logo
EXCLUSIVE Votes at 16? We can't even pick Keir Starmer out of a line-up! Teens are wary of voting at next General Election - but they do know who Nigel Farage is

EXCLUSIVE Votes at 16? We can't even pick Keir Starmer out of a line-up! Teens are wary of voting at next General Election - but they do know who Nigel Farage is

Daily Mail​11 hours ago
Youngsters set to be given the right to vote in the next General Election have showcased a shocking lack of knowledge about the UK's political leaders.
Sir Keir Starmer announced plans on Wednesday to lower the England's voting age from 18 to 16, which could see around 1.5million more teens able to cast their vote when the nation next heads to the polls.
The move, a manifesto pledge from the party, has been criticised as a cynical ploy since a large proportion of young voters support Labour.
But, opposition parties may be able to blow a sigh of relief after MailOnline went out and quizzed prospective teen voters on their knowledge of the UK political landscape - with some shocking results.
While a majority of the teenagers interviewed were able to tell us the Prime Minister's name, some didn't know who he was when shown an image of him.
Even worse for Labour, even fewer were able to name the deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner or Chancellor Rachel Reeves when shown pictures of them.
But it's not necessarily good news for the Tories - just two were able to identify Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Instead, it was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage who came out on top - with an overwhelming number of youngsters able to identify who he was when shown a picture of him.
MailOnline visited the streets of Newcastle and Cambridge earlier this week to find out how much prospective teen votes know about the figureheads of UK politics.
The youngsters were shown pictures of Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey, Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner.
In Newcastle, Nigel Farage was the most recognisable with four out five teens able to name him.
Dominic Carlyle, 13, from Jarrow, South Tyneside, knew both Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage from their pictures.
He said: 'Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I don't know who the leader of the opposition is.
'I thought it was Rishi Sunak. I've seen Ed Davey before but I don't know who he is.
'I would bring in laws to stop smoking. I want to completely get rid of cigarettes. I would tax them more to get rid of them.
'There isn't anything else that I would want to change and I don't have an interest in any specific areas in politics.
'I will be voting when I'm over 16. Some 16-year-olds don't know much about politics so won't be able to use their vote properly.
'Schools should be teaching us more about politics. We never really get taught about it, it's only older children in sixth form who choose to study it.'
Olive Irving, 14, from Gateshead, wasn't able to name any of the politicians pictured. She said: 'If I could introduce a policy, I would make school holidays longer.
'I'm not really into politics, but I know that Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister.
'I barely know any politicians. I know their names, but not their faces. I know Farage's name as well as Ed Davey's name.
'I know who the chancellor is because my mam showed me a picture of her crying in the Commons.
'People thought she was going to get fired and she started crying about it.
'A lot of kids will vote for who their friends want to vote for or they won't actually look into politics and vote for who they like the look of.
'I will use my vote but I will look at their policies and do my own research.
'We are taught useless things in school that we won't need in ten years, like algebra, instead of proper things like politics.
'I'm never going to use algebra so I don't know why we're taught that.'
Eloise Lincoln, 14, from Newcastle, correctly identified Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage and Ed Davey. She said: 'I would want the government to introduce more policies about the environment such as lowering emissions.
'Lowering the voting age could be a good policy but there are a lot of younger people who are influenced by the internet.
'They may not actually know much about politics but go off what they see online.
'They should teach us more in schools if they are lowering the voting age. I would use my vote at 16 but I would do my research.'
Olivia Connon, 15, from Newcastle, correctly identified Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch. She said: 'I know a bit about politics but not enough.
'I would vote if I was 16 but you have to investigate first about what the policies are.
'I met Rishi Sunak once, we talked about ice cream but he said his favourite flavour was vanilla, which is boring. He didn't get any syrups or flakes in it.
'I know that Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I didn't know that Kemi Badenoch was the leader of the Conservatives.
'I don't know much about current policies but if I could bring one law in it would be something to help people have more access to healthcare, as we need more funding in the NHS.
'If the voting age was lowered now it wouldn't be very good because people wouldn't know what they were doing. We need more education on politics.'
Megan Wilson, 15, from Gateshead, correctly named Nigel Farage in the picture quiz.
She said: 'The voting age should be 18, 16 is too low. People would make stupid decisions or waste their vote.
'There isn't enough education about politics in schools. You only go over it once or twice so you don't learn it properly.
'I turn 16 early into the school year, I'm one of the oldest in my class so I would be voting while doing GCSEs.
'When you're 18, you know a lot more about the world and probably have a job or have been through college. You have more life experience.
'All my friends think it's a stupid decision to lower it because there are already debates about people voting at the age of 18.
'I don't know much about tax or policies. I know we pay tax but that's it.
'My mam votes but I wouldn't, even if the age is being lowered to 16.
'Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I don't know who the leader of the opposition is. I don't know much about current policies but if I could bring in legislation I would want to split the six weeks holidays up.
'It's too long, I get bored half way through. I would want four weeks and then another two somewhere else in the year.'
Meanwhile in Cambridge, MailOnline spoke to several 16 and 17 year olds, who despite being older than those interviewed in Newcastle, were only marginally more knowledgeable of the UK's political leaders.
Only one person was able to identify who the leader of the opposition was (Kemi Badenoch), with two people thinking it was the former Home Secretary Priti Patel.
But, much to the Prime Minister's relief, all of the people interviewed were able to identify Keir Starmer.
College student Charlotte Templar, 17, is a Green Party campaigner and was for the voting age being lowered.
She said: 'The main argument against it is that 16-year-olds aren't informed enough to vote but that can be applied for people aged 18/20/22.
'You are affected by all things at that age and it will make more people want to vote and it will help move away from older people having all the power to make decisions that will affect younger people for longer.
'I feel like I'm old enough to vote and it has been proven in Scotland that it does work.
'Everyone should know what the parties stand for - it should be the school and the parent's responsibility.
'Some might say young people will do 'joke' votes [where they vote for a party unseriously because they think it is funny] but I don't think it would be a large enough amount of people to make a difference. No one says that about university students.'
Jack, 17, said he thought his generation was the 'most politically aware'.
He said: 'Realistically 16-year-olds are capable for making a choice like any other eighteen or nineteen year olds.
'If a 50-year-old man votes for Nigel Farage because he thinks he's funny then there shouldn't be a discussion as to whether sixteen-year-olds are mature enough or not.'
Zosia, 17, said she was worried about 'joke' voting. She said: 'People will make 'joke' votes for parties like Reform. They could be under the influence of adults around them or their friends.
'At 18, you're only just beginning to experience your life like you are at 16.'
Mikayla, 17, added: 'I think people are going to be influenced by social media and who their friends are voting for.'
Chloe, 17, said she agreed the voting age should be lowered.
The A-Level politics student said: 'You can pay tax and get married - the only difference really at 18 is that you can buy alcohol.
'Politics isn't really taught in school in as much depth as it should be.
'Hopefully it would make people more interested in politics and understand why it matters to them.'
Friend Hannah, also 17, said: 'The general election affects everyone who is 16.
'I'd like to see them focus more on the environment - it always come second to most things.'
Sophie McArthur, 17, said she didn't think lowering the voting age was a good thing.
The college student said she was worried about boys in particular being influenced online and how other people's views could affect them.
She said: 'Young people are influenced by the media and there are certain sides of TikTok which can not be a very good thing for people who are impressionable or not mature enough.
'I know people who like Charlie Kirk - these are boys who are like "red pill". It makes you worry about the decisions they'll make if they could vote and who for.'
Charlie Kirk is an American political activist who rose to prominence as the founder of Turning Point USA - a ring-wing student organisation aligned with Donald Trump - and spoke at the Cambridge Union in May.
Gabriella Giussali, also 17, agreed. She said: 'Some people are too young to form that opinion and be able to vote. There are a lot of people who understand politics and lots of people who don't.'
Lucia Browne, 17, said she wasn't 'confident' people at her age would make the 'right' decision.
She said: 'Social media means a lot of people are influenced and I think there's a different across the country as to how young people will vote.
'You only pay national insurance at 16 so you don't really know a lot about how things work. We're not at the age where we should be dictating government policy.'
Julia, 18, visiting from Sweden said: 'I don't think it's a good idea. In Sweden it is 18 and you get more into politics as you get older, meet more people. When you work, you begin to understand people.
'It is too big of a power for a young age. I'd raise it to 20.'
Sylwester, 16, also from Sweden added: 'People aren't experienced enough. I'd say 18 is the best age.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State pension age to be reviewed by UK Government amid fears that 45% of workers are not saving
State pension age to be reviewed by UK Government amid fears that 45% of workers are not saving

Daily Record

time8 minutes ago

  • Daily Record

State pension age to be reviewed by UK Government amid fears that 45% of workers are not saving

Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, warned "unless we act, tomorrow's pensioners will be poorer than today". The state pension age is to be reviewed by the UK Government amid fears half of workers are not saving anything at all for their retirement. ‌ Westminster is required by law to review the state pension age - currently 66 - every six years but has launched a fresh inquiry earlier than planned, as the previous one concluded in 2023. ‌ The review will examine whether the current age is still appropriate and consider factors such as rising life expectancy. ‌ It comes as experts warn that people looking to retire in 2050 are on course to receive £800 per year less than current pensioners,. The DWP said 45 per cent of working age adults are currently saving nothing for their pensions, amid fears the cost of living crisis has led to some households left with nothing to put aside. Kendall said Labour is reviving the pensions commission because the 'job is not yet done'. ‌ She added: "Put simply, unless we act, tomorrow's pensioners will be poorer than today's, because people who are saving aren't saving enough for their retirement. 'And crucially, because almost half of the working age population isn't saving anything for their retirement at all,' the Work and Pensions Secretary said during a speech to launch the move. The commission is expected to provide recommendations for how to boost retirement income in 2027. ‌ She also announced the next statutory government review into the pension age. She said she was 'under no illusions' about how difficult it would be to map out plans for pensions for the coming decades amid cost-of-living pressures. She conceded that 'many workers are more concerned about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads than saving for a retirement that seems a long, long way away, and many businesses face huge challenges in keeping profitable and flexible in an increasingly uncertain world'. ‌ The shortfall is also worse among women and some ethnic groups, with only one-in-four people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi background saving in a private pension. People drawing their pension 25 years from now are set to be £800 or 8% worse off per year than their counterparts today, the department said, with four in 10 people currently not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than launching a new commission from scratch, the government said it was reviving the "landmark" Turner Pension Commission which reported in 2006, under the last Labour government, and led to the roll-out of automatic enrolment into pension saving. As a result 88% of eligible employees are now saving, up from 55% in 2012, the DWP said.

Will Labour's water 'revolution' work?
Will Labour's water 'revolution' work?

New Statesman​

time9 minutes ago

  • New Statesman​

Will Labour's water 'revolution' work?

