´óÏó´«Ã½

This blog has made a very good case for not lowering the voting age to 16, and has gone some way to support the suggestion that the voting age should actually rise to somewhere between 20 and 25...

Well it seems sensible that the youths who can only mouth the tabloids' ill-considered and partisan chant... "money grabbing lies you can't trust them" don't take part in the election and leave it to people who are a little more intelligent and concerned.
You can trust most politicians, (although perhaps not Briers, Hoon or Blairl) they are generally not in it for the money and they too are mainly ensnared by the foolishness of what passes for public opinion. So these non voters shopuld make it that bit less foolish.

all parties attempt to solve all issues only in a different order and different ways

Good grief. Is there any chance that you can explain to Alex Wood that that is the entire point, and that he's supposed to be deciding which party's priorities and ways of solving the problems he most supports, then voting for them?

Honestly - what did he think the election was about if not how to run the country?

I'm concerned that all ´óÏó´«Ã½ stations are being taken over by election fever; like the deadly virus in the first episode of a SF series.

Where do we go to escape it?

R4?

Nope. It got there first.

All of the posts written on the editor's blog about Radio 1 or 1xtra have the same basic presumtion: that young people are dim and and can't cope with news unless it's made incredibly simple or features a celebrity.

Backed up with a few woefully ignorant quotes from the listeners and followed by strings of outraged comments like the one above despairing of anyone under 25, these posts do real damage to people's perceptions of different generations, and normailise an attitude of hostility towards learning in impressionable people.

At 23, the claimed average age of a radio 1 listener, you can be a doctor, army officer, barrister or ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist. I doubt many of these people would struggle to recognise politicians or need a softcore porn star to explain to them how to vote, but I also doubt they'd be listening to Radio 1.

Please stop tarring all young people with the same brush.

ps Would the listeners of 6music have given similar responses?

What makes you think that only 'young' people are disaffected with the politicians and the current political process?

The only real difference I can see is that older people have a sense of doing things like voting out of some sort of idea of it being a 'duty' whereas younger people have no concept of outdated ideas like 'civic duty'

I'm not aware that the older people have any higher regard for the politicians.

The thing is those young people are correct.

We don't elect leaders we elect a group of people who react to what is dictated to them by lobby groups.

Often those lobby groups have the power to take away special privelledges form politicians but also they can and do take away the same privelledges from legitimate government business.

So what is the point? Until we have major radical reform there is no point in voting, whoever gets in will net the same result.

We ened real reform ie:

1. Ban politicans from having any jobs, shares or business interests outside of government.

2. Ban politicians from working for lobby groups whilst in government or after they have left it, punuishable by a prison sentance.

3. Make manifestos legally binding.

4. Make the government develop policy based upon evidence from its own advisors ie: the drugs policy. It should be illegal and impossible for a government to go against scientific fact.

First of all i agree with #1 Boilerplated.

who cares about lying politicians, scandals, similarities of parties etc. people have fought and died for our freedoms and our right to vote - any self respecting woman should vote because of Emmeline Pankhurst alone.

These daft 'young people' should be told that their votes DO matter because those the rich and the older generation vote in large numbers - and they aren't voting for the benefit of 'young people'.

Millions think/say "one vote doesn't matter" but it does! governments are elected by the MINORITY of the population

It's simple - if you don't vote, you don't have a say. If you haven't exercised your opinion in an election you can't saw owt about the government's actions

I be going to for my news

2. At 6:14pm on 07 Apr 2010, nicitak wrote:
Well it seems sensible that the youths who can only mouth the tabloids' ill-considered and partisan chant... "money grabbing lies you can't trust them" don't take part in the election and leave it to people who are a little more intelligent and concerned.
You can trust most politicians, (although perhaps not Briers, Hoon or Blairl) they are generally not in it for the money and they too are mainly ensnared by the foolishness of what passes for public opinion. So these non voters shopuld make it that bit less foolish.

