EXCLUSIVE Votes at 16? We can't even pick Keir Starmer out of a line-up! Teens are wary of voting at next General Election - but they do know who Nigel Farage is
Sir Keir Starmer announced plans on Wednesday to lower the England's voting age from 18 to 16, which could see around 1.5million more teens able to cast their vote when the nation next heads to the polls.
The move, a manifesto pledge from the party, has been criticised as a cynical ploy since a large proportion of young voters support Labour.
But, opposition parties may be able to blow a sigh of relief after MailOnline went out and quizzed prospective teen voters on their knowledge of the UK political landscape - with some shocking results.
While a majority of the teenagers interviewed were able to tell us the Prime Minister's name, some didn't know who he was when shown an image of him.
Even worse for Labour, even fewer were able to name the deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner or Chancellor Rachel Reeves when shown pictures of them.
But it's not necessarily good news for the Tories - just two were able to identify Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Instead, it was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage who came out on top - with an overwhelming number of youngsters able to identify who he was when shown a picture of him.
MailOnline visited the streets of Newcastle and Cambridge earlier this week to find out how much prospective teen votes know about the figureheads of UK politics.
The youngsters were shown pictures of Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey, Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner.
In Newcastle, Nigel Farage was the most recognisable with four out five teens able to name him.
Dominic Carlyle, 13, from Jarrow, South Tyneside, knew both Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage from their pictures.
He said: 'Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I don't know who the leader of the opposition is.
'I thought it was Rishi Sunak. I've seen Ed Davey before but I don't know who he is.
'I would bring in laws to stop smoking. I want to completely get rid of cigarettes. I would tax them more to get rid of them.
'There isn't anything else that I would want to change and I don't have an interest in any specific areas in politics.
'I will be voting when I'm over 16. Some 16-year-olds don't know much about politics so won't be able to use their vote properly.
'Schools should be teaching us more about politics. We never really get taught about it, it's only older children in sixth form who choose to study it.'
Olive Irving, 14, from Gateshead, wasn't able to name any of the politicians pictured. She said: 'If I could introduce a policy, I would make school holidays longer.
'I'm not really into politics, but I know that Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister.
'I barely know any politicians. I know their names, but not their faces. I know Farage's name as well as Ed Davey's name.
'I know who the chancellor is because my mam showed me a picture of her crying in the Commons.
'People thought she was going to get fired and she started crying about it.
'A lot of kids will vote for who their friends want to vote for or they won't actually look into politics and vote for who they like the look of.
'I will use my vote but I will look at their policies and do my own research.
'We are taught useless things in school that we won't need in ten years, like algebra, instead of proper things like politics.
'I'm never going to use algebra so I don't know why we're taught that.'
Eloise Lincoln, 14, from Newcastle, correctly identified Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage and Ed Davey. She said: 'I would want the government to introduce more policies about the environment such as lowering emissions.
'Lowering the voting age could be a good policy but there are a lot of younger people who are influenced by the internet.
'They may not actually know much about politics but go off what they see online.
'They should teach us more in schools if they are lowering the voting age. I would use my vote at 16 but I would do my research.'
Olivia Connon, 15, from Newcastle, correctly identified Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch. She said: 'I know a bit about politics but not enough.
'I would vote if I was 16 but you have to investigate first about what the policies are.
'I met Rishi Sunak once, we talked about ice cream but he said his favourite flavour was vanilla, which is boring. He didn't get any syrups or flakes in it.
'I know that Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I didn't know that Kemi Badenoch was the leader of the Conservatives.
'I don't know much about current policies but if I could bring one law in it would be something to help people have more access to healthcare, as we need more funding in the NHS.
'If the voting age was lowered now it wouldn't be very good because people wouldn't know what they were doing. We need more education on politics.'
Megan Wilson, 15, from Gateshead, correctly named Nigel Farage in the picture quiz.
She said: 'The voting age should be 18, 16 is too low. People would make stupid decisions or waste their vote.
'There isn't enough education about politics in schools. You only go over it once or twice so you don't learn it properly.
'I turn 16 early into the school year, I'm one of the oldest in my class so I would be voting while doing GCSEs.
'When you're 18, you know a lot more about the world and probably have a job or have been through college. You have more life experience.
'All my friends think it's a stupid decision to lower it because there are already debates about people voting at the age of 18.
'I don't know much about tax or policies. I know we pay tax but that's it.
'My mam votes but I wouldn't, even if the age is being lowered to 16.
'Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister but I don't know who the leader of the opposition is. I don't know much about current policies but if I could bring in legislation I would want to split the six weeks holidays up.
'It's too long, I get bored half way through. I would want four weeks and then another two somewhere else in the year.'
Meanwhile in Cambridge, MailOnline spoke to several 16 and 17 year olds, who despite being older than those interviewed in Newcastle, were only marginally more knowledgeable of the UK's political leaders.
Only one person was able to identify who the leader of the opposition was (Kemi Badenoch), with two people thinking it was the former Home Secretary Priti Patel.
