Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access published November 28, 2011

Parliamentary Affairs (2011) 1–16 doi:10.1093/pa/gsr045

Social Change and Political Engagement

Among Young People: Generation and the
2009/2010 British Election Survey
Andy Furlong* and Fred Cartmel

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

*
Correspondence: Andy.Furlong@glasgow.ac.uk

This paper draws on the 2009/2010 British Election Survey to explore the political
engagement of young people in Britain in the context of social change. Focusing
on political involvement, attitudes and priorities, we examine contrasting gener-
ational perspectives in the context of an election centred on a range of issues that
had the potential to stimulate the interest of younger voters. While clear gener-
ational differences in engagement exist, there are also age-related similarities in
attitudes towards involvement. In terms of political priorities, differences
suggest a conflict of interests in which generations construct political agendas
in ways that reflect an interest in securing personal advantage of their own
segment of the electorate at the expense of others. Further, there is a structural
problem relating to young people’s political participation stemming partly from a
lack of effective representation and partly linked to a failure to appreciate the
ways in which socio-economic changes have impacted on the lives of the
younger generation.

Most political scientists accept the proposition that young people have a relatively
low interest in conventional politics. In many advanced societies, young people
are less likely than older citizens to express an interest in party politics, to identify
with a specific party or to vote in local, regional or national elections (Park, 2004;
Pattie et al., 2004; Print et al., 2004). A range of explanations has been put forward
to explain young people’s lack of involvement, including the idea that they are
relatively apathetic, alienated or that they fail to see the relevance of a political
agenda that they may regard as incorporating few of their interests (Pirie and
Worcester, 1998; Henn et al., 2002; Norris, 2004; Henn et al., 2005; Sloam,
2007). Others have argued that such conclusions are informed by narrow

# The Author [2011]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society; all rights reserved. For
permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Page 2 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

interpretations of politics, with young people frequently engaged in activities that

further causes they see as important and as broadly incorporating the political
into identities as a core part of their day-to-day lived experiences (Bhavanani,
1991; Norris et al., 2005; Marsh et al., 2007).
Young people’s lack of engagement with formal politics has led to concerns
about a ‘crisis of democracy’ (Farthing, 2010) promoting new initiatives to
connect with young people, ranging from citizenship education programmes in
schools to public engagement with politically active pop stars and celebrities.
One of the key concerns regarding the apparent low level of interest and partici-
pation among young people relates to whether they can be regarded as living

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

through an apathetic or disinterested stage of the lifecycle or whether they can
be regarded as a barometer of broader patterns of change with lasting repercus-
sions. Here there are influential theories that relate to the breakdown of collect-
ivist approaches to socio-political life and the consequences of individualisation
in late modern societies (Inglehart, 1977; Giddens, 1991). In the context of late
modernity, young people may increasingly find it difficult to make connections
between their own life circumstances and those of others occupying similar posi-
tions or sharing core experiences. As a consequence, identification with a broader
collectivity in the shape of a social class or a community of interests, and hence
the political orientations and values associated with class positions, is seen as
having weakened. Indeed, with the younger generation having grown up
within the conditions of late modernity, it has been argued that their orientations
to politics are not to be explained as being part of a transient, youthful, phase of
life, but represent a new, individualised, approach to politics that will eventually
come to define participation at the level of the population (Scarborough, 1995;
Pirie and Worcester, 1998), under which factors such as class and gender lose sig-
nificance as predictors or become manifest in new ways.
In this paper we focus on the UK 2009/2010 pre-election survey to assess gen-
erational differences in political engagement. Our primary interest is in assessing
generational differences in interest in the election and in voting intentions in the
context of social change, and in investigating the extent to which interest in a
broad range of political issues vary by generation. This is achieved by comparing
the responses of the so-called Generation Y with three earlier generations drawing
a widely used typology developed by Strauss and Howe (1991).
The 2010 general election in the UK makes an interesting case study as the eco-
nomic and political context focused interest on a number of key issues that had
recently engaged young people. As such, it provides an opportunity to reassess the
idea that young people tend to lack interest in conventional politics. The Conser-
vatives, for example, were promising new ‘green’ taxes and to be the ‘greenest’
government ever; Labour was promising to protect jobs by ensuring that the pro-
gramme of deficit reduction was not too severe; while the Liberal Democrats
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 3 of 16

promised to scrap university tuition fees, to reform global financial institutions

and to hold the G8 countries to account regarding their pledges on international
aid. In other words, the issues on which the election was being fought (particu-
larly by the Liberal Democrats) were issues that had recently motivated cam-
paigns and demonstrations by young people and which may be expected to
promote involvement in conventional politics.

