The General Politics Thread v2.0 (AKA the "Labour are Cunts" thread)

[mim731]

Obviously pessimism wins the day for understandable reasons, but when you look at the way Labour under Corbyn in 2017 mobilised a younger voting segment, and if you had a party savvy enough to make the best of the infrastructure around social media to make politics seem engaging there probably is something to be said for the younger voters making a difference. Now, will there be anyone who can actually do that? It's doubtful, but on paper it could be something the right party could weaponize to great effect. God knows it's pretty depressing out there for young people (and everyone who isn't a rich Tory). 

[Carbomb]

It's not likely to be a static thing. These elements interact with each other; for all we know, this reform could create a cultural paradigm shift, not just through encouraging young adults/teens to vote more, but also through enabling development of political education infrastructure in schools; schools will be more likely to offer detailed courses in applied civics and politics than previously, and the voters themselves are more likely to engage in political discourse amongst themselves.

Also, it will be interesting to see just how much the concerns of 16-18 year-olds differs from 18 plus year-olds - what sort of things will influence people while they're still at school (if they are), and still planning for post-school life?

Edited July 17, 2025 by Carbomb
Kevin Ormerod

[BomberPat]

I think lowering the voting age is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually make that generation feel like they can make a difference, and while I'm not that optimistic that it will change things in the long term, I don't think solely extrapolating from existing voting data will tell us much in the short term, because you'd think an entire demographic gaining the right to vote will, at least in the first instance, create a surge in new voters.  

More importantly to me, though, is that it's a taxation/representation point - at 16 or 17 you could be in a job earning enough to pay tax and National Insurance, at which point you should absolutely be eligible to have a say in what that money goes toward.

Carbomb's point is interesting, though, in terms of what political issues will differ between 16 and 18, and to what extent that will inform the agenda. 

[deathrey]

The Citizenship curriculum that was in place under the old Labour curriculum before Gove got his hands on it actually had a lot of politics and applied civics in it. It is definitely still taught in high schools from around Year 8 but provision is incredibly patchy with some schools doing amazing things and others barely covering the basics. It will be interesting to see how this is tackled. 

For what it's worth my old Sixth Formers (2016 - 2020) were pretty split. 50% were very politically engaged and had a fire under them to change things (worth noting it was a very deprived area, in the top 10 of the deprevation index) and the other 50% were split between those who didn't give a flying fuck, those who were already massively jaded that the world would ever have anything positive to offer them and that voting was pointless and then a very very small percentage who essentially believed that voting and being involved in politics was haram (against Islamic teachings - it was not a faith school but was incredibly diverse). 

[Devon Malcolm]

My 18yo and his circle of friends are very politically aware and eager to engage in the voting process. Then again, they're almost all on the autistic and / or LGBTQ+ spectrums so they have a lot more riding on the fuck-ups of this shit government than many young people.

[Carbomb]

Another thought occurs: it will be interesting to see how much impact there is politically from a much larger cohort of people who still strongly believe that things can be changed and have not yet been completely jaded by so-called political realities.

[westlondonmist]

2 hours ago, Chest Rockwell said:

Because the younger people are the less likely they are to turnout to vote. It's a very clear trend we can extrapolate from.

Under 35s are the only ones increasing their % each election though (would be more interesting if we could get last years which had the lowest turnout in decades). If that trend carries on then I could imagine it all equals eventually. Also think it's obvious why Conservatives and Reform are against it, if 50% show up, that's 750,000 votes they will struggle to get. It's obviously enough votes to change an election result.

How Britain voted in the 2024 election | Ipsos

[wordsfromlee]

I heard a lot of vox pops on the radio from people on the street saying things like "I'm not sure if a 16 year old is mature enough to vote for a political party. Do they even really know anything about politics? When I was their age, I sure didn't!" Just because you were thick as pig shit and ignorant to politics when you were 16, doesn't mean it's the same with all 16/17 year olds. A lot of them are probably more in tune with the currently political discourse than you are.

[Carbomb]

Basing it on what people understand and know about politics is not an argument against franchise. There are people of all voting ages who, intentionally or unintentionally, know absolutely fuck-all about politics, how it works, what comprises various political ideologies, and how much it impacts their lives. I knew more at eight years old than some adults will ever know their entire lives. 

The actual argument has always been the same: if you're extending the right to be an adult, and the concomitant obligations contained therein, to people from the age of sixteen, that should include all of those rights, including the franchise. Otherwise it's taxation without representation, which, given how much we apparently gush for American politics in this country, should be considered anathema.

As a socialist, I believe that, if you expect people to produce and generate wealth, they should have a say in how that wealth is disposed of. By the same principle, if you expect people to contribute to society, they should have a say in what happens to that contribution. If we continue to allow adults of 18+ to stay ignorant of politics and not use their say, we should extend that same grace to 16 and 17 year-olds.

[BigJag]

Labour have suspended Dianne Abott, again. She explained fairly eloquently her views on racism. Based on her lived experience and political activism against all forms of racism.

Is the Labour party fucking stupid?

[SuperBacon]

5 minutes ago, BigJag said:

Is the Labour party fucking stupid

Yes.

[deathrey]

Keir 'Enoch Powell' Starmer suspends popular black MP once again after she secures a seat for him. Is that 5 he's suspended this week?

[Fog Dude]

An actual reason to be pessimistic about the voting age change is that in the handful of countries which have already lowered it to either 17 or 16 it hasn't exactly ushered in an era of permanent hard-left rule.

And those results happened without most of the effects that brain rot could have on the next generation thanks to modern social media and AI (although those things can admittedly fool a much older demographic too).

But I do support it in principle regardless of psephological effect.

[WeeAl]

19 hours ago, BigJag said:

Is the Labour party fucking stupid?

The amount of own goals they continue to make is staggering. 

[The King Of Swing]

The party is run by cunts.