Young people are giving up on democracy because our politicians are giving up on them. But it's not democracy that's at fault – it is our politicians who are. We need a politics that delivers for young people, or the future is very bleak.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Do young people really want a dictatorship in the UK?
A recent opinion poll suggested that 50 per cent of younger people in this country would be happy to give up democracy in exchange for a strong leader of the country. And to some extent, I understand why.
Let's be clear, politics as it is, has failed young people. Politicians, as they are in our major political parties, are lined up against their best interests. And those politicians universally claim there is nothing they can do to change the fortunes of those younger people who will, in the future, be the determinants of who governs this country. And that's worrying.
Why is it worrying? Because if people look to extremism as the answer to their problems, they're looking in the wrong place. As a matter of fact, we live in communities, and communities require compromise in order to work.
Communities are inevitably made up of people who disagree with each other, who have different perspectives, different needs, different wants, different attitudes. And if they are, however, to coexist as a bunch of people who will live in the same space, it is necessary that they find common ground. A strong leader is not the person who can do that if strong leadership means we will take one view and eliminate the views of all those who oppose us.
But why is it that young people have reached this situation?
Let's look at their perspective on this issue. They're treated really badly. Education has very largely failed young people. It teaches them things they don't need to know and subjects them to an examination system that is brutal, all because they're being prepared as cannon fodder for the commercial market.
Is there education for life? No.
Is there education on things they need to know, like finance and budgeting? No.
Is there preparation for the realities of actually living together, whether that be with a partner or in community? No. This is treated as peripheral.
So, too, are the things that very often matter to young people, from music to the arts and everything else that makes life good.
All is abandoned in the face of having to solve a simultaneous equation without ever explaining why you might need to do so.
So, education is not the type that young people need as it is offered today. And if they go to university, they're charged extortionately for a substandard education that most universities now have to supply because they do not have the budgets to put sufficient lecturers in front of classes or in seminar rooms. That, again, sells young people short and leaves them, of course, in a lifetime of debt that, therefore, reconciles them to the subjection to the market that they then come to expect is their lot and which they see no way out of.
What else happens? If they aren't able to work, the benefit system is absolutely lined up against them. It is incredibly hard to survive.
If they happen to have a child, they know that there's a 25 per cent chance that they and their child will live in poverty because that's how the statistics are looking at present. And they're getting worse everywhere in the UK, except Scotland, where they're improving just a little bit.
So, the things that people want aren't there, including, of course, housing. It is virtually impossible for most young people to get access to housing now, at least their own house, unless they have a ‘bank of mum and dad' behind them, and that is increasing divisions in society.
For those who have to live in tenanted accommodation, life is very difficult. Insecure, and if they were to have a family, absolutely unstable with regard to that child's well-being because of the likelihood that they will have to move.
All of these things are known to young people. They are aware that this is what is stacked against them. And they look at our politicians, and quite reasonably, they come to the conclusion that they're incompetent.
Because they are. They are incompetent. And they've chosen to be incompetent, which is what really offends me. Under the neoliberal system, they have said that whatever the problem is, they cannot solve it because the market would do better than they can, and therefore, they walk away from every problem they're faced with.
Just take Rachel Reeves as an example. I often do at present, but it could be somebody else, and it could have been a Tory in the past, because it really makes very little difference. Rachel Reeves says we have a shortage of growth and says she promises a third runway at Heathrow.
Heathrow hasn't got a plan for a third runway at present.
And Heathrow hasn't got the money to deliver a third runway at present.
And it's not at all clear that we'll need a third runway by the time it comes into place, which will be sometime in the 2040s at best because by then, we will realise that we will not be able to fly as much simply because climate change won't permit it and the effects of climate change will be all too obvious, as young people know, but Rachel Reeves appears not to.
Is it surprising, therefore, that young people have rumbled that she's offering them, well, what is politely called a pup, - something that cannot work? It is literally words without meaning.