1. Youth and politics: a distinct segment of the electorate?

While young people in the UK become eligible to vote at the age of 18, relatively

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

few do so and even fewer belong to a political party or closely identify with a
party. Indeed, Marsh et al., 2007 note that more young people vote to evict resi-
dents of the TV show Big Brother than vote in general elections. Concerns about
electoral turnout are not confined to the lack of engagement of the younger voter;
since the 1950s the long-term all-age trend has been one of declining participa-
tion (O’Toole et al., 2003). Nevertheless, there is consistently a wide gap in the
trend lines for voting in general elections among young people and older
voters. In the 2005 general election, for example, 37% of 18 –24 year olds
turned out to vote compared with an overall rate of 61% (Marsh et al., 2007).
Estimates from the 2010 British Election Survey show that fewer than one in
two 18 – 25 year olds claimed to have voted, compared with more than eight in
ten over 66 year olds (Clarke et al., 2011). The low level of political engagement
among young people is not confined to voting behaviour; it extends to member-
ship of political parties, association with party political agendas and expressed
interest in political issues (Park, 1998). As with older members of the electorate,
among young people voter turnout and interest in politics tend to be lowest
among the working classes and those with limited education. The gender gap
in voting tends to be small, although males tend to be more active politically
and express greater interest in politics (Electoral Commission, 2004).
Although young people have a weak involvement in conventional party polit-
ics, they are often very visible in political campaigns relating to contemporary
issues. This is not a new phenomenon: in the 1960s there were high profile
student demonstrations in a number of countries relating to issues such as the
war in Vietnam (Osgerby, 1998). Since then it has been argued that young
people have become increasingly involved in direct action on single political
issues, especially campaigns relating to environmental issues, nuclear power, anti-
growth and anti-capitalist policies, third world debt and, more recently, student
funding and financial regulation and the government’s approach to the economic
crisis (Inglehart, 1977; McNeish, 1999).
It has also been argued that young people are particularly attracted to partici-
pating in new social movements, although they are more often sympathisers
Page 4 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

rather than formal members (Seyd and Whiteley, 1992). However, some com-
mentators suggest that the focus on specific issues has come to define political
engagement in contemporary contexts more broadly (Pattie et al., 2004). Various-
ly described as ‘cause-orientated repertoires’ (Norris, 2004), ‘post-materialist pol-
itics’ (Inglehart, 1977), ‘atomised citizenship’ (Pattie et al., 2004) and ‘life politics’
(Giddens, 1991), the underlying argument is that under conditions of social
change forms of political engagement are shifting from the collective to the indi-
vidualised. These approaches place an emphasis on actions orientated towards
specific issues, usually through consumer actions such as product boycotts,
signing petitions, taking part in demonstrations or engaging in other forms of

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

protest, rather than embracing a package of priorities or a broader set of ideolo-
gies through membership of a conventional party.
While there is evidence suggesting that ‘atomised’ forms of political engage-
ment are favoured by the young, it is less clear whether this signifies a generation-
al shift in preferences that will come to permeate the society at large, or whether it
will remain a youthful preference. Can we expect that the weak engagement with
conventional politics characteristic of today’s youth will be the norm among older
citizens in the future or, as they mature, will they come to identify with main-
stream, institutionalised, approaches? As yet it is too early to properly assess
this question empirically and some have gone as far as to suggest that there are
inherent difficulties in ‘disentangling the complex mixture of life cycle and gen-
eration effects’ (Henn et al., 2002, p. 170– 171). However, while we accept that it is
difficult to fully separate age and cohort effects, it is clear that there are important
changes affecting young people that can be expected to impact on their political
socialisation.
Significantly, exposure to employment (and specifically exposure to politicised
and unionised workplaces) has changed with young people entering full-time
employment later and frequently spending their early working years in part-time,
casual or insecure environments (often alongside others from different socio-
economic backgrounds) where it is difficult for them to identify collective inter-
ests (Furlong and Cartmel, 2007). Educational engagement has also changed in
ways that place an increased emphasis on individualised performance with indi-
viduals increasingly held to account for outcomes and forced to make choices that
have significant personal costs. In such contexts, young people may be encour-
aged to seek personal rather than collective solutions to their problems, may
fail to identify with peers facing similar situations and may have difficulty with
the idea of political perspectives that are grounded in class consciousness
(however weakly that might be expressed). Harris et al. (2010, 12) have also
argued that, in the light of the specific difficulties faced by young people, especial-
ly in the labour market, they lack ‘faith in the state’s capacity to protect their
rights’ or to ‘listen to their concerns’.
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 5 of 16

