Young non voters

classonline.org.uk/blog/item/investing-in-a-future-for-young-people

Maybe if this happened, the young would vote in greater numbers at the next election.

classonline.org.uk/pubs/item/the-first-100-days

Someone has ideas on what to do.

Hodge for PM, then.
Yes I should have remembered the slave trade, being from Hull, and having connections to William Hutt, who was MP at the same time as Wilberforce. (He was also MP for Gateshead at one time.)

I'd quite like to see the man who wrote this in the government.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/05/02/tories-and-libdems-to-write-their-own-obituaries/

You might actually get your wish!

I would never claim that history was my strong point jen , but apparently it abolished the slave trade in Britain in 1807, so some good came out of it.
Yes I agree with you about Margaret Hodge, I thought she did a brilliant job.

Well, how are people chosen to fill any responsible job, jen? Sadly there are always going to be opportunities to put puppets in place, I don't know how to get round that. It comes back to honesty and ethics and sadly we seem to have lost our way on that one.
I think elected representatives still have to make the final decision on policy, but I would like to see far more openness and debate about how the policies are formulated, and on what evidence, than there seems to be at the moment.

It only lasted a year, though, jane. Didn't George lll have to do that because his health wouldn't let him rule how he wanted to?

The speaker was chosen by parliament, and was a Tory MP. But you wouldn't have thought so at the end of parliament. It was the Tories who tried to have him replaced.
Margaret Hodge ran a very good public accounts committee, and tried to hold the moneymen in both the NHS and the banks to account. But not much has come out of it.

soon people's opinions are usually poles apart on everything, but the job of Government is to do what is right, nit simply give people what they want.
For a long time after capital punishment was abolished in this country, the majority of the population thought it should still be carried out.
But the Government did the right thing and abolished it.

Who decides who are the most able, though, jane?

jen and soon
As far as the NHS is concerned, I think that the Royal Colleges could perhaps have a defined role in informing Government of the clinical impact of policies. I am sure they are represented at Select Committee hearings, but if the reports of Committees are just left to gather dust then what is the point? It makes me angry.
I am not sure why environmental issues can't be considered in the same way. There are plenty of university departments who could help to provide s consensus.
This conversation has reminded me of George 111's Ministry of All the Talents.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_All_the_Talents (not to be confused with that of Gordon Brown two centuries later), a national unity government.
"The inclusion of Charles James Fox raised eyebrows as King George III had been previously heavily hostile to Fox, but the King's willingness to put aside past enmities for the sake of national unity encouraged many others to join or support the government as well. The ministry boasted a fairly progressive agenda, much of it inherited from Pitt."
That is what I would like to see as an election result - a coalition of the most able of our politicians putting enmity aside, and working together for the common good of our country, and healing the rifts that have opened up over the last 35 years.

That is quite a good idea ja. Has it ever been sucessfully done ever?

I dont think that it would work with some departments, environment being one of them. The general population are poles apart on some of it.

Education and health might fare better though for example.

dj, why would there be continuing privitisation in that scenario?
[Not sure if you are directly replying to me, so ignore this part of the post if you wish].

I agree with you, jane, about taking too little notice of select committees and expert reports. I sometimes think they are just a way to delay what the government wants to do anyway.
The government even ignores the OBR when it suits, even though they set it up to be independent and tell it off when things went wrong.

The problem with taking the NHS out of party politics is that you have to start somewhere. If they start where it is now, there will be continuing privatisation, and we will be stuck with the biggest reorganisation ever, which the Tories said before the last election that they would not do.

Maybe those in the NHA should set up the committee. They are doctors who say they do not want to be politicians, but feel they have to let the public know what is going on.

jen I meant that policies on the environment and the NHS should be formulated by consensus for the common good, rather than subject to party dogma of either side.
I think Governments take far too little heed of Select Committees and expert reports.
I realise that probably sounds rather naive.

theconversationuk.cmail2.com/t/r-l-abhyud-iudkikukhu-z/

The youth vote could make a difference in lots of constituencies.

I do not understand, janea, how you can think that environmental issues should not be political. If they are not political whose views are the right ones, even on something as basic as fracking and renewable energy?

Bags I agree that environmental issues are political, but, as with the NHS, they shouldn't be, and I think many young people don't make the political connection.

It helps to sell the message I think, rightly or wrongly. And it makes them memorable.

In my opinion, the ja link mirrors what I said about characters in a post above.

I think it is in part due to education today. Education has become, in part, a sausage factory. Spewing out 18 year olds who have all been taught the same.
While I am quite in favour of it to a degree, it does churn out sameness.

When one of my sons went to uni, [I will be vague here deliberately, they all knew precious little about one quite vital aspect of the course, namely weather].
The weather impacts across a whole load of things, but virtually all of them had been taught little in the ciriculum, and thus they were very lacking in the subject generally.
I may have gone off topic a bit, but you can hopefully see where I am coming from, even if I am now struggling!

I dont know if those sent to private school keep to the national ciriculum as well?
But a large number of to be politicians then all go to the same oxford PPE course, if I have got that right? So sameness again.
I think that puts of adult voters and young voters alike.

I certainly dont think "characters" are the be all at all. But it does help in my opinion.

Environmental issues are political issues.

So many young people have themselves lazily decided – and have read biased think-tank and government propaganda that has lead them to believe – that we oldies have stolen their future. Here we are living in the lap of luxury with huge, massively expensive houses that we don't need and they can't afford but do deserve and going on endless cruises so spending their rightful inheritance. Well I say do something about it if that's what you really think. Find out what governments do and become involved with local and national politics to make the world a better place for you now and for your children – the next generation. Quite a lot of we oldies tried very hard to do that and in many ways we succeeded. To my lasting regret, in other ways we failed.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/apr/29/art-students-general-election-posters-alienation-distrust-guardian-witness

Art students' General Election posters gives a clue to their views.
"This is a revealing gallery of a generation’s lack of belief in conventional politics and its need to persuade itself or be persuaded even to vote at all."

Discussing ethics in my understanding is about different ethical principles and how they are applied to different situations. It's not about right or wrong per se. If you ever listen to 'inside the ethics committee' on Radio 4 that illustrate it perfectly.

I think young people generally are perhaps more interested in environmental issues than political ones, and maybe don't recognise any connection. I think the Greens will have a lot of support from that cohort of voters.

Most of our parents were brought up in the shadow of the struggle between fascism and communism in the 30's and lived through WW2.
We had the Cold War, nuclear disarmament and Vietnam.

Today's threats seem to be globalisation and terrorism, and the main political parties are not really differentiated on either of these issues.

I think too that the media have so successfully exposed corruption within politics and discredited politicians generally, that sadly, young people could be forgiven for thinking that the democracy which our parents fought for isn't worth bothering with.

Now on Radio 4 Listeners Election, Young People Don't Vote. For anyone interested. X

When I was a local councillor I was invited, along with one of my 'oppos', to speak to Year 11 students at a comprehensive about the structures of government, local and national. I was staggered by the extent of their ignorance, probably inherited from their parents. They thought that we were MPs! Education about government would at least be a start and before they reach the age of 18, representatives of political parties could be asked to speak about policy and how policies are arrived at and carried out. I understand that before the Independence Referendum, Scottish youngsters, eligible to vote at 16, were given lessons in politics and government. Good idea.

To add to the thoughts - In Australia it is compulsory to vote. Should we go down that route?

Would it result in better education in how Parliament and local government work?

x