Latest news with #politicalengagement
Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
Opposing votes at 16 would cost Tories dear
I believed a lot of foolish things when I was 16 years old. And one of them was that voters were as politically engaged as I was. I should have realised this wasn't true. I was the only one in my class reading The Economist every week. And when, aged 11, I corrected my French teacher on some detail of the career of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, I sensed that even he thought I was an oddball. But the penny didn't drop fully until I started going canvassing. I realised that there were plenty of voters who didn't know that the Tories and the Conservatives were the same party, or who the home secretary was, or what inflation meant. So perhaps when I was 16 I might have found it convincing to argue that the voting age shouldn't be lowered, because young voters aren't well informed. Now I certainly do not. If a political literacy test were to be imposed before people were allowed to vote, let's just say that the impact on voter numbers would be alarming and the age spread of disqualified voters very wide. This does not, of course, mean that it is impossible to think of strong arguments against the government's proposal to extend the franchise. There is, for instance, the practical objection that it will add more than a million economic dependants into the pool of voters, at a time when the efforts of earners are in danger of being overwhelmed by the demands put upon them. And this is linked to the more abstract argument that voting is a right belonging to those who have the experience and responsibilities of full citizenship, not all of which fall on those under the age of 18. So, if the right decides to throw itself into opposition to votes for 16-year-olds, it will not be short of things to say. Nor will it lack public support. Most people think the reform is a bad idea and even those being given the vote are pretty much split down the middle on the subject. Nevertheless, I think anything more than token opposition would be inadvisable. Let's start with this. The change is going to happen and opposition won't stop it. Labour has a huge majority and this isn't an issue that seriously divides the party. And once it happens it won't be reversed, either. The argument that Labour is rigging future elections won't cut much ice with voters. First, they aren't that interested in what does or doesn't change election outcomes. At best, the discussion will produce a shrug, with voters a little irritated but not surprised that Labour is spending time on this rather than on things that more directly improve their lives. Second, the rigging argument isn't really true. While Labour might hope this change will be of assistance to the party, it isn't clear that it will be. Once turnout is taken into account, the new group of voters is about 2 per cent of the electorate. Spread that around between the parties and it wouldn't have done much for Labour at the last election. The polling research company More in Common looked at how the new voters would have impacted the 2024 result, using the crude but plausible assumption that 16 and 17-year-olds would have voted the same way as the 18 to 24-year-old group. Labour moved from 34.6 per cent to 34.8 per cent, the Tories from 24.4 to 24 per cent, the Liberal Democrats from 12.6 to 12.5 per cent, while Reform was unchanged. This, of course, is looking backward. What about looking forward? Young people don't reliably support left-wing parties or positions. Instead, they tend to be more radical in their views, but that might be radical right. Young people in the United States, for instance, were always the group most in favour of the Vietnam War, even though they were the people who had to fight it. That is because they tend to be more sympathetic to violent solutions. In Germany, young people swelled the voting total of the socialist left but also of the right-wing AfD. It is quite possible to imagine young people in Britain dividing on gender lines, with young men trending towards Reform and young women towards Jeremy Corbyn or the Greens. If Labour does see this as a move to rig the election then it is highly likely to be disappointed. Indeed, in so far as these new young voters make a difference to the election outcome at all, it could be through social media campaigns favouring insurgents seeking to topple members of the government. So even assuming that opposition could stop this change, which it can't, opponents wouldn't be denying Labour much of an advantage. Or indeed any advantage at all. And for this non-existent gain, opponents might well pay a long-term cost. It is true that 16-year-olds may now be in two minds about having the vote. But I don't think they will always feel like that, nor will they always be 16. The Tories voted against the bill to create the NHS because doctors, through the British Medical Association, were opposed to it. They are still suffering politically for this, decades later, with doctors long having switched sides. Once voting at 16 begins to seem natural, future generations will still be told who opposed it and it will remain a persistent handicap to winning the votes of that most vital of cohorts — people voting for the first time. People stay remarkably loyal to their first affiliation. A much better response to this new group being added to the voting lists is to consider how best to serve them. The reason Martin Luther King gave so much of his attention to the voting rights of African-Americans is that he, correctly, thought that once they had the vote, politicians would pay attention to all the other disadvantages they suffered under. It would be good if this happened with young voters. Polls consistently show how tempted young people are now by dictatorship, army rule and overthrowing the social order. Merely giving 16-year-olds the vote won't change this. But the expanded franchise could act as an added incentive to politicians to serve the interests of young people as assiduously as they now do the interests of pensioners. And that could do some good. Politicians will be going into schools in future to sell themselves and their parties, and they will need to have something to say. So there will be increased competition on issues like tuition fees, climate change, employment opportunities, housing and public borrowing, and all sorts of other ways of serving the interests of these new voters. Giving thought to this seems a better use of time and energy than digging in to oppose a change to the franchise that is going to happen anyway. Bashing one's head against a brick wall just seems pointless. It certainly does to me. After all, I'm not 16 any more.
