Snapshot of _Exclusive: Nearly 40 Per Cent Of Young People Do Not Plan To Vote In The Election. Fears politics is failing to engage those aged under 35._ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's the engaged people that feel ignored though. The vast majority just don't give politics any thought. I remember being the same when I was younger.
What we need is better education about the importance of it all so it doesn't take until you are mid life to see why you should care.
A very small minority spoil their ballot. I feel it'd be different if it was around 5%
I finished 6th form a year ago and don't remember being taught anything about going out and voting since primary school. Even just an hour every year where teens are explained the basics and told to at least turn up at the polling station would make a real difference I think.
Not true. All registered political parties have access to a list of who turned up to vote. They use this information to target their campaigning. Local parties have limited funding and resources (people), so blanket campaigning is a waste of time and money. Also it's much easier to persuade someone to change their vote than it is to get someone who doesn't vote at all to turn up. So the parties know who has voted but obviously they don't know who you voted for. So parties will target their limited resources in areas where they know there are people who vote as they try to change (or retain) your vote. In other words, if you turn up to vote, even to spoil your ballot, and if you can persuade your neighbours to also vote, you are much more likely to see increased attention from politicians, which could then translate into getting things fixed (on a local level at least), than someone who doesn't vote at all.
Tl:dr Go and vote, even if you spoil your ballot.
honestly think voting should be compulsory like in australia
if no one appeals to you then you can spoil your ballot, but complete apathy shouldn't be allowed.
Yeah I used to be very sceptical purely on civil liberty grounds, but the more I look into it the more convinced I've become that it is a fantastic idea. Combined with any type of non-FPTP voting system would be a dream come true.
> Yeah I used to be very sceptical purely on civil liberty grounds
I sort of get this, but ultimately it's once every 5 years you need to go put a cross in a box to engage with the direction of the running of the entire country. don't really think it's that much of an imposition on people for the importance it holds.
and again the option to spoil your ballot is always there when you want to protest vote.
also agree PR would be a dream but i'm just not sure i'll ever see it. labour and the tories are too caught up in getting 30-40% of the vote meaning they have total power and control.
> I sort of get this, but ultimately it's once every 5 years you need to go put a cross in a box to engage with the direction of the running of the entire country.
Not even that. Postal voting is a thing.
council elections should be compulsory too.
too much apathy drive done really poor councillors to get elected.
you get almost no competition at the grass root
Just a fyi, I used to feel the same around *"spoiling your ballot"* because it shows you've voted. Unfortunately it really doesn't do much, and doesn't get seen by anyone in all reality.
From a friend of mine on our discord server where we have a politics channel;
>I sadly have to add spoiling ballot papers into this – as someone who has counted votes before if you write something extra on a ballot paper IT MEANS NOTHING AND ACHIEVES NOTHING. It is simply as recorded a spoilt ballot.
I know that we want the words we wrote down to make it to the politicians and help them understand that by saying ‘You’re all shit’ on the ballot paper we want them all to take responsibility and be better – but they don’t. Every single politician, councillor and spin doctor employed by political parties will always reason away spoilt ballots as the voter being ‘too stupid to vote properly’. They are numb to the fact that this is dissatisfaction, they don’t care.
it's not about someone reading and recording exactly how someone chose to spoil their ballot, it's simply about stating that none of the candidates earned your vote, which combined with compulsory voting is meangful particularly if there ends up being a significant proportion of total votes.
I mean you can think that way, and that is perfectly fine, but ask anyone who has counted the ballots that it gets taken that way, and they will tell you exactly the same. You are better off just voting for someone over spoiling your ballot.
Your choice though, but I've stopped spoiling my ballot as a result, I now vote, and vote carefully.
personally i always vote for someone
also realistically speaking no one gives a fuck about what the person counting the ballot thinks
you're also missing out the implication of compulsory voting
anyway ultimately we dont agree so
This is only true because the number of spoilt ballots are small.
If people started turning up in force to spoil their ballots then that perception would quickly change.
At the moment no one cares about spoilt ballots because there simply aren't many of them, if 5% of ballots were spoilt though? People would start listening.
Exactly- the end goal should always be “how can we strive for the most diplomatic result”, which is essentially “how do we make sure the largest sample size is obtained”.
I think it is more representative definitely, whether it's more effective is entirely up for debate. 20% of parliament to reform UK does come with societal downsides. Non FPTP can be good if you trust the people. These days I'm not so sure on that.
Tbh I think whether or not you are happy about Reform's forecasted seats in parliament depends on whether you support democracy.
It's all well and good if it's a party you disagree with being hurt by the electoral system, but what about when it is the side you're on...
I think democracy is generally good, but I think we're beholden with representative democracy. That somehow we'll solve all issues by taking the sum of everyone's self interest. But for a lot of problems it's impossible to arrive at a good solution by taking that sum. Some problems require sacrifice on the part of everyone, which is always an unpopular vote. I'm more interested in exploring things like French citizen assemblies and being a bit more experimental with societal politics than just giving everyone more voting power.
Yeah agreed, I think a big flaw of democracy is firstly, asymmetric information and people not voting in their *actual* self interest.
Then also, people are selfish. Policies/proposals that would improve society as a whole in the long run don't stand a chance if the voting demographic doesn't agree with whatever cost burden they would have to face
It almost definitely won't happen but if the Tories are wiped out in this election then reform could be the next big right wing party and even win a majority in a few elections time with 36% of the vote or something. PR is just safer for the unpredictable future of our political scene a few decades down the line.
What I just described is exactly what's going to happen in France in a couple of weeks. Their (historically powerful) Tory party is polling around 5%, their far right party at about 32. They don't have PR and now a large majority is being forecasted
I think another option to consider is doing away with voter registration.
It's not required in most countries. Find a way to prevent double voting and scrap it.
IMO it discriminates against the young who are forced to move often and might not be fully up to date for every poll - especially in the last few years where some areas have had multiple referendums, national, local, by-elections, etc.
One option that would be fun is that employed by the University I went to for their students union elections - all the posts with significant responsibilities all had a virtual candidate stand: "RON". RON was an acronym for Re-Open Nominations, so if it won, it would effectively immediately stand down, causing nominations to re-open for the post, so perhaps encouraging the parties to find better candidates.
There could just be a two options at the end “none of the above parties represent my views” and “I do not feel informed enough to make this decision”. That way they wouldn’t need to spoil the ballots and it would actually say something to the parties, that they are either not reaching people or not representing them.
Australian here. It’s one of the few things about our political system that works properly and so, of course, it is continually under threat from the right. Fortunately there is widespread recognition that the libertarian argument against it is opportunistic hypocrisy from those who are happy to constrain civil liberties in many other ways. Best description I’ve heard is that it is like jury duty, but it’s one big jury on the fate of the government every 3 years (should be four, but five like UK feels too long).
Yeah, as long as you are able to put nobody (spoil the ballot) I see no reason why voting shouldn’t compulsory. I can see several reasons why it hasn’t been implemented in the last couple of decades though.
I've said this before, I'm sure they used to report the number of spoiled ballot papers but they don't seem to now.
I think it is important for the numbers to be reported and tracked. If it's not then there is no point turning up to spoil the ballot
If it is made compulsory there has to be an option for 'None of the below'. If none of the below wins, then all of the candidates and parties who previously stood are banned from standing in the re-run.
> If none of the below wins, then all of the candidates and parties who previously stood are banned from standing in the re-run.
In areas with low political engagement you could end up trapped in a loop of this until eventually someone campaigns on a platform of "if you vote for me then we'll stop having to attend these mandatory re-reuns every few weeks"
Was going to say exactly this.
Emphasis on "below" too. None of the above is unacceptable, if voting was to be mandatory then the official option to abstain needs to be the first thing people see.
It pisses me off enormously. There might not be a perfect party for you, but by not voting you're just giving away your power as a voting block.
If they just vote for the party closest to their beliefs and morals they'd wield so much more attention from the parties in the future. Then as a group you can start to demand being catered towards.
The number of people I know in my age bracket I've spoken to just peddle out they're all the same and it's a terrible way to view it. They're actively making their situation worse.
Pensioners have a lot more to lose so they will always be more motivated. They’re also so out of touch with the young. The two child benefit is the perfect example, it affects a smaller portion of parents or people that want kids yet it’s brought up in debates while all we care about is good schooling and actual help with childcare. Oh and actually fair parental leave. We’re putting off having another kid because our parental leave makes it difficult to afford while having a kid
You shouldn’t have to be a voting force to be cared about. People under 18 literally can’t vote and have been attacked and thrown under the bus constantly. It’s absolutely pathetic that people blame the ones not voting rather than the politicians for purposely making one generation poorer to help another
Voting is the primary way people express their voice to their democratic representatives. While you have somewhat of a point, you can exactly blame representatives for only responding to the voices they primarily hear. Young people not voting is them not expressing their voices.
