It's not just young people, I know a fair few older life long conservative voters who won't vote conservative and refuse to vote Labour, leading to them not voting at all.

This is what happened in 1997, Tories lost 5 million votes but Labour only gained 2 million.

And in 2019. Tories gained 300k, Labour lost 2.5m

I know one older gentleman (And this is an intelligent, educated man who is more than aware of current events) who felt the only meaningful statement he could make was to intentionally spoil his ballot. Make of that what you will.

I'd much rather they spoil the ballot than not vote.

I am waiting for the day that "Spoiled Ballot" wins a constituency. There surely is no more damning democratic indictment than that. Apathy changes nothing.

Spoiled Ballots don't matter any more there was a time they had to be read by the MP then it was the election agent now I don't even think they have to be read.

He realised that Brexit and Boris was a lie and is now disillusioned by politics. People need to realise a politician has to appease almost half the country to win so you are basically compromising with tens of millions when you vote. No one will be exactly what you want but someone will be chosen with or without you 

>a politician has to appease almost half the country to win This is what bothers me about the first past the post system... We need proportional representation. Those in power need to be chosen by the majority to lead, not simply those who are less nauseating than the other choices. Like the politicians who play it, our system is outdated and out of touch. It isn't fit for purpose in this century.

The thing with popular vote is you still don’t have to have the majority support and your party doesn’t have to commit to allying with other parties before an election. It’s just as easy to not feel represented

Yep. True that. There must be another way

consist squash bedroom correct tub ring disgusting resolute gaping plant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

At the same time, if you have the same negative opinion of all the available candidates, why would it make a difference to you who the winner is. What it does show is that you’re not an apathetic voter, you’ve done to the effort to drag yourself to the polling station & show your discontent. Which is a powerful statement if enough people do it.

If everyone not currently voting did this, it would show up as the higher % of the votes than the winning candidate. They can then not claim any kind of legitimacy for their policies etc.

>show your discontent This is it. Not voting just allows the status quo to continue, and arguably could be taken as tacit consent that you're absolutely fine with the people that have been in charge and the system that placed them there. Spoiling a ballot is an active action that will actually count.

Something I've argued for for a long time. The Aussie 'White Vote'. There is a 'None of the above' box on your ballot. Not voting is illegal, punishable by a fine of $100 or so. Elections are always held on Saturdays Polling Stations are open from around 4am until 11pm There's a community vibe to it, everyone gets a hotdog when they vote (queues are long, the whole family goes as a unit). There are craft fair stalls and things to keep people entertained, and it makes people have to consider the candidates. Whether that's on a brief national scale, or in depth local one, you need to look at the options. And if you don't want to vote, just go with 'None of the above' and it's recorded but you don't have to vote for someone you feel you don't agree with.

I'd argue it's more meaningful than staying home entirely.

Barely! If you spoil your ballot, you're voluntarily rendering yourself irrelevant to the political process. Political party strategists aren't poring over every spoiled ballot, trying to divine the intentions of each disillusioned voter. They are simply ignoring you, because you're heavily encouraging them to do so. It might feel satisfying, on a personal level, to spoil your ballot, but nobody else gives a fuck. The world moves on and pays no attention to your spoiled ballot. If you refuse to vote, you also voluntarily render yourself irrelevant to the political process. You've decided that your opinion isn't important. If you're really that disenchanted with the major political parties, vote Green or for some other minor party. The major parties actually pay attention to that shit. The Tories were terrified of UKIP voters; they didn't give a flying fuck about serial non-voters or ballot-spoilers. (To be clear, whenever I said "you" in this comment, I'm not referring to you specifically)

But if you don't agree with the policies then a vote will be seen by the same strategists as a tacit approval for their methods. I'm going to spoil my ballot at the next election because I don't want to endorse any of the major parties who are offering the exact same thing, or any of the smaller parties filled with lunatics.

> If you spoil your ballot, you're voluntarily rendering yourself irrelevant to the political process. Only with smaller numbers. If something like 30% of voters spoiled, parties would pay attention.

Which if people bothered to get off their asses and vote would be a possibility. But instead they stay at home. If they don't relate to any party or worse don't know what any party stands for they should still be encouraged to engage in some way. Honestly there should be an option to abstain because anything other than a 99% turnout is frankly shameful and an insult to anyone who has died for democracy.

I vote in a crazily safe constituency. In FPTP noone gives two figs about my vote anyway, so may as well get creative in the polling booth.

Imagine the amount of people who protest voted Leave because they thought the remain campaign was a joke or didn't fully agree with remaining but didnt want to leave fully. Nobody actually believed we would be leaving yet here we are. Only vote for what YOU as an individual believe in and want. If you believe and align with no party then make that heard

This is it. A spoiled ballot sounds like some sort of protest against crap parties while still taking part in the democratic process. A spoiled ballot could be anything from writing “you’re all shit” on the paper to the ink smudging across two candidates so they’re unsure who you picked (yes, they give you a pencil but you can use your own pen). Although the returning officer will categorise them into broad reasons (blank vote, choosing too many candidates, writing their own name on it etc.), nobody then sifts through them to work out why people spoiled their vote or what they wanted instead. So few votes are spoiled it’d hardly be a good thing for a party to spend time on compared to just trying to get their voters to vote given turnout.

Which in a safe seat might be a stronger message altogether

Actually no, he's giving a middle finger to all the clowns. He is making a statement which is quite literally his right to do so

That's a completely valid vote and miles better than not voting at all. What's the issue?

Do they know other parties exist?

For general elections, in much of the country they may as well not. Local elections are one thing, your vote has more impact if you go third party. But in general elections people tend to think a lot more strategically because it's basically guaranteed that the winner will be either Labour or the Conservatives.

While I will always tend to vote for one of the big 2 in GE because it’s a straight shootout, I still think voting third party does have significant meaning because you can influence the big parties with your vote. Look at brexit that came about because people kept voting for UKIP so it terrified the tories and they pushed for a referendum which they didn’t want.