While commentators express concerns about young people’s apparent discon-

nection from the conventional political process, it could be argued that the
primary concern of the political establishment relates not to young people’s
low level of involvement per se, but to the fear that they will fail to engage as
older adults. Indeed, there is evidence that young people themselves believe
that politicians care little about the issues that concern them and are prone to
place greater weight on the views of middle-aged and older voters (Henn et al.,
2002; Sloam, 2007). Such beliefs may foster disillusionment with conventional
politics (White et al., 2000) and scepticism or a lack of trust in the democratic
system. Indeed, Marsh (1977) has argued that young people often regard politi-

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

cians as cynical and the political system unresponsive, while Henn et al.
(2002, 167) described young people’s participation as ‘engaged scepticism’.
In the formal political process, there is often a lack of recognition of gener-
ational differences and conflicts. Mannheim’s (1952) approach, whereby gener-
ational conflict was regarded as an important driver of change, seems to have
had little impact on the consciousness of the political classes who often fail to
engage with the agendas and priorities of young people (and who may dismiss
political unrest as manifest in urban disorder and violent street protests as mind-
less criminality). Indeed, the recognition that people growing up in different eras
may share formative experiences and develop common perspectives may inform
electoral strategy, but rarely informs policy. Moreover, when issues emerge that
have a core relevance for young people, they are often tackled from a paternalistic
and condescending ‘we know what’s best for you’ perspective or are addressed in
ways that prioritise the interests of older generations. Hence, the debate about
student finance was framed from a older tax payer, rather than from a contem-
porary consumer, perspective; discussion of the national debt crisis rarely
addresses the immediate impact of reducing public spending on youth jobs or
training; while unemployment policy tends to focus not so much on creating op-
portunities, but on tackling a perceived skill deficit and motivating young people
who are presented as feckless and even as ‘inadequate citizens’ (Harris et al., 2010,
12). One of the few recent attempts to address youth priorities was the pre-
election pledge by prospective Liberal Democrat MPs to abolish student fees: a
promise that they abandoned soon after taking their place in the coalition gov-
ernment but one which is very likely to have a lasting impact on young
people’s trust in the political process.
Some commentators go as far as to suggest that the problem is not simply
about a tendency for the political classes to ignore young people or to prioritise
other, more vocal or more active, parts of the electorate: politicians simply have
no feel for the significance of recent processes of change or the consequences of
the new modernity (Bang, 2003). For Bang, the new citizen is highly individua-
lised and embedded in reflexive communities based on respect for difference and
Page 6 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

freedom. Referred to as ‘Everyday Makers’, Bang (2004, p. 14) argues that the new
citizen has little interest in ideological politics but is more likely to be engaged
with what he refers to as the ‘micropolitics of becoming’.
To be an [Everyday Maker] is to be more individualistic, more project
orientated, more ‘on’ than ‘off ’ and ‘hit and run’ in one’s engagement,
more pleasure orientated and more fun-seeking, than is usually asso-
ciated with being civically engaged (Bang, 2003, p. 26; in Marsh
et al., 2007, p. 102).
These trends have implications for conventional politics based on collective
communities of interest with their links to social class affiliations and may

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

promote a convergence between the cause-orientated forms of participation
believed to be favoured by females and the campaign-orientated activities
favoured by males (Electoral Commission, 2004). The new contexts of life,
clearly manifest in changes in the experience of education, work and leisure, po-
tentially create new divisions in forms of political engagement that relate more
strongly to inter-rather than intra-generational difference.
In these changing circumstances, we suggest that young people’s engagement
with politics should not be assessed solely through conventional markers of par-
ticipation, but should be assessed more broadly through their involvement in civil
society and through the causes in which they become engaged. While an effective
approach needs to be framed more broadly than that, used in traditional election
surveys, it is possible to begin to unpick generational differences in attitudes and
approaches using such surveys so as to develop an initial outline of how the
younger generation may ‘do’ politics differently.

