Latest news with #LukeTryl
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why shouldn't 16 year olds get the vote?
On 18 September 2014, Scotland went to the polls to decide its future in the United Kingdom. While the outcome was decisive – 55 per cent of voters couldn't bring themselves to back independence – the turnout for the poll, at 85 per cent, was one of the highest recorded in Britain. The significance of the 'one-off' vote (plus anxieties on either side of the debate about the outcome coming down to the wire) saw full-throated campaign efforts deliver a swathe of voters to polling stations. A number of these were under 18-years-old, including me – with my birthday falling just six days before the poll. It was the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement that allowed the Scottish parliament to choose who could vote in an independence referendum. Using temporary powers under the Scotland Act, the Scottish government extended the say to 16- and 17-year olds – and subsequently over 100,000 under-18s registered to vote. The argument put forward by the SNP was similar to that of Labour's Angela Rayner on Thursday: the decision is good for democracy and gets young people excited about politics. And the same criticisms were levelled at the Scottish government as the UK one: that the move was more about party politics than progress. History has demonstrated how expanding the vote is hardly the most effective form of gerrymandering: while the SNP expected younger voters to be more open to the idea of independence, Scottish Referendum Study analysis showed that 54 per cent of 16-19-year-olds voted 'no'. The BBC described the union-backing bloc at the time as an 'unusual alliance' of 'average earners, Protestants and women'. Labour should take heed: currently polling suggests that while younger voters would tend to lean left, there is a significant proportion of young people – generally men – attracted by the straight-talking, anti-establishment rhetoric of Reform. As More in Common pollster Luke Tryl pointed out on Friday's Coffee House Shots, the voting reform doesn't make it much more obvious who would win the next general election at this point. What it does signal is yet more bad news for the Conservatives, who poll in the single figures among young people. But there is a case to be made for extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, particularly at a point when trust in politicians is at an all-time low and people across the country are increasingly disillusioned by and disengaging from national politics. Research by academics from both Edinburgh and Sheffield University after the 2014 poll found that not only do 16- and 17-year-olds tend to vote more frequently than their slightly older peers who got the vote at 18, they maintain these voting habits for longer – usurping the turnout dip that was once common among the early adult age group. 'If you give people the right to vote earlier in life, they appear more likely to make voting a habit,' the researchers noted. Polling company FocalData conducted research in conjunction with work done by former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown on the state of social cohesion in Britain. The findings are stark: nine in ten people said they had less than five close friends, while 16 per cent admitted they had no friends at all. Looking at Gen Z more specifically, YouGov noted in February this year that only 15 per cent of young people feel they live in a united country. Communities – and generations – look increasingly fragmented in the UK and a kind of local-level protectionism is being bred, as economic pressures tied into the cost of living crisis and housing shortage remain a feature of public life. People are growing less interested in each other and more disillusioned by the state of the country. Of course the simple fact of giving young people a vote wouldn't sort all this out – but the triple shot of getting people interested in political policies from an early age, increasing turnout and, crucially, maintaining that increase in engagement ensures more people are actively invested in the country's future. That cannot be a bad thing. Why is this important? Recent elections have seen more and more people turn off from mainstream politics – indeed, Sir Keir Starmer's Labour party won its supermajority on a very thin share of the vote, with only 38 per cent of Brits backing them. They've only had a year in power but already their legitimacy has been challenged as a result – as much internally as externally. Awareness of the vote share (and indeed low turnout) has created an atmosphere of awkwardness. As one Labour grandee remarked to me recently: 'There is a bashfulness about our success.' It sums up the degree to which this realisation has undermined the confidence of the party leadership, with MPs acknowledging the government hasn't exploited its supermajority to its fullest potential. And now that backbenchers are growing increasingly vocal – and disruptive – it seems unlikely Labour ever will. Parties would do well to better consider how to speak to a cohort of people that will shortly make up the bulk of the country's workforce, especially if various reforms – that are hard sells in the short term but beneficial down the line – are to be pulled off. Starmer's biggest U-turns during his first year in office show a government allowing non-workers to dictate policy: from the winter fuel payment cut reversal to the rowback on disability benefits. Long overdue conversations about issues like the pension triple lock tend to be avoided thanks to fears about losing the silver vote. While allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to head to the ballot box isn't going to radically dent the impact of the pensioner class, it provides an additional opportunity for parties to consider how to get young people on side – and stick with them over the course of their voting careers. There are numerous counterpoints: for example, if 16- and 17-year-olds can't, in England, do things like get married or drink alcohol, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. (You could argue it seems strange to shower a person with a whole host of new liberties at any one age.) And there is a certain sneeriness from older generations about the intellectual capacity of teens now – perhaps a rattled awareness that they too were the future once. But this ignores a number of responsibilities that already rest with young people: it is at this age that you are expected to figure out what you want to do with your life – what to study at university, or which apprenticeships or jobs to apply for. And it's often at this age that students are at their most curious. I remember the buzz around school when the independence election approached – friends who had never so much as talked about the news before were discussing things like the future of Trident (we were only a few miles down the road from Faslane), our reliance on oil and gas and even questions of cultural identity. It didn't split people down partisan lines; it persuaded us not only to voice our opinions but appreciate that they carried weight. And, vitally, it encouraged more people to get involved. The government's latest move doesn't quite deserve the criticism that has been thrown its way.