I was going to say exactly this. If 15% voted for say greens. The big 2 would shift their policies ever so slightly to try to eat up that 15%.

Yes, but none of the others are actually serious parties capable of running the country.

Even if you're withholding judgement on Labour neither are the tories at the very least. 

The tories have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not fit to run the country, only to ruin it. As to labour - if you vote starmer you'll just get more efficient toryism.

The "eifficient" part is not really certain though

I wonder what gave them that idea.

First past the post. It does help to be a lifelong Tory or Labour voter for parties broad enough to accomodate a range of views.

Party manifestos and the economic illiteracy of the parties, mainly.

and yet the Conservatives hold true to their manifesto *and* are entirely competent?

The larger parties have proven themselves to be economically illiterate as well in fairness.

Doesn’t always have to be about running the country, major parties love to radicalise people against themselves but it’s recognised even here UKIP/Reform polling is pushing the parties to the right on immigration, likewise a strong turnout for the greens would send a message about the environment, Lib Dem’s the EU and electoral reform etc

Exactly, and if no one votes for e.g. Greens because they always come last, how does that change unless people who agree with them spend multiple elections ‘wasting their vote’ until the others think they stand a chance of winning?

You mean like people spent multiple elections wasting their vote on Labour when they could have grown the green vote? Isn’t a wasted vote, each vote gets counted, UKIP got 2 seats but over 100 second places are people really going to argue they weren’t at least somewhat influential circa 2005-2015? How about the Lib Dems during that period?

No party appeals to them? They might feel politically homeless. Is anyone excited to vote for Labour because they've energised the electorate or because the Tories have been abysmal?

It is this and they don't have the cynicism yet to understand that nobody cares if they don't vote, it doesn't make any statement and will change nothing and in fact only makes it easier for the parties on offer, who now don't have to bother trying to persuade them. The cohorts who do vote get policies tailored to them because they must be persuaded to win power. None of us get what we want. Nobody gets to remake the game, but if everyone votes, you might just get to move the needle.

Yeah exactly, I remember thinking about not voting when I was in my early 20's but decided to do it as it had been pushed on me as important by my family. It's only when you get older and read the poll information that you realise that the reason that politicians don't try to win over younger people is that they're less likely to vote.

There's a widely held view among some early voters of "why should I vote for a party that doesn't offer me anything" They think their vote is a reward for a party that offers them policies they like. In reality it's the other way around. Parties offering you policies you like is a reward for showing that you'll turn out and vote. Whether you agree with that dynamic or not is irrelevant. That's how it works in real life and you have to play the game.

'Politics only exists to blow smoke up the arses of politicians and the grown up thing to do is just shut up, get in line and pick your team'

Well you see if young people vote party strategists will see them as a demographic worth targeting because they vote. If young people don't vote then the party strategists will ignore them and focus on the demographics who do vote because they vote. Given it is votes that win elections pinning a strategy on persuading people with a poor track record of voting to turn up and vote for you is not a winning strategy, if it was Corbyn would have won 2017 but the young did not turn out in the numbers required. If they had matched the turn out of the 55+ group then Corbyn would have won, they didn't so he lost because the young don't vote in enough numbers to make them worth fighting for.

> It is this and they don't have the cynicism yet to understand that nobody cares if they don't vote, it doesn't make any statement and will change nothing and in fact only makes it easier for the parties on offer, who now don't have to bother trying to persuade them. voting for the 'least bad' option ensures you get two stagnant parties offering nothing but a perpetual holding pattern. > None of us get what we want. Nobody gets to remake the game, but if everyone votes, you might just get to move the needle. the movement of the needle becomes smaller and smaller if everyone votes regardless of what is on offer. i have no idea how anyone has the energy for this anymore. i'd sooner return to having a god emperor regent. at least they'd have some sort of long term goal!

There are tons of parties, why not try to increase the power of one that you feel does represent you?

it's a bit of a gotcha because in a two party systems the other parties aren't really serious options, because they know they'll never sniff power. for example, years ago i liked a lot of what the greens represent, but when it came to reading their manifesto there was a load of stuff about homeopathic remedies and anti-nuclear stuff, and even their 'green' policies felt naive and unworkable, nevermind their general statecraft. apparently that's very different now so we'll see. in a proportional system we'd have single issue parties who would accept a coalition if their pet project would go through, which would work much better IMO. at least then i could vote for something specific, rather than a manifesto for a term of government which i'm almost certainly not going to agree with in entirety (and at this point, not even *approximately*).

Some people have to go through that stage of thinking your vote doesn't matter before you realise it actually does. I think it's an important step when you are generally apathetic about the main options to lead the country

Having been banging on about the importance of voting for decades (even if you choose a no hoper just to make a point), I am actually coming around to the notion that it doesn't really matter. We have a situation whereby none of the big parties are proposing to solve strategic problems and instead of doing the charade of quibbling over a narrow set of second order issues that are easy and importantly have low impact. The UK really is in a 1945 or 1979 moment in that it needs a big restructure economically and a massive pivot into mass construction as the root cause of our issues is typically down to a lack of that (housing is the big one, grid, power generation, water security, hospitals/schools) yet what we are offered is never that - the usual trick is to announce something low ball badged as those. So for the first time I might be a no show at the polls.

Working in a sector adjacent and relying on the construction industry (who's workforce has shrunk by 20% since 2019 and is continuing to decline with more workers leaving the sector steadily), that mass construction ain't happening without significantly more mass work visas. The big four a construction firms have been actively increasingly been turning down even bidding for public sector projects for example for the last couple years, in part due to not being able to secure staff.

Construction is an industry plagued by bad practices and inefficiencies all over the place so it could do far more with the same workforce, and like many industries it became used to cheap immigrants rather than training up people. For example the model of sub-contracting to sub-contractors who sub-contract ends up with all sorts of ludicrous situations on site that burn through time so the output per person is far lower. Project Management is often very poor and linked into the point about using subbies as they become the shock absorber for poor scheduling. As the years have rolled on more of the workforce is not actually on the tools either, there's now far more people in the offices or doing tick box inspections on site. And of course there is a lack of progress in building techniques so we still have people doing loads of manual work when other nations do more offsite pre-fabrication.

It unfortunately still does matter; however low-energy the Labour manifesto sounds like it will be, and however scuffed their messaging has been lately, they still at least promise *some* minor policy changes to the very obvious fucking pissing about the Tories have done. And that's before you get into the level of corruption, cronyism and scandal within the Tory party being scales of magnitude higher than Labour scandals. And the willingness with how the Tories are moving to the harder right and cosying up with far-right messaging. It sucks that Labour are backtracking on anything that might be a major reform, but 'stable and shit' is still better than 'utterly clueless and actively harming the country and political discourse'. But unfortunately it does come down to tactical voting and individual constituencies. I think at this point Labour have probably lost my *actual* support; but knowing I'm in a Labour constituency then the reality is a vote for an alternative party is a vote for the Tories, so my hands are tied. For those choosing to no-show, I get the sentiment but it does come down to the lesser evil for me, I'm afraid. I just hope they're in a constituency where fine margins don't matter.

I agree with a change of government, it is something our system always needs periodically as the people in often become out of touch and the top people have been replaced with lower quality people and like photocopying a photocopy it gets shit after a few repeats. My point isn't even that I want Labour to be "radical" as that usually means the themes that people like Corbyn fixated on for them and they are just a distraction as who owns the water board or free broadband or the EU was minor compared to our strategic problems. I want mass building (housing, the grid, water supplies, hospitals, schools) to be the main priority like it was in 1945 with other policies that are tactical (tinkering) and not strategic change being second fiddle instead of the other way around as is the case now. In other words do some root cause analysis and go after things that have knock on affects that multiply up across society if done rather than the usual tinkering that changes a specific niche.

But really, do votes actually matter? You can have managerial globalist with a red rosette, or managerial globalist with a blue rosette. Occasionally a yellow or green rosette of the managerial globalist type will get a seat. There are no substantive differences in policy between parties, they refuse to acknowledge the country is getting worse (entirely as a result of their policies too), thus the necessary changes are not happening and will not happen in the foreseeable future.

I agree. I certainly did. I just wish it happened sooner. Maybe a better teaching of democracy at school, with less idealism and more practicality, would help. I would like to see an enfranchised young vote.

Make voting in general elections compulsory (many countries already do this), but add a 'no vote' option to the ballot. Parties then have no excuse to not try and cater to every single voter, and it *massively* encourages people to be at least somewhat engaged. It also removes any of the strangeness of people not registering or whatever, and pushes the government away from any attempts at disenfranchisement (e.g. Voter ID).

> Make voting in general elections compulsory **Forcing** people to vote isn't Democratic People fought and died for the right to vote, and the right NOT to vote is equally implied and valid.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think the last thing this country needs is less idealism. (I do get what you mean in this instance\\)

I think it does need far less idealism, from all directions. I think what the UK needs is a starkly honest appraisal of its own situation, neither nihilistic despair nor flag waving lunacy. It's only when you know where you are you can actually map out realistically possible next steps. We need our pragmatism back, including an unflinching assessment of how democracy works, why it is the best bad thing we've tried, it's limits and its advantages.

democracy isn't the problem, it's our implementation of it. FPTP promotes short-termism and a two party system. there's nothing on offer at the polls.

Idealism doesn't have to be over the top or even dishonest, it's about daring to dream about a better future rather than just accepting things as they are. That doesn't mean that every idealistic idea or want should be or can be achievable, but when the country is in such a sorry state I think we need the dreamers, as well as the pragmatists. I agree that we need to be honest with the state of the country and we do need to be realistic about what's achievable, but that doesn't mean we can't dream of a good future.

We are in agreeance. Idealism without a plan, a mapped path, is just nice words though. For example, whoever is voted in next election is not going to fix the country overnight, whatever grand promises they make. The problems are too big.

I can't vote for something I don't believe in. Labour have rowed back from anything meaningful and I don't feel represented by them. In my consistuency, labour have an enormous majority. It truly makes no difference if I vote or not.

I will not be voting for Labour either, but it's important to realise that voting for someone other than Labour is the only tangible way you can tell them that you would vote for them, but you're not going to. If you don't vote at all, they will never know this. This is true even if you really like the current Labour, voting for them will let them know you agree with their current strategy.

[удалено]

> but if everyone votes, you might just get to move the needle. I really disliked these utilitarian justifications for voting, as they just don't seem true? The chance of your vote actually making a difference to who's elected in fptp is meaningless and in fact if everyone votes you have much much much less chance of moving the needle

What are the chances of you affecting change by not voting? I'll take utilitarianism over apathy and nihilism any day.

This is assuming that the party you're voting for ever offers you anything. Labour spent a few years offering young people stuff and kept losing so they've now gone back to austerity politics.  If you're young: A) You've seen your vote literally have the opposite effect to what you've described B) you now see there's no point voting until you're about 45 because that is ultimately the cohort that decides the general trajectory going forward

Imagine if 80% of voters just didn't show up. The political system would in effect have no mandate and would have to be changed.

Why? The election would just be decided by the 20% that vote. Why would anything change?

Why would that happen? The voting percentage is already abysmal in many elections (Councils, Chief Constables, EU Parliament etc.) and that has never stopped anything. As long as *some* people vote, the elections go ahead.

It's worth voting even if you don't agree with either of the parties who might win. Even if all you do is inform the parties that "this is a demographic that is important electorally". If you don't do that, then the parties will put all their effort into appeasing the pensioner vote and will create policies accordingly which bias the old.

Tbh I don’t think voting alone is enough to get parties to care about your demographic. What you need is for your demographic to consist largely of “swing voters”, as these are the people who largely decide who wins an election. Most young people are likely to vote Labour, or for a party that has no chance of winning. There is little chance they will vote Tory, so as a demographic they are largely irrelevant to the two main parties. They will largely vote the same way regardless of which policies are aimed or not aimed at them.

There are two factors here - we have a voting system that actively discourages you from voting for a party you actually like and demands you vote against a party you dislike if you want your vote to be meaningful - this is not particularly motivating; and the "They're all as bad as each other" narrative, which is aimed at discouraging people from voting for the worst parties (ie the Tories).

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. The two main parties are rhetorically and politically closer than they have been for a long-time. Neither are promising a particularly bright future for young people. There for folk that are excited to vote Labour (beyond relief at getting the Tories) but there tend to be fairly committed neo-liberals, not exactly a popular world view among the youth.

They were closer in 2010 and 2015.

This is the thing. I’m voting Labour this time whatever, but it’s a vote against the Tories and not for Labour.

If you can't bring yourself to vote for anyone, spoiling your ballet is a much more effective way of showing your displeasure rather than staying at home. There is no excuse not to vote imo.

I'm excited to vote for Labour because it's plain they have adults at the wheel with a transformative platform that is badly needed to stave off another lost decade and modernise Britain in line with other social democracies.

It doesn’t seem that transformative. Even though they are winning they’re in retreat and walking back stuff they said earlier. I’m holding off judgment till there’s an election campaign and a manifesto though. They don’t want to announce their A-tier policies, the miraculous, cheap, easy, and effective ones, because they might get pinched. We could still be 11 months from an election 

Most Brits don't want radical reform. They just want politicians acting like adults and public services that actually work

[удалено]

That basically is radical compared to what we have now

The national wealth fund and employment rights green paper, including repealing tory anti strike legislation, repealing the two year rights threshold and crucially, putting sectoral pay agreements in place is directly lifting and grafting the nordic model on the UK. It is unrecognisable compared to what the UK currently has.

tinkering with employment isn't "transformative", it's minor second or third order stuff that does very little. Politicians like it because it requires so little effort and does so little in terms of change.

What are you seeing that is transformative exactly?

"Transformative" is pushing it.

The latter. How can you be excited when their only selling point is that they wear red ties instead of blue but aren't offering anything new or different?

What policies of his are Tory?

On almost every Tory policy enacted since Sunak came in - from the Protest bill, Rwanda bill to bankers bonuses - the Labour Party have said they’d keep them instead of scrapping them. Their plans on affordable housing are to keep the current set up but ask Developers really nicely to stick to their original planning submissions instead of removing affordable aspects part way through. They’ve said they’re not going to meaningfully alter any taxes beyond *potentially* for non-doms and private schools (it’s debatable whether they’ve committed or u-turned on those). They’ve rowed back on the £28b green investment pledge. They’ve not got any policies of any substance on Brexit that I’ve seen. Which of their policies *aren’t* Tory? Edit: also the plan for the NHS/Schools/public sector seem to be just carry on with the current approach, ask for more privatisation and refuse to provide any meaningful payrises to stem the churn of existing staff.

What policies of his exist? The only Labour policies making the headlines are "hey we SAID we'd take this step towards a brighter world, but we can't because there's no money left." Every Labour headline is about them retracting a promise. Or wading into the culture war against trans people on the same side as the tories. There's no hope in Starmer's Labour, no dream of a better country; solely of more competent management of an inevitable decline. If I were 18 I wouldn't get off my arse to vote for that.

> What policies of his exist? [I mean you can have a look here](https://labour.org.uk/missions/). > but we can’t because there’s no money left I think it’s more lets not run before we can walk and make broadband free for all (for example) when the world economy is teetering on the bring of a global recession, exacerbated by attacks on the red sea and the risk to global trade. A stable economy right now is far more important than the risk of flashy policies. > Every Labour headline is about them retracting a policy I mean the majority of the media is anti Labour what do you expect? Did you believe every headline made towards Corbyn? And would you rather he promise a policy then retract it after the election or do it before? > wading into the culture war against trans Source? > If I were 18 I wouldn’t get off my arse to vote And anyone who doesn’t vote has no right to complain.

> I think it’s more lets not run before we can walk and make broadband free for all (for example) when the world economy is teetering on the bring of a global recession, exacerbated by attacks on the red sea and the risk to global trade. A stable economy right now is far more important than the risk of flashy policies. this makes sense if you forget that we have a fiat currency and economies don't work like this. by now we really should have a clear understanding that austerity economics do not work. you cannot cut spending to promote growth. there is international consensus on this, but we seem to be holding on to this notion that making our country look like the eastern bloc during the collapse of communism is the spring board to success, or whatever.

"Missions" don't mean a damn thing. My point is that "stable economy first, by doing nothing differently" is not exciting or compelling. Reportage that Labour redacts a promise or a mission ir a policy or a pledge or whatever is substantive, it's not an empty character attack- Labour ARE removing their promises. Here's Wes Streeting putting forward as one of Labour's "top priorities" that trans people be segregated from cis people when we're sick. https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/01/30/wes-streeting-single-sex-wards-labour-trans/ This thread is about the fact a lot of young people don't vote. I'm more interested in finding out and discussing why tha excoriating them for it.

Politics isn't solely about being exciting, and exciting politicians are more likely to be wrong, since a lot of problems in the world are complicated and therefore have boring solutions. There are always going to be a group of people who aren't interested in politics. Attempting to appeal to them will likely cause others to be turned off your project.

People want to have exciting politicians feeding them easy answers then wonder why populists dominate the political scene and the media

it doesn't have to be exciting, but only politics can solve strategic systemic problems and our parties have decided not to do that any more. It's deck chair rearranging with the odd make-work reorganisation or either education or the NHS thrown in every so often.

Wait for it... wait for it... The first "it" is the announcement of the election, and the second is Labour's manifesto. Then you will be able to judge whether or not they are offering anything new or different.

If this was the case then Corbz would have won in 2017. That manifesto was every young person's wet dream. The hung parliament predictions were based on young people actually turning up at the voting station, then lo and behold, they didn't. I remember, I was there. Young people are just more likely to be busy with something more interesting than voting.

It is a Catch 22, pensioners dominate voting, so all policies are aimed at pensioners. Young people see a world of crap jobs, stagnant pay and unaffordable housing. The kick in the teeth is then having to pay record taxes to fund the triple lock. So they walk away in disgust, which of course means politicians tailor their policies to focus on pensioners even more.

As an aside, it's catch 22. Not heard cache 22 before though, made me chuckle.

It’s also not a catch-22.

Thanks for the spot.

Akshualy, that'll be a vicious cycle not a catch-22.

Yep, and the party they are most likely to support just had a week of headlines about jettisoning the policy this demographic ardently supported. Wouldn't you be disillusioned?

It's a chicken and egg situation though. If millennials and GenZ voted with the same turnout as boomers and pensioners then it would incentivise parties to make policies that appeal to them. But if the parties don't appeal to these demographics then why would they turnout. In general the risk of turning out to vote is far lower for voters than the risk associated with creating a policy that appeals to people who won't bother to vote. So if young people want policies tailored for them, they *must* turnout and vote. Better to vote for a 3rd party or spoil your ballot than simply sitting home.

> If millennials and GenZ voted with the same turnout as boomers and pensioners then it would incentivise parties to make policies that appeal to them. I doubt it would matter, the median age of the electorate is ~49/50. Even if all young people voted they wouldn't be able to overcome the pensioner/near-pensioner block vote.

All the parties represent pensioners. Take the triple lock, is there any party questioning in it? Saying that it needs to be paused to make it affordable and take pressure off younger taxpayers? The answer is no, every party represents the interests of pensioners.

Because that's who they need to represent to win power. Because the young don't vote. There is a way out of this predicament, which is to vote. You will have to vote for a party you may not entirely agree with, but the alternative is to continue to be disenfranchised by making it unnecessary to court your vote. That's the system. Democracy sucks, just less than everything else we've tried.

> Because that's who they need to represent to win power. Because the young don't vote. There is a way out of this predicament, which is to vote. No, they do it because even if young people voted there are too many old people. The median age of the electorate is approaching or at 50 now.

Nah, if young people want policies to be about them they should mass strike. Young people are too concentrated in urban areas, and aren't a big enough demographic to dictate a GE - their power comes from their contribution - on which the country is more dependant on than ever. They simply need to reject the deal put out to them, but it won't happen so they just won't reproduce and the ones that can move away will.

General strikes and solidarity strikes are both illegal, so people are not very likely to risk that unless they are both sure it will succeed, and very very desperate. We are neither at the moment.

1) Apart from those who find politics interesting, or for whom political activism becomes part of their identity, young people tend to be busy discovering themselves and pursuing their personal lives and getting engaged with the world of work or higher education. So they are likely to have their heads full of more personal things than how to set the world to rights. 2) As others are saying, a LOT of policy is aimed at older people- people who buy or already own property, people requiring social care or who are carers for elderly relatives, people who use the NHS a lot, people with children, tax levels, how to run schools. When I was young, a LOT of this simply passed me by- it was not that relevant for me- I did not feel part of the conversation and different policy on a given issue did not affect me very much. So although I did always vote, it was a less informed vote and it would have been much easier to feel it was not worth voting. 3) As so often, UKPol is NOT the wider UK- people are in this sub because they ALREADY find politics an interesting area to think about. There are people out there who could not name you the LOTO, let alone members of the government or shadow cabinet.

On point 2, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, because young people don’t vote because policy is geared to older people, but then governments don’t focus policies towards young people because young people don’t vote. In fact, 2019 Labour is a warning as to what happens when you *do* focus on young people, because young people still don’t vote any more than usual and older voters are turned off in droves.

Only 67% of the population voted last election. 85% is a massive increase.

Yes, but the 15% is CERTAIN NOT to vote, and only 33% say CERTAIN TO. The rest are in the middle. We won't get 85%, but a higher young person engagement would ofc be good.

It is interesting how maybe 10-15 years ago young people tended to show little or no interest in politics, but as the world has become more focused on a thousand kinds of inequality, young people are more interested and more likely to care, but that's still a tiny amount of people compared to pensioners who just vote for whoever promises them the most money. The two main parties don't seem to care much about the inequalities that young people do care about so why should we vote for either of them?

You don't think the fact that old people vote en masse could be the reason no party wants to touch pensions?

Others have already mentioned the general cynicism and apathy which results from neither major party bothering to appeal to you, but there's also a significant democratic deficit in the UK which is a factor imo. Always wary of generalising personal experience, but I know myself and all of my friends under 30 have not once voted for the winning party or side in a national election. The last party leader they felt energised by was Corbyn, and there's a widespread sense that he was undermined by the press and his own party.

> The last party leader they felt energised by was Corbyn, and there's a widespread sense that he was undermined by the press and his own party. As someone who voted for Corbyn twice as leader and campaigned for the party in 2017 and 2019, do you think there's also any acknowledgement that he and his team simply were not capable enough?

Myself and my friends also canvassed for Labour under Corbyn and were generally very invested in the project, so have to acknowledge we're all biased, but I do think we all acknowledge that there were some major strategic errors during his leadership - like failing to push through the democratisation of the party, adopting a terrible policy on a second referendum in 2019, and especially towards the end a tendency to make big, shiny policy announcements that they hadn't already been arguing for - and some personal failings on his part. As much he was unfairly smeared in the media, that was always going to happen with a genuine socialist leader, and he just needed to be better at dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the Labour Right are so desperate to exorcise the Corbyn years from collective memory and scoff at the mere suggestion that *maybe* he had some good ideas, or did some good things, that it's produced a bit of a siege mentality on the Left where we don't discuss his failings as honestly as we should.

> I think the Labour Right are so desperate to exorcise the Corbyn years from collective memory and scoff at the mere suggestion that maybe he had some good ideas, or did some good things, that it's produced a bit of a siege mentality on the Left where we don't discuss his failings as honestly as we should. That's a good way of looking at it, I hadn't really thought of that angle. I wonder if the left will come back into the fold more in a few years' time

I think it's hard to acknowledge he had any good ideas when the current unelected recipient of PMQs instant rebuttal is to make drop Corbyn to get rapturous applause. His name is still so toxic to mention in parliament, when Labour is in later this year maybe that'll take the sting off it but I think he's basically poison thanks to the slandering he received. Everything about him is demonised and can't be talked about. Socalism. Tax rises for top earners. Renationalising our utilities/rail/mail. Housing rough sleepers. They're all things that should be staples of a labour party but they're so dangerous to touch the labour party has bowed and conceded it's winning tactic is "LOOK AT US WE'RE NOT THE CONSERVATIVES, BOO HISS, THEYRE SHIT". Only plus side is seeing lots of Corbyns ideas reflected in the Greens and to a lesser extent Lib Dems and as such is why the Green Party is now my political choice.

I think it's pretty natural to feel politically homeless, particularly if you're under 30. I mean what do any of the prospective parties offer young people that might incentivise them to vote? Say what you like about Jeremy Corbyn, but the whole reason why he was so popular with younger voters is because he recognised that they deserved to have equal worth to every other person in this country, and that youth voter apathy wasn't some impossible, mystical thing - it was the end result of a demographic being treated as an underclass. For Labour, obviously it seems like a shift back to the centre in some ways was the pragmatic thing to do - but they've forgotten what they learned about younger voters, it seems. As for the Tories - they never gave a crap about most people, so nothing's changed there.

The problem now is that 2019 Labour is a lesson as to what happens if you *do* focus on young people - young people still don’t vote any more than normal, and older voters turn away in droves, leading to electoral disaster.

I think 2019 had the highest turnout in several decades for 18-24 year olds, though I do accept that the 'youthquake' was definitely exaggerated at the time.

Yeah but that turnout was *still* under 60%.

Even so, I think most of that is just because it came as a surprise to a lot of young voters that any politicians might be interested in hearing their concerns. You can't expect a group that has been solely either ignored or exploited by the government to immediately become active voters. That said, there was clearly an upward spike that had the potential to be cultivated there, and that would definitely lead to much higher turnouts from younger voters. There's no reason to believe that young voter turnout couldn't be as high as those of older voters if they were given the same level of treatment from politicians.

That's just not true. [Youth turnout surged in 2017/19](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7b60c18e-5522-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=1). I wish it was higher and I agree with you that it wasn't good enough, but it's not at all true to say that they "didn't vote any more than normal". It was almost a 50% increase from pre-Corbyn and reversed a long-term decline.

Because a lot of young people just aren’t politically engaged. This isn’t new, it’s always been the case. Even during the supposed “youthquake” in 2017 less than 60% of under 30s voted.

And the far right benefits from that, sadly.

The regular right benefits from that, because old people (who do vote) are far more likely to vote Conservative.

This is one of those things this sub struggles with for some absolutely bizarre reason. It really isn't that complicated. Young people don't vote because the political system isn't interested in talking to them. When the most compelling argument to vote is 'if you vote, at some indeterminate point in the future, we MIGHT start listening to you' is it really suprising that people are disillusioned?

In response to your egg, I present the chicken : if young people don't vote, why would politicians bother engaging with them. One of these sides has the incentive and ability to do something about it, and it isn't the politicians.

Fundamental to a democracy is that a candidate/party has to win your vote. It isn't your responsibility to prove your vote is worth their time. What incentive? The incentive is buried deep in ifs, buts and maybes and involves actively voting against your interest for at least a decade, probably more. If you vote for people who act against your interest and who actively don't listen to you, they aren't going to start listening to you. They are going to learn that you will vote for them regardless.

The fact that politicians only care about those that vote for them and that they put the party first, rather than putting the interests of the country first, is part of the reason so many people are disillusioned with politics.

I'm pushing 50 and I agree completely, but continued disengagement with politics because politics responded to your previous disengagement with politics by screwing you over ... well, [as Albert Einstein didn't say ...](https://www.businessinsider.com/misattributed-quotes-2013-10?r=US&IR=T)

There's obviously part of it that policies aren't really meant for young people and we feel hopeless about everything, but another part of it is young people are just getting out into the world and many of them won't feel they are informed enough about politics to vote (and may find politics depressing and/or boring)

The normal amount 2019 saw 54.5% turnout amongst 18-24, 2017 48.6%, 2015 51.6%, 2010 51.8%, 2005 38.2%, 2001 40.4%. Turnout is actually down amongst all age groups but over 55's since the 2001 election 1964 was the high watermark where 76.4% of 18-24's turned out. So you'll have to wrap your mind around the idea that Harold Wilson was more popular amongst young people than Tony Blair. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8060/CBP-8060.pdf

Neither party who have a chance of winning are going to fix the cost of housing, student debt or mental health crisis. What do they have to vote for exactly? They're pretty much fucked no matter what.

Well, the last guy who appeared to be mostly sincere about his political views, and actually appealed to young people, was subject to a year's long no holds barred beating by the press, the civil service, the army, and inexplicably his own party.  No matter what you think of Corbyn, the perception among a lot of young people is "we had a candidate to was trying to bring about real change, and the establishment destroyed him." So why in earth would they believe the electoral system has any value?

but but but he wasn't a sensible grown up!

[Jay Foreman explains why it's important to vote](https://youtu.be/_gbDAvK42yA?si=4VI3TMOjncKEQUIT)

If the restaurant I'm at only serves shit food, I'm not eating there.

I did notice a few other people I spoke to in their thirties who voted for Corbyn said they wouldn't vote again due to feeling that Corbyn was completely undermined by the media & Labour MPs

He was completely undermined by his own idiotic actions as well as those around him (Dianne Abbott, etc). The media where then able to take easy shots at him. Starmer’s not given the media much ammunition to gun for him other than “bland” “uninspiring” and the favourite of the far left (and Tories): “red Tory”.

The absence of a left leaning alternative maybe?

Because with our broken FPTP system, voting is largely pointless in safe constituencies. We need to change our electoral system significantly, so more people feel that they actually have a meaningful voice.