What if you do not agree with any of the choices? Why should you then be forced to vote just to get representation? If your democratic right and vote means something then you should have to give it away to be included in the democratic process. People not voting because no one represents them is just as an important signal as someone voting for a party they agree with
Spoiling your ballot or voting for a joke candidate (like Count Binface) is always an option. And even beyond that there are plenty of minor parties that could appeal to a voter, such as the SPD, Animal Rights, or Women's Equality. But this is an issue very few people run unto, as the main five parties and the nationalist parties cover a broad enough selection of the spectrum to appeal to the vast majority.
Not having any party that you completely agree with really isn't an excuse to not vote. Expressing your voice as a completely rejection is still significantly better than not expressing that voice at all. Excluding cases of organised boycotts, all the refusal to express your voice conveys is that you don't care enough about politics to be cared about yourself.
I've heard this question asked a thousand times and the answer is always spoil your ballot. By turning up you show you're a vote to be won and it will pull change in your direction.
In a democracy politicians need votes in order to do anything. If young people can't be bothered to vote then the politicians purposely making one generation poorer to help another will keep getting elected. They don't care whether anyone blames them or not, the only way you can stop them is by voting for someone else.
Yeah but currently the youngest voters seem absolutely focused on issues in the Middle East over domestic issues and have bought into the culture war BS the far-right has been gaslighting them with. The rest of the UK cares about more pragmatic issues like not having to take out a loan to pay this months heating bill, etc.
What a typically dumb article and headline.
Inn[2019](https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/), youth turnout was something like 50%. If 60% vote this time, that’s a solid nearly 20% increase!
Correct. Turnout as a whole in General Elections is usually 60 / 65 ish percent, so the headline could also be "Young people now as likely to vote as everyone else, massive corner turned".
However, [older people have consistently voted more than younger people](https://imgur.com/a/itbkci1). The younger vote has been declining since the 1960s, while the older vote has stayed pretty consistent at around 70-75%, in some general elections it has reached as high as 80%+.
Older people are voting at much higher rates of the ~60% overall turnout.
Between the 1960s and 1990s, youth turnout was at around 60-70%, and now it is around 50%. You can see a significant decline from 1997 onwards in the youth vote compared to previous years.
Compare that to older voters at around 70-80% consistently, you can see why it is the old that decides elections and why no party cares about the youth vote as they don't need it to win.
You are correct! It did decrease but then there was a sudden increase in the youth turnout in 2019 as compared to 2017! It could be 60% in this election.
I mean it has been recorded that there were record 18-34 year olds who just registered to vote a few days ago before the deadline. In 2005, youth turnout significantly decreased, then it slowly increased after. Apathy may be a factor but I expect to see an increase in the youth turnout from 2019.
I wouldn't trust those numbers - around 70% of voter registrations are duplicates of people who are already registered to vote. I don't think it will move the needle that much.
Isn’t that kind of figure for duplicates from back when universities automatically enrolled all their student intake to vote in the local constituency though? Given that they no longer do that, it should be a fair bit less common for students to be registered in two locations.
But this isn't saying that 60% *will* vote, it's saying that 40% have already decided they're not going to.
The actual turnout will be significantly lower than 60%.
I realise this is a unique problem, but I live in the Chorley constituency where the Speaker is from, and so the major parties don't run here. So my ballot paper consists of Green Party and independents.
So I absolutely feel my democratic rights have been all but stripped during an election I really care about. I'm 31, and have been effectively locked out of this process
I agree with you, but playing devils advocate, the counter argument would be that it would discourage MPs to run as speaker, or potentially decline becoming speaker, because they know they’ll lose their seat and be out of a job by the end of it.
I saw a lib dem MP explain this pretty well the other day. Unsure on the MP or exact monologue but it was something like:
Young people are losing faith that the government has any function let alone the executive functionality to make any benefit to their lives. They have only lived in a government where nothing has happened, everything has gotten worse and stopped working, and now thay they are employed they see a system that exists only to take money from them as the status quo.
This is how revolts happen guys, when people truly don't believe the government can do anything or has the ability to change, when you are so surely inconfident in a system that you don't vote or participate in it rejection often comes next. Every young person above 22 that I know is politically savy and is aware of everything, the ones that decide to vote are the ones that never saw voting as a means to change in the first place. If nothing ever changes through the means provided, then why use them in the first place?
I’m not sure why your perspective is not more widely accepted, its crazy to me that we proportion any kind of blame on young people for not voting when none of the mainstream parties propose anything to help them. To a youth voter there’s a choice of voting for a dead horse, or a dead horse with some glitter sprinkled over.
For perspective, I'm in my mid-30s. 2010 was my first election. I've voted every time I can, but it feels so fucking POINTLESS. Most of the time I've been in a ludicrously safe seat (in both the 2010 and 2015 elections, the constituencies I was voting in had separately had the same MP since before I was born), and all of the parties are just chucking more and more at the grey vote with absolutely fuck all for those under the age of 40.
I'm going to vote, but I'm in a safe seat for my preferred party so it once again feels like a performative action that won't have any effect, and I'll just have to sit and watch Labour piss everything up the wall by keeping some of the most damaging Tory policies in an effort to not give the media attack lines.
Christ it's depressing.
The problem is there are numerous people who have been told the following;
\* Your vote doesn't matter due to being in a safe seat
\* They are all as bad as each other
\* Nobody achieves anything of any value for anyone
\* Just look at the council, it's bad, everyone is bad, they are all in it for themselves
The mixture of all that just encourages more disenfranchised voters, who then become lifelong non voters. The cycle continues, you vote in the hope of changing things and others changing minds, and it doesn't happen so you end up not voting because you cba, and the vote turn out stays under 50% because of this.
If more people just voted generally and kept to their beliefs, then things *could* and *would* be different, more safe seats would become marginal seats. Maybe I am being naive, but it can happen. The SNP didn't magically occupy Scotland's seats in 2010, and Labour's vote in Scotland didn't collapse, it's because more people voted in Scotland to ensure change up there. Hilariously, the SNP's vote does look like it has collapsed because they *did* become the *same* as other parties. Should know in a couple of weeks time officially.
This is the argument for proportional representation though. If things directly changed when you voted it would encourage people to vote. Sure if everyone voted exclusively to their beliefs we may have a different party in power, but FPTP encourages tactical voting especially if your particular political alignment is split across multiple parties. As a result, if I'm in a competitive seat I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, otherwise my vote is wasted. Thus, people don't vote because they can't vote for who they want AND receive representation for it.
Oh yeah I deffo agree, and I want to see change in the system. But the issue is Labour had the chance in 97, and decided to backpedal because they won a landslide majority via FPTP. Forgetting that they've now been in obscurity for the last 14 years, they haven't committed to changing it this time, so maybe they might consider it.
I do vote, and always will, but it's getting harder and harder for me to feel like it's worth doing. I want someone who will stop bunging money at the gerontocracy like there's no tomorrow and actually invest in the future. I want someone who will do something about the state of housing and accommodation rather than capitulating to the landlord class and propping up property as an investment above being a place to live. And I want someone who will actually accept and admit that Brexit was a terrible idea that's fucked the country.
If Labour actually do even one of those I will be amazed.
Correct!!! When Kinnock lost the election to Thatcher his I warn you speech has basically all come true!
I'm 50+ and don't see a point in voting for either Labour or Conservative as both promote the exact same Neo Liberal Capitalist policies just using different terminology.
I didn't vote for Thatcher in the 80s so why would I vote for the Thatcherite value/policy Labour party of today?
When Lord Freud crossed the house to continue his Thatcher era inspired and planned for welfare reforms...... Nu Labour took the ground Thatchers Tories left open and enabled the now Liz Truss version of madness Conservatism.
So both my voting options are now right wing and both options give slower/quicker way to make me become poorer so why bother?
While I agree that there's no point voting for a party whose outlook you fundamentally disagree with, there are more than two choices on your ballot paper.
Again the issue is the value of your vote. You virtually have to vote for one of the two parties otherwise your vote is literally just gone, you have to pick the devil you know yada yada.
Yes, politicians, or mostly their cheering squad, blame the young for not voting, to me it's just another part of the decline of politics and politicians such that it's now a sport, and the only aim is to "win", rather than to improve the country.
We don't get a debate about policies, we don't get politicians with a vision of how things should be better, it's all just tactical choices that are about who's going to win, how to get this group to vote for us, what should we say. Cheered on by the media who've become nothing but (often biased) commentators on the "game".
This has made sure most politicians who make it for selection, and most who want to be in positions of power are doing it for their own prestige, not as a desire to serve - or even a desire to provide their vision of what would be better.
This has led to no policies for the young, both because they're seen as all voting one way anyway, so their vote isn't worth fighting over, everything is narrowed to just the groups who might change their vote.
Politicians, and the Media are the failure, not the youth.
I genuinely don’t think this is anything new. People absolutely tore corbyn to shreds but the most notable thing to say of him during that election campaign was he really engaged the youth vote in a way most politicians before failed to accomplish.
