back to article Aged 18-24? Don't care about voting? Got a phone? Oh dear...

The Electoral Commission has spotted two things: 18-24 year olds don’t vote and 18-24 year olds have smartphones. You'll never guess what's coming next. The commission, which is charged with getting the UK population out to vote, has employed Weve to peddle mobile voter registration to the youth market. Young adults will be …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good

    Only when they vote, in sufficient numbers to make a difference, will the government stop shitting on them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good

      You mean Nick Cleggs introduction of tuition fees as soon as he gained "power" didn't go down too well with them last time? Well I never.

      1. xnetman

        Re: Good

        It was Labour (Tony Blair) that introduced tuition fees in 1998, not the Liberal Democrats.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Good

          Also Lib Dems - more fool them - have done the responsible thing, they joined in coalition with the party that had the greatest number of MPs, as a junior partner they got a little bit of what they wanted and had to do a lot of what the senior partner wanted.

          Sadly England's retarded and doesn't understand how coalitions work. So it seems rather clear that the reason the Tories haven't been as draconian in "law & order" and "immigration" and EU relations is because the Lib Dems wouldn't support them (things like legalising global interception and decryption of comms.)

          They even got a vote on a new voting system (a rubbish one maybe) but a vote none the less - however refer to previous point about England being retarded and not understanding how coalitions work. It would of made everyones vote count, and led to an upsurge in single issue parties people actually agree with as opposed to what we generally have is two single issue parties and a bunch of generalist dicks. Oh well.

          Oh and if the Lib Dems hadn't joined in the coalition? I suspect the government would of collapsed within a year and a return to the polls would of resulted in a sweeping Tory majority.

          1. 's water music
            Headmaster

            Re: Good

            Trying... ...to... ...resist...

            ...

            Oh, sod it. It's ...would HAVE

        2. Otto is a bear.

          Re: Good

          We just let the Tories increase them in exchange for a little power, thanks Nick.

          It was Mad Maggie who deregulated the banks, not Gordon Brown, he just didn't have the stomach to reign them in. Most of the wonderful little product ideas that caused the banks to crash were originally thought up in the early 90s as well. I remember being told by a friend in compliance that most banks' managements didn't understand the products or the risks, but they made loads of money so they didn't care.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Good

            @ Otto is a bear.

            "It was Mad Maggie who deregulated the banks, not Gordon Brown, he just didn't have the stomach to reign them in"

            Didnt reign them in? He promoted the worst behaviour he could get away with for the banks to expand without the ability to afford it. He actively ensured that 3 regulators oversaw the banks but none of them were responsible for anything. You may not have liked Maggie but the state of the UK before and during the crash was all Brown. Then he implemented scorched earth policies to ensure whoever won (wasnt gonna be labour) would be shafted and skint. Then he walked away scot free.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good

        That was a trade-off, i.e. Clegg got to be a a (junior) PM, and the youths (and their parents) got to pay the tuition fees. Only fair, innit.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Good

          It's as if Lib Dems only had one item on their manifesto... I wonder how many people bothered to read it as opposed to obsess over a few sound bites?

    2. dogged

      Re: Good

      Except we have an ageing population and old people already own all the property and get all electoral bribesbenefits and they all go out and vote for whoever's promising them more free shit. Young people are outnumbered. The Baby Boomers rule the world.

      I'm 45. I've already seen this happen to my generation - the absolute worst bit being people saying "oh, we must be nice to them, they fought in the war!" when actually they just got wankered at Woodstock or the Isle of Wight - and it will happen to every following generation until those selfish old pricks finally die.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: Good

        And when you are 65, you too will be one of those selfish old pricks, so look forward to the news of your death.

        1. dogged

          Re: Good

          No, I won't be able to retire until I'm at least 70. My retirement was spent on bailing out banks, remember?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Good

            Your money was spent on increasing the size of the public sector to make more people beholden to the Labour party for their employment.

            The bank bailouts won't end up costing *much* in the long run - they'll be sold back to private hands.

          2. Richard Jones 1
            Flame

            Re: Good

            @ dogged

            My retirement income is (still) being spent on sorting out the mess created by No more boom and Bust Brown, remember him letting the banks have free rein to pay him more tax income and him selling off the gold for a pittance.

            Of course you could now enjoy the 0.5% interest rates and over borrow, everyone else does. Remember when rates were well above double digits?

