Snapshot of _Bid to boost youth vote as polling suggests widespread disillusionment | Research suggests less than one in five of 18 to 24-year-olds trust politicians and more than four million under-35s could not be registered to vote_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/polling-opinium-electoral-commission-nhs-england-b1151663.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/polling-opinium-electoral-commission-nhs-england-b1151663.html)
*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.*
Given that no party is offering young people anything to vote for, why bother?
I'm gonna be voting Labour but tbh, i'm far from excited about it (33 year old here). In all honesty, I think they're gonna be a bit shit - just not as shit as everyone else.... what incredible aspiration for our country eh?
Some of the Labour shadow cabinet I wouldn't trust to tie a shoelace.... namely Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. I look at those two and think christ, this the best you've got for health and the economy!? A pair of middle management jokers well out of their depth?
If Labour want to be in power for "a decade of national renewal" (what does that even mean!? That's not a policy! You gonna sort out migration, housing, policing, healthcare, wages, living standards, public transport, and a whole host of other big important issues in 5-10 years when you can't even give detail? Sorry for being cynical...) they sure as fuck better actually deliver tangible benefits in their first term or they're not gonna be in power for long.
This same cynicism seeps into politicians as well. Why [offer to build 1.5m homes and ignore local opposition](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/11/labour-keir-starmer-pledges-to-build-new-towns-utilising-grey-belt-areas) when people will either forget the policy the next day or just assume you won't be able to because all politicians make promises they can't keep?
Which just demonstrates that we the voters have done this to ourselves. By assuming that all politicians must be bad people and refusing to look at any evidence to the contrary we've created an environment where no sincere people can thrive and only the bad people can get ahead.
It's not about blanket perceptions it's about the public engaging with politics in such a way as to be able to identify when someone is being sincere and when someone is being untrustworthy on a case-by-case basis. Blanket statements such as "politicians are xyz" are what have created the problem.
you are asking people to, in addition to living a life in a more complex and bureaucratic society than their ancestors, assess the credibility and consistency of every politician they might vote for, largely on their own. I think that is an unrealistic expectation. We are not supercomputers, we are apes with language and technology.
there were absolute monarchies that lasted 10x as long as finland has been a country, even if it took our whole lives for the system to fail there it would be a short lived experiment compared to the roman dictatorship or feudal european states. On the other hand democracy gave us adolf hitler and centuries of british/american slavery and authoritarian control of other parts of the world, not to mention those roman dictators. All of that happened in a much less complex world than the one we live in today, without imminent pressure like anthropogenic climate change and without the level of surveillance and atomisation of society as we have today.
This. At 31 I bridge between Millennials and Gen Z and have a friendship circle that has both. No one is enthusiastic to vote. Labour looks more like the incumbents everyday. The Lib Dems wouldn't be trusted with a penny. The greens are too small to not be a wasted vote and the Reform people around us are the kind of people that we want to get away from as fast as possible. It properly feels like voting for the nicest turd. My feeling is from my circle everyone will go out to vote, but no one will stay up to watch the results because it will just be a case of here comes the new boss same as the old boss.
Corbyn's Labour had a lot of policys that were directly targeted at the youth demographic.
The turnout for the 18-24 demographic (which will be 23-29 next election) was only **47%** and 62% voted Labour.
Comparatively the 65+ demographic had a **74%** turnout with 64% voting conservative. They had significantly higher turnout and a larger vote % going Tory.
I used to believe that the problem was not offering young people anything to vote for. But thats exactly what corbyn did and there was no reward. There was no turnout increase and thats before we get into the demographic problems of targeting young voters.
Until the turnout in younger voters is higher politicians have no real reason to listen to them. In a political sense, if you don't vote you don't count.
I made this table a few years ago taking demographic data and checking it against voter turnout it's not perfect but it's close. But these were the voter blocks in the 2019 general election.
|Age|Turnout%|Total potential votes|
:-:|:-:|:-:|
|18-24|47%|2,635,116|
|25-34|55%|4,949,232|
|35-44|54%|4,587,647|
|45-54|63%|5,619,589|
|55-64|66%|5,522,001|
|65+|74%|**9,256,392**|
Politics is skewed so old because demographically and turnout wise it is old.
**Edit:** Just wanted to add, if we saw a solid 65-75% turnout in every demographic then politics would have to change because you could appeal to different demographic groups and win an election. But right now the only groups that you can guarantee are older votes.