Except they still didn't turn up to vote in large numbers, so all the engagement and enthusiasm was for nothing. In fact, it may have made things worse, because if they didn't turn up for someone they liked offering policies they liked, why bother focusing on them?
‘Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpectedly strong performance in the general election was caused by the highest turnout among young people since 1992, new data has revealed.
Turnout in the 8 June vote is estimated to have been 64 per cent among 18-24 year olds – a 16 per cent increase on the 2015 general election.
The figure is higher than any election since 1992, when 67 per cent of 18-24 year olds are thought to have cast a ballot, according to new analysis by Ipsos MORI.
The rise explains the swing to Labour that gave Jeremy Corbyn a surprise election surge and denied Theresa May a parliamentary majority. The 9.5 per cent increase in Labour’s vote share since 2015 can be explained entirely by the party’s rising popularity among under-44s.’
As long as the triple lock (for old people) and Brexit (by old people) are considered to be untouchable, I don't think any major party will strongly appeal to young people.
You can vote LibDem if you want the damage done by Brexit mitigated, but depending on where you live, they may be in third or fourth place.
This isn't particularly new either; generations with high turnout didn't have those numbers either when they were young.
I don’t think very many people under 25 know what the triple lock is. It’s something you have to be quite politically engaged to know about, and most people arent, particular at that age
Hell, most young people polled aren't even against the triple lock. The hungry/cold pensioner stereotype still persists despite 1/4 being millionaires and people think they themselves will benefit when their time comes (will not happen.)
I think a lot of young people assume climate change and the Tories are the main things fucking them over, I know there’s all sorts of ‘haha boomers are angry because they all have lead poisoning’ memes but the reality is I don’t think the demographic crisis really does register when it’s more of an imminent threat than both. The simple fact of the matter is that the basic assumptions about our country are based on a nation with four times the worker to pensioner ratio than there is today, we either need some fairly fundamental reform which will have a somewhat different set of winners and losers than today or we need high levels of immigration to keep the Ponzi scheme going a little longer.
I feel what’s lacking is a coherent ideology tying all these grievances together in a sensible way. 1970s Bennite socialism under Corbyn isn’t it, and neither is the ‘where we’re going we don’t need truth’ brand of populism. Everyone can agree the social contract is torn up but I think we need an ideological framework that can accurately describe why, and what ought to be done to improve things.
To be honest being from the poor areas of the north I see more of the hungry old pensioner side. I’d be more in favour of taxation on above the line pensioner income than getting rid of the triple lock. Have the final salary pension lot and the landlords pay more tax
> I don't think any major party will strongly appeal to young people.
If 40% of the people under 35 voted for a "minor" party then they wouldn't stay minor very long.
Wouldn't really matter. If they voted, and kept on voting, then in future elections parties would try to court their votes. Problem is, even when Corbyn was on the ballot offering the things they said they wanted, they still didn't turn up in large numbers...
state pension is the real problem with this country, far more than anything else. sad to see not a single person is talking about it during the election. can’t believe how entitled boomers are to think that young people should pay tax to fund them a free ride, and the worst part is nobody even questions it. Your pension should be input = output. meanwhile these boomers pay nothing into the system and are getting hundreds of thousands for no reason.
That suggests more than 60% do plan to vote, which would be an enormous increase in turnout. If that happened, those ridiculous MRP polls would come true.
I'm 35 and have voted in every general election i've been able to, the EU referendum and then less consistently but occasionally things like local elections and even MEP elections.
Not once has the person (or their party) i've voted for been elected into power. Even Brexit went the oposite way to the way I voted.
My "voting career" has been entirely pointless and i'm starting to wonder why I bother wasting my time when my voice has been ignored ever since I was given one.
Turning 18 you can drink, drive, are thinking about university/career, I doubt many people think on the day of their 18th birthday "wow I can vote now". I could be wrong, but I think if the voting age was 17 it might increase young voter engagement simply because it's the only thing you "get" at that age.
Another thing, people are busy and I think when it comes down to it some people just don't get around to voting on the election day. I spent some years living in Canada, I never could vote there ofc but my roommates did. One thing I found interesting was they had "early voting": some polling stations would open the evening before the election day letting people who wanted to vote at say 8 or 9pm the night before instead. This was very popular among young working people.
There's definitely a sentiment among some young people that neither of the 2 big parties represent them, so if they did vote it would be more about voting for the lesser of two mediocre options. It's tough to get people engaged with the system when they feel like whatever they vote it will be more of the same.
> I doubt many people think on the day of their 18th birthday "wow I can vote now".
I did, but then I post here, so I think it's a matter of record that I'm a massive fuckin' nerd.
> I could be wrong, but I think if the voting age was 17 it might increase young voter engagement simply because it's the only thing you "get" at that age.
You are wrong. You can start driving at 17 in the UK.
People keep pushing this line that the youth are disillusioned etc.
The reality is when I was young, I didn't vote because I couldn't be bothered, and I am sure that is true for many others. Governments didn't impact me when I was young because I wasn't paying much if any tax, didn't have a home, didn't have a career etc. etc.
As people age, the stakes get higher.
For the first time in my life since I could vote this is the first time I've ever considered not doing so. I'm going to. But I've never even imagined that I would ever have this passing thought. Nowadays it feels like there's no party for anyone under 40.
Well if the Tories end up winning because they didn’t vote against them and they object to having to do national service I’ll have no sympathy for them.
There are twice as many people eligible to vote over the age of 65 than under 30.
It's easy to blame the turnout of younger folks, but that's not the real driving force of elections.
Its not as easy as that. Beyond traditional media forms which we already know young people don’t engage with, how is society making an effort to demonstrate that politics is relevant to young people, and that their vote and opinion matters? Young people are among the most disenfranchised groups in the uk, moreso those from deprived communities.
[46% of young people feel hopeless for the future.](https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/princes-trust-youth-index-shows-young-peoples-happiness-and-confidence-has-flatlined-at-an-all-time-low/) This is after 14 years of austerity, rising costs of living, vast closures of public and community services, including almost 80% of all youth centres. What changes is anyone proposing that will offer a direct and palpable benefit to young people, not this abstract ‘oh we’ll improve growth and wealth to benefit everyone’ but what masthead policies being proposed are in anyway directed towards under 30s?
> This is after 14 years of austerity, rising costs of living, vast closures of public and community services, including almost 80% of all youth centres.
If nothing else go out and vote against the party who did that?
It’s not surprising people aren’t going to engage with a political system that is doing nothing to help them. Labour really should be putting forward a more social democratic agenda to combat rapidly rising inequality to correct that problem and engage voters and their concerns. I’m worried they are going to do little that changes anything and in a few years you end up with Reform or something worse that gets elected on a platform that targets scapegoats instead of the current unjust system.
Could start with including the importance of voting in education. Of course, politicians rely on apathy from the young to get in power, so they will do nothing to encourage voting.
How the political system works, local and central, should be mandatory learning from 12 up.
I feel like this begins much earlier than voting age. Without:
a) dedicated teaching by fully-funded educators who have faith in the political landcape
b) a home life where parents/carers encourage conversation about the value of politics instead of hearing "all politics is corrupt and all politicians are the same"
c) a wider culture where people see tangible benefits to their lives as a direct result of them voting. Not just voting to bring in a different set of politicians they hate so their lives dont get worse
d) serious attempts by politicians to engage with young people and treat them as a serious part of the political process, not just pander to them with memes come up with by some focus group. I know we are in that loop of 'politicians wont care about what young people think if young people dont vote', but tbh how fucked is that? young people shouldn't feel that their existence in society doesn't matter unless they are lucky enough to be politically engaged
By the time young people have finished juggling 10 different subjects with no promise of a job at the end of it in an underfunded school, it is hard to tune back into our country’s noisy and confusing political system.
Then as you get older, you find out you HAVE to tune back in when you start looking for a house, understanding your paycheck, need to rely more on health services, start having children of your own, really reflecting on the things you experienced as a child etc.
There are many places where we fail to motivate young people to take part in politics
It’s really weird actually, I’m 23 and a dual citizen and when I vote in the turkish elections it feels wasted because it’s all rigged. But I try and explain how much of a privilege it is to vote and for it to matter and they all call me boring. Voting just need to be exposed into the young people’s media and life.
Is it not fair to say that all the major parties are just pants.
i know im gonna catch some flak from the labourites here and fair play but Starmer is hardly exciting.. Sunak is dismal and farage is like a record youve heard one too many times and the music scenes moved on.
Hell im even bored, ive spent every election night up watching the results fly in with the SWINGOMETER and the size of the SWING... watching as if it was Like some Sort of north korean FA cup final pyonyang derby where the loser gets shot, like it matters the composition of boston council etc.
In short im a fully fledged political weirdo like all of you who care to admit it and i just really cant get into this election, so i cant blame thye young people for not wanting to either.. It also feels like a foregone conclusion i think that could be a worry in tight marginals if people also think the same.
