Sweet 16 leaves a sour taste

Our governments in general, and Labour in particular, can be expected to break any promise of a half-decent policy. But we can count on them to honour any manifesto pledge guaranteed to push Britain closer to the knacker’s yard.

Hence one could be certain that they’d give the vote to 16-year-olds, just as they promised during their campaign. The policy happily unites the four key aspects of Starmer’s government: power lust, idiocy, subversiveness and cynicism.

Everyone and his brother have written about this awful policy, bemoaning the extra 1.5 million votes Labour may thereby gain, highlighting the immaturity of 16-year-olds that makes them unfit to play an active role in state affairs, castigating the constitutional vandalism involved.

So much for the arguments con, each one irrefutable and self-evident. Just think of yourself at that age and recall whether you were qualified to determine how the country should be governed, and by whom. I certainly wasn’t, and I bet you were no different.

I’ll neither repeat those arguments nor try to add any of my own. That would be like arguing that socialism is immoral and destructive. Every intelligent person knows it already; every stupid person is deaf to rational arguments.

Instead, I’ll concentrate on the arguments in favour of this outrage, those put forth by Labour mandarins and other fruits. Thus Sir Keir Starmer, living proof of democracy’s pitfalls:

“I think it’s really important that 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in.

“And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the Government should go.”

Beautiful. This argument, in these very words, could be heard in Westminster back in the Middle Ages and ever since.

If we put money into the public kitty, we must have a say in how that money is spent. Because of this rationale, guilds and local councils enjoyed considerable power even under the most absolute of English monarchs, such as Henry VIII.

The link between taxation and representation was further strengthened during the American Revolution, with its insistence on none of the former without the latter. Alas, since taxes tripled immediately after the revolution, the newly independent Americans discovered they disliked them even with representation, but that’s another story.

My point is that the reverse slogan, no representation without taxation, is both logical and sound. The link between the two can’t be one-sided – so say basic fairness and political nous.

Sir Keir isn’t bright enough to understand the depth of the hole he dug for himself. By linking taxation and representation, he invited a counterargument, one I made at length in my book The Crisis Behind Our Crisis.

The gist of it was that only taxpayers should have the vote. Consideration also ought to be given to attaching a quotient to each ballot, in proportion to the amount of tax paid. This would restrict equally those who are good at exploiting either welfare provisions or tax havens.

Also, official figures show that 52.6 per cent of UK households receive more in cash benefits than they pay in tax. Developing Sir Keir’s argument to its logical conclusion, all such net recipients should be disfranchised. Stands to reason, doesn’t it?

Taking the argument to the next level, also disfranchised should be anyone deriving more than half of his income from the state, be it in the form of salary, fees or handouts. Such people have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the current government, which can only fortuitously coincide with public interest.

All these proposals flow out of Starmer’s statement as inexorably as wine out of a tipped bottle. (Since I’m in France now, this simile came naturally.)

In essence, rather than rejecting his idea, I’m merely developing it, putting it in a sound multilateral framework. Thus developed, it becomes sensible, making even enfranchised children more palatable if no less insufferable.

But Starmer doesn’t want to develop his subversive idea. As far as he is concerned, it’s fine as it is because it serves the purpose of “modernising our democracy”. Sir Keir wouldn’t know true modernisation if it crept in behind him and bit him on, well, you know.

What he means by the term is demolishing or debauching every tradition that stands in the way of Marxist mayhem. Actually, modernising things can make them not only better but also – more often than not – worse. By way of illustration, I suggest the juxtaposition of, say, Lincoln Cathedral and, say, the Gherkin or the Shard. Not much of improvement is in evidence, is it?

Starmer’s deputy, Angie Rayner, offered her one penny’s worth, which came out as a curate’s egg, good in parts. The good part is her diagnosis of the problem: “For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline.”

Hear, hear. Yet I’d also add that this unfortunate state of affairs has been brought about by ideologised nincompoops like Keir and Angie (or their Tory counterparts).

Hence the solution to the problem would be letting them enjoy well-deserved retirement and making sure that people governing us are fit to govern. A generation of sound, prudent, publicly minded governance would repair our democracy and restore faith in our institutions, thereby answering the call of Angie’s heart.

Specifically, not going amiss would be a voting reform limiting franchise only to those who can be expected to cast their vote responsibly and knowledgeably. This would involve some approximation of my sensible proposals, defanging even the bestial nonsense Labour are pushing.

Angie will have none of that: “We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our plan for change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote.”

Since this proposal is left at that, it doesn’t really link representation with taxation. It’s nothing but a cynical power-grab, designed to perpetuate the rule by exactly the kind of people who are busily turning our democracy into a travesty, our institutions into a laughingstock and Britain into a pauper.

However, I’d like to end on a positive note. In a recent poll, half of the youngsters disagreed with this policy, and only 18 per cent said they’d definitely vote if the elections were held tomorrow.

Labour may well have miscalculated when counting on an electoral boost from their subversive policy. That’s always the saving grace: if this lot were as smart as they are vicious, zealously ideological and self-serving, we’d be in bigger trouble than we are already.

Fortunately, they aren’t. For confirmation, just look at Starmer’s and Rayner’s faces – you won’t find a flicker of intelligence anywhere in sight. They can’t even do subversion properly.