But with the best will in the world, there have been nefarious goings-on among parliamentary members; and it is a culture. Within it is a subculture of misinformation and "obfuscation" to use a popular word these days. Brown is ready and willing to misinform (as he did in the Chilcot Enquiry? and will never answer a question when he might be put on the spot. He retorts by slagging off the Tories. The whole Iraq war thing was based on misinformation.
And there's the misquotation or massaging of statistics, both parties guilty; and many do act in self-interest (particularly regards keeping power).

Yes, there are people in Parliament that can be trusted. I trust my MP; I know him well and he works pretty hard, has no second home allowance, moat or duck-house etc. But in spite of that his vote in Parliament would be in accordance with party whips not his conscience, not without risking censure. So I can't rely on my views being represented anyway.

And then, dished up before us, is this televised "First Election Debate", so staged, prepared and scripted as to be meaningless. No wannabe leader will be put on the spot with contentious questions so it's little better than fiction.

My son (19) will believe nothing of Brown/Clegg/Cameron and absolutely nothing will persuade him to sit before a Radio or TV listening to interviews/debates. He will watch Rory Bremner so he might pick up something there. His aim is to use his vote for a minor candidate who will deal with at least some matters uppermost in his mind.

9. At 2:27pm on 08 Apr 2010, Hyperstar wrote:

"I be going to for my news"

Sorry but I don't understand all this talk about needing to go to some other website for news, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news website still has all the stories that it would normally run, one just needs to dip below the domain level page, for example those in England who wish top avoid the majority of election induced 'cabin fever' need to use , whilst those is the other 'four nations' just need to use their specific default page.

Surely people are not still stuck with the idea that the only way into a website is via the "Home page"?!

I wish we could elect a general....however, I strongly expect we will get a donkey instead!

#1 Boilerplated

Why not lower the voting age down to 5 years old....as kids can now vote for (or pick-n-choose) their teachers these days!

"young listeners are intimidated by some of the basics - how to register to vote?"
make a Utube video of a famous young person and follow them through the process. bobby

The ´óÏó´«Ã½, champions of the classic dumb down.

Take the lowest common denominator and turn it into a one month exercise to find out what elections are, what an 'X' looks like, how to use a pencil, Janet & John's Trip to the Polling Booth, and why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ need you to vote New Labour.

Don't most kids know that stuff already, like when they are acting "big" for their mates? Or are we so dumbed down that we need Lady Gaga to show us what it is all about?

Come on boys and gals, have you got your pencil sharpeners, your GPS, and your ´óÏó´«Ã½ picture book guide to a Polling Station?

16 years old should qualify to vote.
We need proportional representation
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to provide some real impartial coverage instead of just following the LIB-LAB-CON

Jujustate: Yes you could be a doctor, army officer or ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist at 23.
But then you could be working in Tescos, have a PT job in a pub or be unemployed and living on benefits. Yes you are of course right about making judgements but I personally would like to see some demographic information about the 18-25 year olds that are not getting involved. If they fulfil the sterotype of people that do not normally get involved with politics this is all useful as it has been the case for a long time, but if they are the doctors, the army officer and journalists and still not taking part that is a completely different issue and one that needs to be confronted.

#17. opaqueentity

What a intellectual snob you are! What someone does for a lving is irrelevant as to whether they should be voting or not.

Perhaps you'd prefer the old system of only men voting and then only men who are members of the aristocrisy?

There still election stuff on that England page

If you were actually voting for who you wanted to lead the country, I'm sure there'd be a higher turnout. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ (and all the other media) focus almost exclusively on the leaders of the parties only. Even in the local news, the names of the local constituency candidates just don't come up very often. Unless you happen to live in the constituency of any of the party leaders, you are not going to vote for THEM. You are going to vote for some faceless backbench MP who is just a small cog in the machine. If your MP lives in a safe seat, then your vote is pretty much worthless. Only the marginals really matter, and what % of seats are classed as 'marginal'? As such, it's very easy to feel that your vote just doesn't matter, and this leads to voter apathy. Maybe if MPs only had a maximum of two elections, and had to change more often, then people might be persuaded to vote. Maybe PR might be the way forward. Maybe if we voted for a party rather than a local MP at General Elections and counted the number of votes, not seats, it might stimulate interest. Something needs to change. We've had the same old two-horse race for decades now, and as the two main parties converge towards bland centrism, people don't feel the wind of change. The media reward opinionated, shouty, passionate rhetoric (however ignorant it might be), so many young people are put off by the relentlessly dull, on-message, radio-friendly rubbish spouted by too many of the candidates. People lie Neil Kinnock and Margaret Thatcher (whatever you though of them), got people's blood racing. We've got a smooth Eton boy and a dour Scotsman. People aren't being given a reason to care about politics. The fact that MPs from all sides have been caught with their hands in the till doesn't help much either.

