Why Stop at 16? Let Dogs and Frogs Vote Too! By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
In a bold leap toward "modernising democracy," UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to lower the voting age to 16 for the next General Election, a move straight out of Labour's manifesto playbook. The argument? If 16-year-olds can work and pay taxes, they should have a say in how their money is spent. Noble in theory, but the policy smells like a cynical attempt to pad Labour's voter base, given that 33% of 16- and 17-year-olds polled by Merlin Strategy lean toward Labour. Yet, in a delicious twist, nearly half of these teens, 49%, don't even want the vote, and only 18% say they'd bother showing up to the polls. So, why stop at teenagers? If we're throwing logic out the window, let's extend the franchise to dogs, frogs, and maybe even the occasional sentient toaster. Here's a satirical take on why this policy is a masterclass in absurdity, and why we should go all in.
If the goal is to make democracy "inclusive," why draw the line at 16-year-olds? Dogs, for instance, are loyal, tax-paying citizens in their own right, well, their owners pay council taxes, which is basically the same thing. They have strong opinions on park funding (more squirrels, please) and public safety (fewer vacuum cleaners). Frogs, meanwhile, are environmental experts, croaking their dissent against polluted ponds. Both groups are at least as likely to show up to the polls as the 13% of teens who admitted they'd rather stay home. And unlike human voters, dogs and frogs are immune to political ads, making them less susceptible to misinformation. Imagine a pug waddling into a polling station, tail wagging, to bark for better biscuit subsidies. Who's to say that's less informed than a 16-year-old scrolling TikTok for policy ideas?
Starmer's argument hinges on the idea that if you're old enough to pay taxes, you're old enough to vote. Fair enough, except the government still doesn't trust 16-year-olds to buy a pint, play the lottery, get married without parental consent, or, hilariously, stand as candidates in the very elections they're voting in. Shadow Minister Paul Holmes nailed it: this is "hopelessly confused." If 16 isn't the age of adult maturity for drinking, gambling, or fighting in a war, why is it mature enough to shape the nation's future? By this logic, my neighbour's labrador, who pays emotional taxes by enduring daily Zoom calls, deserves a ballot more than most. At least Rover's consistent, he'd vote for the same treat-based platform every time!
Critics like Sir Simon Clarke and Richard Tice aren't mincing words, calling this "shameless gerrymandering" and a handout to "children." They're not wrong. With Labour polling highest among the 16- and 17-year-old crowd, the move reeks of ballot-box stuffing. But let's take it further: if we're rigging the system, why not go big? Cats could vote for nap-friendly policies, goldfish for better aquarium regulations, and parrots for free speech absolutism (they've got the loudest voices, after all). The Electoral Commission could issue paw-print IDs, and polling stations could double as petting zoos. It'd be chaotic, sure, but at least it'd be honest chaos.
Labour's other proposals, automatic voter registration and accepting bank cards as ID, aim to boost turnout after the Electoral Commission found 750,000 people skipped voting due to ID rules. Fine, but if we're making voting easier, why not make it universal? Age, species, or sentience shouldn't matter. A 2023 poll by Luke Tryl showed 48% of the public oppose lowering the voting age to 16, compared to just 27% in favor. If the public's already sceptical, imagine the uproar when we suggest ballots for badgers. Yet, if Labour's willing to ignore half of teens who don't want the vote, why not ignore the public entirely? Let's democratise democracy to the point of absurdity, every creature gets a say, from hamsters to hedgehogs!
This raises a fair question: will a future Conservative or Reform government reverse this? History suggests no. The Right rarely rolls back the Left's social experiments, no matter how ill-conceived. From the NHS to same-sex marriage, progressive reforms tend to stick, even when they start as divisive stunts. So, if 16-year-olds get the vote, expect it to stay, and don't be surprised if Labour's next manifesto proposes suffrage for seagulls. After all, they've already mastered stealing chips; why not stealing elections?
Labour's push to lower the voting age to 16 is a half-baked attempt to look progressive while boosting their base, ignoring the fact that even teens think it's a bad idea. But if we're going to embrace this level of absurdity, let's not half-bake it. Give dogs the vote — they're loyal and predictable. Give frogs the vote — they're green and trendy. Heck, give toasters the vote — they've got more processing power than some voters. If democracy's going to be a circus, let's at least make it a fun one. Roll up, roll up, and cast your bark, croak, or beep for Britain's future! What remains of it.
Comments