
We obsess over the angry young men going Reform. But what of the anxious young women going Green?
Sometimes a political backlash doesn't take the shape you expect. Though there are times when it goes off like a firework, as young men's TikTok-fuelled surge of enthusiasm for Nigel Farage did last summer, sometimes it's more of a long, slow burn. The most underexplored form of revolt against mainstream politics right now is the second kind, involving not angry young men lurching rightwards but anxious young women turning, if anything, more sharply left.
Almost a quarter of women aged 18 to 24 voted Green last July, roughly double the number of young men who voted Reform, though predictably it's the latter who have since got all the attention. While the big parties chased avidly after so-called Waitrose women, well-heeled home counties matrons considering defecting from the Tories, they had little to say to their daughters. So it was the Greens who ended up cornering the market in a certain kind of frustrated gen Z voter: typically a middle-class student or graduate in her early 20s, whose conscience is pricked every time she opens Instagram by heartrending images of orphans in Gaza or refugees drowning in the Channel, and who can't understand why nobody seems to care. She's angry about the rampant misogyny of some boys she knew at school, Donald Trump, greedy landlords and a burning planet, and the Greens' more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger social media posts attacking Keir Starmer for choosing welfare cuts over wealth taxes strike a chord.
But deeper down, perhaps, she's angry that despite slogging diligently through school and university and possibly a master's (the Greens do best among the highly educated) she still can't count on a lifestyle like her parents had. For all the girls who put their heads down and worked at school while the boys kicked off and absorbed all the teachers' attention, there may be something grimly familiar about a Labour party that seemingly takes them for granted while bending over backwards to placate noisy Reform voters.
Why isn't this quiet form of female political alienation ringing more alarm bells?
The obvious answer is that there aren't enough of these young women to swing an election, but young Reform-voting men caught the public imagination despite being an even smaller drop in the electoral ocean. And though it would be dangerous to get complacent, detailed research on so-called 'Reform-curious' voters to be published next week by the thinktank Persuasion counters some of the wilder assumptions about gen Z men's politics, finding that while it's true they are more likely than older male voters to think favourably of Farage, they're less likely to actually vote Reform. Strikingly, they're also less likely than middle-aged gen X men now to say that feminism has gone too far. Maybe it's not just schoolboys who should be sat down and made to watch Netflix's Adolescence, as MPs keep arguing, but their fathers. The growing consensus meanwhile among political scientists is that if young men's and women's worldviews are (as polls suggest) becoming ever more starkly polarised, the driving force behind that split is women becoming sharply more liberal, not men becoming radically more rightwing.
Rosie Campbell, professor of politics at King's College London, is one of surprisingly few academics to have dug deeper into younger women's political choices. For a start, it looks as if earlier waves of feminism have been the left's unexpected recruiting sergeant: the historic trend is for women to become more liberal as more of them go to university or move into the labour market, and 57% of British university students are now female. But Campbell's hunch is that young women's radicalisation also has a lot to do with Brexit and its unfolding consequences. Women are noticeably more anti-austerity and pro-remain than men, she points out, which suggests they're likely to have found the past nine years more frustrating.
As the two biggest parties fell over themselves to embrace Brexit and then to rule out big wealth taxes, these women are likely to have been pushed further and further out to the political fringes. Alongside her colleague Rosalind Shorrocks, Campbell traces the start of the Green surge back to a pool of young female voters attracted by Jeremy Corbyn's promise of a 'kinder, gentler politics', who backed Labour in 2017 and then voted Green in the following set of European elections, and are unlikely now to be enthused by Starmer explaining why he no longer believes trans women are women. The final piece of the jigsaw, she suspects, may be social media: are the same algorithms blamed for leading young men down rightwing rabbit holes similarly reinforcing young women's anger at social injustices, by feeding them an endless diet of the content they seem to click on most? If so, the gap between gen Z men and women is likely to grow, with consequences not just for politics but for the lives they may end up living alongside each other.
Perhaps there will never be enough of them to count electorally. Or perhaps their furious idealism will simply fade with age. But the failure even to be curious about what it is young women are trying to say, just because their chosen revolt against the mainstream takes a less aggressive or destructive form than young Reformers', feels profoundly unfair. Sometimes it pays to listen to people sitting quietly at the back, not just the ones screaming in your face.
Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-ICE mayhem explodes in Austin and Dallas as cops confront protesters demanding an end to Trump's deportations
Protesters in two of Texas ' largest cities clashed with police on Monday night to show solidarity with demonstrations in Los Angeles against President Donald Trump 's sweeping deportation raids. As Trump mobilized 700 Marines to deal with the mayhem in LA, tensions quickly escalated in Dallas and Austin at anti-Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) rallies. Dallas police began arresting individuals just before 9pm after they pleaded with protestors to stay off the Margret Hunt Hill Bridge, a busy thoroughfare into downtown filled with cars zooming by. As darkness fell on the city, a line of cops blocked the advance of the protestors who seemed determine to take control of the bridge. Police declared an 'unlawful assembly,' warning more arrests could be coming just before 10pm. It was unclear late Monday how many had been taken into custody. 'That's not protesting. That's vandalism,' Noah Webster posted on X. The gathering was also declared unlawful, and eventually, Austin police deployed tear gas for those who refused to go home and comply with orders. Arrests were made by officers from several agencies who were staged in the area. The agency's arrests of law-abiding migrants, including ones with legal status, have spurred much of the anger behind the nationwide demonstrations. A video of a 52-year-old mother being arrested without a warrant in Westminster, Maryland has gone viral in recent days. The woman, pulled over by ICE agents, asks why she was pulled over and if they have a warrant for her. 'Show us the warrant,' the Salvadoran woman and her daughter plead with the federal agent. 'I'm not going to give you the warrant,' the officer replies. The woman responded by saying she wouldn't exit the car without a warrant, when agents shattered her window, to her daughter's desperate screams. 'You guys cannot take her just because you guys want to,' her daughter yells through tears.' The mother calmly complies with law enforcement, urging her kids to remain calm. ICE protesters covered parts of the federal building in graffiti. Here is what they left. — DASH (@DocumentingATX) June 10, 2025 View this post on Instagram A post shared by 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐚 (@thefuddhist) Her son pleads with officers, claiming his mother is in the middle of a legal immigration process. Arrests that seem to buck every rule of American law enforcement and Constitutionality since Trump took office have angered many across the country. However, President Trump won a second term in the White House in large part due to his campaign promise to carry out the largest deportations in the nation's history. Around 8:30 p.m., Austin Police declared a protest in downtown unlawful assembly and threatened to deploy tear gas if people didn't leave.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘The cartels and clans are ecstatic': How USAID cuts have emboldened Colombia's narcos
US cuts to international aid spending have put Colombia's counter-narcotics operations 'on ice' – a development that experts warn will reenergise the country's notorious cartels. For decades, the US has supported Colombia in its fight against drug trafficking and armed groups through aid spending. Since helping to end the reign of infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar in the 1990s, US defence and intelligence agencies have been instrumental in the country's counter-narcotic operations. Washington has also been instrumental in helping demobilise the leftist FARC rebels since the 2016 peace accord, ushering in a period of relative stability. But now, following the Trump administration's freeze of nearly all funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with changes to US State Department spending, analysts and civil society leaders are sounding the alarm. 'The groups that operate outside of the law – the cartels and the clans – are happy. They're ecstatic, because now they have the freedom to do whatever they want,' said León Valencia, director of the Bogotá-based Peace and Reconciliation Foundation. The US State Department has funded major counternarcotics operations in Colombia for years, but when president Donald Trump froze State Department spending in January, the vast majority were immediately halted. 'The entire fleet of Black Hawk helicopters was basically grounded; police units supported and trained by the US were disbanded; and programmes that were building capacity to investigate cases were all just put on ice,' said Elizabeth Dickinson, an analyst at the International Crisis Group. 'It had really wild effects.' Although most of these programmes have resumed under provisional 30-day waivers, Ms Dickinson warned that activities beyond daily maintenance are limited. 'Imagine the uncertainty that comes from knowing that you only have 30 days of funding guaranteed. Anything that's beyond the day-to-day treading water in these counter-narcotic operations is essentially on pause,' she said. 'They're not investing in new programmes, or undertaking new investigations.' The USAID cuts have also been 'catastrophic,' Ms Dickinson, and a dozen other experts and civil society leaders, told The Telegraph. In recent years, Colombia received around $440 million annually in USAID assistance for more than 80 programmes, making it the largest recipient of the agency's funds in the western hemisphere, according to US government data. While most of the programmes are not directly related to counter-narcotics, USAID-backed initiatives have helped stabilise regions still affected by armed conflict. They have created opportunities for young people at risk of recruitment by criminal gangs, supported farmers transitioning away from coca cultivation and aided the reintegration of former combatants into society. Now that funding has ceased. Ms Dickinson said that overnight the humanitarian system here in Colombia lost 70 per cent of its financing. An official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisals, said that more than 50 USAID-funded programmes across the country have already been shuttered. 