logo
Why everything you assumed about young people is wrong

Why everything you assumed about young people is wrong

Telegraph02-04-2025

Generation Z, that enigmatic demographic of men and women born between 1997 and 2012 or so, have been presumed to hold wildly progressive views. In the stereotype of public imagination this is – or has been – a group that will go to the wall for net zero, dump a partner if their views on gender politics give them the 'ick', or leave any job that has the temerity to demand their presence in the office.
Except it may not be true. A growing mass of evidence suggests that far from the leftie snowflake cohort of lore, Gen Z are disparate in their politics and care about the same things older generations do – jobs, houses, security – more than culture wars or social issues.
A landmark report from the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University, published this week, has added to this feeling. Working with the polling company Focaldata, the institute conducted 260 interviews with people aged 18 to 29, using those conversations to inform a 40-question poll of 2,039 young people across the country. Contrary to what may have been expected, it found that Gen Z are more worried about crime than the environment, surprisingly split on the benefits of migration, and focused on jobs, housing and family above all.
'It goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs,' says Eddie Barnes, the director of the John Smith Centre. 'The bottom of that triangle is basics (including food, water, shelter, sleep, housing, health, finances). That's where the younger generation are. This is a generation that has not had much in the way of wage growth, they've had extremely high housing costs, and financial insecurity. Those, not culture war issues, are the top priorities. What do people care about? It's the financial stuff. Crime ranks much more highly than the environment, which was a big surprise.'
When asked what the biggest contributors were to them feeling 'nervous, anxious or on edge', respondents replied: 'financial worries' (37 per cent), 'work pressures' (23 per cent) and 'job security or unemployment' (20 per cent). Climate change languished on 10 per cent. Another question asked: 'When you think about community, which of the following groups or places come to mind?' Some 42 per cent said family, 38 per cent said their 'local town or city', and 36 per cent said their 'friends and social circles'. Gender, by comparison, was only 7 per cent. The 'most important issues facing the UK today' were inflation and the cost of living, health care, housing and crime. Only 20 per cent said climate change and the environment. The figure is down on a global survey from 2019, which found that 41 per cent of young people thought climate change was more pressing than anything else. The poll carried out for the John Smith report did not ask a specific question about the pandemic, but Barnes says it came up in focus groups conducted as part of the research.
'There was a feeling Covid was yet another thing that had damaged young people's upbringing,' he says. 'One young person said, 'We'll never get that time back again.' There wasn't bitterness or anger, but a feeling of lament.'
Whatever the various causes, the result is a generation apparently more hardened to economic reality than millennials. 'Home ownership and the economy are far more important than climate change,' says 25-year-old Oliver Freeston, a Reform councillor from Lincolnshire. 'Climate change is natural, it's been happening for thousands of years. If we have this crazy drive to net zero it's going to bankrupt the country. It's not lowering bills, it's increasing them. For young people it's already tough with stagnating wages and a high tax burden. We don't need it to be made any harder.'
In his constituency, he says, young people echo fears from older generations about excess migration, too. 'People say it's only the older people concerned about migration,' he says. 'I know so many people my age who are becoming politically motivated because they're not happy with the way the high street is changing, how they can't get on the property ladder, how rents are going up, they can't get a GP appointment. This affects young people just as much as it affects older people.' Some 51 per cent of respondents surveyed for the John Smith Centre research agreed immigration has changed their communities for the better, but 32 per cent disagreed. Immigration had more support among better-educated and higher-earning groups, as it does in older generations.
But a concern with economic basics is not confined to young people on the political Right. Saira Banu, also 25 and completing a master's degree at King's College London, contributed to a focus group for the report. Originally from Dubai, she voted Labour at the last election, but agrees the priority for her peers is financial. 'I'm constantly worrying about money because I live in London and it's expensive and there's a housing crisis,' she says. 'I have friends who commute in from Birmingham because they can't afford to live in London. It's a privilege to be able to worry about the climate and culture wars and things like that.'
On politics itself, the survey found that Labour retained a lead, with 30 per cent of respondents saying they would vote for it, but the Greens and Reform were tied in second place, at around 15 per cent each. The Tories would get only 9 per cent of the vote. But more broadly the report found respondents were 'disillusioned with traditional parties' and that Labour and the Conservatives could no longer count on their vote.
'Why are we talking about Gen Z as these hyper-progressive or hyper-regressive people who are super interested in social issues and identity issues, when very clearly their concerns are about cost of living, getting a house and getting a good job?' says James Kanagasooriam, of Focaldata. 'Gen Z is being parsed by other people in a way that isn't, I think, potentially that accurate. [The study] is a great sense check on what is actually important.'
He adds that Gen Z are less homogeneous in their voting intentions than previous generations: 'People who are trying to divine the next generation need to remind themselves that they are not like the generation before them. Prior to the 2019 general election, boomers were almost unilaterally voting for the Right and millennials were unilaterally voting for the Left. It's clear that Gen Z people will go their own way.'
Donald Trump's re-election in the US, helped by a stronger-than-expected performance among young men, had prompted fears that young people in the UK similarly crave a powerful leader. A study commissioned by Channel 4 earlier this year found that 52 per cent of Gen Z thought 'the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with elections'. The John Smith report found that they support democracy by 57 per cent to 27 per cent, but agree that 'democracy in the UK is in trouble' by 63 per cent to 24 per cent.
More generally, the picture painted in the John Smith report is surprisingly sunny. Despite their fears about housing, the cost of living and job insecurity, nearly two thirds of respondents said they felt 'optimistic' about their own futures, although again this figure skewed higher among those with higher levels of education and income.
Barnes, who was formerly the head of strategy for Ruth Davidson, the ex-leader of the Scottish Conservatives, says that the report points to a simple path to improving trust in politics. 'To show that politics is working it's pretty simple,' he says. 'Build more houses, get an economy growing. That's the big message coming from this poll.
'There has been a lot of doom and gloom about Gen Z, and that 'oh, God, it's going to hell',' he adds. 'But perhaps we should be wary of catastrophising them when they seem to be broadly positive about the country.' With a yawning pensions deficit and a murky economic outlook, Britain's ageing population is counting on Gen Z to provide for them. It is lucky that the kids seem – perhaps surprisingly – all right.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes
Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

