r/LabourUK

30 April 2026: Schools don’t have adequate time or resources to engage students in democratic processes, which is a concern if young people are to be given the right to vote at age 16, says Simon Lightman.

Earlier this week, in a committee room in the House of Commons, I put a question to Samantha Dixon MP during the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Schools, Learning and Assessment’s inquiry into Votes at 16.

How, I asked, are we ensuring that the education system is equipped to prepare young people for meaningful democratic participation in the context of the complexity they are inheriting?

The response from Ms Dixon, Labour MP for Chester North and a minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, was thoughtful and reflects an important strand of current thinking. Responsibility, she suggested, does not sit with teachers alone, but must be distributed across the system, including curriculum reform, the Electoral Commission and the wider contribution of civil society.

There was also a clear confidence expressed in young people themselves, with the argument that today’s students often demonstrate strong critical literacy, particularly in their ability to navigate information and identify what is credible.

Tension at the heart of the idea

There is merit in this view, and it is important not to underestimate the capabilities of young people. However, the discussion that followed, alongside the evidence presented to the inquiry, points to a more complex reality.

Emerging findings presented during the session, based on oral evidence to the inquiry, suggest that much of what currently exists in schools around democratic participation is seen as tokenistic, with limited opportunities for students to meaningfully shape decisions.

While there is widespread recognition of the need to strengthen political literacy, many teachers report that they do not feel equipped to facilitate the kinds of dialogue this requires. Even where expertise exists, structural constraints such as curriculum pressure, time and accountability frameworks frequently limit what is possible in practice.

This creates a tension at the heart of the Votes at 16 debate. On the one hand, there is a strong case for extending the franchise.

Evidence from contexts such as Scotland suggests that earlier participation can support long-term engagement. At a time when democratic systems are under strain, expanding participation is a serious and necessary reform.

Yet the current system creates a disconnect between civic education and civic participation because students study democracy while being excluded from it.

(continued in article)

With the increase in AI taking away a lot of entry level jobs (and others) in the near future, the case for UBI to subsidise a squeeze on wages seems to be getting stronger.

How would this work in practice though? Would it be administered through the tax system, and how much would it be?

The main argument against this is that it will lead to an increase in rent and retail price. If I was a landlord and I knew that my tenants each had an extra, say £1000 in rent, I would just put the rent up by that much. I think there would probably be an increase in retail prices too and possibly a reduction in average wages as employers would see this as a "subsidy" on wages enabling them to pay less and keep the same margins.

I know where it has been trialled, this is not necessarily the case but I think this is because the trials have been in small areas or to certain marginal employment groups (eg artists/creative industries) and haven't had a wider impact.

So to make it work, what else would need to be put in place? It's an idea that I like in theory, and has been suggested by Andy Burnham as something he would potentially be interested in, but because of the reasons above I just can't see how it would work in practice.

Let's say we do end up with a Reform government in the next few years, which party do you think will be in the best position to make sure that Reform is only a one term government.