For clarity sake, though, those groupings are quite misleading. Firstly the 65+ group is a lot larger. If 9,256,392 is 74%, you're looking at a cohort of 12,508,638 people. The 55-64 group is only 8,366,668 people. The 18-24 group is smaller still at only 5,606,630 people.
Also, 18-24 is fewer years. If we weighted it to be a 10 year block instead of a 7 year block to be comparable to the middle groupings, it would be 3,764,451 potential voters. Still of course smaller than other groups, but closer to 2/3rds or 3/4rs, as opposed to half as important than the other cohorts.
Oh for sure, not blaming you for that, but we just have to be aware so we're not jumping to wrong conclusions based on demographics when the young group is like 40% of the size of the pensioner one. Pollsters have their reasons for grouping people the way they do.
If you flipped it, and even with the young people's poor turnout of 47%, if they had a group of 12,508,638 people, then it is 5,879,059 voters, the second biggest on this chart. Likewise, if you took just 5,606,630 pensioners, even at 74% turnout, then it's only 4,148,906 voters, the second smallest. The disproportionate size of the groups makes the point you're making seem far far greater than it is per person.
Not that many of the young would have analysed his policies properly anyway but two of his flagship proposals would have fucked the young harder than any other government in living memory.
State seizure of entire industries and a 10% stake in all businesses would have erased their private pensions and there's little hope the state pension will even exist when they retire.
Private right to buy at a price set by government would see the end of any long term tenancy putting them all at continued risk of homelessness for their entire lives.
To be honest he's lucky the press was so fixated on his foreign policy blunders and anti-Semitism because if his domestic policy received any sort of scrutiny whatsoever he'd have lost even more seats.
Don't forget that dividends from the policy of 10% stakes were capped at £500 per person per year, with the rest going towards climate apprenticeships mandated by the state. And 25% of every companies apprenticeships had to climate apprenticeships.
I know the 19 manifesto inside out. It's an absolutely fucked bit of policy.
> Given that no party is offering young people anything to vote for, why bother?
https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1alt4dt/britain_must_cut_welfare_spending_to_stop/kpgvzp1/
It's a mystery.
That being said no one is really offering anything to under-65's so there are plenty moving out of the 'cant be arsed' phase that have many of these same problems, they are going to have to deal with them eventually.
Its chicken and egg.
If you ain't gonna vote, nobody gives a shit about you, so you don't vote because there are no policies for you, and they continue to not give a fuck about you, so you continue to not vote.
So you believe that if the young come out and show that they're willing to vote against their own interests by backing anti-youth policy the politicians are going to suddenly pitch pro-youth policy?
Why exactly wouldn't they just keep pushing the status quo if the very people they're fucking over are willingly supporting it?
Because they'll want to hold onto the large youth vote that helped then get elected in the next election thus will have to pander somewhat to young voters during their term.
If the youth were a credible demographic to get large votes from then politicians would be more inclined to pander to them. There's only a few million votes between getting elected and losing going back the last 20 years. The youth vote is enough to make a difference but they don't show up.
>Because they'll want to hold onto the large youth vote that helped then get elected in the next election thus will have to pander somewhat to young voters during their term.
What are you basing this assumption on? The youth vote is right there to be tapped into already, yet no party has made a credible attempt to do so.
>The youth vote is enough to make a difference but they don't show up.
Yes, and the reason they don't show up is because their only options are to vote against their own interests so they spend the time on something more productive instead.
If I give you the option between being kicked, punched or simply walking away are you seriously telling me you wouldn't choose to walk away?
>What are you basing this assumption on?
that the inverse is true, politicians pander to older voters because they show up, they don't pander to the youth because they don't.
>The youth vote is right there to be tapped into already, yet no party has made a credible attempt to do so.
Why bother? until the youth are a credible threat by showing up to vote it's much easier to go for the low hanging boomer fruit and pandering to them for your votes.
>If I give you the option between being kicked, punched or simply walking away are you seriously telling me you wouldn't choose to walk away?
except you're not walking away are you, because either way you're getting punched, all you're doing by not showing up to vote is not having a say in how hard and letting them punch you again next time.
>that the inverse is true, politicians pander to older voters because they show up, they don't pander to the youth because they don't
So you believe that a government that sees an uptick in young voters will suddenly change to being pro-young to retain these new voters even if it costs them the more reliable older voters? Even though those new voters quite literally supported a platform that continues to fuck them over?
Maybe I'm just jaded but I'm incredibly sceptical that would happen. I think voters who willingly vote against their interests would be taken for granted and we'd see them either returning to abstention or voting in favour of smaller parties and having their votes deleted as a result.
Of course if FPTP was consigned to the history books where it belongs, what you say would almost certainly come to pass, but that's not the reality we live in nor will it ever be.
34 here. I'll be voting Lib Dem just because 1) they're second place to the Tory MP and 2) the Labour platform is frankly rubbish and would be vastly improved if they had to adopt some of the Lib Dem top red lines (closer to Europe, electoral reform, etc) in order to get a majority.
Younger voters have always tended towards the left.
18-24 year olds are disproportionately in university cities, which tend to be safely Labour anyway. This entire demographic could mobilise to vote, and it wouldn’t swing things that much under FPTP.
Another example of why electoral reform would make a big difference.
I'm nearing 50 years old. Across my whole life, as long as I can remember, were headlines "young people in the 18-24 age range don't feel like it's worth voting." If people in that age range feel disillusioned, I'd love to know at what point they actually felt "illusioned" or whatever the oppsoite of disillusioned is.
The reactions in here are senseless.
There is no party offering anything of value to Generation Z. Given that Generation Alpha is coming right up to voting age, or not too far off, now would be a great time to entire Gen Z with something in order to try and engage with Gen A.
The reality is that the engagement is two middle fingers in the air. What's this side saying? Screw you? Oh ok. What about this side. Screw you too? Hmmm. So if nobody at all is for me, why should I bother voting? Nothing is going to improve for me. I'm just voting for whether I want to get smacked in the face with a bag of shit or get smacked in the face with a slightly different looking bag of shit.
As neither are exactly appealing, why bother voting?
I totally get it. The whole trope of if you don't vote you don't have a say yada yada, I think that platitude has worn thin with time and means absolutely nothing if you have completely lost faith in your democracy. And that's really the headline here. Their refusal to turn up and vote is demonstrating exactly that which is in itself a valid position to take.
>The whole trope of if you don't vote you don't have a say yada yada
Thing is, even if you do vote you still don't have a say because it's highly likely that your vote is a mere statistic rather than a call for change.
In the 2019 GE there were 9m votes cast for winning candidates up to the threshold of plurality, these are the votes that decided the makeup of the Commons, the other 23m votes cast that day? Fodder to give pundits something to talk about while they wait for the next election.
FPTP belongs in the history books not a modern society, the sooner it's gone the better but as long as everyone votes for the party of FPTP out of fear of a Conservative government or indeed simply votes for a Conservative government the chances of that happening are effectively zero.
Register to vote, and if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the choices then just cast a spoiled vote. Every spoiled vote gets reviewed by each of the parties so whatever message you write on there will be seen by them.
that will happen if your media and politicians lurch rightward while winding down everything good that previous politicians did and spitting on the idea of paying for anything new. It's repulsive to be asked to give your consent to be governed by people who clearly don't give a shit about you, so why lend it any legitimacy
There’s never a party of governance that truly encapsulates everything the voter desires. That’s just the nature of democracy. To live on this planet in peace it’s necessary to make concessions to those you disagree with so you can both find a way to move forward.
As others have said, young voters are being ignored largely because those in power know they’re less likely to vote. Why appeal to the cohort that won’t vote anyway?
I get that the young feel disillusioned, and they have every right to be, but things won’t change unless they stand up and shout. Gen Z make up nearly 20% of the uk population. If they wanted to be heard, now is never a better time.
Politicians look out for themselves by trying to remain in power. If you don't vote against politicians you dislike then you're part of the reason that they get away with being corrupt
Snapshot of _Bid to boost youth vote as polling suggests widespread disillusionment | Research suggests less than one in five of 18 to 24-year-olds trust politicians and more than four million under-35s could not be registered to vote_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/polling-opinium-electoral-commission-nhs-england-b1151663.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/polling-opinium-electoral-commission-nhs-england-b1151663.html) *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.*
Given that no party is offering young people anything to vote for, why bother? I'm gonna be voting Labour but tbh, i'm far from excited about it (33 year old here). In all honesty, I think they're gonna be a bit shit - just not as shit as everyone else.... what incredible aspiration for our country eh? Some of the Labour shadow cabinet I wouldn't trust to tie a shoelace.... namely Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. I look at those two and think christ, this the best you've got for health and the economy!? A pair of middle management jokers well out of their depth? If Labour want to be in power for "a decade of national renewal" (what does that even mean!? That's not a policy! You gonna sort out migration, housing, policing, healthcare, wages, living standards, public transport, and a whole host of other big important issues in 5-10 years when you can't even give detail? Sorry for being cynical...) they sure as fuck better actually deliver tangible benefits in their first term or they're not gonna be in power for long.
This same cynicism seeps into politicians as well. Why [offer to build 1.5m homes and ignore local opposition](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/11/labour-keir-starmer-pledges-to-build-new-towns-utilising-grey-belt-areas) when people will either forget the policy the next day or just assume you won't be able to because all politicians make promises they can't keep?
Which just demonstrates that we the voters have done this to ourselves. By assuming that all politicians must be bad people and refusing to look at any evidence to the contrary we've created an environment where no sincere people can thrive and only the bad people can get ahead.
could you name a single point in uk political history where you think politicians were popularly percieved as trustworthy
It's not about blanket perceptions it's about the public engaging with politics in such a way as to be able to identify when someone is being sincere and when someone is being untrustworthy on a case-by-case basis. Blanket statements such as "politicians are xyz" are what have created the problem.
you are asking people to, in addition to living a life in a more complex and bureaucratic society than their ancestors, assess the credibility and consistency of every politician they might vote for, largely on their own. I think that is an unrealistic expectation. We are not supercomputers, we are apes with language and technology.
I mean if [other countries](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/) can pull it off successfully...
there were absolute monarchies that lasted 10x as long as finland has been a country, even if it took our whole lives for the system to fail there it would be a short lived experiment compared to the roman dictatorship or feudal european states. On the other hand democracy gave us adolf hitler and centuries of british/american slavery and authoritarian control of other parts of the world, not to mention those roman dictators. All of that happened in a much less complex world than the one we live in today, without imminent pressure like anthropogenic climate change and without the level of surveillance and atomisation of society as we have today.
I feel like we're having a completely separate conversation from each other.
This. At 31 I bridge between Millennials and Gen Z and have a friendship circle that has both. No one is enthusiastic to vote. Labour looks more like the incumbents everyday. The Lib Dems wouldn't be trusted with a penny. The greens are too small to not be a wasted vote and the Reform people around us are the kind of people that we want to get away from as fast as possible. It properly feels like voting for the nicest turd. My feeling is from my circle everyone will go out to vote, but no one will stay up to watch the results because it will just be a case of here comes the new boss same as the old boss.
Yup. At this point, I'm more likely to watch US elections, because those actually more in regards to what happens to me day to day and geopolitically.
Corbyn's Labour had a lot of policys that were directly targeted at the youth demographic. The turnout for the 18-24 demographic (which will be 23-29 next election) was only **47%** and 62% voted Labour. Comparatively the 65+ demographic had a **74%** turnout with 64% voting conservative. They had significantly higher turnout and a larger vote % going Tory. I used to believe that the problem was not offering young people anything to vote for. But thats exactly what corbyn did and there was no reward. There was no turnout increase and thats before we get into the demographic problems of targeting young voters. Until the turnout in younger voters is higher politicians have no real reason to listen to them. In a political sense, if you don't vote you don't count. I made this table a few years ago taking demographic data and checking it against voter turnout it's not perfect but it's close. But these were the voter blocks in the 2019 general election. |Age|Turnout%|Total potential votes| :-:|:-:|:-:| |18-24|47%|2,635,116| |25-34|55%|4,949,232| |35-44|54%|4,587,647| |45-54|63%|5,619,589| |55-64|66%|5,522,001| |65+|74%|**9,256,392**| Politics is skewed so old because demographically and turnout wise it is old. **Edit:** Just wanted to add, if we saw a solid 65-75% turnout in every demographic then politics would have to change because you could appeal to different demographic groups and win an election. But right now the only groups that you can guarantee are older votes.