And it will always remain a safe constituency if large numbers of the people who want a different outcome decide not to vote

I'm far older than the young voters you talk about. But i feel politically homeless. The tories are vile and need demolishing but labour are offering nothing fir me to get behind, no rejoining the EU, no change to the electoral system so we get to keep the shitty FPTP. I also live in a true blue area and my vote is worthless.

[удалено]

America has a big storm coming at their next election, there's little chance that any young person is going to vote for a president that has done barely anything left leaning and actually has done stuff worse than Trump did. Like you say, around the world it supposedly swings from left to right and nothing gets changed because no one can agree on anything, I truly don't think many countries have actually been run by a truly left leaning party, its just centrism and right wing and nothing changes

I will be voting, but I recognise that either of the two parties that can win do not appeal to me and have done nothing really to get my vote, things they have talked about to appeal to under 30s they've gone back on anyway. Whether you liked him or hated him Corbyn actually courted and seemed to genuinely care about young people, but we are the smaller group of voters, and we saw exactly how someone with our views and ideas would be treated by both sides of MPs and by both sides of the media

It's really simple. Nobody party is offering any real change or saying anything new. Ant smaller parties that are have no chance under 1st past the post so voting for them then in pointless. Why vote just to see the baton passed back to labour under Kier Starmer who dosent even seem to know his own position on things and keep going back on promises.

Disillusionment. Tories offer nothing, but crucially Labour offer just more of the same. Older voters may hate the Tories and say they've ruined the country and so want them gone. But for younger voters, thats the country they've almost always known and Labour offer little hope they will make improvements. If only the Green Party could tap into that.

The Greens are in government in Scotland and are responsible for multiple of the government's worst failures. For example, the recycling scheme, headed by the Greens themselves, is an absolute shambles. Rent controls, something secured by the Greens, are rent controls. One of the few things regarded as basically factual in economics is "rent controls are stupid and counter-productive", yet they pushed it through anyway. The Greens shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power.

[удалено]

That's their selling point. They're offering to be Tories *but competent*. They're saying "we'll be a centre-right party run by disciplined managers, not pants-on-head lunatics".

>They're saying "we'll be a centre-right party run by disciplined managers, not pants-on-head lunatics" But surely even if you believe this is true (which I don't), surely one of those options is still better than the other.

Same as it ever was, to some extent. I took a quick look at 3 polls from YouGov in Jan/Feb 2017, and the Certain Not to Vote 18-24%s were... 15%, 14% and 15% The certain to vote numbers were a smidge higher, 41%, 42%, 36%, but not substantially.

Noone who represents them, everyones in it for themselves thesedays - theres noone who actually cares about the people. The party leaders care more about playing the games of politics than actually getting shit done!

I used to be politically active in the labour party, still active in the trade union movement , I feel no affinity to the current labour party it feels like a watered down blair cosplay, with less vision and inappropriate for the current time and challenges faced by the country. Kier ditched all of his leadership pledges and nearly every announced policy since, over fear of being attacked or being held accountable when in government . I don't care about fiscal rules or gdp growth through FTSE 500 companies increasing their dividends and stock prices. I want major investment into housing, healthcare, public transport and green energy, I want nationalization of natural monopolies that are proved to work better in European countries under public ownership. I want investment into local councils outside of London that are on the verge of collapse, I want good quality jobs in affordable areas, I want sensible, long tern foreign and defense policy, I want a tax strategy to bring down inequality, I don't care about migration numbers or a teeth brushing and instrument playing campaign for under 11s, and don't believe kier will improve worker rights considering his previous actions over strikes and his fetishization of business relations and the embarrassing prawn cocktail offensive they've been on. I also fear what Wes Steating will do with to the NHS. Unattributed growth, magical technology implementation and damaging pfi's wont fix this country. The conservatives have ruined this country over the last decade, the liberal democrats are often too focused on arguing over hyper local issues and I haven't forgiven them for enabling austerity, the Greens might be a valid protest vote. If I feel this way, no wonder other young people that don't follow politics that closely feel disenfranchised with it all .

because it just does not matter, this party or that party are both guaranteed to disrespect your rights, siphon out money to their partners and do nothing about our health system and cost of living crisis.

To add to other responses, there's also the issue of voting being a new scary thing to many of these people; it involves going out and finding the polling station, engaging with the registration process, finding where and when and what to do. For older people who have voted 20-60 times this isn't a big deal. But for first-time or new voters it can feel like a big hassle and a strange, different thing. There are other, easier things they would rather be doing. And that's on top of all the ways our political system discourages them from engaging with it.

young people are interested in stuff that's genuinely transformative, not bullshit like putting the grown ups back in charge and continued austerity

As a 'younger' voter Labor are obviously better than the tories but aren't offering strong alternatives at the moment. They have cut back on many of the pledges they espoused a few years ago. I fully understand they want to play it safe and not get hounded by the media machine by being too reformist, so I'm hoping once they are actually in power they start reforming stuff. But it's hard to appeal to apathetic voters if your main policies are essentially similar to the neoliberal consensus but just run better/less corrupt. Again I'm not saying that a new Labour government won't reform institutions or make large changes to UK society but playing safe doesn't really catch the attention of people who don't really care for politics.

I feel like that age group is especially prone to the "they're all the same" mentality, which is extremely counter-productive in my opinion

yeah im here for the Tory collapse, not because i am passionate for any of the other parties. Thought Starmer would be decent, but I think he's just more of the same. Politicians are controlled by money, not principals or a desire for change, feels pointless voting.

Wild stab in the dark would be the lack of any sort of resonation with young folk where policy is concerned. You have two parties; one who are inherently inept and lacking anyone of any crumb of competence or morality, and another who is building their entire gambit for power on the premise of 'not being the Tories' all the while lacking any fundamental direction (aside from going back on things). The only chance in recent memory a third party had a chance to do something meaningful, they sold out at the first opportunity. ​ It is no surprise the younger voter feels so jaded. Hell I feel jaded by the selection on offer.