When I was younger, students were political activists, protestors, passionate about their causes. Now they're just corporate-spouting battery hens. Little consumer units, smoothed into bland uniformity by an excess of everything. They only care about themselves, and it seems that MPs are much the same. Wheeling out a few 'C' list slebs who pretend to care isn't really going to get anyone away from Facebook or off their Blackberries.

I am extremely disappointed that Vince Cable's excellent words were cut short this morning. We watched ´óÏó´«Ã½ News from 9 onwards and his interview was cut short. We are exposed so much to Tory and Labour comments but so little of Vince. It really is not good enough ´óÏó´«Ã½. Stop being biased. You said you wouldn't and you clearly are showing that you are. I am saying this and I am not a LibDem supporter but many of us are not that stupid to see that the LibDem voice is being closed off whilst we have to listen endlessly to Tory and Labour views. Just in case you are not aware, Vince is about the only person on the political landscape that is saying what a lot of people in this country are thinking. Stop the bias and give them all a fair go.

Why no coverage of the claim in the Times that Labour have been sending scare-mongering pamphlets to cancer patients?

There are many reasons to be engaged in politics. I am a Radio 1 listener and care greatly about the possible direction this country is going. I share a general feeling that I am "just a voter", though. Re. your point of keeping a sense of humour about this, I posted an open letter to Gordon Brown on YouTube - [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

The election is pointless for most voters.

I will give you an example. My local consitutency is North East Derbyshire. Labour won the seat with 49% of the vote in 2005, with the Tories second with 25% and the Liberal democrates with 21%. It is a foregone conclusion that Labour will win. The only chance of them losing would be for all the Lib dems to vote Tory which won't happen, as at least 50% of these voters would prefer labour to Tories.

In addition to this we only have four candidates , the three main parties and UKIP. None of whom I really want to vote for. There is no Green Party member or indeed BNP. I might have wanted to vote for a fringe party, even though they have no chance of winning just to boost their national vote, but can't.

I suspect that after the election someone will say the Greens only attracted 2% of the national vote for example, which may be factually correct, but if in the majority of consistencies you can not vote for them it is misleading. Not really democratic is it.

You also have the stupid situation where the voters of Bedford can not vote for any of the main parties, simply because it is the speakers seat and by convention the main parties never stand against him. How is this democratic when the 100,000 people in this constituency have effectively beeen denied a vote.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Personally I thank those youths for not voting.

Far too many people in this country vote for the wrong reasons. People vote for a party because of their background, who their fathers voted for, what job they work in, a candidate they "like", for a single policy, to make a protest or the very worst reason, just because they think they should.

Very few people actually take the time to consider policies, weight up complete manifestos and make an informed choice of who would be the best people to actualy run the country for the next five years.

Anything that can increase the ratio of the latter against the former is a good thing, even if that means less people oting overall. We should not be campaigning to get young people to vote, those who don't either would still not or are the kind of easily influenced people that we really shouldn't want voting in the first place. Instead we should be incouraging the public as a whole to only vote at all if they understand all policies.

I would love to see a system whereby each voter is asked 10 questions about the parties, candidates and policies and their vote is weighted based on whether they can answer these correctly or not. Anyone with less than 5/10 is discounted as being an uninformed voter.

"The range and depth of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s election coverage is impressive. It's something we ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists are naturally proud of - but for some of our viewers, listeners and readers this is a clear case of overkill."