New Statesman
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Britain's shattered trust
Photo byWestminster loves a good piece of polling research, and the latest offering from More In Common – dramatically entitled Shattered Britain – has captured imaginations as Parliament limps towards the summer recess. There is loads in the report to pore over and squabble about – not least the quiz segmenting the British public into seven strata of voter, from Progressive Activists and Rooted Patriots to Dissenting Disruptors and Sceptical Scrollers (which is, incidentally, a great name for a Nineties indie band). The arguments about how these fit into traditional notions of both class and party politics will go on for days. Key to the analysis is not what separates Brits, but what unites us. And somewhat terrifyingly, that unifying theme seems to be a sense of mistrust. A staggering 87 per cent of people trust politicians not very much or not at all, with net negative trust among all seven groups. This tallies with the latest annual British Social Attitudes survey, published last month, which found that 'Just 12 per cent trust governments to put the interests of the nation above those of their own party just about always or most of the time, a record low'. This lack of trust cuts across a range of different policy areas. On the economy, for example, the cost of living crisis is a key voter concern, with half the public believing it will never get better. This pessimism is understandable, given we have now had 17 years of post-crash politicians telling us that better times (or, if you prefer, sunlit uplands) are just around the corner, if we can only batten down the hatches and make 'tough choices' now. On immigration, a decade and a half of governments promising to bring numbers down while doing the opposite has had a corrosive effect. More In Common's director Luke Tryl has some thoughts on why the issue of small boats crossing the Channel is so potent: it symbolises governments that have lost control. The inability of a country to enforce its own borders will be disturbing in and of itself to many voters – but even to people who are less concerned about the issue itself, it is symptomatic of a state that is struggling to function. MPs, by the way, are not blind to this accusation. Conservatives used to lament that ministers would pull a lever to enact change only to find that nothing happened. Labour MPs had little sympathy – but now they've been in power for a year, you'll increasingly hear them say exactly the same. Twice now, from MPs of different parties, I've been told that if you pull a lever it could well come off in your hand. On everything from reforming welfare to resolving public sector pay disputes, cutting NHS waiting lists to building new homes, investing in infrastructure to stopping the boats, a sense of stasis pervades. Try to kick the Whitehall machine into gear, I was told, and the machine has a tendency to kick back. The public, quite reasonably, is not in the mood for excuses. Back in October, barely 100 days since Labour got into power, I sat in on a focus group of people in Sittingbourne, Essex, who had voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 and Keir Starmer in 2024. I was taken aback (as were the organisers) by just how quickly patience with the new government had evaporated – but in a way it made sense. These people had been promised that their lives would get better while things instead got markedly worse for over a decade. They were tired of giving the politicians who had disappointed them the benefit of the doubt. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This exhaustion helps explain why Labour has been so unsuccessful in blaming their present challenges on the last government, as David Cameron and George Osborne managed to do effectively for years with their line that 'Labour crashed the economy.' It also goes some way to explaining the rise of Reform – or rather why the criticism that Reform is not a serious party with serious policies is failing to land. (If you're curious about what attack lines Labour could use against Nigel Farage that might actually work, check out the latest NS podcast where polling analyst Steve Akehurst shares his latest research on exactly this topic.) 'The sense that Britain is broken, and that none of the traditional parties or institutions can fix it, is leading more people to think that we need to roll the dice on something new,' reads the Shattered Britain report. Polling from last month ahead of the Spending Review, also by More In Common, found a similar sentiment in the increasing willingness to gamble – to hell with the consequences. As I wrote at the time: 'While 46 per cent of people believe Reform would indeed be a risk to the economy (compared to 29 per cent who don't), almost as many (40 per cent) believe the risk is worth it as 'Reform can't be worse than the other parties when it comes to managing the economy'.' It's unclear how politicians from mainstream parties can possibly respond to all this, given the scale of the challenge and how rapidly the public expects solutions. But