Why are the young people supporting the Lib Dems?

Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

04 May 2010, 5:09 pm

As the title says, a lot of young people are now supporting the Lib Dems. Someone in one of my classes told me that they want to legalise weed, so that could be a reason, but are there anymore (in your opinions)?



skysaw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 645
Location: England

04 May 2010, 5:30 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
As the title says, a lot of young people are now supporting the Lib Dems. Someone in one of my classes told me that they want to legalise weed, so that could be a reason, but are there anymore (in your opinions)?


Probably not. In my opinion, a policy to legalize weed is all it would take to secure the votes of several thousands of naive 18 year olds.
The Lib Dems also want to reduce the voting age to 16.



zero_effect
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

04 May 2010, 5:46 pm

republicants seem too much like the old breed. they arent in touch with what people today need or want



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

04 May 2010, 6:23 pm

I'm not a British subject, but it's probably because they're a relatively "fresh" party in the sense that they've been the third party for years and years, so the Liberal Democrats can take bold policy positions that are refreshing, and change often resonates strongest with the young (see also Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2008).



Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

04 May 2010, 6:57 pm

Why are the old people supporting the con reps?


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 May 2010, 7:24 pm

Eggman wrote:
Why are the old people supporting the con reps?


This is UK politics.

I'm young and a UKIP supporter so not all people who are young and foolish support leftist parties.

Quite a lot of young people vote Green or BNP instead of Labour.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 May 2010, 8:22 pm

Because young people tend to be more liberal and more also more willing to go against the "established" party organizations, ignoring the tradition of voting for one of two parties.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

04 May 2010, 9:03 pm

Because the British youth, like youth across the globe, tend to be more secular and socially liberal than their parents. The Liberal Democrats are the most secular party in Britian (their leader is an atheist), the most socially liberal (they plan on going beyond Labour when it comes to combating homophobia in schools and are the least xenophobic and most Europeanist of the parties), and have a leader who relates to the youth.



kissmyarrrtichoke
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 288
Location: Oxford

05 May 2010, 7:28 am

Nick Clegg came to my university and based his talk on young people, enforcing that he will scrap tuition fees. That is a big YES for students like me, though it may not benefit me personally. I personally dislike all parties because they say things to brainwash us that they haven't thought through and can't carry out, but to me Nick Clegg seems the most sensible and less interested in telling everyone how rubbish his opposition is than Cameron and Brown. Cameron especially. All his talks seem to be 'don't vote Labour or Lib Dem' 'if you vote for them _______ will happen which is BAD'


_________________
Spare a talent for an old ex-leper?
Monty Python's Life of Brian


scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

05 May 2010, 7:47 am

hmm my reasons are; they want to lower the voting age to 16, the scrap of tutition fees, strangly the mansion tax aslo (acording to their maifiesto) they have the best education policy and reconise that throwing mony doesnt solve much unless it is directed... and ofcourse the added benifit of not being labour or conservitive oh and im pro europe and imegration..
also left wing.


_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

05 May 2010, 8:56 am

Because young people often lack the cynical edge needed to cut through to what a party is actually about? Also, with our education system in tatters, many young people have no historical perspective. Thus they cannot see through layers of spin. By way of example, the much touted "we haven't been in power in 65 years and look at the mess THEY made of it" line...Accurately, there hasn't been a liberal government since 1915. 65 years ago they were one third of a wartime coalition under Churchill, and for true accuracy the "Liberal Democrats" have only existed since 1988.

It may not be much, but its a detail people seem to be unaware of. A little twist on the actual situation.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

05 May 2010, 11:44 am

Macbeth wrote:
Because young people often lack the cynical edge needed to cut through to what a party is actually about? Also, with our education system in tatters, many young people have no historical perspective. Thus they cannot see through layers of spin. By way of example, the much touted "we haven't been in power in 65 years and look at the mess THEY made of it" line...Accurately, there hasn't been a liberal government since 1915. 65 years ago they were one third of a wartime coalition under Churchill, and for true accuracy the "Liberal Democrats" have only existed since 1988.

It may not be much, but its a detail people seem to be unaware of. A little twist on the actual situation.


for the record labour doesnt exit anymore it is now new labour, itwas more than a name change


_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

05 May 2010, 12:53 pm

The Liberal Democrats were founded in 1988. The beginning was in 1981 when a bunch of senior Labour Party members left the party and founded the Social Democratic Party. Soon they created an alliance with the Liberal Party that took the lead in the polls in 1982. This alliance ran also in 1987 and the parties merged in 1988. One of the founders of the Social Democrats was the cabinet minister who legalised homosexuality in the mid-1960s. So there's a link with the liberalisations of the "swinging 60s" and the Liberal Democrats of today.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

05 May 2010, 1:02 pm

xenon13 wrote:
The Liberal Democrats were founded in 1988. The beginning was in 1981 when a bunch of senior Labour Party members left the party and founded the Social Democratic Party. Soon they created an alliance with the Liberal Party that took the lead in the polls in 1982. This alliance ran also in 1987 and the parties merged in 1988. One of the founders of the Social Democrats was the cabinet minister who legalised homosexuality in the mid-1960s. So there's a link with the liberalisations of the "swinging 60s" and the Liberal Democrats of today.


There is a link that goes back quite far with "liberal" parties in general. The fact that the lib-dems have only really existed these past few years isn't as important IMO as their spurious claims to have "governed" at any point since 1915. It gives the false impression that they have had government experience more recently than is accurate, and also that everything that has happened since the 40s under anyone elses governance has been bad. Neither is true, but a lot of young people seem oblivious to that.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 May 2010, 1:10 pm

zero_effect wrote:
republicants seem too much like the old breed. they arent in touch with what people today need or want


Trust nobody above the age of 35....



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 May 2010, 1:16 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Because young people often lack the cynical edge needed to cut through to what a party is actually about? Also, with our education system in tatters, many young people have no historical perspective. Thus they cannot see through layers of spin. By way of example, the much touted "we haven't been in power in 65 years and look at the mess THEY made of it" line...Accurately, there hasn't been a liberal government since 1915. 65 years ago they were one third of a wartime coalition under Churchill, and for true accuracy the "Liberal Democrats" have only existed since 1988.

It may not be much, but its a detail people seem to be unaware of. A little twist on the actual situation.


I notice that a lot on the forums, that so many people have a disdain for history and are ignorant of it generally. Heck, they claim to love science so much, but all they generally spout off about is evolution and not the cool stuff like chemistry or physics or even more interesting aspects of biology such as the design features of creatures. I think they are related though, they being the love of evolutionary history and the disdain for recorded history. But, IDK, what do you think?