      2. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

        Re: Good

        Oh bore off, you're the selfish one. Do without your internet, your wall-to-wall carpets, foreign holidays, regular meals so your kids can eat, cars that you don't have to fix yourself, gym membership, mobile phones, central heating, five day working week and food that's not scraped off a road, skinned and cooked yourself then come back here with your whiny self-centered attitude.

    3. Dan Paul

      Re: Good - Since when does

      voting ever prevent the defecation of Politicians upon the populace?

  2. Vimes

    Hasn't the ICO started ramping up action against the senders of unwanted texts?

    It would be interesting to see what the results would be of reporting the government to the government.

    1. Peter_Taylor

      It will be interesting to see how they are getting around that rule!

      Also, I stop using services that annoy me with unwanted eMails, SMS, and stupid number of adverts. So I can imagine this having the result of people being turned off registering, instead of encouraging it.

      1. Captain Hogwash

        Re: turned off registering

        Maybe that's the point. Remember the poll tax?

    2. frank ly

      From Weve.com:

      "A leading provider of mobile marketing and commerce services in the UK, Weve is a joint venture between the three largest mobile operators, EE, O2 and Vodafone, who collectively represent over 80% of UK mobile users."

      "Weve has the ability to reach up to 23 million consent-based customers ..."

      It's ok, they get the target's consent first. That is what it means, isn't it?

      1. Vimes

        I thought people got opted into these services and they relied on people opting out?

        That's not consent...

        1. Bassey

          action against the senders of unwanted texts

          This was brought up in Prime Ministers Questions by a conservative MP about 2 months ago. She raised a question about an elderly constituent of hers being scammed over and over again by unsolicited calls and asked why the government hadn't clamped down on this despite repeated promises to do so.

          Cameron's answer, partially in the form of a joke, centred around the fact that all the political parties would be cold calling and spamming as many of the electorate as they possibly could over the next few months. I'm paraphrasing, clearly. He worded it in such a way as to suggest cold calling was a fundamental part of the democratic process and it was difficult to legislate against "bad" cold callers without effecting "good" cold callers.

          Nice, huh?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: action against the senders of unwanted texts

            yep cameron is a twat

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "Hasn't the ICO started ramping up action against the senders of unwanted texts?"

      Isn't there an exception for certain spammers such as surveys and political parties?

  3. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

    Apathy

    Da yoof don't care about voting because whatever shower of shite gets in the outcome for them is the same. So they can't be arsed, don't see the point, or simply don't give a shit. Or they're too cool for all that intelligent crap and would rather be down the pub lining up the Stellas.

    Either way, spamming them with a barrage of texts is not going to improve voter turnout. Piss them off? Yeah. Get them to vote? No chance.

    1. Steve 114
      Trollface

      Re: Apathy

      "Whoever you vote for, the Government always gets in." (Maybe not this time, baby).

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Montague Wanktrollop

      You say that ignorant people should not vote? Judging by your post I expect you will be staying in bed on election day.

    2. Vimes

      Define 'stupid'.

      http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-18

    3. MrXavia

      UKIP are not that bad, sure they are full of racist bigots, but so are Conservatives and Labour..

      To me Theresa May is probably the worst one out there, she wants to return all students back to their own country after they finish studying without giving them a chance to work here...

      We have some of the best universities in the world, if someone spends £50K+ to come study here they should be able to get a good job here as is the current system.

      They contribute to our economy more than the EU immigrants do...

      Before you get critical of a party, read its policies... Sure UKIP have a few bad ones, but on average their policies are more sensible than Tory or Labour.

      Leaving the EU is probably a bad idea, but other means can be used to curb immigration, i.e. severe limitations on benefits & controls on 'work gangs'

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Policies aren't the important bit

        UKIP may well have some sensible policies (it would be difficult not to accidentaly let one or two sneak through in the middle of the batshit crazy ones) Problem is the party is full of stupid, pig-ignorant, racist bigots, who couldn't be trusted to implement any policies, sensible or not.

        A word of advice: even if they have a policy of creating global peace, the elimination of disease and hunger, and education for all, don't vote for someone who is frothing at the mouth and wearing his or her underwear on their head.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Policies aren't the important bit

          Always the same old same old - when things are going down the crapper it's always without fail the immigrants fault. It's just that the Immigrants blamed changes. Northerners coming down here to steal our jobs, Irish coming here and stealing our jobs, Blacks coming here and stealing our jobs, the Indians coming here and stealing our jobs, the Europeans coming here and stealing our jobs.