2. Methodology
In this paper we draw on data collected as part of the 2009/2010 British Election
Survey. The survey, conducted using the internet by YouGov, had three phases: a
pre-campaign survey administered shortly before the election, a second survey
conducted during the election and a third following the election. This paper
draws only on the pre-campaign survey, conducted around 60 days before the
election and focusing on attitudes and intentions. The overall sample size was
16,816, with the data being weighted by YouGov to address demographic bias
in response rates. Research into the validity of previous British Election
Surveys have shown that data collected through internet methods predict
voting behaviour as reliably as face-to-face methods (Sanders et al., 2011).
However, we suspect that young people who respond to an internet survey
about politics may be more engaged politically than young people with similar
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 7 of 16

characteristics who failed to respond. As such, the survey data may well overesti-
mate patterns of participation among young people in general.
To explore generational differences in political engagement, we use a four-fold
typology developed in the USA by Strauss and Howe (1991) and used extensively
in market research. The sociological approach to generations tends to be some-
what underdeveloped, although essentially underpinned by Mannheim’s (1952)
ideas contained in his 1923 essay ‘The Problem of Generations’. For Mannheim,
the concept of generation is applied to groups of people who grow up at particu-
lar points in time, share a set of formative experiences and develop common per-
spectives on life. Edmund and Turner (2002) also argue that generations are

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

shaped by their exposure to traumatic events that have a lasting effect on their
culture and consciousness, such as the impact of war or a period of austerity.
The four generations identified by Strauss and Howe that are used for the pur-
poses of this paper are the ‘Silent generation’ (born 1925 – 45), the ‘Baby
Boomers’ (born 1946 – 1964), ‘Generation X’ (born 1965 – 1980) and
‘Generation Y’ (born 1981 – 2000) (as the survey only covers those aged 18 and
above, only the older segment of Generation Y are included). The Silent Gener-
ation were born during the Great Depression and WWII and experienced some
of the hardships of the period: they are regarded by Strauss and Howe as inclined
to be cautious, unadventurous and withdrawn. In contrast, the Baby Boomers
were born in the affluent post-war period and characterised by the optimism
of the times. Generation X, or the Baby Bust generation, bore the brunt of the
recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, growing up during the ascendency of the
New Right. ‘Thatcher’s Children’ are seen as rebelling against the perceived pas-
sivity of Boomers who had grown up in more affluent times. In contrast to Gen-
eration X, Generation Y (or the millennials) grew up in more affluent
circumstances but are seen as having been subject to greater levels of surveillance
and control by their parents. Generation Y are often regarded as conformists who
are committed to ‘making something of themselves’.
While we are sceptical of Strauss and Howe’s deterministic tendency and their
attempt to apply personality types to generations, we would suggest that, as broad
generational clusters, they go some way towards framing the formative experi-
ences of people growing up in different economic and political eras and take
us some way beyond randomly constructed categorisations by age group. Austra-
lian youth researchers Wyn and Woodman, (2006) have also drawn attention to
the ways in which economic, social and industrial change brought about radical
changes in the conditions that shape the experiences of the post-1970s genera-
tions when compared with the Baby Boomers. Their empirical work lends
broad support to the generational distinctions drawn by Strauss and Howe. Con-
sequently, we would argue these clusters provide a reasonable basis for exploring
generational differences in political participation.
Page 8 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

3. Contextualising generational difference

Compared with older members of the electorate, young people tend to be less
involved in conventional politics, yet as we suggested earlier, the UK 2010
general election took place in a context where issues of concern to young
voters were high on the political agenda. In this context, we might expect that
young people would become more interested and involved, hoping to influence
policies they recognise as important, and thus challenging established views
about levels of political engagement among young people. Where people are
willing to engage in direct action to make their views about an issue known,
one might expect that they would be motivated to identify policy differences