tucked away at the very end of the report is the line that 'Britain's political map is fundamentally changing as frustration with the status quo is leading to traditional two-party loyalties collapsing into a volatile multi-party system'. We can debate whether the fact that the last election was the most disproportional ever in terms of how the number of votes related to the number the seats, and whether this is a driver or a symptom of the decline in trust in politics (are voters abandoning traditional parties because they feel let down, or do they feel let down because their votes for non-traditional parties aren't properly counted?). But it's hardly a sign of a democracy in good health. The pithily named voter segments don't just suggest a realignment in politics, but a degree of fragmentation that is difficult to map onto a two-party system. Does 'difficult' in fact mean 'impossible'? Something for MPs to chew over as they prepare for their summer holidays. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: The OBR is always wrong] Related
Daily Mail
04-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Poll: Britons deliver verdict on Starmer's first year in power
Voters have answered with a resounding 'NOTHING' when asked what has been the biggest achievement of Keir Starmer 's first year in power, a new poll shows. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour 's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. More in Common's director Luke Tryl said it was 'one of the most stark word clouds we've seen - the Winter Fuel Allowance drowns everything else out'. The other major problem to stand out for voters was immigration, with more than 20,000 people already having crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, a record. Sir Keir is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months.' Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he said. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising in light of the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said.
South Wales Guardian
19-05-2025
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Britons feel disconnected from society and lack faith in others
A survey of more than 13,000 British adults found 50% said they felt disconnected from society, while 44% said they sometimes felt like a 'stranger' in their own country. The findings come a week after Sir Keir Starmer argued that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' if immigration did not come down. But the poll by More In Common suggested that the reasons for disconnection went beyond immigration and culture, with 47% of British Asians saying they felt like a stranger in their country – more than the 44% of white Britons who said the same thing. The survey found economic insecurity that was most closely related to alienation, with two-thirds of people who said that they struggled to make ends meet also saying they felt disconnected, compared to only 37% of the financially comfortable. Focus groups also suggested that a decline in face-to-face interaction, driven by technology, social media and working from home, had changed how people interacted with each other. Luke Tryl, director of More In Common, said the research showed 'an urgent need to think again about how we rebuild a united and cohesive society'. He added: 'The polling puts into sharp relief something that will come as no surprise to many Britons – a growing sense that we've turned inward, away from each other, becoming more distant and less connected.' The study marks the launch of a new national project – This Place Matters – focused on strengthening social bonds and backed by the UCL Policy Lab, campaign group Citizens UK and More In Common. Matthew Bolton, executive director of Citizens UK, said: 'The answers to this don't lie in Whitehall. 'By listening to people closest to the ground about what causes division and what builds unity in their neighbourhood, we can build a blueprint for cohesion rooted in local leadership and community power.' As well as increasing feelings of isolation, the poll suggested significant rates of mistrust, with 53% of people agreeing that 'you can't be too careful with most people'. But younger people were far more likely to lack trust in others, with the figure rising to 65% among 18-24-year-olds and 62% among 25-34-year-olds. The public is also split on whether multiculturalism benefits or threatens Britain's national identity, with 53% saying it is a benefit and 47% saying it is a threat, with some telling focus groups they believe there has not been enough integration. More In Common said focus groups had shown the fallout from last year's riots 'continues to reverberate and affect community cohesion', with many seeing the Prime Minister's response as 'one of his most impressive moments', but a minority feeling the Government had been 'too heavy-handed'. The More In Common poll surveyed 13,464 British adults between March 14 and April 7.
Telegraph
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Desperate times: is Boris about to make a comeback and could he save the Conservatives?