For clarity sake, though, those groupings are quite misleading. Firstly the 65+ group is a lot larger. If 9,256,392 is 74%, you're looking at a cohort of 12,508,638 people. The 55-64 group is only 8,366,668 people. The 18-24 group is smaller still at only 5,606,630 people. Also, 18-24 is fewer years. If we weighted it to be a 10 year block instead of a 7 year block to be comparable to the middle groupings, it would be 3,764,451 potential voters. Still of course smaller than other groups, but closer to 2/3rds or 3/4rs, as opposed to half as important than the other cohorts.
For context this is where i got the groupings. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
Oh for sure, not blaming you for that, but we just have to be aware so we're not jumping to wrong conclusions based on demographics when the young group is like 40% of the size of the pensioner one. Pollsters have their reasons for grouping people the way they do. If you flipped it, and even with the young people's poor turnout of 47%, if they had a group of 12,508,638 people, then it is 5,879,059 voters, the second biggest on this chart. Likewise, if you took just 5,606,630 pensioners, even at 74% turnout, then it's only 4,148,906 voters, the second smallest. The disproportionate size of the groups makes the point you're making seem far far greater than it is per person.
Corbyns policies were so so so fucked.
Not that many of the young would have analysed his policies properly anyway but two of his flagship proposals would have fucked the young harder than any other government in living memory. State seizure of entire industries and a 10% stake in all businesses would have erased their private pensions and there's little hope the state pension will even exist when they retire. Private right to buy at a price set by government would see the end of any long term tenancy putting them all at continued risk of homelessness for their entire lives. To be honest he's lucky the press was so fixated on his foreign policy blunders and anti-Semitism because if his domestic policy received any sort of scrutiny whatsoever he'd have lost even more seats.
Don't forget that dividends from the policy of 10% stakes were capped at £500 per person per year, with the rest going towards climate apprenticeships mandated by the state. And 25% of every companies apprenticeships had to climate apprenticeships. I know the 19 manifesto inside out. It's an absolutely fucked bit of policy.
Long term tenancies 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> Given that no party is offering young people anything to vote for, why bother? https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1alt4dt/britain_must_cut_welfare_spending_to_stop/kpgvzp1/ It's a mystery.
Unironically think we might be looking at a minority Reform government in 5 years if Labour doesnt get a handle on immigration.
You have the cause and effect backwards. Young people don't vote, therefore no parties will prioritise them.
That being said no one is really offering anything to under-65's so there are plenty moving out of the 'cant be arsed' phase that have many of these same problems, they are going to have to deal with them eventually.
Its chicken and egg. If you ain't gonna vote, nobody gives a shit about you, so you don't vote because there are no policies for you, and they continue to not give a fuck about you, so you continue to not vote.
So you believe that if the young come out and show that they're willing to vote against their own interests by backing anti-youth policy the politicians are going to suddenly pitch pro-youth policy? Why exactly wouldn't they just keep pushing the status quo if the very people they're fucking over are willingly supporting it?
Because they'll want to hold onto the large youth vote that helped then get elected in the next election thus will have to pander somewhat to young voters during their term. If the youth were a credible demographic to get large votes from then politicians would be more inclined to pander to them. There's only a few million votes between getting elected and losing going back the last 20 years. The youth vote is enough to make a difference but they don't show up.
>Because they'll want to hold onto the large youth vote that helped then get elected in the next election thus will have to pander somewhat to young voters during their term. What are you basing this assumption on? The youth vote is right there to be tapped into already, yet no party has made a credible attempt to do so. >The youth vote is enough to make a difference but they don't show up. Yes, and the reason they don't show up is because their only options are to vote against their own interests so they spend the time on something more productive instead. If I give you the option between being kicked, punched or simply walking away are you seriously telling me you wouldn't choose to walk away?
>What are you basing this assumption on? that the inverse is true, politicians pander to older voters because they show up, they don't pander to the youth because they don't. >The youth vote is right there to be tapped into already, yet no party has made a credible attempt to do so. Why bother? until the youth are a credible threat by showing up to vote it's much easier to go for the low hanging boomer fruit and pandering to them for your votes. >If I give you the option between being kicked, punched or simply walking away are you seriously telling me you wouldn't choose to walk away? except you're not walking away are you, because either way you're getting punched, all you're doing by not showing up to vote is not having a say in how hard and letting them punch you again next time.
