To imply that party policies offer little to youth, to me, is a characterisation of youth as having no foresight towards adulthood
Sorry that was not my intent.
All I'm saying is that given the observation that young folk are not voting then a not unreasonable hypothesis is that none of the political parties offer those young people anything to vote for - be that policy - or potential representatives.
How appealing has inexperience ever been in an MP?
Inexperience as an MP is not the same as inexperience. And even then I personally believe we overvalue experience over talent.
Changing people's values
Except I'm not interested in changing anyone's values, and I never enter any discussion intending to change someone's values.
All I'm interested in doing is getting people to use data and evidence to assess the positions they take. If given good assessment of data and evidence that position is still in opposition to their values I accept they probably will not change position. We can agree to disagree.
But most often, when you get folks to look at the data and evidence it turns out that the evidence-based position is not in contradiction to their values. That means they can change their position without ever changing their values. But they still might not want to.
That's hard work, for both parties, and it's fair enough if folks don't want to bother.
But it’s not. It’s about values, and that means emotion.
To a large extent, but not entirely.
It is unbelievably hard to get someone to change their value-based position.
Even excluding the penguins and polar bears, who are forever fixed in their views and will never meet, the group in the middle mostly take positions based on a set of core values and will interpret all incoming information with a conscious or unconscious bias determined by those values.
Sometimes, with patience and time and effort on both parties, it's possible to change a value-based position. But you can't underestimate the effort involved for both parties. Most folks just don't care enough to bother.
Not young or diverse enough for you?
Yes but where are they on the list?
You could argue that putting Chloe Swarbrick at 13 and Golriz Ghaharaman at 15 is a carrot for young voters, but really it could have been much better.
Same problem with Labour, the list position favours the "experienced MPs" aka old ones.
It's a classic problem if you decide experience is a high priority, you exclude youth (and usually women as well). It takes a huge effort to avoid that bias.
I know the Greens work hard to balance the list but if we're trying to engage the young voters then having young representatives actually getting into parliament seems like a no brainer.
And I know I'm extra hard on The Greens and that's unfair but I really do want them to be a better party, they should be my slam dunk vote. Especially since the other offerings are such dross.
we're swimming in stereotypes that old white men deserve our trust most
I agree. But while I don't know I suspect that the younger generation think that stereotype is a load of crap. Since none of the parties offer anything other than older mostly white and mostly men they figure why vote for any of them.
If you offered them a younger inclusive selection you might see a different behaviour. But not even The Greens did that.
Plenty of evidence in political studies that most people do not vote on policy. Feeling respected by the system and its actors might help.
Most voters don't vote on policy.
But even then if you believe voting is purely tribal and policy is pointless then why don't any of the parties actually present candidates who are part of the tribe to which young non-voters belong?
And the biggest demographic change with age in terms of voting is that the new ones are not voting. They don't support one party or another, they just don't vote. They're not inspired to. And I think it's particularly clear in Britain right now, but also the case here, that the right is pretty okay with that. The stuff that happens - like the housing crisis - just happens, it's nothing to do with government, and this is all complicated and boring and all the parties are the same and nothing ever changes so why bother, right?
And from everything I've seen NONE of the parties want them to vote.
National is very happy courting the boomers and businessMEN
NZF - well duh
ACT would like there to be young capitalist pigs and there are some but it's such a small number
Labour has Little doing his best to pack in more middle aged men into the ranks and never says anything remotely interesting to anyone under 50
leaving The Greens - who for some unfathomable reason decided to pick old folks to go to parliament and made damn sure the one young person who has actively engaged younger voters has no chance of going to parliament.
It's hard to blame the next generation for saying fuckit why bother.
I don't think it's because they don't care - rather none of the parties has given them the slightest reason to choose any of them. With the exception of The Greens none of the parties have policies for anything like the next fifty years they're all just focused on the next 9 months and maybe 3 years beyond.
If anyone presented the younger voters with actual policy designed for a real future that benefited them they might just vote.
Wouldn't that be interesting.
A thwack of dildi?
Verily. Those who can afford to dine out can bloody well pay the price, rather than it landing on the shoulders of low-paid workers.
Just to reiterate there are a whole bunch of restaurant owners who make a point of paying decent wages with reasonable conditions. And yes it costs a bit more to eat there - money well spent I think.
Are you saying that that's too broad, that it doesn't cover what a degree used to be, that it isn't actually being measured against by NZQA, or that degree holding should be limited to institutions that were universities in 1965 or whenever because tradition?
No, all I'm saying is that our acceptance of what constitutes a tertiary education has changed. Almost certainly for the better.
But immigration still operates the same way it did in 1965 and assumes any tertiary education is good enough to qualify for a student visa.
That's the disconnect. What used to be a slam dunk obvious gain for NZ eg overseas student gets degree stays in NZ and become useful citizen - is not so simple now because tertiary education has changed.
If you were cynical you might suggest that some tertiary institutions exist solely to create a fee-paying path to citizenship. That probably isn't what was intended.