Old enough to fight and die, old enough to vote

Giving 16-year-olds the vote is a progressive and radical move. Why is Labour keeping its intentions quiet?

Labour has reaffirmed its commitment to widening our democracy. A motion to back votes for 16-year-olds passed at the party conference yesterday, bringing the policy one step closer to being on Labour's manifesto for the next election.

Perhaps the most obvious reason why this policy is a good idea is consistency. At 16, the state trusts individuals to get married, have kids, move out of home, work full-time, pay taxes and join the armed forces.

If you're old enough to sign a contract that might risk your life on the battlefield, you should be responsible enough to register your political preferences in the ballot box.

Even if you don't believe that 16-year-olds have the political awareness to make responsible choices now, giving them the vote is the best way to improve their citizenship development in the future.

Young people are more likely to buy newspapers, read party manifestos and partake in debates if they have some influence over the political outcomes they concern.

Similarly, government is more likely to ensure that it provides resources for citizenship training and outreach to younger groups if it knows that it has some immediate effect.

These arguments for extending the franchise will be familiar to most campaigners, but the most significant reason for giving young people the vote is less well-publicised. Reducing the voting age to 16 isn't just good for young – it's good for wider society. In several areas of policy, young people are best-placed to judge what solutions are most likely to work and those that won't, simply because they are closest to the issues at hand.

Some of the most challenging social problems of today – knife crime, underachievement in education, supporting single parent families, drugs – are most often directly experienced by young people. Their experience renders them good judges of policy, and society would do well to take their views into account.

At a deeper level, votes at 16 is worth supporting because it establishes a better relationship between the younger generation and the state. Giving them the vote sends young people the message: "You are worthy of respect". This is likely to provide a better foundation for a relationship with authorities than the demonisation that has come with Asbos, stop-and-search policies and curfews.

If young people think the state respects them, they will be more likely to respect the state.

So why isn't Labour shouting about their decision to back votes for 16s from Mancunian rooftops? Once again, Labour seems scared of its own progressive streak and the red-top reaction it could provoke. Once again, Brown's party seems scared of leading. But it shouldn't be: Brown's Labour is unpopular because it has shied away from initiative rather than seizing it.

New progressive policies like these could give the party the reinvigoration it so desperately needs.

Rather than burying its decision to back votes at 16 at the bottom of the press pile, Labour should have the courage to publicise its liberal convictions. Maybe if the party's politicians took a bit more pride in their progressive policies, the rest of the electorate could follow suit.