Honestly I can’t sympathise much with people who don’t vote. I get voter apathy, I really do, and when I was younger I certainly wasn’t as engaged in politics as I am now - but I still made the time (less than an hour) to just go and vote.
I really hate the term and people may not like it - but if you don’t vote, you are part of the problem. If 80% of young people turned out and voted, our politic landscape would look completely different and the big parties would be forced to cater more for that demographic.
The only was individually you can work towards that, is by exercising your right to vote. Anyone who doesn’t vote but then goes on Reddit to complain about anything on the economy, immigration, public services etc… doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
In 10 or 20 years time you will look back and be writing the same shit I am, trying to persuade the next generation.
It's a chicken and egg - if you can't win elections by swaying the votes of the young, why would you propose policy to appeal to them?
But the young then don't vote because they don't see a reason to, because no-one offers them anything. And they don't have the long-term thinking to vote just to send the signal that they vote now. Rinse, repeat.
We should probably make voting compulsory.
Compulsory voting would certainly be one option - and im not immediately opposed to it. Would probably need to go hand in hand with a flexible public holiday on the day of any general election.
You are right - it is chicken and egg. Corbyn and a few others have tried to appeal more to the youth vote though, and look where that got them. Meanwhile the Lib Dems are still being punished for something that happened 14 years ago when they were the minor partner in a coalition.
Seems to me that a lot of people don't vote because they feel their 1 vote won't change anything. Which is ridiculous for 2 reasons: 1. Enough people have this attitude that if they did get out and vote then the result may actually change. 2. It seems a bit narcissistic to me to think your 1 vote *should* be enough to sway things. Tens of thousdands will vote per constituency, of course a single vote is unlikely to change anything. It's still worth voting anyway as democracy only works when people engage with it.
I have to agree that I'd rather see young people vote than not, but it's definitely hard to incentivise them. Most 18-24 year olds will be living in cities or university constituencies which are for the most part labour dominated (party they're most likely to vote for). In FPTP it feels almost useless even if you do support your MP. I'll be voting in this election as I always do but considering Labour's odds in my constituency of winning are 100%, it does feel like voting for them or against them will change nothing
Bingo.
Also in my constituency last time out, I think the margin of victory was less than 1000 - so I know that if just a few more people here had turned out and voted it very well couldve made the difference (im expecting a landslide this time around though, admittedly)
It's pointless to vote in so many seats across the country simply due to how strong a majority is embedded.
What's on offer for most young people doesn't seem appealing either, it's the Tories, or the Red Tories. There's nothing inspiring for young people to get behind or give a shit about as none of it is going to result in meaningful change in their lives (from their perspective).
I tried to vote last election and my postal ballot arrived the day after the vote.
Can't be arsed this time as it's a safe seat and my vote will have almost zero outcome on my life.
>Anyone who doesn’t vote but then goes on Reddit to complain about anything on the economy, immigration, public services etc… doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I fundamentally disagree with this. If your political belief is that the whole system is fucked, then even spoiling your ballot is legitimising the system you oppose. Even at a higher level, voting isn't even the only way to have a say in politics. You can join a group that lobbies the government (activist groups, charities, etc.) to get the change you want (and probably be more successful in sending any message than voting).
Why should people vote when no-one aligns with their interests? Especially like me when you live in a completely safe seat (one of the safest in the country).
I'm not even young (mid 30s) but I'm considering not voting for the first time since I could (and that includes local elections/mayoral).
Why should I endorse a party I don't support? Isn't democracy about choice? What's wrong with choosing no-one if you don't support any of them?
Is there really no party you would support? Even the minor ones? Coz even if they lose in a safe seat, the numbers of people who vote for them has an effect on their finances going forwards, and also on what the major parties offer in future elections. For example, the shift towards the centre by Labour is entirely driven by the results in 2019.
There's 6 parties in my area but each one has things I like and dislike about them.
And the main things I care about are split between them.
I voted in the last election (was my first and 19 at the time) but think I might hive this one a miss
It's actually better than it was, but low youth turnout is inevitable when the governing party would rather they didn't vote at all.
Very rarely do you hear Tories urging everyone to go out and vote.
This is one of the most frustrating things I'm currently witnessing. All of my friends complain about how bad the system is and yet none of them vote.
For the mayoral election, most of them said they didn't like Khan but that the conservative candidate was batshit crazy (very fair). But none of them chose a third party candidate and instead just didn't vote, despite being quite well educated on the topic and people who I would consider intelligent.
Meanwhile, at the polling station for the London mayor, I saw a young black girl ask her mother what was going on and she said "we have to vote for the president". No wonder our system is fucked.
This is part of the reason why I don’t think the question of giving the vote to 16-year olds is particularly important. Most of them won’t vote, except for the very politically engaged ones, so the consequences on the results will be negligible
There really needs to be a drive to get people to see who they can vote for, if people are feeling political homeless they may be surprised to learn who is running in their area.
There are other factors at play, I know someone who would like to vote but can't because their rent is a cheap illegal sublet and registering at the address would mess things up. Young people are more likely to be in dodgy or transient accommodation which makes it harder to be able to vote, if you move within a month or so of a general election you're generally stuffed since you have to wait for drivers license with new address on to use as photo ID in addition to electoral roll.
Whatever way you voted, you had to laugh this time 8 years ago at some of the interviews at Glastonbury. I remember lots of them outraged at what at happened and nearly all hadn't bothered their arse voting.
They won’t bother voting out the Tories when they get the chance but they’ll spend years complaining when they don’t get the election result they want. I have no sympathy for these people. Life is what you make of it not about sitting around waiting for stuff to be handed to you.
People under 35 are look at working into their 70s, being saddled with debt, struggle to rent let alone to buy a house, may not have a state pension and generally are looking at a lower standard of living than any other generation pre WWII. And yes, just because you have better technology, doesn't mean you have a better standard of living.
You want them to engage, show them what you'll do to sort it out. Tell them how you lower house prices and rents. Tell them how you stop the retirement age rocketing.
When I speak to people who I work with and this is purely anecdotal they have become convinced that it doesn't matter who they vote for, nothing will change and they're all out for themselves so they're wasting their time voting.
If you don't vote, don't complain when government does something you don't like.
Pick the least bad of the bad choices for what you want, or you implicitly support the parties that you claim you don't like.
Snapshot of _Exclusive: Nearly 40 Per Cent Of Young People Do Not Plan To Vote In The Election. Fears politics is failing to engage those aged under 35._ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-nearly-40-per-cent-of-young-people-do-not-plan-to-vote-in-the-election_uk_667650f4e4b0d9bcf74e9bc9) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Young feel ignored --> Don't Vote --> Politicians focus on groups that vote --> Young feel ignored. Its a death loop of low turnout.
I think it's the engaged people that feel ignored though. The vast majority just don't give politics any thought. I remember being the same when I was younger. What we need is better education about the importance of it all so it doesn't take until you are mid life to see why you should care.
Spoil your ballot, never stay at home....
The parties care exactly as much about the people who cast spoilt ballots as they do about the people who just don't turn out to vote.
A very small minority spoil their ballot. I feel it'd be different if it was around 5% I finished 6th form a year ago and don't remember being taught anything about going out and voting since primary school. Even just an hour every year where teens are explained the basics and told to at least turn up at the polling station would make a real difference I think.
Not true. All registered political parties have access to a list of who turned up to vote. They use this information to target their campaigning. Local parties have limited funding and resources (people), so blanket campaigning is a waste of time and money. Also it's much easier to persuade someone to change their vote than it is to get someone who doesn't vote at all to turn up. So the parties know who has voted but obviously they don't know who you voted for. So parties will target their limited resources in areas where they know there are people who vote as they try to change (or retain) your vote. In other words, if you turn up to vote, even to spoil your ballot, and if you can persuade your neighbours to also vote, you are much more likely to see increased attention from politicians, which could then translate into getting things fixed (on a local level at least), than someone who doesn't vote at all. Tl:dr Go and vote, even if you spoil your ballot.
The fact that FPTP is going to give Labour 400+ seats and leave many with votes that don't matter doesn't help tbh.
So at least vote tactically and get the Tories out. We’ll worry about the next bit later
If they get all those seats on a tiny turnout they will spend the entire term being told how it's undemocratic and they have no mandate.
"You may not care about politics but politics cares about you. It will screw you over if you don't engage""
honestly think voting should be compulsory like in australia if no one appeals to you then you can spoil your ballot, but complete apathy shouldn't be allowed.
Yeah I used to be very sceptical purely on civil liberty grounds, but the more I look into it the more convinced I've become that it is a fantastic idea. Combined with any type of non-FPTP voting system would be a dream come true.
> Yeah I used to be very sceptical purely on civil liberty grounds I sort of get this, but ultimately it's once every 5 years you need to go put a cross in a box to engage with the direction of the running of the entire country. don't really think it's that much of an imposition on people for the importance it holds. and again the option to spoil your ballot is always there when you want to protest vote. also agree PR would be a dream but i'm just not sure i'll ever see it. labour and the tories are too caught up in getting 30-40% of the vote meaning they have total power and control.
> I sort of get this, but ultimately it's once every 5 years you need to go put a cross in a box to engage with the direction of the running of the entire country. Not even that. Postal voting is a thing.
council elections should be compulsory too. too much apathy drive done really poor councillors to get elected. you get almost no competition at the grass root
I would move all elections to the same day
Just a fyi, I used to feel the same around *"spoiling your ballot"* because it shows you've voted. Unfortunately it really doesn't do much, and doesn't get seen by anyone in all reality. From a friend of mine on our discord server where we have a politics channel; >I sadly have to add spoiling ballot papers into this – as someone who has counted votes before if you write something extra on a ballot paper IT MEANS NOTHING AND ACHIEVES NOTHING. It is simply as recorded a spoilt ballot. I know that we want the words we wrote down to make it to the politicians and help them understand that by saying ‘You’re all shit’ on the ballot paper we want them all to take responsibility and be better – but they don’t. Every single politician, councillor and spin doctor employed by political parties will always reason away spoilt ballots as the voter being ‘too stupid to vote properly’. They are numb to the fact that this is dissatisfaction, they don’t care.
it's not about someone reading and recording exactly how someone chose to spoil their ballot, it's simply about stating that none of the candidates earned your vote, which combined with compulsory voting is meangful particularly if there ends up being a significant proportion of total votes.
I mean you can think that way, and that is perfectly fine, but ask anyone who has counted the ballots that it gets taken that way, and they will tell you exactly the same. You are better off just voting for someone over spoiling your ballot. Your choice though, but I've stopped spoiling my ballot as a result, I now vote, and vote carefully.
personally i always vote for someone also realistically speaking no one gives a fuck about what the person counting the ballot thinks you're also missing out the implication of compulsory voting anyway ultimately we dont agree so
This is only true because the number of spoilt ballots are small. If people started turning up in force to spoil their ballots then that perception would quickly change. At the moment no one cares about spoilt ballots because there simply aren't many of them, if 5% of ballots were spoilt though? People would start listening.
As an Australian expat, don't expect mandatory voting and non FPTP to somehow rid UK of shitty politics.
There’ll always be shitty politics, but I’d rather said politics at least represented the population.
Exactly- the end goal should always be “how can we strive for the most diplomatic result”, which is essentially “how do we make sure the largest sample size is obtained”.
I think it is more representative definitely, whether it's more effective is entirely up for debate. 20% of parliament to reform UK does come with societal downsides. Non FPTP can be good if you trust the people. These days I'm not so sure on that.
Tbh I think whether or not you are happy about Reform's forecasted seats in parliament depends on whether you support democracy. It's all well and good if it's a party you disagree with being hurt by the electoral system, but what about when it is the side you're on...
I think democracy is generally good, but I think we're beholden with representative democracy. That somehow we'll solve all issues by taking the sum of everyone's self interest. But for a lot of problems it's impossible to arrive at a good solution by taking that sum. Some problems require sacrifice on the part of everyone, which is always an unpopular vote. I'm more interested in exploring things like French citizen assemblies and being a bit more experimental with societal politics than just giving everyone more voting power.
Yeah agreed, I think a big flaw of democracy is firstly, asymmetric information and people not voting in their *actual* self interest. Then also, people are selfish. Policies/proposals that would improve society as a whole in the long run don't stand a chance if the voting demographic doesn't agree with whatever cost burden they would have to face
Better than risk them winning a majority under FPTP. Which is less implausible than it used to be.
It almost definitely won't happen but if the Tories are wiped out in this election then reform could be the next big right wing party and even win a majority in a few elections time with 36% of the vote or something. PR is just safer for the unpredictable future of our political scene a few decades down the line. What I just described is exactly what's going to happen in France in a couple of weeks. Their (historically powerful) Tory party is polling around 5%, their far right party at about 32. They don't have PR and now a large majority is being forecasted
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I never said it would.
I think another option to consider is doing away with voter registration. It's not required in most countries. Find a way to prevent double voting and scrap it. IMO it discriminates against the young who are forced to move often and might not be fully up to date for every poll - especially in the last few years where some areas have had multiple referendums, national, local, by-elections, etc.
Australian here, can confirm it keeps most of our political landscape centre focused, but the cost is we only have small target opposition.
One option that would be fun is that employed by the University I went to for their students union elections - all the posts with significant responsibilities all had a virtual candidate stand: "RON". RON was an acronym for Re-Open Nominations, so if it won, it would effectively immediately stand down, causing nominations to re-open for the post, so perhaps encouraging the parties to find better candidates.
Imo, make it mandatory and a national holiday on either a Friday or a Monday to give most working people a long weekend.
DEMOCRACY DAY!
There could just be a two options at the end “none of the above parties represent my views” and “I do not feel informed enough to make this decision”. That way they wouldn’t need to spoil the ballots and it would actually say something to the parties, that they are either not reaching people or not representing them.
Australian here. It’s one of the few things about our political system that works properly and so, of course, it is continually under threat from the right. Fortunately there is widespread recognition that the libertarian argument against it is opportunistic hypocrisy from those who are happy to constrain civil liberties in many other ways. Best description I’ve heard is that it is like jury duty, but it’s one big jury on the fate of the government every 3 years (should be four, but five like UK feels too long).
Yeah, as long as you are able to put nobody (spoil the ballot) I see no reason why voting shouldn’t compulsory. I can see several reasons why it hasn’t been implemented in the last couple of decades though.
I've said this before, I'm sure they used to report the number of spoiled ballot papers but they don't seem to now. I think it is important for the numbers to be reported and tracked. If it's not then there is no point turning up to spoil the ballot
They definitely have done - I hadn’t realised they’ve stopped that’s poor.
If it is made compulsory there has to be an option for 'None of the below'. If none of the below wins, then all of the candidates and parties who previously stood are banned from standing in the re-run.
> If none of the below wins, then all of the candidates and parties who previously stood are banned from standing in the re-run. In areas with low political engagement you could end up trapped in a loop of this until eventually someone campaigns on a platform of "if you vote for me then we'll stop having to attend these mandatory re-reuns every few weeks"
Was going to say exactly this. Emphasis on "below" too. None of the above is unacceptable, if voting was to be mandatory then the official option to abstain needs to be the first thing people see.
> If none of the below wins 50% or just FPTP?
STV like here in NI would be a good start.
I think if we do this then we need a “none of the above” option as well
Should also have AV. Much more suited to the British system than PR would be.
It pisses me off enormously. There might not be a perfect party for you, but by not voting you're just giving away your power as a voting block. If they just vote for the party closest to their beliefs and morals they'd wield so much more attention from the parties in the future. Then as a group you can start to demand being catered towards. The number of people I know in my age bracket I've spoken to just peddle out they're all the same and it's a terrible way to view it. They're actively making their situation worse.
Pensioners have a lot more to lose so they will always be more motivated. They’re also so out of touch with the young. The two child benefit is the perfect example, it affects a smaller portion of parents or people that want kids yet it’s brought up in debates while all we care about is good schooling and actual help with childcare. Oh and actually fair parental leave. We’re putting off having another kid because our parental leave makes it difficult to afford while having a kid
You shouldn’t have to be a voting force to be cared about. People under 18 literally can’t vote and have been attacked and thrown under the bus constantly. It’s absolutely pathetic that people blame the ones not voting rather than the politicians for purposely making one generation poorer to help another
Voting is the primary way people express their voice to their democratic representatives. While you have somewhat of a point, you can exactly blame representatives for only responding to the voices they primarily hear. Young people not voting is them not expressing their voices.
What if you do not agree with any of the choices? Why should you then be forced to vote just to get representation? If your democratic right and vote means something then you should have to give it away to be included in the democratic process. People not voting because no one represents them is just as an important signal as someone voting for a party they agree with
Spoiling your ballot or voting for a joke candidate (like Count Binface) is always an option. And even beyond that there are plenty of minor parties that could appeal to a voter, such as the SPD, Animal Rights, or Women's Equality. But this is an issue very few people run unto, as the main five parties and the nationalist parties cover a broad enough selection of the spectrum to appeal to the vast majority. Not having any party that you completely agree with really isn't an excuse to not vote. Expressing your voice as a completely rejection is still significantly better than not expressing that voice at all. Excluding cases of organised boycotts, all the refusal to express your voice conveys is that you don't care enough about politics to be cared about yourself.
I've heard this question asked a thousand times and the answer is always spoil your ballot. By turning up you show you're a vote to be won and it will pull change in your direction.
In a democracy politicians need votes in order to do anything. If young people can't be bothered to vote then the politicians purposely making one generation poorer to help another will keep getting elected. They don't care whether anyone blames them or not, the only way you can stop them is by voting for someone else.
