The British Labour Party is currently shrouded in leadership shenanigans, which overshadowed the King’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament last month. His Majestys speech was not like the ones delivered during the state visit to the United States. These were filled with a Kirkian view of the American and British relationship, their cultures and history, and were delivered with charm, wit, and literary references. The King’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament, by contrast, is written by the government and sets out the governments legislation program for the parliamentary session.

　　They pledged to deliver a bill titled the “Representation of the People Bill.” According to the government, this bill will provide “the most significant expansion of the franchise in over half a century” by extending “the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds.” Labour has not confirmed if they are simultaneously changing the age of maturity, so yes, 16 and 17-year-olds will still be legally children. Yes, that is right. Britain’s Labour Government is planning to give the vote to children. Unfortunately, this is not a new pledge; in the 2024 Labour manifesto, they promise to “increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.” We are told that “early engagement by younger voters will build the foundations for their lifetime participation in the electoral processes.” The government does not provide an argument for this claim or any persuasive evidence at all.

　　There is a consensus on the political left in Britain that giving children the vote is a good thing. The Liberal Democrats are also in favor of it, and so is the Green Party. A Green Member of Parliament said that “Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote is a long-overdue step towards a stronger, more inclusive democracy.” She added that “young people have powerful voices and a vital stake in decisions about their future—it’s only right that they have a say at the ballot box.”

　　There are many arguments that conservatives of all stripes and flavors could and should make against giving children the vote in all elections, such as that it is excessive egalitarianism. Here is a sketch of them, but the main argument and the fundamental difference with the left is philosophical. That is the understanding that civic participation is about civilizational stewardship and not about so-called personal growth and providing people with a voice.

　　The Consistency Argument: First, there is a complete lack of consistency in the left’s approach to adulthood and voting. Extending the franchise without extending full adult legal status to 16- and 17-year-olds creates an incoherent standard. Indeed, voting should be tied to adulthood, and if society treats adulthood at 18, with the legal responsibilities of adulthood, this is when citizens should vote. Yet, we are living through an age of cultural infantilization, when childhood is extended further and further; therefore, lowering the voting age is incoherent. The voting age should reflect a stage of broader adult autonomy, which is a much more consistent position, as the franchise should be linked inextricably to adult civic life. Voting isn’t supposed to be just “civic participation” for the sake of personal development. There are important, often complex issues at stake. We need mature, experienced people involved. Not children. Moreover, other features of “adult life” begin at 18 in the UK. For example, it would be odd to trust a 16-year-old to decide on an issue as complex as politics but not trust him or her to make a wise decision regarding smoking, drinking, driving a car, or even renting a hotel room.

　　The Slippery Slope Argument: The slippery slope argument is straightforward. Why stop at 16? Why not give the vote to 15-year-olds, 14-year-olds, or even 13-year-olds as they too have a “vital stake in decisions”? Don’t these children need to be given a “say at the ballot box”? When the vote is no longer tied to adulthood, there will be a clamor from the left to lower it even further. After all, don’t 12-year-olds have loud voices and much at stake? Expanding the electorate may not improve democratic participation or outcomes. Adulthood involves moral and intellectual cultivation over time, not merely having an opinion or a “strong voice.” Political wisdom requires seasoned judgement and not naïve idealism. Wisdom does not arise from a belief in my rights or my self-expression, but it matures alongside moral and civic responsibilities. Political authority and wisdom emerge from maturity, responsibility, and embeddedness in social institutions, not simply from abstract claims of equality and a right to express my opinion through the ballot box.

　　Children will play their part in this civilizational stewardship soon enough, but children should not bear the responsibilities of the vote until they are adults.

　　Misinformation and Education Argument: Children are easily misinformed and misled by the media, social media ecosystems, propaganda, and by other children during recess. In the age of algorithmic outrage and political marketing directed at “youth identity,” conservatives and classical liberals need to argue that political judgment depends upon cultivated prudence. Of course, adults can be fooled by these things too. Children should be on their educational journey towards national loyalty, cultural citizenship, and civic virtue. Children are still growing and developing politically, emotionally, and cognitively. They should not bear the responsibility of voting. It is also deeply odd for insecure youth who are still in school to be burdened with thinking through party platforms and not about their schoolwork.

　　Ideological Fashion: Adults as well as children are susceptible to ideological fashions, influencer culture, and peer conformity. But children are especially so, precisely because they are still in the process of basic education and emotional development. There may be 16- and 17-year-olds who have the independence or settled character that is required for stewardship of public institutions, but children are not yet, and perhaps never will be, independent from transient passions and influences. If one needs proof of this, he needs only to visit his local high school. Abstract democratic expansion, when detached from moral formation, is a recipe for disaster. It runs the risk of increasing ideological campaigning in our already woke schools, encouraging political emotionalism, and further politicizing everyday social and educational life for children. If political discourse is already more passion than substance, it will become excessively so after enfranchising hormonal adolescents.

　　Organic Change and Equality Argument: Institutions should and do evolve organically through history and custom, not abstract theories of equality or rights. There has been no great crisis, or systematic mistreatment, or other pressing necessities that have given rise to this policy; it is just pure self-interest, which is masked in ideology. This is not the same as previous expansions of the franchise, in 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918, 1928, or 1969, which gave working-class men, then women, the vote and then equalized adulthood with the right to vote. In all these expansions, there was a compelling practical case for reform and expansion. The left needs to offer a compelling reason to alter the franchise. Giving the vote to children is driven by abstract egalitarian logic rather than historical experience. The modern obsession with flattening all hierarchies in the name of equality is undermining political authority and wisdom. Political equality cannot erase natural differences in maturity, formation, and judgment, and therefore, long-standing democratic norms should not be altered quickly. Democratic norms depend on habits, institutions, and moral formation rather than mere assertion of rights or the use of one’s voice.

　　Unity and Governability Argument: Will giving the vote to children calm class conflict, reduce extremism, preserve national unity, and integrate new voters into constitutional politics, or will it intensify generational politics and make Britain even more ungovernable than it is already? The left needs to answer these questions before they give children the vote.

　　Civilization Stewardship Argument: All the above arguments against giving children the vote are persuasive in their own right, but the most substantial reason not to do so is philosophical. Providing the youth a voice, or political inclusion or political self-expression, as the left may advocate, is not what voting is about. It is about the participation in the sovereign decision-making of your country. If we take Edmund Burke’s concept of intergenerational community, the dead, the living, and the unborn seriously, casting one’s vote is never merely about expressing an opinion, sending a message, or giving people a voice; it is about exercising stewardship over a civilization that one has inherited. Children will play their part in this civilizational stewardship soon enough, but children should not bear the responsibilities of the vote until they are adults. This was, until very recently, common sense.

　　Chesterton’s Fence argument: In his 1929 book, The Thing, Chesterton outlines his “one plain and simple principle” for reforming things. He argues that the modern reformer says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” Chesterton argues that the intelligent reformer should answer:

　　If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

　　There are reasons why the franchise begins at 18, and Britain’s Labour Government wishes to clear it away without understanding why it is there in the first place. The franchise should expand cautiously, and constitutional changes should require strong justification, which the left has not provided.

　　There are so many reasons against youth voting, none of which are addressed by Labour. This suggests that they do indeed embody Chesterton’s reformer in that they clearly haven’t thought about the reasons for the fence post.