ABC News
18-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
BTN Newsbreak 18/07/2025
UK VOTING AGE The UK has just announced a big electoral change, that would see 1.6 million more people voting in the next general election. Yeah, to vote in the UK's next general election you will only have to be 16 years old. It's a big change, one the UK Government hopes will boost the country's political engagement, trust in democracy and voter turnout. You see, last year, only 59.7 per cent of eligible voters actually voted. It was their lowest voter turnout since 2001, and experts say, lowering the voting age could really help. The minimum voting age has already been changed to 16 in a number of countries, including Belgium, Germany and Austria, which got me thinking, how would we feel about lowering the voting age here? OLIVIA SMITH Canadian soccer player Olivia Smith has broken a world record, not on the field, per se, but in the boardroom. She's just become the first player in the women's game to sign a 1 million pound transfer. That's about 2 million Aussie dollars. Olivia was a striker for Liverpool, but now, she'll be joining Arsenal where you might spot a few familiar faces. Arsenal's got a few Aussie stars on their team – Steph Catley, Kyra Cooney-Cross, and Caitlin Foord. GEN Z STARE This stare appears to be spreading across Gen Z everywhere. But how did it start? Indeed, it's not just Gen Z. Many patients here also present with "the millennial pause". Which is clinically defined as "the brief pause people make after they start recording a video". And since not everyone agrees whether the stare is caused by tiredness, boredom, or the lack of a screen, one question remains, is it even real? MT GAMBIER SCULPTURE First up, to a controversial new public sculpture that's been unveiled in Mt Gambier, in South Australia. It's meant to represent the mythical creatures thought to have lived in the region 60 thousand years ago, but uh, while some locals seem happy with it, others have dubbed it the blue blob. And have criticised the council for spending $136,000 on it. NORTH POLE GOLF Now to a game of golf in the north pole. 19 golfers from around the world battled it out for the very first North Pole Clock Golf Championships. MARS METEORITE And finally, to a record breaking rock which has just sold at auction for just over 8 million bucks. It's the largest piece of mars ever found on earth, and yes, I mean found. It was discovered in the Sahara desert a couple years back, thought to have been blown off the surface of mars by an asteroid strike, eventually making its way through earth's atmosphere.
BBC News
17-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Guernsey's States to send delegation to Reform UK conference
Guernsey's States will send a delegation to the Reform UK party conference in Birmingham this September. It is the first time an official party from Guernsey's government will attend the event. Alongside Reform's event, officials and deputies from Guernsey's States will also go to the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative party conferences. Policy and resources lead on external relations, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, said: "Many MPs don't really know what the crown dependencies are and what Guernsey is." "We have for the past few years increased from one to three party conferences, now because of the changing political scenery in the UK we're adding Reform to that."Reform UK currently have four MPs in the House of Commons and are led by Nigel Farage, who visits the Channel Islands regularly. Deputy Le Tocq said it was important the island engaged across the political spectrum."Obviously the Lib Dems have big numbers in Parliament so we want to make sure our network is understood," he said."Overall in Westminster over half of the MPs are brand new, like here in Guernsey, "It's really important to have that engagement, so when questions occur we don't have people getting the wrong idea and our constitutional relationship is maintained."
