When it comes to standing for President, how old is “too old”? When it comes to travelling alone abroad, how young is “too young”?

In the first example, Donald Trump mocked his opponent, Joe Biden about his age and infirmity. Now Trump could become the oldest ever candidate to be elected President, but he doesn’t countenance any criticism of his own mental or physical frailty….

In the second example, a parent has been criticised for allowing their 15-year old son to go Interrailing around Europe, with friends, but minus any adult supervision. The teenager doesn’t appear to have come to any harm – and has probably gained some maturity in the process!

When it comes to the US Presidency, first Trump and then Biden set the record for being the oldest candidates to assume Office (both being in their 70s at the time of their respective inaugurations). In general, Presidents get elected in their 50s or 60s; in the post-war era, only three Presidents have been elected in their 40s – JFK, Clinton and Obama. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, at the age of 61, Keir Starmer is the oldest person to become British Prime Minister since his Labour predecessor, James Callaghan, who took Office in 1976. I’m not sure what conclusions we can draw from this, but it’s interesting to note that while many countries have mandatory retirement ages for Judges, it seems there is no upper age limit to becoming (or remaining) President, Prime Minister or Head of State. So while old age may be seen as a barrier to dispensing justice in a Court of Law, there is no such concern about exercising political power.

Obviously, age should not be the sole or primary criteria for measuring one’s ability to perform one’s role, to fulfil one’s obligations and to meet one’s responsibilities. Factors such as capacity, cognition, experience, character and overall fitness (physical, mental and moral) should be the basis on which candidates are to be assessed and evaluated.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are several areas where the legal minimum age is being debated: for example, the age of criminal responsibility; the age when children and teenagers should be allowed access to social media; and the voting age. There are also related discussions on the age of consent, marriage, reproductive rights, access to birth control, and censorship controls.

While it is understandable and desirable to protect minors from harm (both by themselves and by others), setting universal minimum ages is not that easy. Individual children and adolescents develop at different rates – biology is simply not that uniform or consistent! I’m sure we all know of teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than adults in their 20s (and even 30s).

Part of the problem is that a fixed age limit does not allow for any sort of transition period. For example, at age 17 years and 364 days, I’m not allowed to buy alcohol; one day later, I can fill my boots! Logic and common sense would suggest that if teenagers had the opportunity to consume alcohol in moderation, in appropriate social and public settings, they would have a much better appreciation for its effects and greater understanding of their personal tolerance, without getting themselves into trouble.

My concern is that in too many areas we are denying young people any control over their own choices and decision-making, and as a result we are absolving them from any personal responsibility. Consequently, as a society we are undermining the concept of individual accountability; when things go wrong as a result of their own choices and actions – whether deliberate, reckless, negligent, careless, inconsiderate or simply idiotic – it’s other people who are left to pick up the pieces. The situation is not helped by the inconsistencies inherent in our definitions of “minor”, “legal age”, “adult”, etc. For example, people can legally drive, have sex and reproduce before they can legally vote, or get married without their parents’ consent.

When I see media coverage that suggests that people in their 20s who have engaged in anti-social, irresponsible or unacceptable behaviour are “too young to know any better”, I can’t help thinking that these commentators are being too generous (or totally patronising). Some people in their 20s are responsible for making life-or-death decisions (first responders, emergency workers, police, medical staff, members of the military). Many more are in the workforce, fulfilling legal and contractual obligations on behalf of themselves and their employers. (And in some fields such as sport and entertainment, they get paid very handsomely to do so.)

Surely, we should treat people over the age of 18 as “responsible adults”. Likewise, we should really know the difference between “right and wrong” by the age of 8 or 9, and certainly by the time we start high school. But if, as some academics and social policy advocates suggest, “adults” don’t fully mature until they are in their mid-20s, perhaps we need to raise the minimum age for driving, marriage, consent and voting to at least 25!

Finally, on the issue of access to social media, I would argue that since the minimum age to enter into a legal contract is 18, and since a social media account is a form of contract (at the very least, it is a type of license?) then anyone under 18 needs to have their parents or legal guardians sign on their behalf to ensure compliance with the terms of use. Alternatively, underage users need to complete a test or undertake an assessment to demonstrate their understanding and competence to participate in these platforms.

Next week: “Megalopolis”? More like mega-flop it is!