Photo byWhy did the Conservatives lose the last general election so badly? Sewage is an underrated reason. The state of England's waterways became an emblem of national decline – raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024 – and a hazard for a burgeoning wild swimmer population. As Environment Secretary, Steve Reed has the unenviable task of cleaning up this mess. 'Loyalty and gratitude are the hallmarks of politicians. And that's the only way I can account for being rewarded with the department for sewage and angry farmers,' he quipped at a recent Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch. Since entering office, aides say, he has focused on 'three Rs'. The first – 'reset' – saw Labour pass the Water (Special Measures) Act, which introduced new criminal penalties for polluting water company bosses and banned the payment of bonuses to those who fail to meet high standards. The second – 'rebuild' – saw Reed secure £104bn of planned private sector investment that he says will allow the government to halve sewage pollution by 2030. The third is 'revolution'. Today's 465-page report by Jon Cunliffe, the former Bank of England deputy governor, calls for the abolition of Ofwat (a recommendation Reed has accepted) and the creation of a new regulator to ensure water companies 'act in the public as well as the private interest'. After its fraught first year in government, Labour senses a political opportunity. Action against water companies is both salient – polling by More in Common, shared with the New Statesman, shows that 95 per cent of people regard reducing sewage pollution as important or very important to them – and unifying. Reform voters (73 per cent) and Green voters (75 per cent) alike view it as a high priority. Yet for all the talk of revolution, some will be disappointed by Labour's reformism. Though England is one of only two countries in the world with a fully privatised water and sewage system (the second being Wales), Cunliffe's report did not assess the case for nationalisation, which Reed ruled out of scope. The revival of public ownership under Labour – the railways, GB Energy, steel (almost) – has prompted new demands to 'take back water'. But Reed insists that this is neither feasible nor desirable. 'The franchises for rail are seven years long and then they come to an end, so [renationalisation] is possible without having to buy them back. If you wanted to buy back the water companies, it would cost in excess of £100bn – and that's money that would have to be taken away from schools and the health service,' he told me earlier this year, arguing that weak regulation was the greatest problem. Reform, by contrast, in its populist guise, has vowed to bring 50 per cent of the water industry under public ownership. Nigel Farage's struggle yesterday to explain how much this would cost ('I don't know') gave Labour much pleasure but water remains a paradigmatic example of the challenge this government faces. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe An industry that was neglected under the Conservatives now requires emergency intervention. Bills, like taxes, will rise – by an average of 36 per cent in England and Wales over the next five years – to fund investment in creaking infrastructure. Reed, seeking to put himself on the side of the public, has declared himself 'furious'. But as they pick up the tab, will they accept his solidarity? Reed hopes that water will become a visible example of the difference Labour has made. 'This beautiful, iconic lake will once again be pristine and full of fish,' he told me of a recent visit to Windermere (sewage discharges have turned the lake green). 'It's by focusing on the politics of place that we can start to rebuild trust and address the challenge from the extremes.' But in an age of outrage, the risk for Labour is that no amount of delivery trumps Reform's raw populism. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: The decline and fall of Great Britain] Related

What are the key recommendations for reforming UK's water sector?
What are the key recommendations for reforming UK's water sector?

Reuters

time9 minutes ago

  • Reuters

What are the key recommendations for reforming UK's water sector?

LONDON, July 21 (Reuters) - An official report released on Monday outlined a plan to overhaul Britain's water sector, seeking to better protect the environment, investors, and consumers. The privatised water industry in England and Wales has sparked widespread anger by releasing record levels of sewage into rivers and lakes, prompting the Labour government to promise major reforms when it was elected last year. Below are the highlights of the report's 88 recommendations by the Independent Water Commission: The report recommends a single water regulator in England and one in Wales to replace the current fragmented regulatory system. This would streamline oversight, close regulatory gaps, and boost investor confidence as the sector faces major challenges from climate change and population growth, the report said. The Commission recommended tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including powers for the regulator to block changes in ownership if investors are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers. It recommended that the regulator set "minimum capital" requirements so that companies are less reliant on debt and more financially resilient. The Commission called for a reset of economic regulation with a new "supervisory" approach for tailored oversight and earlier interventions. It also recommended changes to the Price Review process to ensure proper investment and attract long-term, low-risk funding. The report proposed creating eight new regional water planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales. They would be responsible for developing water investment plans, streamlining existing planning processes, directing funding and ensuring accountability from all sectors that impact water. The Commission called for a National Water Strategy covering at least 25 years and with regular milestones. The strategy should guide cross-sector water use and be supported by ministerial priorities to guide regulation. The report recommended a national social tariff to ensure consistent support for low-income customers who need help to pay their bills, addressing current regional disparities. The report urged stronger environmental regulation, including improved monitoring, stricter rules on abstraction, sludge, drinking water standards and water supply. It recommended compulsory water metering, revised tariffs for industrial users, expanded water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. It also set out where environmental legislation needs updating. The report called for reforms in how water infrastructure is managed, monitored and delivered, including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store