On voting at 16...

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you're eligible to pay tax, you should be eligible to decide how that tax is spent. Of course, voting is rarely the best method of decision, as no party's manifesto lists everything they're planning to spend on. For instance, I doubt the Basildon tories told taxpayers they were planning on spending £18m of their council tax on evicting travellers, and I know this government didn't let us know they were planning on giving most of our money to private companies to provide NHS services. But, generally speaking, votes are at least vaguely legitimate forms of participation - at least they allow us to register our disinterest or disgust in the parliamentary system.

It seems to me that a 16 year old is more than capable of voting. The argument that they haven't learnt enough or are too irresponsible is just as applicable to a very large proportion of over 18's as well, and in a generation becoming increasingly politicised, allowing younger people the chance to have their opinions counted can't be a bad idea.

I have big problems with the concept of UKYP - there's no reason young people need to be mini-politicians. But the voting turn out for UKYP elections is impressive. Young people are interested in politics. That's apparent. The NUS march in 2010 was one of the biggest mobilisations of students in a generation, and while the 18-24 age group is still the lowest participating group in voting, the percentage of participation has been rising consistently for the past 17 years.

Government currently spends a lot of money on schemes and programmes to enable young people to have their say in society, because they are unable to vote. It seems somewhat silly to me to have such a blatant elephant in the room that is so easy to rectify. We're taxing 16 year olds, but we're not letting them vote. We're sending them to fight for us, but they still aren't allowed to express their view on that war. HEY - lets let them vote! Then we can spend a bit less trying to make sure we get their opinions, and focus more on younger teenagers.

Now my cynic kicks in. In the past few years we've been seeing overall less engagement in the established political process and more participation in direct actions. This is mainly because people are beginning to feel that there is no real difference between the main Westminster parties and that the only way to get themselves heard is to take matters into their own arms. Are we really so surprised that we've seen more civil unrest in the last 2 years than we've seen in the last 10?

Allowing 16 year olds to vote is undoubtedly a good thing. But I fear we'll simply disappoint a generation. Citizenship classes currently teach the importance of voting, and writing angry letters and lobbying your MP. Myself and countless others will point out that while a legitimate first step - these things tend to achieve sweet fuck all.

As soon as any young person wants to directly engage in politics - ie, by going on a march, sitting in vodafone shouting about tax - they are immediately told that they're too young to understand or have opinions and should instead write to their MP.

Any 16 year old should be taught the importance of not voting (or spoiling their balot) as well. If there's genuinely no candidate that stands for what you believe in, then you shouldn't feel that you have to vote for one just to fulfill your right to vote. The suffragettes did not fight TO VOTE. They fought for the RIGHT to vote.

I have the right to a free glass of water in any restaurant or pub, but I don't go into every one that I pass in order to take advantage of that right.

The Sustainable Communities Act gave councils the ability to suggest new powers to DCLG that could be enforced locally - one of these was allowing 16 year olds to vote in local elections - the problem was that allowing this would create an electoral postcode lottery, in which it was almost certain that every Lib Dem council would allow 16 year olds to vote, some Labour councils would and 16 year olds would still be barred in Tory councils. The proposal was quickly abandoned, and the Sustainable Communities Act was promptly forgotten about in the hype to big up the Localism Act.

I remember last year - the AV campaign - was my first opportunity to vote. I remember the excitement of the first time I was allowed to step inside a polling station and cast my vote. I remember the ensuing disappointment at the lack of change afterwards. Here's the interesting thing: the AV referendum was counted constituency by constituency. People saw the results in this form. Had they seen the results in total, they'd have seen a much smaller difference in the amount of votes cast for yes and no.

I'll be voting in May - for Ken. I'm a Labour party member (but only just) and Ken is a genuine left wing candidate. Will I bother voting in the General Election in 2015? That depends on the quality of candidates, and if I believe there'll be the slightest difference. I hate the tories. But I also hated Blair, and I'm not really all that keen on Labour's current policies on the welfare state.

If I choose not to vote, it'll be a very deliberate and conscious decision, and I'll still be more than happy to engage in protests and direct actions without feeling guilty because I didn't vote. If your argument against protesters is "You don't deserve the right to protest if you don't use your right to vote", my reaction is simply this: I actively participated in my right to vote, by chosing not to, a right is a right, whether you think I deserve it or not.

You know what? If you're 16 and have no interest in politics - fair enough. But don't for one second think that nobody else does, or that you don't deserve to be listened to. Because you, like the rest of us, certainly deserve your voice - even if you don't feel ready to use it yet.