And they know that. They're not stupid. And I like the fact they're not stupid.
What I do want, however, is that we offer them a real solution to the problems that we have and not this myth that a strong leader, who I suspect at present they identify as Nigel Farage, is the alternative.
I suspect they might also associate with Trump.
And young men are known to be heavily influenced by Andrew Tate, who is a vile character, deeply misogynist, and deeply racist, and yet attracting a lot of support from young men, but unsurprisingly not nearly so much so from young women.
We need to have role models of politicians who believe they can deliver.
Who can deliver social housing because if houses aren't affordable people need social housing with long-term secure tenancies in which they can live knowing they have a home.
We need to have decent wages to prevent the curse of poverty, which is afflicting far too many families.
We need to have proper training for jobs.
We need to have a situation where people are not treated as expendable, and far too many are in the workplace at present. And the government is doing very little to really address that fact.
We need to remove the curse of student debt, which makes it impossible for people to also have a mortgage and save for a pension. And of those three, the least important is student debt.
We need to have a benefit system that recognises that young people are sometimes genuinely incapacitated and therefore need support from society while they deal with the problems that they face before they might ever be able to return to the workforce.
We need to take young people seriously.
We need to address their needs.
We need politicians who are willing to stand in their shoes and not say, ‘Pull yourself together, get out there and do something', which is the standard response at present, because that's not fair to young people, because there isn't something they can do out there, because the market, which is worshipped by these politicians, has denied them the opportunity to achieve for themselves.
We need a state that, in other words, does help the people who most need it. And that always requires that the state be biased to the poor. And in any society, some of the poorest people will be the young because they haven't had a chance to accumulate any wealth. They haven't had a chance to get on the pay scales and progress up them. They have not had the chance to actually create stability in their lives and need assistance to do so.
Young people are rightly angry with our politicians. I am angry with our politicians. Why shouldn't they be?
It's time that our politicians realised that unless they radically change their approach to the economy, to being politicians, to the treatment of young people, and to the treatment of people who need support from society, then there is no chance for us all and we might end up with something as bad as Trump.
Is that what the likes of Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey and others want for the UK? I fear it might be because they're doing nothing to address the real problems that we have.
Real problems created by neoliberalism.
Real problems that oppress real people.
Real problems that deny them hope and opportunity.
Real problems that are driving them towards extremists.
That is why we need political reform in this country. We need it for the sake of young people. And I want to offer those solutions that might appeal to young people on this channel because I believe it is our duty to deliver them a future of the type that they deserve
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
A “Mutual Way” party is badly needed in this country that unlike current UK parties isn’t divisive, misinformed, and neither self-serving or corrupt. It’s now become very obvious the Starmer led government is simply a continuation of these bad old ways.
As you say, none of this is possible without a re-set, but it needs to be a really big re-set, a root and branch one.
The system we have does not work because it is corrupt. It is driven by the self-preservation of those at the very top of society.
Extreme wealth and privilege has broken the common bonds between human beings.
Agreed
So much to be done! Votes at 16 and PR are virtually cost-free and could get the ball rolling.
I’d argue that these problems aren’t only for governments to solve, it’s rather that these are problems created by government, who set the rules, decide the distribution of opportunity and societal goods in the form of policy and law. What struck me near the beginning of this piece was the word compromise, and that got me thinking about inequality. I read somewhere that a problem for liberalism is that all are subject to the same law – it’s illegal for both princes and beggars to sleep under bridges. Compromise can only genuinely exist between equals. For instance, there can be no compromise between white supremacists and people of colour, between transphobes and people who are trans, between the powerful and the powerless, the wealthy and the poor. If someone is exploited or oppressed, that must stop, there can be no legitimate compromise here. Inequality hides behind decontextualised abstractions, such as “compromise”, but also “equality before the law”, which we see fail as soon as we see how corporations and the wealthy deploy resources to create and use law to their advantage. The world that young people are faced with, as you say, is constructed with their exploitation pretty much guaranteed (excluding those who know it’s been built for them, the offspring of the wealthy). Class is a crucial intersection ignored, the poor are poor because of policy not because of some intrinsic aspect of who they are, the same being true of the wealthy, no special abilities explain their wealth, only the functioning of a system. No wonder young people are turning away from a political system that has likely never been on their side. I note that George Monbiot in recent articles and interviews is highlighting that 1945-75 was an aberration, that we’re returning to the typical, oligarchy, phenomenal inequality, a fusion of money and political power, and rampant oppression and exploitation. Young people will feel this the most. What I struggle to comprehend is the seeming absence of dissent.