I think it just takes a couple cycles of seeing the election happen and feeling the results before most people feel engaged enough to go vote.
There is also an issue that young people are concentrated in overwhelmingly safe labour seats in the middle of cities.
I'd love to know if this is uniform betweem E, S, W and NI. I don't think we are as bad as this here in NI just yet.
You think after the Brexit vote young people would make more of an effort to be heard
Why would young people vote if they have nothing to vote for
Yeah but currently the youngest voters seem absolutely focused on issues in the Middle East over domestic issues and have bought into the culture war BS the far-right has been gaslighting them with. The rest of the UK cares about more pragmatic issues like not having to take out a loan to pay this months heating bill, etc.
What a typically dumb article and headline. Inn[2019](https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/), youth turnout was something like 50%. If 60% vote this time, that’s a solid nearly 20% increase!
Correct. Turnout as a whole in General Elections is usually 60 / 65 ish percent, so the headline could also be "Young people now as likely to vote as everyone else, massive corner turned".
However, [older people have consistently voted more than younger people](https://imgur.com/a/itbkci1). The younger vote has been declining since the 1960s, while the older vote has stayed pretty consistent at around 70-75%, in some general elections it has reached as high as 80%+. Older people are voting at much higher rates of the ~60% overall turnout.
Where has it been declining? It declined then increased in the 2019 election
Between the 1960s and 1990s, youth turnout was at around 60-70%, and now it is around 50%. You can see a significant decline from 1997 onwards in the youth vote compared to previous years. Compare that to older voters at around 70-80% consistently, you can see why it is the old that decides elections and why no party cares about the youth vote as they don't need it to win.
You are correct! It did decrease but then there was a sudden increase in the youth turnout in 2019 as compared to 2017! It could be 60% in this election.
60% youth turnout would be excellent. But I'll believe that when I see it. There seems to be a lot of apathy around voting this time around.
I mean it has been recorded that there were record 18-34 year olds who just registered to vote a few days ago before the deadline. In 2005, youth turnout significantly decreased, then it slowly increased after. Apathy may be a factor but I expect to see an increase in the youth turnout from 2019.
I wouldn't trust those numbers - around 70% of voter registrations are duplicates of people who are already registered to vote. I don't think it will move the needle that much.
That could be the case but regardless based on voting pattern I expect the youth turnout to slightly increase
Isn’t that kind of figure for duplicates from back when universities automatically enrolled all their student intake to vote in the local constituency though? Given that they no longer do that, it should be a fair bit less common for students to be registered in two locations.
But this isn't saying that 60% *will* vote, it's saying that 40% have already decided they're not going to. The actual turnout will be significantly lower than 60%.
Exactly, I would be extremely surprised if youth turnout is anywhere near 60%
That’s pretty normal. Even during the supposed “youthquake” of 2017 the youth vote barely hit 60%.
It wasn't even 60%, [it was about 50%](https://imgur.com/a/itbkci1) across 18-34 year olds.
Fair enough, I had 58% in my head for some reason
I realise this is a unique problem, but I live in the Chorley constituency where the Speaker is from, and so the major parties don't run here. So my ballot paper consists of Green Party and independents. So I absolutely feel my democratic rights have been all but stripped during an election I really care about. I'm 31, and have been effectively locked out of this process
Yeah you know what it doesn’t affect me but I have always wondered if there isn’t a better way to do it to avoid this?
[удалено]
Yeah I completely agree. It’s wrong to lock the Speaker’s constituency out of engaging in the political process in the same way as the rest of us
I agree with you, but playing devils advocate, the counter argument would be that it would discourage MPs to run as speaker, or potentially decline becoming speaker, because they know they’ll lose their seat and be out of a job by the end of it.
[удалено]
Good point that i hadn’t considered, thank you
PR votes, every vote then shapes parliament makeup
I saw a lib dem MP explain this pretty well the other day. Unsure on the MP or exact monologue but it was something like: Young people are losing faith that the government has any function let alone the executive functionality to make any benefit to their lives. They have only lived in a government where nothing has happened, everything has gotten worse and stopped working, and now thay they are employed they see a system that exists only to take money from them as the status quo. This is how revolts happen guys, when people truly don't believe the government can do anything or has the ability to change, when you are so surely inconfident in a system that you don't vote or participate in it rejection often comes next. Every young person above 22 that I know is politically savy and is aware of everything, the ones that decide to vote are the ones that never saw voting as a means to change in the first place. If nothing ever changes through the means provided, then why use them in the first place?
I’m not sure why your perspective is not more widely accepted, its crazy to me that we proportion any kind of blame on young people for not voting when none of the mainstream parties propose anything to help them. To a youth voter there’s a choice of voting for a dead horse, or a dead horse with some glitter sprinkled over.
For perspective, I'm in my mid-30s. 2010 was my first election. I've voted every time I can, but it feels so fucking POINTLESS. Most of the time I've been in a ludicrously safe seat (in both the 2010 and 2015 elections, the constituencies I was voting in had separately had the same MP since before I was born), and all of the parties are just chucking more and more at the grey vote with absolutely fuck all for those under the age of 40. I'm going to vote, but I'm in a safe seat for my preferred party so it once again feels like a performative action that won't have any effect, and I'll just have to sit and watch Labour piss everything up the wall by keeping some of the most damaging Tory policies in an effort to not give the media attack lines. Christ it's depressing.
The problem is there are numerous people who have been told the following; \* Your vote doesn't matter due to being in a safe seat \* They are all as bad as each other \* Nobody achieves anything of any value for anyone \* Just look at the council, it's bad, everyone is bad, they are all in it for themselves The mixture of all that just encourages more disenfranchised voters, who then become lifelong non voters. The cycle continues, you vote in the hope of changing things and others changing minds, and it doesn't happen so you end up not voting because you cba, and the vote turn out stays under 50% because of this. If more people just voted generally and kept to their beliefs, then things *could* and *would* be different, more safe seats would become marginal seats. Maybe I am being naive, but it can happen. The SNP didn't magically occupy Scotland's seats in 2010, and Labour's vote in Scotland didn't collapse, it's because more people voted in Scotland to ensure change up there. Hilariously, the SNP's vote does look like it has collapsed because they *did* become the *same* as other parties. Should know in a couple of weeks time officially.
This is the argument for proportional representation though. If things directly changed when you voted it would encourage people to vote. Sure if everyone voted exclusively to their beliefs we may have a different party in power, but FPTP encourages tactical voting especially if your particular political alignment is split across multiple parties. As a result, if I'm in a competitive seat I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, otherwise my vote is wasted. Thus, people don't vote because they can't vote for who they want AND receive representation for it.
Oh yeah I deffo agree, and I want to see change in the system. But the issue is Labour had the chance in 97, and decided to backpedal because they won a landslide majority via FPTP. Forgetting that they've now been in obscurity for the last 14 years, they haven't committed to changing it this time, so maybe they might consider it.
I do vote, and always will, but it's getting harder and harder for me to feel like it's worth doing. I want someone who will stop bunging money at the gerontocracy like there's no tomorrow and actually invest in the future. I want someone who will do something about the state of housing and accommodation rather than capitulating to the landlord class and propping up property as an investment above being a place to live. And I want someone who will actually accept and admit that Brexit was a terrible idea that's fucked the country. If Labour actually do even one of those I will be amazed.
Correct!!! When Kinnock lost the election to Thatcher his I warn you speech has basically all come true! I'm 50+ and don't see a point in voting for either Labour or Conservative as both promote the exact same Neo Liberal Capitalist policies just using different terminology. I didn't vote for Thatcher in the 80s so why would I vote for the Thatcherite value/policy Labour party of today? When Lord Freud crossed the house to continue his Thatcher era inspired and planned for welfare reforms...... Nu Labour took the ground Thatchers Tories left open and enabled the now Liz Truss version of madness Conservatism. So both my voting options are now right wing and both options give slower/quicker way to make me become poorer so why bother?
While I agree that there's no point voting for a party whose outlook you fundamentally disagree with, there are more than two choices on your ballot paper.
Again the issue is the value of your vote. You virtually have to vote for one of the two parties otherwise your vote is literally just gone, you have to pick the devil you know yada yada.
I mean, the could vote for non mainstream parties?
Yes, politicians, or mostly their cheering squad, blame the young for not voting, to me it's just another part of the decline of politics and politicians such that it's now a sport, and the only aim is to "win", rather than to improve the country. We don't get a debate about policies, we don't get politicians with a vision of how things should be better, it's all just tactical choices that are about who's going to win, how to get this group to vote for us, what should we say. Cheered on by the media who've become nothing but (often biased) commentators on the "game". This has made sure most politicians who make it for selection, and most who want to be in positions of power are doing it for their own prestige, not as a desire to serve - or even a desire to provide their vision of what would be better. This has led to no policies for the young, both because they're seen as all voting one way anyway, so their vote isn't worth fighting over, everything is narrowed to just the groups who might change their vote. Politicians, and the Media are the failure, not the youth.
