21 Comments

• Dave Page 22nd Mar '09 - 11:09am

  Hmm, what’s the source for that?

  And is that a percentage of absolute numbers, or as a percentage of the share of the population? There are quite a lot more over-64s in 2005 then in 1964.

• Mark Pack 22nd Mar '09 - 11:31am

  a. British Election Studies

  b. Figures are as I wrote, i.e. the turnout figure for people under 25 was 45 percentage points higher in 1964 than it was in 2005. If I was talking about shares of the population, I’d have said that instead 🙂

• Oliver Mantell 22nd Mar '09 - 11:53am

  For those not aware of it, this is an interesting report pertinent to the subject: http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/index.php

• Mary Reid 22nd Mar '09 - 12:09pm

  Remind me when the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18?

• Thomas 22nd Mar '09 - 12:22pm

  Late 60s, I think.

• Kevin 22nd Mar '09 - 4:31pm

  Voting age reduced to 18 in 1970.

• Cllr Patrick Smith 22nd Mar '09 - 5:48pm

  Nick Clegg is the only National Party Leader, whom recognises and embraces the `democratic deficit’, as reported to Government, by the Power Commission.

  We need more young candidates, standing in Elections, like Kate Garrett (24), in the Wanstead By-Election (23/4).

• Hywel 22nd Mar '09 - 6:09pm

  Put bluntly:
  Young people don’t vote and they get tuition fees, a lower minimum wage rate and politicians who don’t speak out about the demonisation of young people.

  Pensioners do vote and they got a purely gratuitious extra £60 in January/February

• Nigel Ashton 22nd Mar '09 - 11:36pm

  The Bridgewater by-election in 1969 was the first Parliamentary election in which 18 year olds could vote.

• Dan 23rd Mar '09 - 1:58am

  If you were under 25 in 1964 you would have been born in 1939 or before, which spookily would have made you over 64 in 2005…

  (I assume the 2% reduction in turnout is due to premature death).

• Liam in Preston 23rd Mar '09 - 6:30am

  Yeah I am all in favour of promoting voting turnout among the young, but this “statistics can prove anything” stuff doesn’t help!

• Costigan Quist 23rd Mar '09 - 7:19am

  Dan makes a good point. What are the figures by year/decade of birth?

  If it’s the case that “young people don’t vote, older people do” that that’s a problem, but it’s even worse if people born more recently aren’t voting now and won’t start in the future either.

  However, I think all the figures are skewed by the 2001 and 2005 elections being foregone conclusions – there was little sense that people could make a difference.

  Although we know the reality is that the next GE will be decided by a few thousand floating voters in marginal constituencies; there’ll be a perception that our votes all matter more and I’d expect turnout to go up, especially among the young.

• Mark Pack 23rd Mar '09 - 8:03am

  Dan: yup, it’s quite striking isn’t it?

  Costigan: there is some evidence that for each generation turnout rises as they get older, but at each age band turnout is lower than for the previous generation. But as you say, it is 2001 and 2005 that really saw turnout fall, with only muted evidence of a long term trend before that. That’s what makes turnout at the next election likely to be very significant: has there been a big, permanent shift or will 01 and 05 turn out to have been a blip?

• Huw Dawson 23rd Mar '09 - 9:03am

  On the ground here, I have to say I’m fearing the worst for the youth vote. The internet generation is often banned from talking politics on forums or in their social groups, and very little is being done to solve this problem.

  In short, it appears that a major stigma is arising surrounding politics.

• Kevin 23rd Mar '09 - 9:05am

  The Bridgewater by-election was held on 12 March 1970.

• Anders 23rd Mar '09 - 10:16am

  The internet generation is often banned from talking politics on forums or in their social groups

  That’s an interesting point actually as it relates to something else I’ve been noticing. That is a habit of places to ban anything that is even vaguely related to politics. I will cite two examples:

  1. Churches and community halls that don’t allow political parties to use them for meetings (even private ones).

  2. Public buildings and shops that won’t display posters advertising their local MPs surgeries or stock leaflets showing how to get in touch with them.

  I don’t know whether it is a new thing or not, but my sense is that it is growing. The excuses vary from them not being allowed to look partisan, to them feeling that if they let a mainstream party hire a room then they will also have to let the BNP do it, to them just seeing politics as bad and that they should disassociate themselves from these dishonest trouble-makers.

• Alix Mortimer 23rd Mar '09 - 10:26am

  “The internet generation is often banned from talking politics on forums or in their social groups”

  Seriously?? What’s the rationale given for that?

  Mind you, sometimes a ban on something is the surest way to get people interested in it…

• Nigel Ashton 23rd Mar '09 - 10:29am

  @Kevin – Yes, you’re quite right. But, the voting age was reduced in the 1969 Representation of the People Act.

• Anonymous1 23rd Mar '09 - 11:08am

  “The internet generation is often banned from talking politics on forums or in their social groups.”

  Isn’t there often a ban on politics in old people’s homes?

• David Allen 23rd Mar '09 - 1:22pm

  When they stick me in a home, I’ll probably want politics banned. Imagine being stuck there listening to all those Tories….

  The internet is different. If people want to get away from Huw Dawson talking politics, one click and they’re free!

• sanbikinoraion 23rd Mar '09 - 3:24pm

  Can y’all say “cohort effects”, hm?

  Also, Mark, seriously, explain the carpet thing.