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

among competing parties and to cast a vote in favour of one that shared some
of their own core values. On the other hand, young people may lack faith in
the political system and may not trust politicians to act in accordance with
their electoral promises.
The pre-campaign British Election Survey lends support to the argument that
young people are less interested in conventional politics than older people and are
less likely to vote (Park, 2004; Pattie et al., 2004), but also helps put differences
into perspective. First of all, when asked to indicate (on a scale of 0– 10) how
much interest they pay to politics (Table 1), the survey shows that interest is
slightly lower among the younger generation and is consistently lower among
females in each generation. Yet the overall magnitude of the difference between
the oldest and youngest generation is not huge (around 1 point difference on
an 11-point scale) and is remarkably similar among the youngest two generations.
This may suggest that the lower level of interest previously noted among younger
people is being retained by Generation X as they move into adulthood; however,
given the greater protraction of youth transitions it may simply indicate that rela-
tively low levels of political interest define a much longer period in the lifecycle.
A declared interest in politics does not necessarily mean that a respondent will
be interested in a general election or have an intention of exercising their right to
vote. However, in the 2010 British Election Survey a strong majority of males and
females in each generation indicated that they were very interested or somewhat
interested in the forthcoming general election and, as such, it would be very
wrong to conclude from this that young people lacked an interest in the

Table 1 How much attention do you generally pay to politics? (mean on scale 0– 10)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Males 7.2 6.8 6.5 6.5

Females 6.6 5.8 5.3 5.1
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 9 of 16

Table 2 Respondents indicating that they were very or somewhat interested in the forthcoming
general election (%)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Males 90 86 85 84
Females 88 81 76 74
Service class 93 89 87 85
Intermediate 87 82 76 73
Working class 82 73 71 75
a a
Student 81 78
Other 86 81 74 72

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

a
Cell sizes too small for analysis.

Table 3 Respondents who agree that it is every citizen’s duty to vote in elections or would feel
very guilty if they did not vote (%)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Duty to votea
Males 87 81 78 73
Females 93 85 81 76
Guilty if did not votea
Males 76 67 58 54
Females 83 72 63 57

a
Agree and strongly agree.

general election (Table 2). Again, levels of interest in the election were somewhat
lower among the younger generation, with females in Generation X and Y being
less interested than their male contemporaries. Social class impacted on levels of
interest in each generation with the working classes displaying the lowest level of
interest. Levels of interest among students were relatively high and tended to
reflect their likely middle class origins and/or destinations.
A similar picture emerges with regard to the view that it is every citizen’s duty
to vote in elections, as well as to the admission that they would feel very guilty if
they failed to vote (Table 3). With respect to voting being regarded as a duty, while
generational differences clearly exist, a majority of each generation regarded
voting as a duty, with females being more likely to hold such a view. While
around eight in ten of the oldest generation said that they would feel guilty if
they failed to vote in a general election, just over one in two members of the
youngest generation shared that view. In each generation females were more
likely to feel guilty about not voting.
Page 10 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

Table 4 How likely is it that you will vote in the general election? (mean on scale 0–10)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Males 9.2 9.0 8.6 8.5

Females 9.3 8.9 8.3 7.9

These attitudes regarding citizens’ obligations to vote were reflected in

expressed intentions. Asked to express the likelihood that they would vote in
the forthcoming election on an 11-point scale, scores ranged from a mean of

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

around 9 for the oldest generation to a mean of around 8 for the youngest gen-
eration: a relatively small difference, but again one that showed slightly higher
commitment among the oldest generation (Table 4) and, in the younger genera-
tions, a suggestion that females were less likely to vote.
Of course the level of interest in the general election and the expressed inten-
tions to vote may be a reflection of the perceived importance of contemporary
political issues and a desire to act to help bring about change, or else a wish to
punish a party that they associate with negative outcomes or blame for a
failure to be swayed by public protest. Young people in particular had been
active in a number of protests against the Labour Government, including demon-
strations about cuts proposed in the light of the economic crisis, environmental
issues and war and, as a consequence, may be keen to indicate a willingness to act
on polling day to highlight their ongoing concerns.
Among all age groups, there was a clear consensus that the most important
political issue facing the country was the economic crisis: although this affects
generations in different ways, it clearly has serious implications for all. Interest-
ingly, leaving aside the economy where agreement on its importance is strong, the
generations were sharply divided on the importance of other issues. Basically each
generation tended to be most concerned about issues that impacted on them dir-
ectly and often cared far less for those issues that primarily affected other genera-
tions. Leaving aside the economy, in terms of the issues ranked most important
(respondents were able to rank their top three issues from a structured list), the
oldest generation cared most about the national debt, immigration and health
and least about the environment and the war in Afghanistan (Figure 1). The
oldest males, but not females, put unemployment close to the bottom of their
first preference choices. Conversely, for the youngest generation, after the
economy, unemployment was most likely to be listed as the first most important
issue. In other words, if young people perceive the older generation as having
little concern for issues that affect them profoundly, such as unemployment,
they would be broadly right in their assessment.
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 11 of 16

