Starmer’s Hail Mary: 16-Year-Olds on Tide Pods Might Save Labour

It takes a lot for me to defend Keir Starmer. The phrase ‘wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire’ automatically springs to mind, the minute our Pillsbury Dullboy of a Prime Minster waddles into the conversation. However, the accusation that Labour’s votes at 16 are a crude attempt to “rig the political system” seems a bit harsh. Of course Starmer wants to rig the political system - along with every other Westminster wallah, tragically bereft of the audacity and the ‘spiritual influence’ of trailblazing Tower Hamlets’ Caliph, Lutfur Rahman.

Gerrymandering has, after all, long been an established feature of the electoral landscape. The rumours are that Keir Starmer is so concerned about losing his seat at the next election to a pro-Palestine candidate, he attempted to redraw the Holborn and St Pancras boundary to exclude everything beyond his own residence. Alas, the PM couldn’t even rely on the votes of his own family after he was assured by Lady Victoria that she “wouldn’t vote him if he were the last Ukrainian rent-boy this side of The Donbas”.

With his government tanking in the polls, and Starmer himself marginally less welcome than a bout of chlamydia (at least you’re guaranteed a good night out beforehand), clearly the man had to do something. Unfortunately, there’s only so many thousand illegals (sorry, voters) you can ship across the Channel each week. And with Labour chickening out on votes for EU citizens, Starmer is running out of potential supporters moronic enough to cast a vote for him. In fairness to Starmer, votes for 16-year-olds was actually in the Labour manifesto.

Still, ‘votes for morons’ was never going to be a particularly easy sell to the British public, hence the Labour Party bullshit machine has been in overdrive over the past 24 hours. First up was wannabe leader Ange Rayner who, unlike most of the Cabinet left school up the duff at 16, and is therefore unusually well-acquainted with this particular demographic. “16-year-olds contribute to society” she said, “they should be able to vote”. So do illegals working in the black economy luv, but no one’s suggesting they should be given voting rights are they? My bad, of course they are!

Next up was the SNP’s finest, John Swinney, who couldn’t resist crowing that the UK was “finally catching up with Scotland” in lowering the voting age. Give us time John, and I’m sure we can match you on the lowest life expectancy and highest drug death rate in Europe as well. We were then treated to the wisdom of National Association of Head Teachers’ secretary, Paul Whiteman, who employed the “Young people will be most affected throughout their lives by decisions made by future governments” canard. Indeed they will Paul - how about offering votes in utero, and maybe foetuses could start voting against late-term abortion?

On a personal note, I’ve got no problem with the gerrymandering and the bullshit; my objection to Starmer’s votes at 16 is merely that it doesn’t rings true with Labour’s general approach to da yoof. The government doesn’t trust 16-year-olds with much these days: energy drinks are out, as are fags (unless they’re Starmer’s brand), smartphones, social media, and junk food. The government even expects children to provide two ID’s before buying a zombie knife on Amazon and organising their next massacre. Christ, you can’t even cut your dick or your tits off anymore, thanks to the Cass Review. Bloody killjoys!

Moreover, as Churchill might have said: “the best argument against votes at 16 is a 5-minute conversation with the average teenager”. I haven’t used TikTok myself, but those of you who have may be familiar with the ‘trends’ of teenagers eating laundry detergent pods, giving themselves ‘Kylie Jenner lips’, or taking excessive dosages of Benadryl to induce hallucination. Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good recipe for voting Labour. Incidentally, don’t think I’m needlessly bashing the young. You don’t want to know what (and whom) I was doing at 16 - but I definitely didn’t deserve the vote. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I’d trust myself with the vote now!

An interesting wrinkle in this debate, is the possibility that the young might not even want the opportunity. The last time the voting age was changed was way back in 1969 (before even I was born), when it was reduced from 21 to 18. High time for a change you’d think, except a recent poll of 16 and 17-year-olds by Merlin Strategy revealed only 51% believe the voting age should be lowered, while a paltry 18% confirmed they would ‘definitely vote’ if there were an election tomorrow.

Like so many things Starmer turns his hand to, votes at 16 could come back to bite Labour on the arse. Thanks to his social media popularity, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is comfortably polling around 20% within this demographic. But even if the 16-17-year-old voter base turns out to be reliably left-leaning, there is likely to be a much more radical (and appealing) alternative fighting for their vote come 2029. Whether it’s the Greens, Gaza, Jezbollah (or some amalgamation thereof), Starmer may find himself struggling to contend with the ‘Free stuff’, ‘Free Palestine’, ‘Free armaggedon’ on offer at the ballot box.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!