I agree
And I repeat another comment from this morning
We should be tolerant of everything but intolerance (Karl Popper) (for which also read abuse)
@David W
“Intersection”
Absolutely the key word. Thank you. Add to that John Rawls “Veil of Ignorance” and we can see that the politicians of today have no theoretical basis, in sociology, or in philosophy, or in political theory, or in experience – even second-hand experience.
Watching one of those intrusive clips of “The Crown” on Facebook, I was struck by Queen Elizabeth’s recognition of the gaps in her education – and, just as importantly, her determination to remedy that want – and why. (“I cannot be brow-beaten if I have knowledge”, basically.)
Richard’s “Educational Handbook for the Administration of the State” really wasn’t just a kite-flier. It is truly needed.
The abject resignation of so many in Britain has been remarked upon for my whole life. The latent power contained within the land and resource owning classes is very marked and has only been threatened in 1945, with hordes of war-hardened people well versed in combat returning to the land of their previous 1920-30s misery and poverty. When the war generation faded from political view, the dominant classes returned with a vengeance led by Thatcher. We have had a succession of political pigmies since then, most of them already members of the monied and landed classes. The fascism of the 1930s upper classes has returned, conjoined to the rapacious tech bro stratum. Starmer is no more or less than another cypher, an authoritarian tool, and the rest of the powers in the political parties are similar (save MAYBE the Greens). And yet the majority of the population seem fair and somewhat socialist, even Tory voters. The social agreement is there, ignored by Starmer and his ilk. NOBODY however is talking to the new generation of voters EXCEPT Farage and the bots of fascism, misogyny, racism.
Richard, I’m not sure how many millennials like myself regularly visit this blog, but this post is absolutely bang on the money regarding my age group and the younger generation.
As you say, politics has completely failed my generation and the next, with people my age now either likely to just disengage (e.g., stop voting) like myself, or be conned by the far right and think fascism will solve their problems.
Could it be that the current neoliberal politicians are also too arrogant, on top of us knowing that they don’t care about inequality, to actually change things? In the current single transferable party system we have, maybe they think they are untouchable?
I note another comment saying voting at 16 and PR would help solve these issues – I am not convinced. Although I in principle support these things, unless we get politicians who go against neoliberalism and aren’t corrupted by the establishment/msm, we would get the same result (look at other systems in Europe).
I unfortunately think humans are destined for the same mistakes in history – always let the elite/wealthy thrive until the poor rebel.
You name the problem – neoliberal arrogance
Wat we have to do is provide alternatives, havinbg named it for what it is.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-listen-to-how-gen-z-really-feel-about-democracy-they-might-stop-telling-us-they-prefer-authoritarianism-248628
Thanks
Might part of our “oligarchy/plutocracy with ineffectual democratic trappings” root problem be the collusion of the main stream media, not least the B B C. to hide the reality that there is no real choice between the Neoliberal main political parties?
“The real ruling group cannot ignore the regular people but it can, and does, draw between that group and the public, a generally invisible screen on which the public will see a projected mirage of presented politics while the real politics are being made behind it.”
(From Jacques Elul)
Thank you, Richard and the community.
I won’t add to what has been better said by Richard and others, but want to draw attention to what the well paid and well paid connected David Mitchell wrote (offensively, I thought) in the Grauniad, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/02/shocking-finding-gen-z-democracy-isnt-perfect.