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

Figure 1 Respondents’ assessment of the most important political issues (ranked table of first
preferences)

Looked at slightly differently, Table 5 shows the percentages of each generation

who ranked each of the listed issues as one of their top three. Broadened out in this
way, the older generation seems to show more sympathy for the issues facing the
younger generation. However, the oldest males care more about paying off govern-
ment debt, health care and immigration than about unemployment (most of them
will have retired). Health care is an important concern among all generations and
government debt and unemployment figure prominently for most groups, al-
though females are far less concerned about government debt. The environment
is more of a concern for younger age groups who will be faced with the conse-
quences of environmental damage, while immigration is more of a concern of
the older generations (given that they are not competing with immigrants for
jobs, this may reflect a greater prevalence of racist attitudes, or, interpreted
more generously, a concern to preserve what they may regard as their cultural
traditions). While not a key area of concern for the majority, terrorism and the
war in Afghanistan are regarded as slightly more important by older generations.
As well as having different views on the importance of paying off government
debt (which may partly be a reflection of generational differences in the accept-
ance of debt more generally) one in two (50%) of the oldest generation, but
around a third of the youngest generation (34%) declared that they were angry
about the current economic situation. There were also some differences in
views about who they felt carried responsibility for the financial crisis. British
Page 12 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

Table 5 What are the most important political issues? (% who list in top three)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Males
The economy 73 76 80 73
The environment 8 13 19 22
Health care 34 37 37 37
Unemployment 26 35 43 49
Immigration 34 30 25 22
War in Afghanistan 24 19 14 14
Terrorism 19 17 14 13
Paying government debt 50 44 44 42

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

Females
The economy 66 69 76 74
The environment 11 13 16 24
Health care 40 43 47 47
Unemployment 33 41 44 57
Immigration 31 30 27 24
War in Afghanistan 27 23 17 17
Terrorism 19 19 19 19
Paying government debt 35 28 25 18

and American banks were seen by each of the generations as the main culprits
followed by international financiers (Table 6). The older generations were
more likely to hold Gordon Brown, the British Government, the EU and inter-
national financiers culpable.
In terms of the political process and solving the economic situation, more than
eight in ten of the males and females in each generation agreed that government
policies have a great deal or a fair amount of influence over the performance of
the British economy. In this context, there is agreement across the generations
that the economy is the major political issue and that effective solutions can be
implemented by the national government. Differences in voting intentions then
do not reflect interpretations of the key problem or of the likely effectiveness
of a national political solution. However, trust in the will or ability of politicians
to take the necessary decisions may well vary across generations.
In the British Election Survey, respondents were asked to rate their level of
trust in different institutions (scale of 0– 10; Table 7). Parliament was assigned
a relatively low level of trust by all generations (ranging from 3.2 to 3.7) with
the youngest generation marginally more trustful. Politicians themselves were
trusted slightly less than Parliament as an institution (ranging from 2.9 to 3.1)
with no clear generational differences. Trust in political parties was at a similar
low level (3.0 – 3.3), again with no clear generational variance. The banks,
widely recognised as the key contributor to a major financial crisis, enjoyed a
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 13 of 16

Table 6 Who do you think is responsible for the current financial crisis? (%)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Gordon Brown 47 38 30 25
George W Bush 27 28 25 24
Barack Obama 2 3 3 2
The British Government 45 41 39 37
The EU 29 25 19 16
The US Government 33 36 37 36
British banks 78 77 72 64
American banks 74 75 74 67
International financiers 59 58 47 36

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

Table 7 How much do you trust the following? (mean on scale 0–10)

Silent Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Parliament 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.7

Politicians 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.1
Political parties 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.3
Banks 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6

slightly higher level of trust to the politicians (3.4– 3.6), again without meaning-
ful generational difference.

