This was always extremely, extremely obvious and transparent. As the article says, the Tories never even really tried to justify it with some other narrative. This kind of legislation passed because neither of the two parties want high election turnout. They both prefer fighting low turnout elections wrestling over the 40+ conservative demographic.
I personally know MPs and people in the Labour party who spent their years in the wilderness, during Corbyn and the last five years of unopposed Tory rule, being flown out to the US by Democrat-linked political think tanks and election orgs to teach them how to pivot to that very model, including (I shit you not) meeting with the Clinton campaign to discuss electoral strategies with them while Trump was in office.
And all parties, like the country in general, fucking hate young people and spend all their effort scoring points with an ever more elderly demographic by shitting on and talking down to the younger generations. The majority of young people have no-one in British politics representing them regardless. Which is why the Tories could openly do things like this. And why it's unlikely Labour will reverse it. Young people are simply not a constituancy that matters.
This kind of legislation passed because neither of the two parties want high election turnout
Sorry what should have been done about it? The tories had a massive majority and labour voted against it and opposed it publicly.
And all parties, like the country in general, fucking hate young people and spend all their effort scoring points with an ever more elderly demographic by shitting on and talking down to the younger generations. The majority of young people have no-one in British politics representing them regardless.
Labour are currently running with lowering the election age to 16, which is surprising but welcome as it's basically guaranteed to happen.
Sorry what should have been done about it? The tories had a massive majority and labour voted against it and opposed it publicly.
You're right, but I intended to write "passed muster". I was talking about in the media and general discussion rather than the vote, but I should have been clearer. It was an obviously incredibly anti-democratic act and we got some light political opposition which, as you said, they knew was inconsequential as the Tories had a whacking great majoirty and a few eye rolls and tutting in medialand before everyone promptly moved on and never brought it up again. As is always the pattern with the UK's ever-rightward conveyor belt of 'new normals'.
Labour are currently running with lowering the election age to 16.
I was somewhat surprised by them pitching this (although it was policy long before this version of the Labour party) but as with so many other pledges and pitches I'll believe it when it's law. I also think that the cynical political calculus is that 'sure, more young people can vote, as we're locking them into a uni-party system where any break from out political orthadoxy is destroyed'. Why worry about young people not voting your way when they have no alternative right?
I broadly agree. If a new party was going to grow, I do think it would need a strong youth bent. While young people may not have the numbers for electoral victory in a two party, one politics state there's impact to made there.
But the main reason I think that is because the stranglehold of the media on British politics is not just cursed, but stronger than anywhere else I've seen personally. And people under 30 are basically the only section of society that aren't completely captured by it and, thanks to growing up online, are more discerning in general when it comes to media and propaganda I think.
This was always extremely, extremely obvious and transparent. As the article says, the Tories never even really tried to justify it with some other narrative. This kind of legislation passed because neither of the two parties want high election turnout. They both prefer fighting low turnout elections wrestling over the 40+ conservative demographic.
I personally know MPs and people in the Labour party who spent their years in the wilderness, during Corbyn and the last five years of unopposed Tory rule, being flown out to the US by Democrat-linked political think tanks and election orgs to teach them how to pivot to that very model, including (I shit you not) meeting with the Clinton campaign to discuss electoral strategies with them while Trump was in office.
And all parties, like the country in general, fucking hate young people and spend all their effort scoring points with an ever more elderly demographic by shitting on and talking down to the younger generations. The majority of young people have no-one in British politics representing them regardless. Which is why the Tories could openly do things like this. And why it's unlikely Labour will reverse it. Young people are simply not a constituancy that matters.
Sorry what should have been done about it? The tories had a massive majority and labour voted against it and opposed it publicly.
Labour are currently running with lowering the election age to 16, which is surprising but welcome as it's basically guaranteed to happen.
I agree with you here.
You're right, but I intended to write "passed muster". I was talking about in the media and general discussion rather than the vote, but I should have been clearer. It was an obviously incredibly anti-democratic act and we got some light political opposition which, as you said, they knew was inconsequential as the Tories had a whacking great majoirty and a few eye rolls and tutting in medialand before everyone promptly moved on and never brought it up again. As is always the pattern with the UK's ever-rightward conveyor belt of 'new normals'.
I was somewhat surprised by them pitching this (although it was policy long before this version of the Labour party) but as with so many other pledges and pitches I'll believe it when it's law. I also think that the cynical political calculus is that 'sure, more young people can vote, as we're locking them into a uni-party system where any break from out political orthadoxy is destroyed'. Why worry about young people not voting your way when they have no alternative right?
And the libs will say "because they don't vote"
Maybe they don't vote because you have nothing to offer them?
IMO a new left party should be a youth party. That's a big untapped group no one is really competing for.
I broadly agree. If a new party was going to grow, I do think it would need a strong youth bent. While young people may not have the numbers for electoral victory in a two party, one politics state there's impact to made there.
But the main reason I think that is because the stranglehold of the media on British politics is not just cursed, but stronger than anywhere else I've seen personally. And people under 30 are basically the only section of society that aren't completely captured by it and, thanks to growing up online, are more discerning in general when it comes to media and propaganda I think.