On the way to the station this morning, I counted a dozen homeless in the centre of Aylesbury, an uptick of ten I reckon from before Christmas.
The political elite is not working for anyone, but themselves and donors / owners.
Just a slight but topical aside, we had the OFSTED call today. Judgement will be passed on the restricted curriculum and the behavioural management of our 40% social, emotional and mental problem students. Yes, 40%. A local academy (“outstanding”) has 10%.
Good luck
I had too much experience of Ofsted as a Governor
An example of how the young are disconnected from democracy is when you ask their opinion on the only democracy in the Middle East, one which upholds the rights of its minorities to assemble and form political parties. They don’t like and seem to think the enemy are the good guys.
They will come round one day to viewing democracy as a way to get rid without riots but it’s going to take many years of experience for them.
I find your comment quite tone deaf and lacking in nuance.
Being a democracy isn’t in itself enough of a virtue to overwrite all the other sins carried out in its name, of which there is ample evidence.
It’s this type of “talking down to” which alienates young people. We aren’t stupid.
I am still working out if Alf is a troll. I give the benefit of the doubt until I am sure.
Thanks for the passing acknowledgement of Scotland’s distinctiveness Richard.
I assume the poll referred to was across the UK. Were the figures broken down between the four components of the Union?
I would be astonished to learn that anything even close to half the younger (young?) people in Scotland would be happy to give up democracy in exchange for a strong leader in Westminster.
I have now seen evidence that the poll may not be reliable.
I do not think there was separate Scottish data.
Slightly off piste but provoked by your interesting article…
We were taught to respect our elders especially our parents, our betters especially priests and princes, any figures of authority. And we were young and impressionable. It must be right.
That robs the young of agency, of course. They are destined always to be supplicants.
But what if we had respect totally the wrong way around? What if we, our community, our society respected young people? Not for doing, for they are too young, but simply for being. That we nurture and develop their self-respect?
If we didn’t insult them with rundown schools, under-financed health services, poverty-stricken homes. Authoritarian homes, schools and workplaces. Patronise them with irrelevant role models, often with feet of clay. If we offered them participation as real people in the life of real communities and real democracy.
Respect seems always in the up direction. Those who have status believe they deserve respect because they have in some sense earned it; being taller, richer, older or being adults is usually enough. Flawed, though they might concede, hypocrisy covers the cracks. That respect should be beaten into a child is clearly wrong, and has as clearly failed – both them and us.
Have we seniors earned respect, and if so, how exactly? By permitting our environment to be sullied by our waste, our indifference, our over-consumption? Surely not by creating positive and happy lifestyles for all. Just for a few perhaps.
When we fail to respect young people, we rob them of agency. Over their own rights – always diminished. Over their own responsibilities – often unexercised, over-ruled by over-anxious parents and schools breeding conformity, intent on order above all else.
I suspect that it is not possible to respect anyone else unless one respects oneself. That is from our core, the route to personal growth. From there, we develop ethical awareness, behavioural standards, ambitions, dreams, visions… Similarly, that self-respect is the basis on which respect for others can occur, but must be earned, beyond courtesy.
Interesting idea.
As a teacher I certainly tried to do that.
Dear Richard,
You are bang on!
I believe it was the great German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who wrote:
“Money lost, something lost; Honour lost, much lost; Courage lost, everything lost.”
And that is what we need right now – courage. From our politicians, the courage to face down a range of vested interests which stultify, debilitate, exploit and immiserate so many. The young, yes, but many others too.
Until the dragon of neoliberalism is slain, we will get nowhere. This pernicious world-view is anathema to human flourishing.
I have no children (as far as I know) but I want a future for the young that, at the very least, is as bright and prospectful as was mine. It is what they deserve.
Thank you for your heartfelt post. I can only hope that, somewhere, someone is taking note.
Best,
Lawrence
See my book, The Courageous State. Very cheap second hand.