4. Conclusion
With the British Election Survey focusing on conventional perspectives on polit-
ical participation and on measuring the electorate’s attitudes towards topical con-
cerns, we would not be surprised if there were strong generational differences in
interest and commitment. Political commentators have long been aware that
young people have relatively low level of engagement with conventional politics
which they may see as lacking relevance to their lives. It has also been argued that
differences in interests and behaviour may reflect more far-reaching patterns of
generational change. However, interestingly, this survey, carried out in the
run-up to the general election, showed both a high level of agreement between
generations on the duty to vote, on the intention to vote and in overall interest
in the election. There were also shared views on the key political issues, especially
the economy, on the power of the government to implement effective solutions
and a consensus around distrust of politics and political institutions. Where
there were generational differences in political priorities, these tended to relate
Page 14 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

to concerns that might be described as representing selfish interest, partially jus-

tifying young people’s claim that older people tend to marginalise their core
concerns.
One of the problems in British politics relates not to the fact that different
groups hold different interests, or even to the ways in which groups lobby for
policies that impact positively on their own lives to the detriment of others.
The big issue relates to the ways in which young people are denied an effective
voice in the political process and are short-changed in the policy process.
Indeed, there is widespread acceptance of the need to ensure that in parliamen-
tary democracies the legislature and executive contains a fair representation of the

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

major groups within society. In this context, rightly, there are vocal campaigns to
enhance the representation of women and ethnic minorities, but there are virtu-
ally no serious calls for the representation of young people (until relatively recent-
ly, the minimum age for election as an MP was 21 and young people below the age
of 18 are still denied the right to vote).
Here Marsh and colleagues (2007, p. 214) argue that there is a tendency to
treat young people as ‘political apprentices’ rather than as ‘political agents’ and
that young people, in turn, regard themselves as being politically marginalised
and as not being encouraged to play an active part in the political process. As
a consequence, they may look for alternative opportunities to make themselves
heard and may be forced to consider direct action on issues that they regard as
important. It may also be true that time pressures are more acute for young
people and that, despite expressed interest in politics and intentions to vote,
these constraints may be associated with poor levels of turn out at elections.
With Woodman (2004, p. 29) having argued that young face acute difficulties bal-
ancing commitments to work and education while retaining space for leisure, it
may be that finding time to vote is accorded a lower priority. If this is so, acute
time pressure among youth lends weight to the argument that holding elections
over several days may increase their participation (Henn et al., 2002).
There is also a broader issue about whether processes of social and economic
change fundamentally undermine the political landscape, making conventional
politics seem dated and increasingly irrelevant. In particular, UK politics is
rooted in class-based cleavages underpinned by collectivism. In modern contexts
where class consciousness finds weak expression and young people are forced ne-
gotiate complex transitions, individualised rather than collective solutions may
be sought by young people whose top priority is to get by and attempt to
juggle complex lives lived out in multiple institutional sites. In such contexts,
the emergence of individualised ‘micro-politics’ may represent a new form of par-
ticipation rather than signifying disengagement (Marsh et al., 2007). While such
changes have far-reaching implications for young people, the evidence presented
here (which we admit may not be fully representative of the youth voice) does not
 Social Change and Political Engagement among Young People Page 15 of 16

lend support to the view that young people are rejecting conventional politics,
nor does it endorse a theory of generational change in political engagement.

References
Bang, H. (2003) ‘A New Ruler Meeting a New Citizen: Culture Governance and Everyday
Making’. In Bang, H. (ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication,
Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 241 –267.
Bang, H. (2004) ‘Everyday Makers and Expert Citizens: Building Political, Not Social,
Capital’, Working Paper, Canberra, Australian National University.

