys strong support among younger voters, but how this might play out in an actual election remains uncertain. According to YouGov’s latest voting intention figures, Labour leads among 18 to 24-year-olds with 28%, followed closely by the Greens at 26% and the Liberal Democrats at 20%. The Conservatives trail at 9%, with Reform UK at 8%.
While analysts generally expect 16- and 17-year-olds to follow the wider trend of younger people leaning left, polling data on this specific age group is limited, making any firm predictions difficult.
As the politicians worry about the politics of voting and voters, a new generation is about to get its first real taste of power and could define not just the outcome of the next election, but the future of this nation and its political parties.
Do youngsters believe they can be effective voters?
Beyond the political calculations of who gains from expanding the vote to teenagers, a deeper question looms: Can 16-year-olds truly carry the weight of democracy?
Many young people believe they can be effective voters if given the right tools. They argue that political education, accessible information, and early engagement are key. While some admit to gaps in knowledge, most feel capable of making informed choices when properly supported and encouraged to participate in democracy.
Panav Bindal, a 17-year-old sixth form student, supports voting rights at 16, but with clear caveats. “It’s about our involvement,” he said, stressing that young people deserve a say especially as their concerns, like university costs and housing, often go unheard in favour of older voters’ priorities.
However, Panav warned that extending voting rights without sufficient preparation could backfire. “Many students treat mock elections as a joke,” he recalled. Extreme parties sometimes receive votes not from genuine support, but for shock value. This, he believes, reveals a lack of political awareness among young people.
He argued that political education must come first; not just for 16-year-olds, but also new 18-year-old voters. While topics like equality and taxation are taught in GCSE, Panav suggested politics be included too, to ensure students understand how democracy works and the real impact of their vote.
Panav also raised concerns about social media as a primary source of news for his peers. “There’s very little fact-checking. Most party TikToks aren’t about their policies but mocking opponents. It’s more about ‘we’re the lesser evil’ than offering real solutions,” he said, warning that such trends could distort informed political participation.
Marek Sthalekar, soon heading to university, welcomed the lowering of the voting age to 16, arguing it would improve representation and drive engagement. He believes the move allows younger voices to be reflected more accurately in policymaking. “When something is directly impacting you, you should be able to speak on it,” he said. While acknowledging that some 16-year-olds may lack political knowledge, he maintained that “being able to express those views is the first step toward influencing change.”
Marek also called for more youth-focused outreach and civic education. “We need to reach young people where they already are—at schools, music events, sports venues. If they’re introduced to politics earlier, they’re more likely to feel empowered.”
An 18-year-old student who wishes to remain anonymous, echoed this view, telling Asian Voice that early engagement could normalise voting and boost long-term turnout. “If young people get used to voting from an early age, it could become second nature.” He stressed that civic education was essential to avoid uninformed voting and rejected the idea that 16-year-olds lack maturity. “You could say the same about some 18-year-olds.”
He added that clearer, more relatable political messaging and a cleaner public image could make politics more appealing to younger voters. “Politics needs a better image. Many young people see it as corrupt or self-serving. If politics appeared more transparent and less focused on petty rivalries, more about consensus and real change, young people might be more willing to get involved, or at the very least, to vote”, he said.
For 16-year-old Aashi Yadav it is really important that youngsters should be allowed to vote, because obviously the decisions made now affect them a lot, growing up in this country. “We should learn more about politics and what’s going on, so that more people feel confident and informed enough to vote”, she said.
“I don't think it's that we're not mature enough, we'd be good voters. It’s just that we don’t have the knowledge right now. But if we were given the time or the information, we’d definitely approach it maturely and this information should be more accessible in places where 16-year-olds actually spend time, like social media. There should be more focus on that kind of outreach.”
Shiv Bhatt, 17, an A-level student, believes 16-year-olds should be given the right to vote early, particularly because many are already affected by political decisions.
“Young people are influenced so much by politics, directly and even indirectly, without them realising,” he said, pointing to issues like education funding and taxation.
He highlighted that although 16-year-olds can work, pay taxes, or even join the army, they currently have no say over decisions that impact them. Bhatt also referred to neuroscience debates about brain development, acknowledging that while the prefrontal cortex matures around 25, “teens perform comparably to adults” when it comes to logical decision-making.
A lack of youth representation in Parliament was also highlighted. The political class, Bhatt noted, is often described as “pale, stale, and male”, a phrase reflecting a lack of diversity. Yet, he said, “not seeing enough representation doesn’t put me off—it drives me to do more.”
He stressed the need for better political education in schools and warned against the growing influence of populist figures on social media. “Nigel Farage has a large young following on TikTok. It can be very influential” he said.
Bhatt wants to be a voice for young British Asians and believes structured civic education is essential if the voting age is lowered.
Neal Hemnani, who turns 15 this year, could soon be eligible to vote and is already thinking critically about the issue. He questions whether 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote, especially when they are still legally barred from drinking alcohol, buying lottery tickets, or smoking. “They may not be mature enough to choose the country’s next leader,” he said, though he acknowledged that education and early civic exposure could justify extending the franchise.
On a scale of one to ten, Neal rated his political awareness at “about a six.” While politics is not a frequent topic among his peers, discussions tend to arise during general elections, especially around issues like school fees and party policies. He highlighted Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum where 75% of 16–17-year-olds voted, far higher than the 54% turnout among 18–24-year-olds proving younger teens can be more engaged than older youth when given the chance.Bottom of Form
Experts weigh in
Beyond the political calculations of who gains from expanding the vote to teenagers, a deeper question looms: Can 16-year-olds truly carry the weight of democracy? Are they earnest citizens in the making or idealistic passengers swept into a system too soon? Does early inclusion builds lifelong voters, or simply hands power to voices not yet fully formed?