'It has had a big and deep effect in the most vulnerable territories,' he said. 'You can't imagine the terrible effects happening there.' Officials warn the cuts also endanger the implementation of the peace accord with the leftist FARC rebels. FARC fought the government for more than five decades before most rebels laid down their weapons in 2016. While the deal did not end the conflict entirely, it ushered in a fragile peace. Between 2017 and 2023, the US provided $1.5 billion in support of the deal. 'I think it will create more risk of violence and more vulnerability,' said Luis Gilberto Murillo, Colombia's former foreign minister and current lawmaker, in an interview with Reuters. Colombia's conflict began in the 1960s amid demands for land reform, with rebels promising to redistribute land and wealth concentrated among a small elite. As part of the 2016 accord, the government pledged to grant formal ownership to poor farmers willing to stop cultivating coca. Since then, the funding has helped the government map millions of acres in conflict-afflicted territories. But that work is now on hold, according to an anonymous source within the USAID land programme. 'In terms of drug policy, we managed to positively impact the issue from a territorial, transformational perspective,' he said. 'If farmers own their land, they hardly want to risk losing it by planting illicit crops, and if it's done on a massive scale, it becomes more sustainable in the fight against this phenomenon.' Mr Valencia added that the funding cuts have 'rendered it impossible to fulfil the peace agreement,' while Ms Dickinson said there is 'no one who will step into this gap', meaning key parts of the deal 'will not be implemented'. The cuts also come amid a surge in violence between armed groups, which saw tens of thousands of people displaced earlier this year and left more than 100 dead. Colombia is currently grappling with eight separate armed conflicts, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which recently described the situation as its worst humanitarian crisis since the 2016 peace accord. Overall, the 60-year conflict has killed at least 450,000 people; cocaine production and trafficking remain the main drivers of the ongoing violence. But others argue that the US should not be funding programmes or public employees in Colombia at all. 'Trump is right,' President Gustavo Petro said in a televised address earlier this year, where he also characterised US foreign aid as poison. 'Take your money.' Some also question whether the cuts will meaningfully impact drug trafficking, arguing that the US-led war on drugs has already failed, with consumption and cultivation at record highs. Isabel Pereira, a drug policy expert at Colombia-based research organisation DeJusticia, said that such programmes 'will never be enough' to stop drug trafficking. 'Coca as a cash crop will always be more profitable than any other crop,' she said. If the programmes had been successful, she argued, 'we wouldn't be in a situation today where we are at the highest number of hectares grown in Colombia.' 'I don't think it will have much of a differential effect because the fact of the matter is that the drug markets are always thriving,' Ms Pereira added. Although the high profile excesses associated with narcos like Mr Escobar are less prominent. Coca cultivation in Colombia has quadrupled over the last decade, while global cocaine production doubled. Drug use has also grown steadily, with the UN noting in 2024 that 292 million people worldwide reported having consumed narcotics in the previous year. The Colombian government, led by the country's first leftist president, Mr Petro, has already acted to reform drug policy. In October 2023, it launched a new national drug policy that aims to shift the narrative around psychoactive substances – focusing on rural development, reducing coca crops, and helping small farmers transition to the legal economy. In February, Mr Petro said that cocaine is 'not worse than whisky' and said that, like whisky, it should be legalised. 'If somebody wants peace, the business [of drug trafficking] has to be dismantled,' Mr Petro said. 'It could be easily dismantled if they legalised cocaine in the world. It would be sold like wine.' In March, Colombia went further, leading a landmark resolution at the UN commission on narcotic drugs, calling for reforms to the existing 60-year-old drug control system. 'The global drug regime has failed to deliver, period,' said Laura Gil, Colombia's ambassador-at-large for global drug policy, speaking on the sidelines of the Harm Reduction International conference. 'In my country, it has meant the fuelling of the internal armed conflict, it has meant thousands of deaths, and it has meant the stigma we carry as Colombians all over the world.' Catherine Cook of Harm Reduction International said US funding had long given Washington an 'element of control' over Colombia's drug policy. 'This is a moment for countries to be able to take back control and decide what they want to prioritise,' she said. Ms Dickinson agreed that drug policies have caused a 'very perverse fallout', but warned that cutting funding overnight 'empowers the criminal groups who are profiting from this business.' The USAID land programme source also acknowledged that 'not everything was perfect with USAID,' but countered that, on balance, 'more good' happened than bad. Mr Valencia, meanwhile, argued that the US's abrupt decision, if nothing else, amounted to a betrayal of its responsibilities. 'The US operation is an obligation. It is not a gift – the US is the main party responsible for consumption and the persecution of our poorest people,' he said. 'These funding cuts hurt efforts to repress trafficking, and the growers that no longer have support from the programmes. They are waiving all liability, and it is a great injustice.'


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.