That obviously doesn't apply to Scotland where there is a growing controversy on how ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland are reporting the election north of the border.

1. There have been allegations of a pro Labour bias.

2. There have been allegations of online censoring of comments critical of Labour.

3. There have been allegations of attempts to close down news stories critical of the Labour party.

4. There have been instances where ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs have been closed down in response to critical newspaper stories of the Labour party deliberating preventing online discussions.

5. There have been allegations that certain ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland reporters are acting in an outwardly partisan way by the friendly manner in which Labour politicians are being interviewed.

Voters in Scotland are mightily 'impressed' by the coverage of this election ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland - the smell is almost overpowering.

27. At 12:16pm on 12 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

"That obviously doesn't apply to Scotland where there is a growing controversy on how ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland are reporting the election north of the border."

So you say but offer no evidence, such as non ´óÏó´«Ã½ media reports, the citation of some URLs might put some 'flesh' on (what for now, can only been seen as) these suggestions of bias.

Also, you might like to comment on how the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s national radio station, Radio 1, has been reporting this election - less your comments are removed (legitimately) for being off topic on this blog...

The radio has always been a great media for mass communication. In fact, in spite of televisions, it is the FM and the radio combined that have kept communication happening while no the go.

So if the "virgin voters" need to be educated or they need to raise their concerns, then they may want to do that by calling into radio sessions, calls retaining their anonymity if they want to, and the answers can be broadcast over the radio shows. That helps the people in general.

And the approach needs to be non-partisan to keep the process clean.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]>Fred

27. At 12:16pm on 12 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:
"The range and depth of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s election coverage is impressive. It's something we ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists are naturally proud of - but for some of our viewers, listeners and readers this is a clear case of overkill."
"That obviously doesn't apply to Scotland where there is a growing controversy on how ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland are reporting the election north of the border."

Boilerplated (Posting #28) asks for evidence, saying none has been presented, there are no links, etc.

Where has he been during the last few weeks? I live in Brazil and I am fully aware of all the issues that minuend is refering to.

There is a very valid case being made here. There seems to me to be significant and multiple issues that would implicate Labour members and officers, but which are not being aired, or are being buried, on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ sites.
I believe the Scots have a very real cause for complaint. There is no 'D Notice' prohibiting the media or its representatives from raising these legitimate issues that could influence voting patterns.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a DUTY; it is not acting even-handedly.

Many people say their vote does not make a difference.

With so much disillusionment with recent government, bear in mind that only 61.3% of those eligible to vote turned out in 2005. If all those 38.7% who abstained (or were too apathetic) join those who vote Liberal Democrat, surely this would ensure that neither Labour nor Conservatives would "win".

What a message this would give - and with so many people of all allegiances admiring Vince Cable, it must be a worthwhile gamble!

@#22, I watched plenty of coverage on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ on Sunday morning about the cancer leaflet issue ... election campaigns just move too quickly for something like that to stay headlines for more than a day or so. Not to mention that if you really think about it, it is a nothing story.

I haven't seen the leaflet in question so cannot comment on its contents, but the reality appears to be that this leaflet was sent to a cross section of people (250,000?), some of whom it turned out were cancer patients themselves ... not that cancer patients were specifically targetted as opposition parties claim.

This put the Labour party in a no-win situation. As it is they are hauled over the coals because some cancer patients received it, but imagine the uproar if any political party was to use confidential patient data to target mailings at (or away from) certain classes of patient. They would rightly be condemned for gross misuse of data.

Perhaps that is why (in spite of the best efforts of William Hague, and others) the story is no longer headline news?

#30. At 9:57pm on 13 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

"Boilerplated (Posting #28) asks for evidence, saying none has been presented, there are no links, etc.

Where has he been during the last few weeks? I live in Brazil and I am fully aware of all the issues that minuend is refering to.

There is a very valid case being made here..//.."

But you can't support your claims, still no citations, either there is evidence of such bias or there isn't, in other words, no one has made an official complaint, only those who chose to 'snipe' from the side lines, so either put up or shut up...