According to Dr Jan Eichhorn, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at University of Edinburgh (School of Social and Political Science) young people enfranchised at 16 or 17 are more likely to have higher turnout levels even in their 20s. He cites the example of Scotland, where teenage voting trends have transitioned eve into early adulthood.
He further added, “Being enfranchised at 16 or 17 actually often results in young people becoming more politically informed – because many feel an obligation to obtain information before voting. Young people are not less mature in choosing political parties: Research (in particular by Anna Lang) has shown that they are as able as adults to choose the party that matches their policy interests best.”
Prof Sarah Birch, Professor of Political Science at Department of Political Economy, King's College London also agrees that those aged 16 and 17 do have the political maturity and decision-making capabilities to take an active and effective part in the electoral process.
She also feels that enfranchising those aged 16 and 17 can be anticipated to go a long way toward strengthening democratic legitimacy, “as it can be expected to increase turnout among this cohort, and thereby increase turnout overall in the long term.”
“This is because if people vote the first time they are eligible, research indicates that they are more likely to continue to vote in later life.”
She further shares that 16- and 17-year-olds are more likely to vote than newly independent 18-year-olds, as they often live at home and are influenced by engaged parents. Early participation also helps foster a lasting sense of civic duty and social responsibility.
James Tilley, Professor of Politics and DPIR Fellow at Jesus College opinionated differently. According to him, instead of debating voter readiness, it’s more consistent to align voting with other age-restricted activities; most of which are set at 18. “Since voting isn’t fundamentally different from these, 18 remains a reasonable threshold.”
However, the evidence of young voters being socially responsible adults is inconclusive, he said citing the example of Austria.
“In many ways, the best intervention to increase political engagement among young people is to wait for them to get older. This is because a lot of the differences in political activity are due to ageing rather than generation.”
The matter of the representation of British Asian young voices
Britain’s ethnic minority communities are showing strong engagement in the democratic process, often matching or even surpassing white British voters in terms of participation.
When it comes to voter turnout, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi communities often show higher voting rates than the national average. However, overall registration levels among ethnic minorities can be lower, which may reduce their voting power. Interestingly, surveys reveal that many ethnic minorities feel a stronger sense of civic duty than their white counterparts. They’re also more likely to say they trust democratic institutions and are satisfied with how democracy works in the UK.
However, challenges remain; particularly in representation and trust.
Nasar Meer, Professor of Social & Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow and Honorary Professor at the University of Edinburgh points to these structural barriers, especially for Black and ethnic minority youth. “Analysis of the 2024 general election shows turnout 7 percentage points lower in constituencies with the largest minority populations and 10 points lower where Muslim populations are highest. I’d highlight longstanding issues that are compounded by photo ID rules since data reveals awareness of the requirement or photo ID at only 71 % among 18-24s and 76 % among minority voters, versus 90 % among Whites groups.
“Socio-economic stress also bites early: 49 % of Black and Asian children and 65 % of Bangladeshi youngsters live in poverty, limiting access to internet, transport and time for civic activity. Without automatic registration, expanded ID options and community-led outreach, there will be smaller gains for Black and ethnic minority teenagers.
“Personally, I think that combining that curriculum with a real vote can transform teenagers from “citizens-in-waiting” into recognised stakeholders, deepening their sense of belonging and potentially normalising diverse voices in UK democracy.”
Dr Parveen Akhtar, Senior Lecturer Politics and International Relations, on the other hand, said, “British South Asian voters are more likely to turn out to vote compared to other ethnic minority communities and there is also research to suggest that voters on the whole, are more likely to vote with others in their household, so whilst we have little data yet, my hypothesis is that British South Asian 16 and 17 year olds would vote in significant numbers if the voting age was lowered.”
A step toward inclusion
By widening the electorate and potentially introducing automatic registration, this reform could increase representation and empower communities that have historically felt sidelined.
According to Prof Birch, in order to maximise the benefit from lowering the voting age, it is important to ensure that all young people are entered onto the electoral register, as the new system of automatic registration will do. “It is also vital that young people understand the electoral process. For this reason, it is important for electoral administrators to undertake a public information campaign targeted at this group. Ideally there would also be increased emphasis on the electoral system as part of the national curriculum”, she said.
She also added, “The benefit of voting at 16 would be greater still if young people were obliged to vote the first time they are eligible (but not later in life), as some have suggested. This would boost civic engagement and participation considerably, without infringing unduly on liberty, given that there are already a range of constraints on those under the age of 18.”
Dr Eichhorn, meanwhile, urges more focus on the effective implementation of the plan. “While Votes-at-16 is a good thing in general, the opportunities it provides are harnessed most, if it is implemented really well. That includes the removal of barriers to voting and registration, enhancing high-quality citizenship education in schools, media and politicians reaching out proactively to young people and taking them seriously in discussions, and supporting organised civil society through youth organisations in informing and mobilising young people.”
Dr Akhtar thinks that there is a role that schools and educational institutions can play in civic education is increasingly more important, especially in an era when many young people access the news from social media platforms, learning about sources and bias and conflict of interest and fact-checking.
As Britain prepares to open the democratic gates to its youngest ever voters, the reform stands as both a bold experiment and a defining moment. Whether it leads to deeper engagement or reveals new challenges, its success will depend not just on lowering the age, but on raising the standards of political education, access, and inclusion. For British Asian youth, and for young people across the UK, this is more than a policy change; it's a signal that their voice matters.