Glasgow Times

time2 hours ago

  • Glasgow Times

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. He will return on Wednesday to face questions specifically about the adult social care sector. In a previous appearance before the inquiry he admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one and insisted he understands the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously branded this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Former health secretary Matt Hancock has given evidence to the Covid inquiry multiple times (Jordan Pettitt/PA) A lawyer for the families from the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) campaign group described Mr Hancock's appearance as a 'seminal moment of the Covid inquiry that many of our clients have been waiting for'. Nicola Brook, from Broudie Jackson Canter which represents more than 7,000 families from CBFFJ, said: 'While Mr Hancock has given evidence to the inquiry before, this is the first time that he has been called early in a module, meaning he won't be able to simply respond to others' evidence. 'I only hope that he tells the truth about what he knew about the decision to discharge Covid-infected patients into care homes, which was the biggest scandal of the whole pandemic. Only then will our clients be able to get some form of closure.' From Monday, module six of the inquiry will look at the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Among the issues to be examined will be decisions made by the UK Government and devolved administrations on moving people from hospitals into adult care and residential homes in the early stages of the pandemic. The module will also consider how the pandemic was managed in care and residential homes, including infection prevention and control measures, testing for the virus, the availability and adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the restrictions on access to such locations by healthcare professionals and loved ones. Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said many older people in care homes 'had a truly terrible time during the pandemic'. She added: 'Those older people who survived and are still with us, and their families, have waited a long time for the pandemic inquiry to focus on their experiences but now their turn has finally come, so it's a big moment for them and for the inquiry too.' The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman, Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. They said: 'Without those who were responsible for critical policies like discharging untested hospital patients into care homes, the inquiry cannot deliver a full or credible account of what happened.' They insisted the module must be 'a turning point' rather than 'an afterthought'. 'What happened in the care sector during the pandemic is a national scar. To fail to learn the right lessons now would compound the injustice and place future lives at risk,' they added. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes
Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

South Wales Argus

time2 hours ago

  • South Wales Argus

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. He will return on Wednesday to face questions specifically about the adult social care sector. In a previous appearance before the inquiry he admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one and insisted he understands the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously branded this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Former health secretary Matt Hancock has given evidence to the Covid inquiry multiple times (Jordan Pettitt/PA) A lawyer for the families from the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) campaign group described Mr Hancock's appearance as a 'seminal moment of the Covid inquiry that many of our clients have been waiting for'. Nicola Brook, from Broudie Jackson Canter which represents more than 7,000 families from CBFFJ, said: 'While Mr Hancock has given evidence to the inquiry before, this is the first time that he has been called early in a module, meaning he won't be able to simply respond to others' evidence. 'I only hope that he tells the truth about what he knew about the decision to discharge Covid-infected patients into care homes, which was the biggest scandal of the whole pandemic. Only then will our clients be able to get some form of closure.' From Monday, module six of the inquiry will look at the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Among the issues to be examined will be decisions made by the UK Government and devolved administrations on moving people from hospitals into adult care and residential homes in the early stages of the pandemic. The module will also consider how the pandemic was managed in care and residential homes, including infection prevention and control measures, testing for the virus, the availability and adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the restrictions on access to such locations by healthcare professionals and loved ones. Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said many older people in care homes 'had a truly terrible time during the pandemic'. She added: 'Those older people who survived and are still with us, and their families, have waited a long time for the pandemic inquiry to focus on their experiences but now their turn has finally come, so it's a big moment for them and for the inquiry too.' The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman, Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. They said: 'Without those who were responsible for critical policies like discharging untested hospital patients into care homes, the inquiry cannot deliver a full or credible account of what happened.' They insisted the module must be 'a turning point' rather than 'an afterthought'. 'What happened in the care sector during the pandemic is a national scar. To fail to learn the right lessons now would compound the injustice and place future lives at risk,' they added. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes
Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

North Wales Chronicle

time2 hours ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Matt Hancock back at Covid inquiry for probe into pandemic impact on care homes

Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. He will return on Wednesday to face questions specifically about the adult social care sector. In a previous appearance before the inquiry he admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one and insisted he understands the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously branded this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. A lawyer for the families from the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) campaign group described Mr Hancock's appearance as a 'seminal moment of the Covid inquiry that many of our clients have been waiting for'. Nicola Brook, from Broudie Jackson Canter which represents more than 7,000 families from CBFFJ, said: 'While Mr Hancock has given evidence to the inquiry before, this is the first time that he has been called early in a module, meaning he won't be able to simply respond to others' evidence. 'I only hope that he tells the truth about what he knew about the decision to discharge Covid-infected patients into care homes, which was the biggest scandal of the whole pandemic. Only then will our clients be able to get some form of closure.' From Monday, module six of the inquiry will look at the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Among the issues to be examined will be decisions made by the UK Government and devolved administrations on moving people from hospitals into adult care and residential homes in the early stages of the pandemic. The module will also consider how the pandemic was managed in care and residential homes, including infection prevention and control measures, testing for the virus, the availability and adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the restrictions on access to such locations by healthcare professionals and loved ones. Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said many older people in care homes 'had a truly terrible time during the pandemic'. She added: 'Those older people who survived and are still with us, and their families, have waited a long time for the pandemic inquiry to focus on their experiences but now their turn has finally come, so it's a big moment for them and for the inquiry too.' The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman, Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. They said: 'Without those who were responsible for critical policies like discharging untested hospital patients into care homes, the inquiry cannot deliver a full or credible account of what happened.' They insisted the module must be 'a turning point' rather than 'an afterthought'. 'What happened in the care sector during the pandemic is a national scar. To fail to learn the right lessons now would compound the injustice and place future lives at risk,' they added. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store