I appreciate the 'Woody' quotation "in the long run all parties attempt to solve all issues only in a different order and different ways." The only answer to this is "Duh!" Does he want the problems solved in the same way and in the same order by everyone? If it was that simple and we all knew the one way to solve them they wouldn't be problems!
Again an indication of the 'intelligence' of the facebook generation.

I'm 19 now, 20 in November, would my opinions change so much by then that I would be infinitely wiser?
You can define people by their age, their occupation, their education and the place that they live and even the radio they listen to. But you can't judge them on anything other than the choices they make.
If someone's uninformed, inform them. If someone's confused, help them understand. If someone's not interested, get them interested.
And isn't that the aim of the ´óÏó´«Ã½?

If I wrote this on facebook, would it be different?

Have I been missing something but isn't there more that three parties in this election, why are we not hearing from UKIP and the BNP
This broadcast is a little biast

There are only the main three parties what about the rest.
This is not democracy

We have a blog here who does not allow free speach

If someone's not interested, get them interested.

---------------

If someone is not interested then they will never be informed, better for them to NOT vote.

Rod McK says

"The range and depth of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s election coverage is impressive. It's something we ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists are naturally proud of - but for some of our viewers, listeners and readers this is a clear case of overkill."

Which nicely exemplifies just how arrogant the ´óÏó´«Ã½ really is.

The coverage isn't 'impressive', it's tedious. Not quite as tedious as the US coverage, but tedious nonetheless.

The only thing that's 'impressive' about it is the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ fails to hide its anti-Tory pro-LibDem bias.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ obviously should cover the election, but it should be more questioning of all the parties.

And to be half as good a news reporting organisation as it thinks it is, it really should start doing more coverage of countries other than the UK and the US.

In all the coverage of the other 'big story', the volcanic cloud, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has barely mentioned the French railway strikes. The railway network of our nearest and dearest neighbour, one of the most important countries in Europe, has been on strike for a fortnight, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't mention it. At the very least, it's made getting home from Europe a lot more difficult, so it should feature in the volcano coverage.

But even without that, it's a significant event affecting a significant, near, European country, but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ fails to mention it.

"Well it seems sensible that the youths who can only mouth the tabloids' ill-considered and partisan chant... "money grabbing lies you can't trust them" don't take part in the election and leave it to people who are a little more intelligent and concerned. "

And you're going to base being "more intelligent and concerned" on age??

Good luck with that! LOL

"I'm 19 now, 20 in November, would my opinions change so much by then that I would be infinitely wiser?
You can define people by their age, their occupation, their education and the place that they live and even the radio they listen to. But you can't judge them on anything other than the choices they make.
If someone's uninformed, inform them. If someone's confused, help them understand. If someone's not interested, get them interested.
And isn't that the aim of the ´óÏó´«Ã½?"

Very true. My political views now, at age 45, are actually very similar to what they were at age 19. However, I went through a number of stages in my late 20s and early-mid 30s in which I convinced myself that I didn't, shouldn't, or would be better off not having those views, before coming full circle back to where I started and realising "OK, fair enough - I was right all along. THIS is what I believe".

There is a problem though - generally, people don't want to be informed, or helped to understand. Largely because they think they know more than you do and/or because they think you're just being a smart ass.

Of course if you very slowly drip-feed it into them on a daily basis without them realising it, you can make them think and believe anything (why do you think they have free tabloids for people to read on the train every day?)

If you don't vote then you should shut up. I am in favour of compelling voters to return their cards in person and they may then spoil the paper if they wish but should not be allowed to opt out and then whinge for four years.

Yes, it's very undemocratic that at 16yrs of age you:

Pay tax and NI if working, but not allowed to vote?
Start a business, but not allowed to vote?
Thrown out of social services or other hostel care, but not allowed to vote?
Be an unpaid carer, but not allowed to vote?

Well, the list is endless and indicative of attitude of government and ALL politicians and ALL political parties, who purport to care about law-abiding, working and caring teenagers? Apologies if any of the above was incorrect?