          And expand jobs to, increasing hour crime, stealin our wimminz, taking our benefits, blah blah blah. I'd like to focus on a single party but UKIP, Labour and the Tories are all pretty much the same. It's always someone else's fault for your shitty life.

          Oh and after the immigrants, it's normally young and poor peoples fault.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: Policies aren't the important bit @AC

            Northerners coming down here to steal our jobs

            Actually, I came down here to steal your jobs, drink your beer, and shag your women. It won't be popular, but I've no reason to lie about it.

          2. Dan Paul

            Re: Policies aren't the important bit

            Well at least you have it correct.

    4. Reaps
      Big Brother

      probably better to ban any twat who want to be a politician from standing as an mp

  5. cs94njw

    As a 39 year old, I've registered to vote, but having a tough time finding someone worth voting for.

    Sadly, tabloid readers seem to dictate government :(

    1. Code Monkey

      There are any number of fun ways to spoil your ballot, which is most likely what I'll be doing. Every time I vote for someone who gets in to Government they make me regret it by rubber stamping a neo-Con attack on the poor, disabled, etc.; or lying to the nation so they can kill thousands of Iraqis.

      People are still dying to get the vote so I feel obliged to use it, but I don't feel obliged to use it on any of the current shower.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        The solution is...

        To start your own Political Party. Then you can stand for election and vote for yourself.

        A winner all round then?

      2. DanDanDan

        Please don't spoil your ballot. Vote for one of the lesser parties/independents instead. This is the only thing that people will look at. People who spoil their ballots aren't worth campaigning to win in the eyes of those who care, they don't pose a threat.

      3. Rich 11

        There are any number of fun ways to spoil your ballot

        Including the application of warm, fresh urine.

        Makes a change from all of them pissing on the rest of us.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Indeed. Voting for the least worst or voting in a system that does not, will not or cannot represent your interests is giving legitimacy to a system that does not deserve it and will use that legitimacy against you.

    2. launcap Silver badge
      FAIL

      > Sadly, tabloid readers seem to dictate government :(

      Ah - the old "don't want to see a headline in the Daily Fail" mantra. Used by timid, non-conviction politicians(1) everywhere who determine their policies according to what the latest opinion poll says and are more concerned with ensuring re-election rather than doing what they perceive to be right.

      Can you spell "tyranny of the commons"?

      (1) And even worse - career Civil servants trying to make sure that they don't do anything 'bold'..

  6. Nigel 11

    Why bother?

    I cannot understand why any importance should be attached to votes cajoled out of people who couldn't give a damn. Surely by not voting, you declare that you'll be equally (un)happy with whomsoever is returned by the folks who *can* be bothered to vote? (Folks who, hopefully, will have bothered to inform themselves about the policies supported by the various candidates, and given who they vote for more than one second's consideration).

    I'd also much rather that postal votes were once again restricted to those who declare that they will be outside the constituency on polling day, or who can reasonably be excused from walking to a polling station on medical grounds. Postal votes are otherwise far too easy to obtain and use fraudulently.

    I'd even support introducing the purple-thumb technology used in "less developed" countries to prevent repeat voting using forged or stolen credentials.

    1. Vimes

      Re: Why bother?

      It would be nice to have a 'none of the above' option.

      At least that would stop the spurious claims of any sort of mandate by politicians who often scraped through with the support of a minority of the voting public.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: Why bother?

        I've always wanted a none of the above, but realise it will have a majority way beyond everyone else.

        Hmmm, maybe at the next one I should stand with that name and the slogan, I'm not any of that lot.

        1. Vimes

          Re: Why bother?

          it will have a majority way beyond everyone else

          Which might not be such a bad thing. Look at Belgium: the one time the government seemed to be working well was when they didn't have one.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why bother?

            In my opinion, that's as close to a proper Conservative government as you can get. Unfortunately a lot of people say they hate anybody in government of any party but then vote for a party which intends to enlarge it.

        2. Oor Nonny-Muss

          Re: Why bother?

          >>I've always wanted a none of the above, but realise it will have a majority way beyond everyone else.

          You have that option and always have had. Spoil your paper. They show the spoiled papers to the candidates and agents...

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Why bother?

            "They show the spoiled papers to the candidates and agents..."

            But do they count them and include them in the totals summary?

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Why bother?

          "Hmmm, maybe at the next one I should stand with that name and the slogan, I'm not any of that lot."

          See Brewsters MIllions

          I can't remember if any of the previous versions used the same election wheeze of "None of the Above" to "waste" the money, but this is the third or fourth film version of the story.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon