Latest news with #GeneralElection
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
Voting age of 16 is fine – but what about kids who are 8 or 9?
At this age, you can work, pay taxes, join the armed forces, live independently, marry (in Scotland), change your legal name, consume alcohol (under supervision), as well as legally serve it. So, why not have the vote? Don't all these rights and responsibilities mean you're contributing to society, and thus should be able to shape its priorities through representative democracy? On the other hand, the Labour Government's proposal for the next UK General Election – following more than a decade of enfranchisement at 16-17 in Scottish and Welsh elections – has opened it up to accusations of election rigging, or gerrymandering. READ MORE: I'm a journalist covering Palestine Action arrests. This is all absurd The Tories, registering at 2% of the vote for 18 to 24-year-olds, are unhappy (Reform UK only slightly less unhappy, at 8%). The Greens, at 26% for this cohort in the most recent YouGov poll (only two behind Labour), are pleased. Academics at Edinburgh University have studied the consequences of a generation of 16 to 17-year-olds starting their voting lives in the Scottish indy referendum. And they're adamant: for them, this hasn't resulted in SNP or Green electoral advantage. Going by international comparisons in Brazil and Austria, when they've introduced it, the electoral voting patterns were the same overall. But there is a clear result from Scottish surveys. Those whose first voting experience was at 16-17 became more enthusiastic voters, over subsequent elections, by comparison with those whose first vote was at 18. Why so? There are some interesting sociological hunches. Eighteen is a pretty transitional year for many – they're leaving home, entering the labour market and/or campus. Registering or participating in an electoral vote may slide down the priority list. Whereas 16 to 17-year-old voters are still likely to be embedded in both family and school. Conversations will be raging at home, teachers will be setting up debates and frameworks in schools (not forgetting that great Scots tradition of 'modern studies' education also feeding in). So votes at 16 may be a long-term revitaliser of democratic electoral participation, at the most functional level. But it doesn't seem like a net that's going to pull in shoals of progressive, liberal-left votes. In any case, these teens are only about 2.8% of these islands' population. Nor, as the Scottish research reports, does 17-18 increase levels of non-electoral political engagement (like demonstrations, petitions or other activism). There's also a degree of Gen Z weirdness around youth voting intentions. An ITV/Merlin Strategy poll of 16 to 17-year-olds shows that only 18% would vote in an election tomorrow. Nearly half (49%) didn't think they should be given the chance to vote at all. Finally, more than a fifth said that 'a military strongman, with no government or elections' was 'positively regarded' (this is in line with other recent surveys). So, the kids are hardly automatic rich pickings for the centre-left, no matter Reform's or Farage's bluster in recent headlines. Some have recently made a broader case that the voting age could arguably be lowered further, in an incremental way. Or take a leap to the beginning of school attendance (say, six years). Or even be present from birth. The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, offers some of the best context for these initially alarming proposals. As he notes, from ancient Athens to the UK in the Seventies, there were many more voters under 40 than over 60. READ MORE: John Swinney's plan on independence is a start but it can't be the final word Since then, it's been reversing: the over-65s, who were barely 5% of the electorate a century ago, are now closer to 20%. In 2022, Runciman suggested (with a whiff of Swiftian satire) that children who can execute lessons in schools should be able to choose a box on a voting slip. 'Why would you exclude children, unless you wanted 65-year-olds and above to decide every election that ever happens?' But is this the way to include children? Runciman makes a valiant attempt to knock down every objection. Competence to vote could be a factor. But we once subjected women to such a test – and despite the manifest cognitive decline of many elders, we don't apply it there either these days. Another objection: might children be unpredictable and emotional in their political choices? Surely we adults are hardly exempting ourselves from that charge, at the moment? At a deeper level, says the professor, children are citizens with rights. Like the rest of us, they will 'have to live with the consequences of the decisions that are made by politicians on our behalf'. Runciman emphasises that children will live with these consequences longer than anyone else. Therefore they should have a right to express a view. Another challenge: will they be susceptible to the charisma of teachers, TikTokkers and YouTubers, kids marketers and seductive tech? Again, take our addicted and entranced adult selves, pulled this way and that by loyalties, identities and peer pressure. Do we use that as a case for disqualifying our own capability to vote? In his research with local schools, Runciman reports that 'there's absolutely no evidence that all primary-age schoolchildren are Corbynites [or in the Scottish context, independistas]. They have all sorts of interesting and surprising views, many of them quite conservative'. He found that 10-year-olds were 'really cynical', reflecting adult negativity and scepticism about politics and public life absorbed from social media or parents. Meanwhile, six and eight-year-olds were 'fresh, interesting, engaged'. READ MORE: Donald Trump hits out at Rupert Murdoch over 'fake' note to Jeffrey Epstein All of this is a grand thought-experiment from Runciman, which he confesses 'won't be happening anytime soon'. But he does open up fascinating questions about the point at which we think citizenship begins, as we head for the second quarter of the 21st century. Some obvious objections can be made. Take the recent revival of the right of children to unsupervised, rough-and-tumble play – led by the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt and others. They make the argument that the return of free play can help American youth form themselves as robust citizens. All this cavorting will equip them from early years to handle debate and dispute. Rather than being over-sensitive and over-reactive from too much 'helicopter' teaching and parenting. In Haidt's view, you can confer too much responsibility on children too early. They should be allowed much more time and space to mess around and test their responses to the world and others. At the appropriate moment (which may well be 16), they can deploy those healthily developed social and cognitive muscles, as full citizens of their polity. But not before. I have my objections to Haidt's work, specifically his negative attitudes to social media and technology in the worlds of children. The kinds of dynamic, communal interactivity it enables could – if properly administered and designed – open up new kinds of political voice for children. This would stop short of a further legal extension of the franchise. But it could use bandwidth, apps and regulation in creative ways, establishing a beachhead of democratic behaviour within kids' endless entertainment landscapes. Taking inspiration from Audrey Tang's digital democracy system in Taiwan, we could send call-outs for deliberation and shaping around great issues towards six-year-olds and upwards. The exact justification would be their generational stake in futures otherwise decided for them by various waves of elders. Wales is also an inspiration (as in much at the moment), with its Future Generations ministry. So do we only use smart kids in propaganda videos and party-political broadcasts, symbolising the future independence of Scotland? Or do we systematically bring their voices to the centre of our concerns, given the bad job we've made of the world they'll grow up in? Tick the right box, grown-ups.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
NYC mayoral election polls: Who's leading among Mamdani, Cuomo, Adams and Sliwa
The Brief Zohran Mamdani's primary victory as a Democratic socialist has disrupted the traditional expectation of securing the general election win in New York City, prompting former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to re-enter the race as an independent, alongside incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa. Recent polls show Mamdani leading the race, with varying margins over Cuomo, Sliwa and Adams, indicating a competitive election landscape. Mamdani holds a slight lead in most scenarios, but Cuomo shows strength in head-to-head matchups. NEW YORK - In New York City, scoring the Democratic nomination for mayor is traditionally viewed as a lock for a general election win, but Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's primary victory has rewritten the playbook. President Donald Trump insists that Mamdani can't win as he ramps up his attacks against the 33-year-old, and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo threw his hat back in the ring as an independent after losing the Dem primary race. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who saw record-low approval ratings this year, and Republican Curtis Sliwa have insisted they would not drop out of the race, even as Mamdani critics urge them to do so. Antitrust lawyer Jim Walden is also in the race. But what do polls say about who voters want to become the Big Apple's next mayor? Latest polls A July poll by market research company HarrisX shows Mamdani leading a four-man race. The survey of 585 registered New York City voters has Mamdani with 26% of the vote, followed by Cuomo (23%), Sliwa (22%) and Adams (13%). Fifteen percent of responded said they are undecided. Yet Cuomo and Sliwa are within the polls margin of error, meaning the results essentially show a three-way tie. The survey also laid out the following scenarios: In a three-way race without Adams, Cuomo (31%) is statistically tied with Mamdani (29%) and Sliwa (28 percent). In a three-way race without Cuomo, Mamdani leads by 10 points, winning 35% to Sliwa's 25% and Adams' 19%. In head-to-head matchups, Mamdani topples Adams 43% to 36% but trails Cuomo 35% to 50%, a 15-point advantage for Cuomo. More polls Data for Progress, a left-wing think tank, conducted a survey of 756 voters which shows Mamdani in the lead (40%) followed by Cuomo (24%), Adams (15%) and Sliwa (14%). Slingshot Strategies, a political consulting firm, has Mamdani ahead (35%) followed by Cuomo (25%), Sliwa (14%) and Adams (11%) in a poll of 1,036 registered NYC voters. American Pulse, a market research company, surveyed 568 likely NYC voters - 35.2% would voter for Mamdani, followed by 29% for Cuomo, 16.1% for Sliwa and 13.8% for Adams. Watch interviews with each candidate Dig deeper Here's what candidates had to say about their platforms on Good Day New York and Politics Unusual: Zohran Mamdani Mayor Eric Adams Andrew Cuomo Curtis Sliwa The Source This article uses information from candidate interviews, the Associated Press and market research firms. Solve the daily Crossword
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Uma Bharti aspires to contest 2029 LS polls
Bhopal: Former chief minister Uma Bharti on Friday expressed her desire to return to electoral politics. Bharti said she stepped-out of contesting the General Elections in 2019 and 2024. Before the 2024 Lok Sabha election, she claimed to have met PM Narendra Modi, and opted out of contesting the Parliamentary election as her focus was on the Ganga rejuvenation campaign. Speaking to reporters here on Friday, Bharti indicated that she might contest the 2029 General Election. "I will remain in the BJP till the last hour," Bharti said. "I had said, I will not contest the 2019 Lok Sabha elections and the 2024 Parliamentary polls. But how old am I? People have a misconception, and they are not to blame for it. Since I worked with former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee and (forrmer deputy PM) LK Advani, people think I have crossed 75 years." She further said, "There was a difference of 40 years between their ages (Vajpayee and Advani) and mine. I have not even crossed 65. And Modi ji (PM Narendra Modi) was 65 when he contested the first Lok Sabha election. Now I must be in politics for the next 15 to 20 years. And yes, maybe I will contest elections. It is certainly possible that I will contest the elections in the future." Bharti turned 63 years old in May. She was first elected to the Lok Sabha from Khajuraho constituency in 1989 and represented the seat for three more terms in 1991, 1996 and 1998. In 1999, she changed her constituency and contested from Bhopal parliamentary seat. In 2003, as the BJP's chief ministerial face, Uma Bharti got a landslide victory for her party defeating the 10-year Digvijaya Singh govt. She was fielded from Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh in the 2014 General Election and defeated Chandrapal Yadav of the Samajwadi party. Bharti served as Union minister for river development and Ganga rejuvenation in the first Narendra Modi govt. She had also held various important portfolios as Union minister in the erstwhile Vajpayee govts.
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Activist slams 'draconian' law as protester arrested at Palestine Action demo
Notorious protester Sean Clerkin, 64, was arrested in Glasgow's Nelson Mandela Place on Friday after attending a demonstration held against the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group. He was detained by officers after holding a sign that read 'Genocide in Palestine, time to take action". It comes after 46 arrests were made earlier this week at another protest demonstrating against Palestine Action being designated a proscribed terror group. READ MORE: Police drop probe into Kneecap Glastonbury performance, band says Mick Napier, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign's official spokesperson, spoke to The National at the scene and condemned the arrest, adding: 'The man arrested carried a piece of paper that said on it 'Genocide in Palestine. Time to take action'. 'He was protesting against an earlier arrest of somebody wearing a t-shirt with the same wording and that's the wording that now gets you arrested under the Terrorism Act. 'We've now reached a stage where people can be jailed for a very long period of time for expressing opposition to the genocide in Palestine and calling for action. 'We don't know how far away those two words have to be before you avoid arrest and draconian sentences under this new legislation.' Video footage from the scene shows Clerkin being surrounded by police officers and put into a police van after standing wit the sign next to Napier, who was speaking through a megaphone. Chants of 'let him go' could be heard from activists as Clerkin was arrested. (Image: NQ) The protest dispersed quickly after Clerkin was escorted away but a number of officers stayed to keep watch and several members of the public stopped to ask what was happening. One woman spoke to The National to say she had been considering attending the demonstration with a sign saying 'stop the murderous actions in Palestine', but she feared she might be arrested. 'I was quite afraid, I shamefully have to say, because I don't want to be in the cells,' she said. 'Having said that, part of me wishes that I did [attend], because my sign says 'stop the murderous actions in Palestine'. That is not saying, as preposterous as we all know it is, 'I support Palestine Action'. So how can they conflate them altogether? 'It's very disturbing. God knows what will happen at the national demo. There will be a lot of people holding placards and they can't arrest everyone. It's a circus.' READ MORE: Scottish Labour spent 3 times more than SNP at last General Election Hundreds of people are expected to attend a pro-Palestine demonstration in Edinburgh on Saturday against the UK Government and media's 'complicity' in the genocide in Gaza. The protest, organised by the Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee (GGEC), was called in response to a joint report published earlier this week by The National and Declassified UK. Clerkin previously held up a banner which read "England Out of Scotland" at the SNP conference in Edinburgh, and in 2018, he was booted out of the party for taking a stance against the controversial Growth Commission report, which embarrassed the SNP by suggesting that an independent Scotland would need to impose austerity for the first 10 years after leaving the UK. Clerkin also made a complaint to the police that led to Operation Branchform, the probe which investigated the finances of the [[SNP]] which led to the arrests of Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie. Sturgeon and Beattie were later cleared, while Murrell was charged. A Police Scotland spokesperson said: "Officers are currently in attendance at Nelson Mandela Place in Glasgow where a protest group has gathered. "A 64-year-old man has been arrested in connection with an offence under the Terrorism Act for displaying a sign expressing support for a proscribed organisation. "Officers remain at the scene."
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Unionists accuse John Swinney of pressing 'panic independence button'
In an exclusive op-ed for The National, the First Minister said that building support for independence, upping the pressure on Westminster to allow Scotland to assert its right to choose through a democratic referendum, and urging the public to vote SNP at the election would form the three prongs of his strategy. Swinney said that the Holyrood 2026 election campaign will seek to 'build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland'. In response, opposition politicians have accused the FM of using independence as a smokescreen ahead of the upcoming 2026 ballot. READ MORE: John Swinney: Why I'm launching a renewed strategy for independence Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour deputy leader, said: 'Scots will be shaking their heads at [[John Swinney]]'s latest desperate hit of the independence panic button - it's clear he's a man that's out of ideas and out of steam. '25 years ago, the then SNP Leader, John Swinney, claimed that independence was 'closer than ever'. Now, he is attempting to lead his troops up the hill once more - but even they don't buy it. John Swinney offers absolutely no vision and no hope for the people of Scotland. 'It is time to turn our backs on John Swinney's old, failed politics of the past and to choose a better Scotland with better leadership.' Elsewhere, Rachael Hamilton, deputy leader of the Scottish Tories, claimed Scots are 'scunnered' with the [[SNP]]'s 'endless obsession' with independence. 'The nationalists are continuing to prioritise their own interests rather than focusing on what truly impacts the lives of Scots,' she said. 'Patients cannot get a GP appointment, our economy is flatlining and standards have plummeted in our schools. (Image: PA) 'That is what John Swinney should be focusing on, rather than rehashing the same old arguments on independence that Scots are not interested in. 'After 18 years of monumental failure, this SNP government are tired and out of ideas. For the sake of moving Scotland forward, we must get them out next year.' On social media, Scottish Tory MSP Stephen Kerr added: 'Independence is irrelevant. Scotland has moved on – but the SNP haven't.' Meanwhile, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish LibDem leader, said: 'One of the major reasons that the SNP took such a beating at last year's general election is that people are sick of them bleating about breaking up the UK, rather than focusing on health, education and the miserable state of the Scottish economy. It seems like the First Minister is a glutton for punishment. 'John Swinney's total faith in independence to solve every problem is delusional and out of touch. READ MORE: Scottish Labour spent 3 times more than SNP at last General Election 'Hundreds of thousands of Scots are stuck on waiting lists. That's why at next year's election, I will choose fixing the NHS while John Swinney will choose the squabbles of the past. 'I want to urge everyone to back the Liberal Democrats using your peach-coloured regional ballot paper next May to focus on what really matters.' On social media, Unionist account The Majority said: 'The *devolved* Scottish Parliament, which you were elected to, has no ability to change the UK's constitution. You have no path to breaking up the UK. Shut up about RESERVED MATTERS and EMPTY. THE. BINS.' On X, an account named Abolish Holyrood added: 'Allowing separatists to pervert the Scottish Parliament into a platform to break up the UK must stop.' We told how Swinney insisted that an 'emphatic win' for the SNP at the Holyrood 2026 election is the way to secure independence. The National's columnists were unconvinced by the FM's new strategy.