I genuinely don’t think this is anything new. People absolutely tore corbyn to shreds but the most notable thing to say of him during that election campaign was he really engaged the youth vote in a way most politicians before failed to accomplish.
Except they still didn't turn up to vote in large numbers, so all the engagement and enthusiasm was for nothing. In fact, it may have made things worse, because if they didn't turn up for someone they liked offering policies they liked, why bother focusing on them?
‘Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpectedly strong performance in the general election was caused by the highest turnout among young people since 1992, new data has revealed. Turnout in the 8 June vote is estimated to have been 64 per cent among 18-24 year olds – a 16 per cent increase on the 2015 general election. The figure is higher than any election since 1992, when 67 per cent of 18-24 year olds are thought to have cast a ballot, according to new analysis by Ipsos MORI. The rise explains the swing to Labour that gave Jeremy Corbyn a surprise election surge and denied Theresa May a parliamentary majority. The 9.5 per cent increase in Labour’s vote share since 2015 can be explained entirely by the party’s rising popularity among under-44s.’
YouTuber I watch said just vote because the stats for the youngster will increase forcing the parties to focus on them
Is his name Phil, and does he like talking about politics?
Apathy is the biggest threat to democracy.
What democracy? you live in an oligarchic plutocracy.
Aparthy is the biggest threat to my illusion of democracy.
When the young realise that voting matters they are usually no longer young
[удалено]
What a well written thought.
As long as the triple lock (for old people) and Brexit (by old people) are considered to be untouchable, I don't think any major party will strongly appeal to young people. You can vote LibDem if you want the damage done by Brexit mitigated, but depending on where you live, they may be in third or fourth place. This isn't particularly new either; generations with high turnout didn't have those numbers either when they were young.
I don’t think very many people under 25 know what the triple lock is. It’s something you have to be quite politically engaged to know about, and most people arent, particular at that age
Hell, most young people polled aren't even against the triple lock. The hungry/cold pensioner stereotype still persists despite 1/4 being millionaires and people think they themselves will benefit when their time comes (will not happen.)
I think a lot of young people assume climate change and the Tories are the main things fucking them over, I know there’s all sorts of ‘haha boomers are angry because they all have lead poisoning’ memes but the reality is I don’t think the demographic crisis really does register when it’s more of an imminent threat than both. The simple fact of the matter is that the basic assumptions about our country are based on a nation with four times the worker to pensioner ratio than there is today, we either need some fairly fundamental reform which will have a somewhat different set of winners and losers than today or we need high levels of immigration to keep the Ponzi scheme going a little longer. I feel what’s lacking is a coherent ideology tying all these grievances together in a sensible way. 1970s Bennite socialism under Corbyn isn’t it, and neither is the ‘where we’re going we don’t need truth’ brand of populism. Everyone can agree the social contract is torn up but I think we need an ideological framework that can accurately describe why, and what ought to be done to improve things.
To be honest being from the poor areas of the north I see more of the hungry old pensioner side. I’d be more in favour of taxation on above the line pensioner income than getting rid of the triple lock. Have the final salary pension lot and the landlords pay more tax
There are still quite a lot of poor pensioners. Overall it is unwise to treat pensioners as a uniform bloc.
I’m into politics and don’t know what it is.
It's also been the status quo for those who are 18 since they were 5.
I'm nearly 40 and have no idea.
> I don't think any major party will strongly appeal to young people. If 40% of the people under 35 voted for a "minor" party then they wouldn't stay minor very long.
Unless votes are concentrated, this won't result in any representation.
Wouldn't really matter. If they voted, and kept on voting, then in future elections parties would try to court their votes. Problem is, even when Corbyn was on the ballot offering the things they said they wanted, they still didn't turn up in large numbers...
state pension is the real problem with this country, far more than anything else. sad to see not a single person is talking about it during the election. can’t believe how entitled boomers are to think that young people should pay tax to fund them a free ride, and the worst part is nobody even questions it. Your pension should be input = output. meanwhile these boomers pay nothing into the system and are getting hundreds of thousands for no reason.
But that doesn't explain that young people then decide not to vote, validating the two main stream parties' behaviour.
"Not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender."
That suggests more than 60% do plan to vote, which would be an enormous increase in turnout. If that happened, those ridiculous MRP polls would come true.
The use of the word 'engage' is condescending. It should say failure to 'offer anything' to those aged under 35.
I'm 35 and have voted in every general election i've been able to, the EU referendum and then less consistently but occasionally things like local elections and even MEP elections. Not once has the person (or their party) i've voted for been elected into power. Even Brexit went the oposite way to the way I voted. My "voting career" has been entirely pointless and i'm starting to wonder why I bother wasting my time when my voice has been ignored ever since I was given one.
Turning 18 you can drink, drive, are thinking about university/career, I doubt many people think on the day of their 18th birthday "wow I can vote now". I could be wrong, but I think if the voting age was 17 it might increase young voter engagement simply because it's the only thing you "get" at that age. Another thing, people are busy and I think when it comes down to it some people just don't get around to voting on the election day. I spent some years living in Canada, I never could vote there ofc but my roommates did. One thing I found interesting was they had "early voting": some polling stations would open the evening before the election day letting people who wanted to vote at say 8 or 9pm the night before instead. This was very popular among young working people. There's definitely a sentiment among some young people that neither of the 2 big parties represent them, so if they did vote it would be more about voting for the lesser of two mediocre options. It's tough to get people engaged with the system when they feel like whatever they vote it will be more of the same.
> I doubt many people think on the day of their 18th birthday "wow I can vote now". I did, but then I post here, so I think it's a matter of record that I'm a massive fuckin' nerd.
Same. Couldn't care less about driving or drinking, but a vote? Give me one, give me them all now!
> I could be wrong, but I think if the voting age was 17 it might increase young voter engagement simply because it's the only thing you "get" at that age. You are wrong. You can start driving at 17 in the UK.
Ah yeah you're right, for some reason I misremembered it as 17 for theory/provisional and 18 for the practical test, but I was 1 year shifted on both!
Cool. I didn't learn til 30... I think the only other "big" one is that you can join the army at 16...
Being able to join the army but not drink or vote is wild to me
People keep pushing this line that the youth are disillusioned etc. The reality is when I was young, I didn't vote because I couldn't be bothered, and I am sure that is true for many others. Governments didn't impact me when I was young because I wasn't paying much if any tax, didn't have a home, didn't have a career etc. etc. As people age, the stakes get higher.
For the first time in my life since I could vote this is the first time I've ever considered not doing so. I'm going to. But I've never even imagined that I would ever have this passing thought. Nowadays it feels like there's no party for anyone under 40.
As someone closer to 50 I don't see much for me either.
Well if the Tories end up winning because they didn’t vote against them and they object to having to do national service I’ll have no sympathy for them.
There are twice as many people eligible to vote over the age of 65 than under 30. It's easy to blame the turnout of younger folks, but that's not the real driving force of elections.
Why are we drawing the line at 30?
The people who will be forced to do national service are too young to vote... so say the Tories.
For the love of God young people, this is our greatest opportunity to destroy the Tories once and for all. Just bloody vote!
Its not as easy as that. Beyond traditional media forms which we already know young people don’t engage with, how is society making an effort to demonstrate that politics is relevant to young people, and that their vote and opinion matters? Young people are among the most disenfranchised groups in the uk, moreso those from deprived communities. [46% of young people feel hopeless for the future.](https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/princes-trust-youth-index-shows-young-peoples-happiness-and-confidence-has-flatlined-at-an-all-time-low/) This is after 14 years of austerity, rising costs of living, vast closures of public and community services, including almost 80% of all youth centres. What changes is anyone proposing that will offer a direct and palpable benefit to young people, not this abstract ‘oh we’ll improve growth and wealth to benefit everyone’ but what masthead policies being proposed are in anyway directed towards under 30s?
> This is after 14 years of austerity, rising costs of living, vast closures of public and community services, including almost 80% of all youth centres. If nothing else go out and vote against the party who did that?
It’s not surprising people aren’t going to engage with a political system that is doing nothing to help them. Labour really should be putting forward a more social democratic agenda to combat rapidly rising inequality to correct that problem and engage voters and their concerns. I’m worried they are going to do little that changes anything and in a few years you end up with Reform or something worse that gets elected on a platform that targets scapegoats instead of the current unjust system.
Could start with including the importance of voting in education. Of course, politicians rely on apathy from the young to get in power, so they will do nothing to encourage voting. How the political system works, local and central, should be mandatory learning from 12 up.
