The recent #leaderslive broadcast hosted by BiteTheBallot with Ed Miliband, has reenergised the debate on votes at 16, following his announcement that a Labour government would guarantee 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote. In this short piece, I set out a critique of what I identify as the three biggest myths used by supporters of votes at 16 and set out an alternative for tackling youth disengagement, for the long-term.

Although there are a number of arguments used by supporters of the lowering of the voting age, there are three that continue to appear most. Each are flawed and tend to take the form of the following sentences:

1) "If you're old enough to die for your country at 16, you should be able to vote”

This would be a strong point, if it were actually true. Although you may join the army at 16 (hats off to those that do), it is not until 18 -an adult- that you can be deployed for operations. Alongside this, in order to join the army at 16, a candidate must gain written parental/ guardian consent.

2) “16 year olds pay taxes, they should be able to vote”

Yes, they do. There’ll be plenty more of that to come too. However, when an 8 year old spends their pocket money on sweets, they also pay tax on the product they purchase. This argument may be clarified to refer more specifically to income tax. However, a child under the age of 16 (a child actor or model for example) is also required to pay income tax, as and when their income exceeds their personal allowance of £10,000.

3) “If you can marry at 16, you should be able to vote”

Wrong. Marriage at 16 is incredibly rare and is only done so with full parental/ guardian consent. Again, it is only at 18 that an adult can marry freely. From a personal perspective, marriage at 16 really isn’t something that should be encouraged.

It has been widely regarded that voting at 18 is a rite of passage for those entering into adulthood. If it were to be lowered, we as a society would be accepting that all 16 year olds were officially adults.

Sure, we can all think of an outlier case of a 16 year old that probably knows more about politics than your average 45 year old. However these are extremely rare, in the wider context.

I’d like to think I was one of those rare cases, when I was 16. Although I liked politics and was eager to get my hands on a ballot paper, I didn’t want the vote to be lowered, because I knew that my passion for politics and my longing to assist in shaping my country, could be achieved in other ways.

It didn’t have to take place by changing the definition of adult, by giving my fellow classmates a vote which they probably wouldn’t use.

Political parties give under 18 year olds membership. The UK Youth Parliament provides under 18 year olds a platform to debate contemporary issues facing younger people. Under 18’s can also contact their own Member of Parliament, take part in campaigns and join protests. A further and increasingly easier method to enhance engagement is the rise of social media. Sites like twitter and facebook, give under 18 year olds access to the national political scene and allow them to take part in the pressing debates of the day.

Taking these points into account, it would be wrong to suggest that under 18 year olds were somehow denied a platform and say.

However it is that Miliband, the Liberal Democrats (who also favouring lowering the age to 16) and the ‘Votes at 16’ campaign want to present their case, this debate is far from simple. It is not just a case of handing over voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds; it’s about the definition of the term ‘adult’. It’s almost universally agreed that voting age defines our legal acceptance of adulthood and almost all countries across the world agree on setting the age at 18. We shouldn’t be in a hurry to force so many young people into taking on the responsibilities that being an adult brings- they’ll have the rest of their lives to worry about that.

Miliband’s naïve view that lowering the voting age will fix the deficit of youth disengagement, is yet another example of his inability to address the problems facing Britain today.

Getting young people involved and taking an active interest in their country is a good thing. However there are other ways to actually attempt to achieve this.

Simply chucking voting rights at under 18 year olds, will not tackle the major underlying issues. If that were the case, why is it that just over 42% of registered 18+ of voters in Miliband’s own constituency of Doncaster North, failed to vote in 2010? There is a disconnection, which I believe can be explained, in part, as a result of poor citizenship education at school.

We need a generation of youth that are taught about democratic responsibilities from an early age, so that by the time they reach 18, they know far more about the political process than they currently do and regard voting as a duty, not a chore. Children need to be taught how integral voting is for the smooth running of a free society. We all need to be aware of how lucky we are to live in a democratic country. It is at school, from a young age, where this can be cemented.

As Conservatives, we should continue to oppose the lowering of the voting age at all costs. We must not let Labour, the Liberal Democrats and organisations like Votes at 16, mislead young people into believing the puerile argument that Conservatives don’t care about them. We do. Our record shows it.

We should continue to focus on addressing the issues that actually face young people; like increasing the number of apprenticeships; tackling youth unemployment and providing them with the skills necessary to excel within the workplace.

I’m almost certain that young people would prefer to have these matters addressed, before lowering the voting age in some artificial attempt to fix youth disengagement.