When the British Youth Council (BYC) announced last week its imminent closure, people went near-hysterical, declaring it ‘devastating’ news and a ‘dark day’ for Britain’s youth. Of particular concern was the future of the Youth Parliament, one of the BYC’s flagship programmes. In all likelihood, the Youth Parliament will see new leadership rather than the graveyard. But the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport would be well advised to think twice before increasing its £750,000 grant for the project.

I say this not just as an old curmudgeon, but (for all my sins) as a former ‘Member of Youth Parliament’ (MYP). My criticism of it is not purely self loathing. From the outset, the concept was flawed. Like many youth initiatives, it rejects the centuries old wisdom that children should be seen and not heard. By giving young voices a platform, it presupposes that young voices deserve to be listened to. And if the adults listen, they surely must then act. For if they don’t, it suggests the kids might not know best after all – and that’s ageist. Greta Thunberg was not the first adolescent to expect policy makers to respond to her tantrums, and she won’t be the last.

But the Youth Parliament also falls short of its stated objective in practice. You’d be forgiven for thinking the primary goal of the Youth Parliament is to give spotty adolescents an extra thing to be bullied about, but it’s there to promote youth participation in democracy. But if my ‘election campaign’ was anything to go by, the elections are a far cry from the British democratic process. Teachers at my school presented pupils with a ballot paper and told them to pick a candidate. I was the only candidate from my school, and although the election materials from other candidates could be looked up online, few teachers went to the effort of encouraging this (for which, I must admit, I was grateful).

Similarly, the ‘Make Your Mark’ initiative – a survey coordinated by Youth Parliament that asks 11-18 year olds to vote for their top political issues – is a farcical representation of what young people actually think. MYPs shortlist the topics featured on the Make Your Mark ballot, with self selection bias having a lot to answer for. The (barely) Elected Unofficials then debate the top issues on the green benches in parliament, with some topics translating into Youth Parliament campaigns.

Greta Thunberg was not the first adolescent to expect policy makers to respond to her tantrums

Between 2011 and 2020, lowering the voting age to 16 emerged as a top issue for the Youth Parliament six times. The priority issues in 2020/2021 were Free University and the pithily phrased ‘Mental Health and Climate Emergency: Stop Plastic Pollution’. A more recent campaign demanded universal free school meals. But to claim these represent young people’s priorities, as the Youth Parliament does, is disingenuous. The prior shortlisting of topics by MYPs leads to warped conclusions, bolstered by further self selection in participation with Make Your Mark. A meagre 47 per cent voter turnout among 18-24 year olds at the last General Election contradicts the idea that most young people want the voting age lowered, and decreasing numbers of young people think going to university is important. Turnout in Make Your Mark stood at a feeble 7.06 per cent in 2022, down from its highest ever of 18.8 per cent (1.1 million young people) in 2018. Granted, it’s no small feat to get over a million young people participating in what is, essentially, a student politics gig. But that does not mean taxpayer money should support young people in lobbying for the Labourite policies that arise. Nor can one seriously claim that the emancipation of 16 year olds is the biggest priority for Britain’s youth. And if young people think it is, then they undermine their supposed right to be listened to if that’s the smartest thing they’ve got to say.

Subversive ideology extends beyond the Youth Parliament’s shortlisting of policy. I remember one weekend away with my year’s cohort of MYPs that featured a mock protest as part of the timetable. We were required to spend a few hours preparing posters and chants, before parading outside and demanding ‘votes at 16’ (I even lay on the ground with several others slightly curled-up, collectively forming the figure six with our bodies. Truly, mea maxima culpa).

The Greta Thunberg Simulation approach to youth participation in politics is a reckless use of Government grants. Protests in the name of Black Lives Matter, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, and Free Palestine have all resulted in arrests or charges of criminal damage. Should these spectacles really be put on a pedestal for our country’s youth to emulate? In such a climate, it is irresponsible to paint protests as a proportionate means to an end.

Rather than fund the training of activists some less than a decade out of nappies, the UK government would do well to redirect its £750,000 grant elsewhere. School councils already provide a far cheaper and more effective alternative to the LARPing of the Youth Parliament, with higher voter turnout and elected representatives who are more in touch with reality than the 300 or so MYPs. A school council candidate at my school once stood with the sole aim of introducing sandwiches without mayo – a winning platform that likely would receive far greater support than lowering the voting age.

This is not to say politics holds no place for young people. After all, William Pitt the Younger was 24 when he became Prime Minister. But today isn’t the 1700s, and we don’t make men like we used to. Let’s keep politics for the slightly more mature.