But, much to the Prime Minister's relief, all of the people interviewed were able to identify Keir Starmer.
College student Charlotte Templar, 17, is a Green Party campaigner and was for the voting age being lowered.
She said: 'The main argument against it is that 16-year-olds aren't informed enough to vote but that can be applied for people aged 18/20/22.
'You are affected by all things at that age and it will make more people want to vote and it will help move away from older people having all the power to make decisions that will affect younger people for longer.
'I feel like I'm old enough to vote and it has been proven in Scotland that it does work.
'Everyone should know what the parties stand for - it should be the school and the parent's responsibility.
'Some might say young people will do 'joke' votes [where they vote for a party unseriously because they think it is funny] but I don't think it would be a large enough amount of people to make a difference. No one says that about university students.'
Jack, 17, said he thought his generation was the 'most politically aware'.
He said: 'Realistically 16-year-olds are capable for making a choice like any other eighteen or nineteen year olds.
'If a 50-year-old man votes for Nigel Farage because he thinks he's funny then there shouldn't be a discussion as to whether sixteen-year-olds are mature enough or not.'
Zosia, 17, said she was worried about 'joke' voting. She said: 'People will make 'joke' votes for parties like Reform. They could be under the influence of adults around them or their friends.
'At 18, you're only just beginning to experience your life like you are at 16.'
Mikayla, 17, added: 'I think people are going to be influenced by social media and who their friends are voting for.'
Chloe, 17, said she agreed the voting age should be lowered.
The A-Level politics student said: 'You can pay tax and get married - the only difference really at 18 is that you can buy alcohol.
'Politics isn't really taught in school in as much depth as it should be.
'Hopefully it would make people more interested in politics and understand why it matters to them.'
Friend Hannah, also 17, said: 'The general election affects everyone who is 16.
'I'd like to see them focus more on the environment - it always come second to most things.'
Sophie McArthur, 17, said she didn't think lowering the voting age was a good thing.
The college student said she was worried about boys in particular being influenced online and how other people's views could affect them.
She said: 'Young people are influenced by the media and there are certain sides of TikTok which can not be a very good thing for people who are impressionable or not mature enough.
'I know people who like Charlie Kirk - these are boys who are like "red pill". It makes you worry about the decisions they'll make if they could vote and who for.'
Charlie Kirk is an American political activist who rose to prominence as the founder of Turning Point USA - a ring-wing student organisation aligned with Donald Trump - and spoke at the Cambridge Union in May.
Gabriella Giussali, also 17, agreed. She said: 'Some people are too young to form that opinion and be able to vote. There are a lot of people who understand politics and lots of people who don't.'
Lucia Browne, 17, said she wasn't 'confident' people at her age would make the 'right' decision.
She said: 'Social media means a lot of people are influenced and I think there's a different across the country as to how young people will vote.
'You only pay national insurance at 16 so you don't really know a lot about how things work. We're not at the age where we should be dictating government policy.'
Julia, 18, visiting from Sweden said: 'I don't think it's a good idea. In Sweden it is 18 and you get more into politics as you get older, meet more people. When you work, you begin to understand people.
'It is too big of a power for a young age. I'd raise it to 20.'
Sylwester, 16, also from Sweden added: 'People aren't experienced enough. I'd say 18 is the best age.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
10 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US is close to reaching a trade deal with China
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday his administration was close to reaching a trade deal with China, but gave no other details. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Remembering victims of historical injustice
Campaigners are right to say that the miners' strike, which saw the violent repression of strikers at Orgreave in 1984, remains an enduring source of injustice (Government launches Orgreave inquiry, 40 years after clashes at miners' strike, 20 July). And Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield, who is to chair the Orgreave inquiry, is right to recognise that the acknowledgment of truth is essential for long-term community healing. Sadly, Orgreave is not the only example of where truth and justice have been forsaken when excessive violence has been used against people on strike. Two hundred years ago, on 3 August 1825, six people were seriously wounded and seven killed by soldiers at North Sands, Sunderland, during the 1825 seamen's strike. The killings were met with anger and outrage, with many local people believing that those who died had been wilfully murdered. Soldiers had fired like target practice into a crowd of 100 from a boat on the River Wear. The threat posed by the crowd, made up of a combination of women, children, strikers, workers and bystanders, was greatly exaggerated. The only inquiries were two short inquests into just two of the seven deaths. At the time, the killings were reported in national newspapers and were undoubtedly one of the most significant events of 1825. What happened at Sunderland is not so different from that six years earlier at Peterloo, on 16 August 1819, yet knowledge and awareness of these two massacres are vastly different. The Sunderland seafarers' union, the Seamen's Loyal Standard Association, stated that 3 August 1825 should 'ever be remembered', but over time, the North Sands Massacre has been virtually forgotten. The denial of truth and justice at Orgreave is unfortunately just one of several incidents where those policing industrial action have used unnecessary violence and then placed the blame on their victims. All victims of historical injustice should be remembered and their communities allowed to David Gordon ScottThe Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