If Boris Johnson wasn't pondering a political return, he wouldn't have given an interview to GB News this week – in the aftermath of the Conservatives' worst-ever local elections. ' I'm not convinced I'm in a position to do that at the moment,' he said, when questioned about a potential comeback. The door was very deliberately left ajar. First things first: the Tories have got through five leaders in roughly 10 years – of whom Johnson himself was one – and there's no reason to believe that the removal of Kemi Badenoch would solve the Conservatives' problems. The Tory ship is losing planks and leaking water. Another mutiny on deck would risk it going down altogether. But it's hard to keep your head while those about you are losing theirs – and blaming it on the leader. This year saw 23 council areas in England go to the polls. Next year, 150 or more may vote. Scottish parliamentary and Welsh assembly elections will also take place. Badenoch thus faces a mini general-election. Her leadership may not survive it. Or even last until then. And according to Luke Tryl, one of the most sober pollsters in the business, 'to a surprising degree across our focus groups in recent weeks the one Tory – particularly those leaning Reform – spoken of with any affection was Johnson… the difference between Boris and other Tories is, for whatever reason, he passes that connection/relatability/not a typical Tory test.' This presumably explains the recent survey by More in Common, of which Tryl is executive director, which found that the Conservatives would overturn an eight-point Reform poll lead and take a three-point lead themselves were Johnson to lead them again. The replacement of Badenoch by Robert Jenrick would, according to this survey, make no difference to the Tory position. Now polls tell many different tales, but Johnson's appeal may indeed not be exhausted – at least among the striving, provincial, just-about-managing voters who backed Brexit, voted Conservative in 2019, switched to Labour last year, and last week voted in substantial numbers for Reform. The Tories need to get voters to consider them again. If Johnson can't do it, can it be done at all? His return would also mean unfinished business. Admittedly, he wasn't compelled to leave Parliament. He chose to quit himself, before a by-election was forced on him. A Commons committee was poised to recommend a 90-day suspension from the House, which would have exceeded the 10-day threshold for triggering a recall petition and potential by-election. You may feel that this was no more than Johnson deserved – that the committee was right to find that he deliberately misled the Commons over Covid parties in Downing Street. But was it fair that the voters never had the chance to give their view at a general election? After all, they put Johnson in, and there's a case for saying that only they were entitled to turn him out. Whatever your view, his successors in government, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, were haunted from the start by the claim that neither had democratic legitimacy, since neither had won – or even fought – a general election before becoming Prime Minister. There would be a kind of justice in Britain's voters once again giving their view of Johnson as Tory leader at the ballot box. So much for the past. What of the future? The practical obstacles to a Johnson return are formidable. First, he would have to be re-admitted to the Conservative candidates' list. Second, he would need to find a local association to adopt him where a by-election was pending. Third, he would have to be returned to Parliament. And then, finally, win a leadership election. It sounds fantastical – as indeed it is. Self-preservation would suggest that Badenoch, who effectively controls the Tory candidates' list, has every reason to keep Johnson off it. By-elections are hazardous at the best of times, and this is a sticky time for the Conservatives. Above all, most of Johnson's most fervent parliamentary supporters lost their seats last year. Furthermore, a comeback wouldn't come pain-free. A slice of Toryworld sees Johnson as a joke in the worst possible taste. There would be resignations both outside Parliament and within it – and, perhaps, defections. But if the Conservatives are desperate enough, who knows what might happen? Johnson's zany story may have further twists in it yet. When the Tories are three-nil down and the clock is ticking, they tend to turn to their star striker on the substitutes' bench. And one can imagine, just about, Johnson turning the game round for the Conservatives. But there is much more to the matter than the Tories' own interests. Johnson might be a tonic for his party. But would he really be one for the country? Britain isn't paying its way in the world and must face up to some home truths. Voters know in their gut that the country faces unpalatable choices. They despise politicians for not offering a lead, but are fearful of what it might mean. It is very difficult to see Johnson, with his unquenchable boosterism, knuckling soberly down to the task. The best of governments would have been knocked off course by Covid and the Ukraine war. But Johnson's enemies have a lengthy charge sheet: net zero excess, ending no fault evictions, the Football Regulator, Covid lockdowns, a record tax burden, mass ministerial resignations. Some of this is unfair. But the critics have a point, and then some, about what happened to immigration. The 'Boriswave' saw net migration peak at 906,000 in 2023. It is thought his government simply threw open the doors. Does he think it was a mistake? Or would some future Johnson government do the same all over again? Whatever the answer, the strongest case against a Johnson return is the simplest one: been there, done that – time to move on. He may even draw that conclusion himself, especially if Reform continues to advance. Get ready for more Johnson interviews – more coat-trailing, more exploratory probing – if he thinks he has a crack at returning to Downing Street. But if that looks unlikely, the hard yards of leading a party to election defeat is surely not for him. For the moment, he will watch and wait.