#44. At 11:55am on 24 Apr 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:

"Yes, it's very undemocratic that at 16yrs of age you:

Pay tax and NI if working, but not allowed to vote?
Start a business, but not allowed to vote?
Thrown out of social services or other hostel care, but not allowed to vote?
Be an unpaid carer, but not allowed to vote?"

Why is any of that undemocratic, it would be undemocratic if some (in exactly the same circumstances) paid tax and others didn't, that some were allowed to start businesses but others not, if only thin people were kicked out of care, if some (like for like) carers were paid but not others etc.

It's totally democratic that all 16 and 17 year old people can't do certain things, it is only undemocratic is some can and others can't.

What an embarrassment that our first-time voters are "intimidated" by the ballot box. This is just another example of how our education system is failing young people. How can they go through 13 years of education and not know anything about how a democracy works? What has our society come to when we're getting glamour models to explain politics to youngsters? I'd like to think that they're worth more than that.

The Big Unanswered Questions

Labour says they're the only party, who can save Britain from calamity. And state the other two parties want to make cuts to essential services. But in reality they keep using tactics of scare mongering, as in fact the others haven't explicity stated that's what they're do. In fact instead they aim to cut Labour's waste, and policies of tax and spend, spend, spend ....

The Lib Dems talk about making society fair for all. But should we allow Labour five more years, to put their record straight? How much longer do they want? Wasn’t thirteen years enough? To be honest Labour's track record, speaks for itself:

The economy

Is it fair our earnings and savings are taxed again and again?

Is it fair our pensions are no longer linked to inflation?

Is it fair to give with one hand and take massively with the other?

Is it fair to allow the few who do little, to take money away from key services?

At a time when large sways of the population, find it hard to make ends meet. Is it fair to tax earnings of every penny in the pound?

Is it fair that there should be a blanket allowance for all children, irrespective of wealth or earnings?

Is it fair bankers still earn bonuses and banks are making profits, when they still owe at least a trillion pounds to the tax payers and even still companies struggle to gain liquidity?

Is it fair that the gap between the rich and poor has widened disproportionately in the last 13 years?

Is it fair people should have to work until they die?


Education and Health

Is it fair there is now a post code lottery in health and education?

Is it fair to spend a large proportion of your childhood in education, and even after gaining qualifications, by the end have little chance of obtaining employment?

Is it fair once you have gone past a certain age, you lose all entitlement to rights of funding or access to job networks?

Is it fair to put all children irrespective of ability, into mixed and mainstream education?

Is it fair to close the only school in an area? Meaning parents and their children have to travel long distances, and that's before starting work, lessons or homework.

To help those with special educational needs. Is it fair to close facilities that help them stand on their own two feet with minimal dependencies?

Is it fair to enable a good school to take over a so called failing one?

Is it fair for ambulances, in an emergency, to have to go to the next large town?

Is it fair to burden functioning hospitals, with the services of more than one area?

Is it fair for patients who suffer from acute conditions, to have to travel large distances to see a specialist?

Is it fair to leave patients in beds without being cleaned?

Is it fair to leave wards empty?


Housing

Is it fair that local people, who have lived in an area all their life, cannot afford to buy a house, when others who spend little time in the area can?

When there is a dire shortage of cheap and affordable housing. Is it fair to give the right to buy council homes, to people who could afford alternative housing?


Manifesto

Is it fair to provide the very policies so far undelivered as new?

Is it fair for politicians to prevent journalists, on our behalf, from asking questions that matter?

My son is in Australia on an university exchange course and he has been following the election very closely via your website. What he wrote today is one of the main reasons people are so disheartened with voting.

quote 'I now doubt i will vote liberal due to clegg, the slight idiot, saying he will support labour if brown is not in charge. Although on the face of this it sounds good we will then get an unknown prime minster who we did not vote for and a coalition who at elections will be unkown. Thereofre this election is rubbish and i am glad i am not voting. Hope it goes to the split and another one needs to be called in a couple of months. I looked up the primeministal debates... Also have a look at the ukrane debate. thats how a parliament should be run!!!' unquote