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

Bhavanani, K.-K. (1991) Talking Politics: A Psychological Framing for Views from Youth in
Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, H., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2011) ‘Measuring Turnout—Who
Voted in 2010?’ accessed at www.eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1586/whiteley_measuring_
turnout.ppt on 15 July 2011.
Edmunds, J. and Turner, B.S. (2002) Generations, Culture and Society, Buckingham, Open
University Press.
Farthing, R. (2010) ‘The Politics of Youthful Antipolitics: Representing the “Issue” of
Youth Participation in Politics’, Journal of Youth Studies, 13, 181–195.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (2007) Young People and Social Change: New Perspectives,
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age,
Cambridge, Polity.
Harris, A., Wyn, J. and Younes, S. (2010) ‘Beyond Apathetic and Activist Youth: “Ordin-
ary” Young People and Contemporary Forms of Participation’, Young, 18, 9–32.
Henn, M., Weinstein, H. and Wring, D. (2002) ‘A Generation Apart? Youth and
Political Particiption in Britain’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
4, 167 – 192.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M. and Forrest, S. (2005) ‘Uninterested Youth? Young People’s Atti-
tudes towards Party Politics in Britain’, Political Studies, 53, 556–578.
Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among
Western Publics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Mannheim, K. (1952) ‘The Problem of Generations’. In Mannheim, K. (ed.) Essays on the
Sociology of Knowledge, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Marsh, A. (1977) Protest and Political Consciousness, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
Marsh, D., O’Toole, T. and Jones, S. (2007) Young People and Politics in the UK: Apathy or
Alienation?, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
McNeish, W. (1999) ‘Resisting Colonisation: The Politics of Anti-Roads Protesting’. In
Bagguley, P. and Hearn, J. (eds) Transforming Politics: Power and Resistance, Basingstoke,
Macmillan.
Page 16 of 16 Parliamentary Affairs

Norris, P. (2004) ‘Young People and Political Activism: From the Politics of Loyalties to the
Politics of Choice?’, Paper Presented to Civic Engagement in the 21st Century: Toward a
Scholarly and Practical Agenda, University of Southern California.
Norris, P., Walgrave, S. and Von Aelst, P. (2005) ‘Who Demonstrates? Antistate Rebels,
Conventional Participants, or Everyone?’, Comparative Politics, 37, 89–205.
Osgerby, B. (1998) Youth in Britain Since 1945, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
O’Toole, T., Lister, M., Marsh, D., Jones, S. and McDonagh, A. (2003) ‘Turning Out or
Left? Participation and Non-participation among Young People’, Contemporary Politics,
9, 45 – 61.
Park, A. (1995) ‘Teenagers and their Politics’. In Jowell, R., Curtice, J., Brook, L.

Downloaded from http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/ at Serials Record on April 8, 2016

and Witherspoon, S. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 12th Report, Aldershot,
Dartmouth.
Park, A. (1998) Young People’s Political Attitudes 1998: Full Report of Research Activities and
Results, Lincoln, ESRC.
Park, A. (2004) ‘Has modern politics disenchanted the young?’ In Park, A., Curtis, J.,
Thompson, K., Bromley, C. and Phillips, M. (eds) British Social Attitudes, the 21st
Report, London, Sage.
Pattie, C., Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2004) Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation and
Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Pirie, M. and Worcester, R. M. (1998) The Millennial Generation, London, MORI/Adam
Smith Institute.
Print, M., Saha, L. J. and Edwards, K. (2004) Youth Electoral Study—Report 1: Enrolment
and Voting, Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2011) ‘Simulating the Effects of the
Alternative Vote in the 2010 UK General Election’, Parliamentary Affairs, 64, 5–23.
Scarborough, E. (1995) ‘Materialist-Postmaterialist Value Orientaions’. In Van Deth, J. W.
and Scarborough, E. (eds) Beliefs in Government, Volume Four: The Impact of Values,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (1992) Labour’s Grassroots: The Politics of Party Membership,
Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Sloam, J. (2007) ‘Rebooting Democracy: Youth Participation in Politics in The UK’,
Parliamentary Affairs, 60, 548 –567.
Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1991) Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584–2069,
New York, NY, William Morrow.
White, C., Bruce, S. and Richie, J. (2000) Young People’s Politics: Political Interest and
Engagement Amongst 14 –24 Year-Olds, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Woodman, D. (2004) ‘Responsibility and Time for Escape: The Meaning of Wellbeing to
Young Australians’, Melbourne Journal of Politics, 29, 82–95.
Wyn, J. and Woodman, D. (2006) ‘Generation, Youth and Social Change in Australia’,
Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 495 –514.