CNN
29-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Three archetypes divide American politics. Reading this article suggests which one might apply to you
If you're someone who clicks on an article about political engagement, you're probably a person who likes keeping up with the news. Maybe you find yourself constantly scrolling social media. You care deeply about politics, and with so much happening, you want to make sure you're on top of it all. You're not alone — but most of the country doesn't share your approach to the news. The latest CNN poll conducted by SSRS shows that the attention divide splits Americans roughly into thirds. There's a high-attention group, consisting of the 32% saying they frequently seek out the latest news. A middle group of 31% has people who say they follow major developments but don't seek them out. And then there's the lower-attention group: 25% who say they pay attention only when necessary and another 12% who tune out altogether. Those fault lines are key to understanding American politics. Highly engaged Americans were more averse to sending in troops to the demonstrations in Los Angeles, according to other polls this year. President Donald Trump scored better on immigration among voters who hadn't heard as much about specific, high-profile detentions or deportations. And highly engaged Americans, much more than the other groups, believe that the nation's democracy is under attack. Those at either end of the ideological spectrum are the mostly closely plugged in: Fifty-one percent of those who call themselves very liberal and 47% of those who say they're very conservative fall into this group, compared with 35% of those who call themselves only somewhat liberal, and fewer than 3 in 10 who say they're moderate (29%) or somewhat conservative (22%). Robert Timm, a 75-year-old Democrat from Ukiah, California, has a daily routine: He starts his day reading the latest headlines on Yahoo, frequently talks politics with his wife, and ends the evening watching the news on television, particularly MSNBC. 'I'm typically watching it fairly closely because I'm concerned about a lot of things that are happening in the country,' said Timm, one of the 2,539 people included in the survey. Many of those concerns center on Trump, who Timm says is 'obviously trying to do what he wants, regardless of how it affects the people in the country.' Older Americans are notably likelier to fall into this category: Fifty-two percent of those older than 65 say they frequently seek out political news, compared with one-third or fewer among any younger age group. Those with college degrees and in wealthier households are also somewhat more likely than average to seek out the news, as are White Americans and men. Among the highly engaged, roughly 9 in 10 say they see important differences between the parties. Asked about a series of different issues, many have no trouble picking which party better aligns with their views. And a broad majority, 60%, feel that democracy is under attack. Among those paying less attention, nearly 40% say their views don't align with either party's across a majority of the issues they were asked about in the survey. Nearly 3 in 10 see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. 'Honestly, I think they're the same,' said Tyler Ruth, a mother from Hilton Head, South Carolina, who participated in the poll. 'Different color, but they're the same. Go about different things differently, but they're the same because they all have money and they hold power. They don't have to worry about, 'How am I going to make ends meet for a couple of days until I get paid?'' Nearly half of Americans who spend less time on politics say they don't see either party as capable of getting things done, 10 points higher than among the mostly highly engaged group, and just 37% see democracy as under attack. Americans younger than 45, people of color and those with lower household incomes are all relatively likely to say they follow politics only when necessary or not at all, as are people without college degrees. And although they're not making an effort to seek out political news, most aren't completely cut off from it, either. In the past, Ruth said, politics wasn't a top priority for her — she's juggling raising children with special needs while also attending college for social work. But after hearing about cuts to her children's care this year, she started following the news more closely, including efforts by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services to build a database for tracking autism. In CNN's survey, a majority even of those in the lower attention group said they still get some information about current events, and nearly half said they voted in last year's election. Overall, those who did broke in favor of Trump, a finding that dovetails with recently released data highlighting the key role infrequent voters played in securing Trump's victory. And it may reflect Trump's strength last year in winning over voters who typically don't express much trust in the political system. 'I'm not a party system fan at all,' said Peter Montes, a poll respondent from Conroe, Texas, who works in the oil and gas industry. 'I think that the parties need to be abolished, and we need to reset.' While he doesn't consider himself an outright Trump fan, he sees the president as bringing a business-minded ethos to the political sphere in a way he hasn't seen since Ross Perot, and said he's been paying closer attention to the news since Trump returned to office this year. But looking ahead to future elections, he doesn't see many other politicians with similar appeal. Nor, this far out, is he especially excited for next year's midterms. 'I'll see the news, but I'm not going to go and stalk the news out to figure out what's going on. I'll just check in every once in a while,' he said. The CNN poll was conducted among 2,539 adults nationwide by SSRS from May 5-26, using a combination of online and telephone interviews. The survey samples were originally drawn from two sources — an address-based sample and a random-digit dial sample of prepaid cell phone numbers — and combined. Respondents were initially contacted by mail or by phone. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