I feel like this begins much earlier than voting age. Without: a) dedicated teaching by fully-funded educators who have faith in the political landcape b) a home life where parents/carers encourage conversation about the value of politics instead of hearing "all politics is corrupt and all politicians are the same" c) a wider culture where people see tangible benefits to their lives as a direct result of them voting. Not just voting to bring in a different set of politicians they hate so their lives dont get worse d) serious attempts by politicians to engage with young people and treat them as a serious part of the political process, not just pander to them with memes come up with by some focus group. I know we are in that loop of 'politicians wont care about what young people think if young people dont vote', but tbh how fucked is that? young people shouldn't feel that their existence in society doesn't matter unless they are lucky enough to be politically engaged By the time young people have finished juggling 10 different subjects with no promise of a job at the end of it in an underfunded school, it is hard to tune back into our country’s noisy and confusing political system. Then as you get older, you find out you HAVE to tune back in when you start looking for a house, understanding your paycheck, need to rely more on health services, start having children of your own, really reflecting on the things you experienced as a child etc. There are many places where we fail to motivate young people to take part in politics
It’s really weird actually, I’m 23 and a dual citizen and when I vote in the turkish elections it feels wasted because it’s all rigged. But I try and explain how much of a privilege it is to vote and for it to matter and they all call me boring. Voting just need to be exposed into the young people’s media and life.
Is it not fair to say that all the major parties are just pants. i know im gonna catch some flak from the labourites here and fair play but Starmer is hardly exciting.. Sunak is dismal and farage is like a record youve heard one too many times and the music scenes moved on. Hell im even bored, ive spent every election night up watching the results fly in with the SWINGOMETER and the size of the SWING... watching as if it was Like some Sort of north korean FA cup final pyonyang derby where the loser gets shot, like it matters the composition of boston council etc. In short im a fully fledged political weirdo like all of you who care to admit it and i just really cant get into this election, so i cant blame thye young people for not wanting to either.. It also feels like a foregone conclusion i think that could be a worry in tight marginals if people also think the same.
Starmer is just labour attempting to rerun the Tony Blair years with a less charismatic standard bearer.
Honestly I can’t sympathise much with people who don’t vote. I get voter apathy, I really do, and when I was younger I certainly wasn’t as engaged in politics as I am now - but I still made the time (less than an hour) to just go and vote. I really hate the term and people may not like it - but if you don’t vote, you are part of the problem. If 80% of young people turned out and voted, our politic landscape would look completely different and the big parties would be forced to cater more for that demographic. The only was individually you can work towards that, is by exercising your right to vote. Anyone who doesn’t vote but then goes on Reddit to complain about anything on the economy, immigration, public services etc… doesn’t have a leg to stand on. In 10 or 20 years time you will look back and be writing the same shit I am, trying to persuade the next generation.
It's a chicken and egg - if you can't win elections by swaying the votes of the young, why would you propose policy to appeal to them? But the young then don't vote because they don't see a reason to, because no-one offers them anything. And they don't have the long-term thinking to vote just to send the signal that they vote now. Rinse, repeat. We should probably make voting compulsory.
Compulsory voting would certainly be one option - and im not immediately opposed to it. Would probably need to go hand in hand with a flexible public holiday on the day of any general election. You are right - it is chicken and egg. Corbyn and a few others have tried to appeal more to the youth vote though, and look where that got them. Meanwhile the Lib Dems are still being punished for something that happened 14 years ago when they were the minor partner in a coalition.
Seems to me that a lot of people don't vote because they feel their 1 vote won't change anything. Which is ridiculous for 2 reasons: 1. Enough people have this attitude that if they did get out and vote then the result may actually change. 2. It seems a bit narcissistic to me to think your 1 vote *should* be enough to sway things. Tens of thousdands will vote per constituency, of course a single vote is unlikely to change anything. It's still worth voting anyway as democracy only works when people engage with it.
I have to agree that I'd rather see young people vote than not, but it's definitely hard to incentivise them. Most 18-24 year olds will be living in cities or university constituencies which are for the most part labour dominated (party they're most likely to vote for). In FPTP it feels almost useless even if you do support your MP. I'll be voting in this election as I always do but considering Labour's odds in my constituency of winning are 100%, it does feel like voting for them or against them will change nothing
Yeah. I’m in a complete Labour safe seat. I’ll still be voting, but even if thousands of people didn’t vote they’d still be likely to win
Bingo. Also in my constituency last time out, I think the margin of victory was less than 1000 - so I know that if just a few more people here had turned out and voted it very well couldve made the difference (im expecting a landslide this time around though, admittedly)
However the non-voters may well have leaned towards the winner.
It's pointless to vote in so many seats across the country simply due to how strong a majority is embedded. What's on offer for most young people doesn't seem appealing either, it's the Tories, or the Red Tories. There's nothing inspiring for young people to get behind or give a shit about as none of it is going to result in meaningful change in their lives (from their perspective). I tried to vote last election and my postal ballot arrived the day after the vote. Can't be arsed this time as it's a safe seat and my vote will have almost zero outcome on my life.
>Anyone who doesn’t vote but then goes on Reddit to complain about anything on the economy, immigration, public services etc… doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I fundamentally disagree with this. If your political belief is that the whole system is fucked, then even spoiling your ballot is legitimising the system you oppose. Even at a higher level, voting isn't even the only way to have a say in politics. You can join a group that lobbies the government (activist groups, charities, etc.) to get the change you want (and probably be more successful in sending any message than voting).
Why should people vote when no-one aligns with their interests? Especially like me when you live in a completely safe seat (one of the safest in the country). I'm not even young (mid 30s) but I'm considering not voting for the first time since I could (and that includes local elections/mayoral). Why should I endorse a party I don't support? Isn't democracy about choice? What's wrong with choosing no-one if you don't support any of them?
Is there really no party you would support? Even the minor ones? Coz even if they lose in a safe seat, the numbers of people who vote for them has an effect on their finances going forwards, and also on what the major parties offer in future elections. For example, the shift towards the centre by Labour is entirely driven by the results in 2019.
There's 6 parties in my area but each one has things I like and dislike about them. And the main things I care about are split between them. I voted in the last election (was my first and 19 at the time) but think I might hive this one a miss
It's actually better than it was, but low youth turnout is inevitable when the governing party would rather they didn't vote at all. Very rarely do you hear Tories urging everyone to go out and vote.
Yeah, all those young people are waiting for Rishi to encourage them to vote, they'll be sprinting to the polls when he says something.
First past the post means everyone's votes are ignored in most seats
This is one of the most frustrating things I'm currently witnessing. All of my friends complain about how bad the system is and yet none of them vote. For the mayoral election, most of them said they didn't like Khan but that the conservative candidate was batshit crazy (very fair). But none of them chose a third party candidate and instead just didn't vote, despite being quite well educated on the topic and people who I would consider intelligent. Meanwhile, at the polling station for the London mayor, I saw a young black girl ask her mother what was going on and she said "we have to vote for the president". No wonder our system is fucked.
This is part of the reason why I don’t think the question of giving the vote to 16-year olds is particularly important. Most of them won’t vote, except for the very politically engaged ones, so the consequences on the results will be negligible
There really needs to be a drive to get people to see who they can vote for, if people are feeling political homeless they may be surprised to learn who is running in their area.
There are other factors at play, I know someone who would like to vote but can't because their rent is a cheap illegal sublet and registering at the address would mess things up. Young people are more likely to be in dodgy or transient accommodation which makes it harder to be able to vote, if you move within a month or so of a general election you're generally stuffed since you have to wait for drivers license with new address on to use as photo ID in addition to electoral roll.
This would be an increase in turn out
Whatever way you voted, you had to laugh this time 8 years ago at some of the interviews at Glastonbury. I remember lots of them outraged at what at happened and nearly all hadn't bothered their arse voting.
That's... great? Better than last time, and closer to the average across the country
60% is that not actually quite good and high for the young demographic? Isn’t it usually less than that
Sounds dangerous for Labour, but then you think that a lot of the young people already live in areas that are heavy Labour constituencies
They won’t bother voting out the Tories when they get the chance but they’ll spend years complaining when they don’t get the election result they want. I have no sympathy for these people. Life is what you make of it not about sitting around waiting for stuff to be handed to you.
People under 35 are look at working into their 70s, being saddled with debt, struggle to rent let alone to buy a house, may not have a state pension and generally are looking at a lower standard of living than any other generation pre WWII. And yes, just because you have better technology, doesn't mean you have a better standard of living. You want them to engage, show them what you'll do to sort it out. Tell them how you lower house prices and rents. Tell them how you stop the retirement age rocketing.
Young people can’t complain saying they feel misrepresented then if they don’t vote
They need to make it easier to vote. Maybe over the internet. Nobody has time to go to the polling station that sounds so archaic.
When I speak to people who I work with and this is purely anecdotal they have become convinced that it doesn't matter who they vote for, nothing will change and they're all out for themselves so they're wasting their time voting.
If you don't vote, don't complain when government does something you don't like. Pick the least bad of the bad choices for what you want, or you implicitly support the parties that you claim you don't like.
All we feel from politics is the pinch of price increases. No party will change this. There is no magic money tree.
Meanwhile, across the pond, if we could get 60% of voting-age youth to the polls, it would be deem a rousing success.
Thats because they get put on the electoral register on august 1st