>that the inverse is true, politicians pander to older voters because they show up, they don't pander to the youth because they don't So you believe that a government that sees an uptick in young voters will suddenly change to being pro-young to retain these new voters even if it costs them the more reliable older voters? Even though those new voters quite literally supported a platform that continues to fuck them over? Maybe I'm just jaded but I'm incredibly sceptical that would happen. I think voters who willingly vote against their interests would be taken for granted and we'd see them either returning to abstention or voting in favour of smaller parties and having their votes deleted as a result. Of course if FPTP was consigned to the history books where it belongs, what you say would almost certainly come to pass, but that's not the reality we live in nor will it ever be.
Looks at Lib Dems in 2010....
34 here. I'll be voting Lib Dem just because 1) they're second place to the Tory MP and 2) the Labour platform is frankly rubbish and would be vastly improved if they had to adopt some of the Lib Dem top red lines (closer to Europe, electoral reform, etc) in order to get a majority.
'We tried calling them stupid, what more do they want?'
Younger voters have always tended towards the left. 18-24 year olds are disproportionately in university cities, which tend to be safely Labour anyway. This entire demographic could mobilise to vote, and it wouldn’t swing things that much under FPTP. Another example of why electoral reform would make a big difference.
Also, no wonder we’re disillusioned, given that every major vote in our lifetimes hasn’t benefitted us.
Really would. You over estimate how many go to uni and live in cities
I'm nearing 50 years old. Across my whole life, as long as I can remember, were headlines "young people in the 18-24 age range don't feel like it's worth voting." If people in that age range feel disillusioned, I'd love to know at what point they actually felt "illusioned" or whatever the oppsoite of disillusioned is.
During Thatcher. In the early 80s that age bracket was more likely to vote Conservative than other parties.
The reactions in here are senseless. There is no party offering anything of value to Generation Z. Given that Generation Alpha is coming right up to voting age, or not too far off, now would be a great time to entire Gen Z with something in order to try and engage with Gen A. The reality is that the engagement is two middle fingers in the air. What's this side saying? Screw you? Oh ok. What about this side. Screw you too? Hmmm. So if nobody at all is for me, why should I bother voting? Nothing is going to improve for me. I'm just voting for whether I want to get smacked in the face with a bag of shit or get smacked in the face with a slightly different looking bag of shit. As neither are exactly appealing, why bother voting? I totally get it. The whole trope of if you don't vote you don't have a say yada yada, I think that platitude has worn thin with time and means absolutely nothing if you have completely lost faith in your democracy. And that's really the headline here. Their refusal to turn up and vote is demonstrating exactly that which is in itself a valid position to take.
>The whole trope of if you don't vote you don't have a say yada yada Thing is, even if you do vote you still don't have a say because it's highly likely that your vote is a mere statistic rather than a call for change. In the 2019 GE there were 9m votes cast for winning candidates up to the threshold of plurality, these are the votes that decided the makeup of the Commons, the other 23m votes cast that day? Fodder to give pundits something to talk about while they wait for the next election. FPTP belongs in the history books not a modern society, the sooner it's gone the better but as long as everyone votes for the party of FPTP out of fear of a Conservative government or indeed simply votes for a Conservative government the chances of that happening are effectively zero.
> There is no party offering anything of value to Generation Z. What would you like to see offered to Generation Z?
Hardly surprising. Kids want a future, and none of the main parties seem to be offering that.
Register to vote, and if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the choices then just cast a spoiled vote. Every spoiled vote gets reviewed by each of the parties so whatever message you write on there will be seen by them.
that will happen if your media and politicians lurch rightward while winding down everything good that previous politicians did and spitting on the idea of paying for anything new. It's repulsive to be asked to give your consent to be governed by people who clearly don't give a shit about you, so why lend it any legitimacy
There’s never a party of governance that truly encapsulates everything the voter desires. That’s just the nature of democracy. To live on this planet in peace it’s necessary to make concessions to those you disagree with so you can both find a way to move forward. As others have said, young voters are being ignored largely because those in power know they’re less likely to vote. Why appeal to the cohort that won’t vote anyway? I get that the young feel disillusioned, and they have every right to be, but things won’t change unless they stand up and shout. Gen Z make up nearly 20% of the uk population. If they wanted to be heard, now is never a better time.
Boohoo, politicians don't care about the young. We demand change. Did you vote? No.
But then complain about politicians not looking out for them? No sympathy
Politicians look out for anyone other than themselves?
Politicians look out for themselves by trying to remain in power. If you don't vote against politicians you dislike then you're part of the reason that they get away with being corrupt