The news that 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in the next general election marks a significant shift in the UK’s democratic landscape. Promised in Labour’s manifesto last summer, the move brings Westminster elections in line with those in Scotland and Wales, where votes at 16 on devolved parliament and local government elections and have been standard for years. Alongside the proposed introduction of automatic voter registration, the stated aim is clear: to boost the number of people voting.

But if you’re the governing party, you don’t just want more people to vote – you want them to vote for you. Which raises the key question: what impact will these new voters have on the outcome of a future election?

Younger voters: historically high satisfaction, currently in crisis?

For years, the assumption has been that younger voters – particularly those in their late teens, are more likely to support progressive parties, including Labour and the Greens. This has held up in recent YouGov polling, which shows Labour support among younger adults is broadly consistent with the 25 – 49 age group, while smaller parties like the Greens are also gaining traction.

But younger voters are also often less likely to turn out. And recent data from our own work at PBE shows that one in 14 of this newest group of voters – those aged 16 to 19 – are now in what we call wellbeing poverty, meaning they’re more likely to feel anxious, lonely and dissatisfied with life. Far from being a hopeful political force, many of these new voters are struggling.

This matters. Because as we’ve previously argued, traditional economic indicators like GDP don’t tell us the full story when it comes to predicting election outcomes. Wellbeing data, specifically measures of life satisfaction, can offer deeper insights into political sentiment. People who feel satisfied with their lives tend to support the party in power. When wellbeing falls, appetite for change increases.

Could wellbeing be Labour’s blind spot?

If we take that logic seriously, Labour could be facing an unexpected risk. While the party may expect to benefit from enfranchising a younger, historically sympathetic electorate, it’s worth asking: what if those voters are actually some of the most disillusioned in the country?

The data suggests they might be.

If life satisfaction remains low among 16–19-year-olds, Labour may find that the group they’ve just enfranchised is more inclined to back opposition parties – or perhaps even disengage from politics altogether. And since low wellbeing often correlates with lower voter turnout, the effect might be more muted than headlines suggest.

In that sense, the decision to lower the voting age could be a double-edged sword for the current government. On the one hand, it signals a progressive commitment to youth participation and democratic renewal. On the other, it opens up new political risks if the realities of young people’s lives aren’t improving by the time they cast their first votes.

A bigger question about democracy and progress

At PBE, we’ve long argued that national progress should be measured not just in pounds and pence, but in people’s wellbeing. The Government’s own dashboard of national wellbeing indicators, produced by the ONS since 2011, offers a rich source of data on how people feel about their lives, their communities, and their future.

Party strategists now planning their electoral playbooks for the next campaign, may want to look closely into this dashboard and plan to put the wellbeing of young people within its future manifestoes . The politics of wellbeing is no longer a fringe idea – it’s fast becoming central to understanding voter behaviour.

The inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds in the next election is a bold democratic step. But it also raises complex questions about who feels heard, who feels hope, and whose lives are improving.

If Labour wants these new young voters to turn out and turn to them, it must not just offer ballots but build belonging and improve wellbeing.