CNN
29-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Three archetypes divide American politics. Reading this article suggests which one might apply to you
If you're someone who clicks on an article about political engagement, you're probably a person who likes keeping up with the news. Maybe you find yourself constantly scrolling social media. You care deeply about politics, and with so much happening, you want to make sure you're on top of it all. You're not alone — but most of the country doesn't share your approach to the news. The latest CNN poll conducted by SSRS shows that the attention divide splits Americans roughly into thirds. There's a high-attention group, consisting of the 32% saying they frequently seek out the latest news. A middle group of 31% has people who say they follow major developments but don't seek them out. And then there's the lower-attention group: 25% who say they pay attention only when necessary and another 12% who tune out altogether. Those fault lines are key to understanding American politics. Highly engaged Americans were more averse to sending in troops to the demonstrations in Los Angeles, according to other polls this year. President Donald Trump scored better on immigration among voters who hadn't heard as much about specific, high-profile detentions or deportations. And highly engaged Americans, much more than the other groups, believe that the nation's democracy is under attack. Those at either end of the ideological spectrum are the mostly closely plugged in: Fifty-one percent of those who call themselves very liberal and 47% of those who say they're very conservative fall into this group, compared with 35% of those who call themselves only somewhat liberal, and fewer than 3 in 10 who say they're moderate (29%) or somewhat conservative (22%). Robert Timm, a 75-year-old Democrat from Ukiah, California, has a daily routine: He starts his day reading the latest headlines on Yahoo, frequently talks politics with his wife, and ends the evening watching the news on television, particularly MSNBC. 'I'm typically watching it fairly closely because I'm concerned about a lot of things that are happening in the country,' said Timm, one of the 2,539 people included in the survey. Many of those concerns center on Trump, who Timm says is 'obviously trying to do what he wants, regardless of how it affects the people in the country.' Older Americans are notably likelier to fall into this category: Fifty-two percent of those older than 65 say they frequently seek out political news, compared with one-third or fewer among any younger age group. Those with college degrees and in wealthier households are also somewhat more likely than average to seek out the news, as are White Americans and men. Among the highly engaged, roughly 9 in 10 say they see important differences between the parties. Asked about a series of different issues, many have no trouble picking which party better aligns with their views. And a broad majority, 60%, feel that democracy is under attack. Among those paying less attention, nearly 40% say their views don't align with either party's across a majority of the issues they were asked about in the survey. Nearly 3 in 10 see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. 'Honestly, I think they're the same,' said Tyler Ruth, a mother from Hilton Head, South Carolina, who participated in the poll. 'Different color, but they're the same. Go about different things differently, but they're the same because they all have money and they hold power. They don't have to worry about, 'How am I going to make ends meet for a couple of days until I get paid?'' Nearly half of Americans who spend less time on politics say they don't see either party as capable of getting things done, 10 points higher than among the mostly highly engaged group, and just 37% see democracy as under attack. Americans younger than 45, people of color and those with lower household incomes are all relatively likely to say they follow politics only when necessary or not at all, as are people without college degrees. And although they're not making an effort to seek out political news, most aren't completely cut off from it, either. In the past, Ruth said, politics wasn't a top priority for her — she's juggling raising children with special needs while also attending college for social work. But after hearing about cuts to her children's care this year, she started following the news more closely, including efforts by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services to build a database for tracking autism. In CNN's survey, a majority even of those in the lower attention group said they still get some information about current events, and nearly half said they voted in last year's election. Overall, those who did broke in favor of Trump, a finding that dovetails with recently released data highlighting the key role infrequent voters played in securing Trump's victory. And it may reflect Trump's strength last year in winning over voters who typically don't express much trust in the political system. 'I'm not a party system fan at all,' said Peter Montes, a poll respondent from Conroe, Texas, who works in the oil and gas industry. 'I think that the parties need to be abolished, and we need to reset.' While he doesn't consider himself an outright Trump fan, he sees the president as bringing a business-minded ethos to the political sphere in a way he hasn't seen since Ross Perot, and said he's been paying closer attention to the news since Trump returned to office this year. But looking ahead to future elections, he doesn't see many other politicians with similar appeal. Nor, this far out, is he especially excited for next year's midterms. 'I'll see the news, but I'm not going to go and stalk the news out to figure out what's going on. I'll just check in every once in a while,' he said. The CNN poll was conducted among 2,539 adults nationwide by SSRS from May 5-26, using a combination of online and telephone interviews. The survey samples were originally drawn from two sources — an address-based sample and a random-digit dial sample of prepaid cell phone numbers — and combined. Respondents were initially contacted by mail or by phone. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
