'Politics needs to involve more young people', say Suffolk pupils
Alex Harrison, from Needham Market and another of the summer school cohort, is about to head off to Cambridge to study philosophy, although politics is already a part of life."I work with the I Will Movement, and Ipswich is one of their named towns of social action," said the 19-year-old."One of the things we talk about is the power of young people and the power of youth. "So whilst so many of our ambassadors come into the area from a place of something quite negative, a lot of their social action is based on something they've been through and they're turning that into something positive and making change."I think while we can see social media as a place of doom and gloom, and doom scrolling, we should focus on the amazing things that young people like us are doing to create change and make the world a better place."
This is the summer school's first year. It is aimed at 18 to 24-year-olds interested in careers in politics, public service and campaigning. Abbott said he was given his chance in politics through a summer school, and he wants to give the same chance to the next generation.A recent report by the Electoral Commission found that while most young people felt politics did not affect their daily lives, about two-thirds thought it was important to learn more about it, and nearly three-quarters believed politics should be taught more in schools and colleges.
Another summer school participant is 19 year-old Hannah Laughlin, from Ipswich.She is about to start her second year at Oxford, where she is studying politics, philosophy and economics."There's definitely more work we need to be doing to get young people involved," she said."A lot of the time young people really do care, and they really do have emotional reactions to what's going on – not just in the government but around them and seeing what's happening around the country and elsewhere."But they just don't know how to express how much they care."
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
No apology needed for Robert Jenrick
I heard Dr Krish Kandiah's Thought for the Day on Radio 4 and agree with Alf Dubs and Tina Beattie – he was absolutely spot-on with his forthright comments on Robert Jenrick's appalling article (BBC apologises over Thought for the Day 'xenophobia' claim against Jenrick, 13 August). Jenrick was unquestionably xenophobic and, in my and many others' view, racist in his disgraceful terminology. I have volunteered with asylum seekers and refugees for some years and met and taught hundreds. The overwhelming majority are good, decent people, often highly skilled professionals and the sort of technical workers this country is crying out for. If Jenrick knows next to nothing about them, it's because he hasn't bothered to find out before voicing his ill-informed opinions. The BBC should not have apologised. The world needs people like Dr Kandiah, Lord Dubs and Marian Budde, the brave bishop who preached so eloquently at Donald Trump's inauguration service, to speak truth to power and call xenophobia and racism exactly that when they hear JohnsDerby I don't understand the BBC's reaction to the Thought for the Day that mentioned Robert Jenrick. The head of the Sanctuary Foundation, Krish Kandiah, quoted the shadow justice secretary as having said: 'I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally, and about whom we know next to nothing.' Kandiah went on: 'These words echo a fear many have absorbed – fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are, by definition, irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact.' All true and topical, if trenchant. So why is it objectionable? If Jenrick doesn't want to be associated with the echoing of xenophobic fears, maybe he should stop echoing xenophobic de BrunnerBurn Bridge, North Yorkshire It seems that nowadays you can't call a xenophobe a xenophobe. It's political incorrectness gone JuliansRomford, London 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.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Councillors who revoke 20mph limits and LTNs risk being held liable for road deaths
Re Sadiq Khan's article (Dear Britain, it's now clear: 20mph zones save lives and don't slow traffic. Implement them, 12 August), many people are unaware of the outstanding success of 20mph limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in saving lives and preventing injuries and crashes, because the research and statistics are only being reported consistently by the BBC and the Guardian. People who rely on some of the other media outlets will have seen these policies characterised as unpopular, 'hated' or a 'war on drivers'. The failure to report impartially is a distortion of the truth that is misleading the public and politicians, and leading to pressure to revoke these life-saving measures. Highway authorities have a statutory duty to promote road safety, a duty to have 'due regard' to the needs of elderly and disabled people, and a common law duty of care to all road users not to be negligent. On top of this, councils have duties relating to public health, and policies relating to active lifestyles and the prevention of obesity, all of which are supported by creating safer streets. Councillors are obliged to ensure their decisions are reasonable and based on relevant considerations. While councillors and officers are protected by statutory immunity, this protection does not extend to deliberate or reckless wrongdoing. The science and evidence are totally clear: revocation of 20mph limits or LTNs will lead to crashes, injuries and deaths. Councillors and their advisers who pursue such actions risk being held personally liable for the harm that ensues. Robert HuxfordDirector, Urban Design Group Sadiq Khan describes the safety benefits of 20mph limits in urban areas. Hopefully, the increased carbon emissions from the petrol and diesel cars being driven at inefficient speeds will be balanced out by the smoother overall traffic flow and the much greater efficiency of electric vehicles at low speeds. There are even greater benefits to be had from a lower national speed limit of 55mph as road transport decarbonises, but that does not have a champion since the idea was recommended and then inexplicably dropped by the Climate Change ScharfAbingdon, Oxfordshire I congratulate Sadiq Khan on the excellent progress he has made. I would ask, though, whether more speed cameras can be installed. There is a road from Putney to Wimbledon which is 20mph along its whole length, with just one speed camera. Once past this camera, cars speed up and overtake drivers who are maintaining the speed limit. Sadiq should ask councils to install more cameras with the carrot of letting them keep the ensuing PritchardWimbledon, London As a reluctant pedestrian, following a stroke, I have to walk miles along urban roads, using a robust walking stick. It's essential – not for balance but to vent my anger at threatening drivers who speed past and often instinctively veer towards the pavement away from oncoming MorganPoole, Dorset 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.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Raising VAT rates would let Rachel Reeves fill budget black hole and enable growth
Tax rises appear increasingly likely. Polly Toynbee discusses some possible tax changes, including VAT (Both left and right agree taxes must rise. Time for Labour to get creative, 12 August). My view is that a 2.5 percentage point rise in the average VAT rate is the most viable option to raise sufficient revenue without reducing growth. Toynbee also discusses possible changes to inheritance tax and the introduction of a wealth tax. These policies may be redistributive but are unlikely to raise substantial revenue. As an example, Norway currently imposes a wealth tax that raises less than 3% of its non-petroleum tax revenue. Given the urgent need for revenue, a VAT raise is likely to be the UK's best option. First, VAT raises significant revenue, at about 17% of total UK tax revenue. This means that a 2.5 percentage point increase may raise as much as £21bn yearly. This is roughly five times more than what it is expected the government will raise from the stricter taxation of non-domiciles. Second, VAT poses limited harm to growth. Since it also applies to people who are outside the labour market, it dampens work incentives less than income taxes do. A VAT rise may partially replace the government's failure to reform disability benefits. In addition, increases in VAT do not reduce incentives to save, as costs go up by the same ratio today and in the future. And third, VAT can be quite progressive. While new savings are unaffected, old savings that people spend in the future are subject to VAT increases. Most importantly, while the VAT rate is flat, using the revenue to support public services disproportionally benefits the poor. This means that raising sufficient revenue may be most important for BergLecturer, Trinity College, University of Cambridge Anent Polly Toynbee's tax suggestions for Labour, if it regains its heart, may I add two. The best taxes not only raise money but also do societal good. So why not use one to address climate, inequity and safety issues, by taxing cars by their weight and annual mileage as reported at the MOT test? Both relate directly to their energy SeatonEmeritus professor of environmental medicine, University of Aberdeen
