http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602921.stm

I struggle to see a reason why not, but I seriously doubt many would care, short of there being a massive push and some benefit for them in real terms - you know, the average politician being useful at least

Yes but it would justify their time creating the cool MySpace and Facebook pages for the parties and the leaders.

It would not increase voting that much. None of the parties have done much for the kids, above what we want them to do. No increase in Youth clubs of funding, only targeted them for ASBOS and the DNA databases, so why would they vote?

Quite

No. 18 is the age of adulthood for good reason. Many are still to immature before that (and some still after that).
We can't keep treating children as adults at younger and younger ages.

It's a bit wrong that you can go out to work at 16 and drive at 17, but not get to vote for the MPs who make decisions on these matters until you're 18. However, the solution for me is to raise the mandatory education age and driving age to 18, rather than lower the voting age.

Agreed. Maybe they think that they will get active in politics.

Some teenagers are very interested in politics, but it's incredible how malleable young minds are. Lowering the age could lead to all kind of undesirable mind-games being used to secure their votes.

Let them debate. Let them vote for their student councils. Let them grow up, and then let them vote.

Mm an expansion of the Young Conservatives or The Cameron Youth with allegiances only to the leader?

Correction most still after that.
I can't vote in the next election because I'm born in june rather than before May 6th so by a month and a couple of days I've been done out of choosing the government that will preside over my life even up to the age of 22 going on 23

When I was 16 I had greater understanding of major political issues than a hell of alot of 30 year olds . Now ofcourse I have greater depth of understanding. And that understanding, frankly, has brought me to the conclusion that voting rarely involves maturity or logic but involves knee jerk reactions, emotions, the fact that people want their governments to satify them every each way with no room for mistakes and boredom (hence "time for a change").

So aside from the fallacy of a directly proportional link between age and maturity, there is also the issue of ill informed masses allowed to vote. So if at the age of 17 I cannot vote for such reasons as l3v1ck's then these idiots should not be allowed to vote either.

It may still be June. So you may still be in luck.

I have no idea about politics...I thought school was supposed to prepare you for life, instead I got taught how to burn cakes, share books between four and how to get yourself fired by drink driving youths about Germany and shagging all the underage girls...

My point being, kids need to be taught politics, not out of a book, by doing it. Around election week school should conduct party speeches with teachers telling the assembly what the politicians actually say, what it means in layman's terms and the pros and cons to such things, the school could then vote at the end of the week as a bit of fun.
If this kind of thing was done, then yes, lower the age of voting. But if you don't teach people, don't expect them to make intelligent and well-balanced decisions (at any age about anything!)

I remember being extreeeeeeeeeemly pissed off when I wasn't ALLOWED to vote in the European Economic Union/Common market referendum vote called by Ted Heath (at age 14 -me not him). It would obviously affect the rest of my life. I was with Orkney at the time, No.

The age of majority does need to be reviewed I think.

At 16 you can join the armed forces and die for your country. At 16 you can have sex and raise a family. At 17 you can drive a car. You have to wait until you're 18 before you can vote.

If anything, I'd prefer to see all this reviewed and harmonised. My head tells me it really ought to move upwards, but I can see no real reason why it shouldn't go down.

Yes maybe raising them all to 35 would be best of all.

Or just taxpayers and therefore those who contribute get the most say