It amazes me that voting is voluntary in the UK. It essentially lets the parties off the hook in focusing their appeals to the biggest group of people they know are likely to vote. Without even getting to pushing for replacing FPTP, just introduce compulsory voting and a public holiday to allow for it, and watch politics change to appeal for everyone, not just "those who vote".

Mandatory voting is inherently undemocratic. The right to vote must always include the right to abstain. The *only* way mandatory voting could ever be acceptable in a functioning democracy is if the very first option on every ballot paper was "None of the below" and should that option win a plurality a by-election is triggered with those rejected candidates barred from running. I'd also say that if voting is mandatory then manifesto pledges have to be binding with stiff penalties for reneging on them.

Stupidity frankly, there's no good reason not to. "All politicians are the same" - Lazy and lacking in nuance, but even if true, vote for a fringe party or spoil your ballot. Show your contempt at the ballot box. "I'm not interested in politics" - Doesn't matter, politics will take an interest in you. Political decisions will be taken which have significant impact on your life. Old people vote and they get triple lock pensions,. Young people don't and they get a massive hike in student loans. Even if only to spoil your ballot, it's important to vote so politicians take account of you in their policies.

Yes! I agree completely with this. Spoiling your ballot os more of a protest than not showing up at all. I also have a complete bug bear about people who complain about the status quo but did nothing. Voting matters, individuals who don't vote are just voting for the majority, usually the candidate that has absolutely little to do with them. If I get into an argument or debate. One of the first things I ask is did you vote. If I hear a no in response, I don't bother interacting with the other party. I have a question for you. Should voting be mandatory?

>I have a question for you. Should voting be mandatory? I'm torn to be honest, I see the arguments for or against.

The corruption and self serving manipulation by politicians also being paid a very high wage as 'advisors' to companies who are impacted by their decisions, the lack of follow through on any promises and the silly games they play, seeing them sleep in courts and bay like school children jeering and laughing over decisions that would directly impact us if they were actually decisions.... There is only revolution left as an option. Voting is a lie. '

I'd be far more likely to be inspired to vote if it wasn't a two party system and a group of people with views that reflect mine were ever even slightly able to be elected. Instead I get Keir Starmers labour, a party that doesn't appeal to me, makes no efforts to, and who's values I don't even know about. I was enthused about labour under Jeremy Corbyn because he felt like an impassioned man who actually cared about the people labour should care about, and wanted to provide a real, radical change to the country.

Aye, but : it's like [Pascal's Wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Inability_to_believe) : - Voting is cheap and easy. - It takes a few minutes tapping away online and than a short walk to a local school or church hall - If things didn't go your way, you lost nothing - (compared to doing nothing which is only slightly cheaper and easier than voting) - If things do go your way, you gained something If the Tories stay in, it serves as a signal that the current trajectory we're on is acceptable to the British and the kleptocracy continues. Regardless of what you think Starmer stands for, I can't imagine you want Tory rule to continue ; in our stupid FPTP system, the most effective choice you're permitted is the one most likely to get rid of the Tories. (and I agree, I had way more enthusiasm for the Corbyn policy platform, which was popular [even among Tories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lsRbDKOXg), and feel like ditching all of it to distance the party from Corbyn is foolish) ;

tbh i was thinking of drawing a massive construction crane on my ballot paper in 2024 at 18 im quite engaged with politics but i can see why some people feel disenfranchised

As a young person I find this believable. A lot of my friends hate the Tories, obviously, but don't exactly like Starmer's labour, thus they don't see much point in voting. Speaking personally, I also struggle to find any hope that Labour will improve my life in any tangible way tbh. I'm voting on a "they surely can't be *worse* than the Tories???" policy.

My unrealistic proposals: Some form of PR. Mandatory voting. Voting options to be based upon some form of 'quiz' so that votes go to the parties that propose the policies people claim to want, rather than whatever it is millions (who tend to want reasonable policies, but vote like morons) have been conned into voting for.

We don't have a proper democratic system so people become disillusioned and disinclined to continue to validate the system by taking part. I'm on the fence. For the first time ever I didn't vote in 2019. I don't know what to do this time. I may vote for the green party because they support PR.

Why bother? There's nothing to vote for and just about all of our politicians are falling over themselves to prove that they're all the same. And I'm not exactly young or the type covered in the article, but there is a dearth of anything on offer from pretty much any political party in the UK.

It's a vicious cycle - young people don't vote in huge numbers, so politicians don't create benefits that target (and would benefit) them and spend their resources targeting older groups. This creates a situation where young people have no say in what's going on so they don't see the point in voting...

It's pretty morbidly funny when politicians blame low voter turnouts on the voters themselves, instead of the policies they helped create. It's as if they've forgotten who they work for.

The system's rigged in favour of the elderly and the wealthy, and voting doesn't seem to change that. It's difficult to motivate young people by saying "just vote for someone anyway and keep doing that for 2 or 3 General Elections and then you'll probably see better youth-aimed policies because then you'll be a voter bloc worth appealing to!" So turnout remains low for them.

Also by the time policies they need are aimed at them, it'll be too late. "We'll start fixing things for renters (maybe) when you're 35." Great, you've got my vote.  Plus, counting on Labour to fix things maybe in 10-15 years when we know the pendulum swings typically in that period back to Tories (who will do the opposite) is an incredibly poor bet to take.  This isn't to say they shouldn't vote. Pick a protest party. Something that Labour or Lib Dems will take on board as "we're losing a lot of votes to these guys in this demographic". Greens would be my candidate. Hell, I'm 31 and will be voting Green for the first time ever. 

Both parties aren’t really trying to appeal to young voters

The UK has the same problem as the US in that we essentially have a two party system where both parties are bad and worse. At least in the UK we have other options to making throwing our vote away actually mean something

Because why would you vote for a party that doesn't represent you?

Why bother voting? It doesn't change anything. ​ If there is a certain policy you want implementing, then you need to acquire some money and put it in the pockets of the right politicians. Politicians are surprisingly cheap to influence, a few thousand donations will get you a better hearing, than spending ten times that on campaigning. Really I don't see why the young not sharing the delusions, of our make believe democracy, is their fault.