Well, it was in their manifesto. But I seriously though it might be one they'd quietly forget. I happen to know that there are people in Starmer's policy team that think giving votes to 16-17's is a Really Bad Idea. And it is.
This is the same cohort that progressives traditionally seek to exempt from criminal responsibility or the right to join the Armed Forces. Would they like to be arrested by a 16-year-old copper? Or tried by a 16-year old magistrate?
Of course, there's a naive body of progressive / leftist thinking that somehow assumes da yoof is inevitably more progressive than their seniors. Recent empirical evidence suggests otherwise - in some cases, blood-chillingly so - & thus it isn't even particularly self-serving, though without the slightest doubt it's intended to be. Actually what da yoof is, is easily swayed** by whatever is the latest viral TikTok meme, which will naturally come out of nowhere just days before the election, spread like wildfire, and not leave any time for political countermeasures.
And - irony of ironies - it is many, many more times likely to be generated by Andrew Tate (or indeed Nigel Farage) than by Kier Starmer.
So: while we may be sure this looked like a brilliant idea five years ago - a Labour-voting ratchet for all time - it looks utterly, utterly stupid now: Starmer is just going through the motions blindly, on autopilot without consideration of what's going on. Because of course it comes just as the structure of 'traditional' British politics is being buffeted mercilessly by the four winds. We don't even need to mention the appalling Tate: has Starmer not realised that any of the Greens, the new lefty party, the Islamist 'independents', Reform - even, just possibly, Ed 'Mr Blobby' Davey - are likely to wipe the floor with him in this age group?
Does politics get any more crass?
ND
[1] I attended a talk by the very thoughtful and erudite producer of a reality TV show (seriously!). He said that there is a long-running survey conducted by Gallup or one of the venerable polling agencies, that has for decades asked the same batch of questions to each new cohort of young adults. One of the questions is: in very serious matters where you're in doubt as to what you should do, who do you turn to? Up until GenZ, the answers have always been: my parents / older family members I look up to / elders in the community I trust / teachers / people in authority / professional people etc etc. But not GenZ, for whom the answer is: my friends. And modern life being what it is, that generally means: whatever meme my friend-group is currently in thrall to. This is appalling, end-of-civilisation stuff.
[2] A friend of mine gave a talk to a secondary school recently. Before he went in to the hall, he was begged by the teachers, not under any circumstances to engage with anything from the kids relating to Andrew Tate. That's how bad this is.
15 comments:
Since the current mess the country finds itself in is caused by "parents / older family members I look up to / elders in the community I trust / teachers / people in authority / professional people etc etc" it's hardly surprising that GenZ have decided that they are not worth taking notice of.
I suppose the only people left who still believe in Green will be the 16 to 18s so Ed will still have some friends.
Then this change does leave the Tories with a goodly problem, they only appeal to the oldies because the rest are worse and the oldies are dying off. Farage - looks like the 'stranger danger' bogeyman but Tate does look sufficiently cool and nasty to attract the more rebellious.
As for whether 16 year olds are any more gullible than 30 year olds or 60 year olds a look at the DM and DT and Sun will depress anyone thinking they are.
Which demographic might vote for a party proposing swingeing property and death taxes, take all those ill gotten gains away and give them to Rachel to dish out on free scooters.
Perhaps the Tories can run on a property owning householder requirement to vote - that should be a winner.
Jim - the Labour assumption will have been that da kidz will have been socialised/programmed by their teachers (overwhelmingly left, if only because teacher training is overwhelmingly left) plus by BBC/Channel 4/ ITV.
Now there's tiktok plus a lot of other content that's not government controlled so there could be some surprises.
(th general idea is of course idiotic. They aren't trusted to vote, drive, be banged up ("youth custody" lasts til 23 iirc) and have almost zero life experience. For those who DO have life experience it's likely to have been extremely negative.
The only thing is I can't see ND reaching my conclusion that we are now well on the slope to perdition and there's no way back.
I'm like Oh.
There goes the Winter Fuel Payment.
Well, eyeballing some stuff around turnout by the 18-23 year old age group, it looks like 45%~ish.
I don't see any reason why turnout among 16-17 year olds would be any higher, at a guess, it'd be about half of that, so about 23% or so.
Net effect, given that's about 700,000 voters, about 1,000 per constituency?
Nil.
That said, the chances that the parties would chase that segment, given that virality is highly visible, simply means that the most socially conservative party wins.
Labour just slit it's own throat.
In agreement with Matt, it's not like Gen X and Millennials in positions of power and influence have covered themselves in glory.
Respect comes in two forms, one for the position, one for the person holding said position. The person has to both earn respect, and work to maintain, or increase, the respect their position has earned over time. Instead they've managed degrade the positions inherited respect.
Adding politics to all the other topics which cause domestic tension between parents and adolescents sounds like a really good idea.
As to the policy itself, Newsnight showed a poll, the Tories and Reform were both on 6%, with the largest winner being Corbyn's currently theoretical party, Labour second.
Given Labour's thin majorities, were things to remain as they are, that could cost them a lot of seats next GE.
History may end up rhyming with the early 80's where the left wing vote was split enough to allow the Tories win with relative ease. Of course the right wing vote is now split too, but if Reform manage to not mess up, that split on the right won't matter as much.
Going back to the loss of respect aspect, look at this leak with the Afghans. It's boggling.
From what I can divine - to avoid any Triples coming over who might have seen war crimes committed by our forces, someone was embedded into the process of judging who would be allowed to settle here. Said someone then screwed up, sent out the spreadsheet to where it shouldn't, which then led to merry tales of blackmail on Facebook, injunctions, and superinjunctions.
It's the stuff of a Blackadder cunning plan plot segueing into a Thick Of It storyline.
If you asked the MoD to organise a piss up in a brewery, you'd get a game of Scrabble in a temperance bar.
There are so many questions arising around this, and every single one of them speaks to a culture of incompetence and immunity from consequences. Ignoring the ethical aspects, which at national level we must sometimes do, then at the technical level, it's just embarrassing - how can other nations trust us with their data?
"A two thousand pound education dropped by a 10 rupee jezail". Expensive place Afghanistan, always was.
I am quite glad we taxpayers are coughing up having dropped a load of 'allies' in it. Pay up and look big, honour has no price.
Someone dropped a bo%%ock. Too bad, these things happen and the military have taken it on (our) chin. A nice drop of secrecy with the unveiling coming just before parliament goes to sleep for the summer. Quite well done really. Stink will have died down by the conference season.
Had this problem been handed to say the FO we would have a 10 year committee of inquiry with oodles of lawyers and liars. Nothing would be done and a bloodbath would be covered up and we covered in shame.
As for who gets the Byng treatment - no one - quite right. Is there a sinister coverup here - who knows.
Paying up is one thing, Jim. Importing Afghanistan is quite another.
Of the babies born in England and Wales in 2024, a third had a foreign-born mother. When you consider the high birth rates of Bradford, Leicester and East London, I'm not sure it's Andrew Tate or his spiritual successors we'll have to worry about.
We have to take Afghanistan because we lost the war. We lost because we allied with an army that has a long history of failure when peacekeeping and we could not afford to go it alone.
Any fool can launch missiles and drop bombs. For some military planners an ever ongoing war somewhere is cheaper than trying for peace. So keep it going. If you don't like that game don't join in.
We should never have been there in the beginning. The Victorian Brits, with much more power, had the sense to recognise that.
Post a Comment