Welsh 16 year olds get the vote

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So can 65 year olds.

Evidence? Will you suddenly turn influencible in two years?

[jonbxx]

Influence is an interesting argument. A big factor is how different age groups get their information and what they do with it. This paper is quite interesting - https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ion_as_leveler

Unsurprisingly, it shows that social media is a large influencer with the young while traditional print and TV media has a greater impact in older groups. There is a definite 'push' vs.'pull' effect here. Good social media advertising will be well targeted tote receiver and the parties who are good at this will have some success. In this case, information is 'pushed' to the receiver. In print media, we tend to buy papers which reflect us and our values and so to an extent confirms what we think already - the recipient 'pulls' the information.

This works to the extent where groups of people with certain political alignments are almost defined by the media they consume such as centre left 'Guardianistas'.

So, are the young more easily influenced than the old? By influenced, I mean more likely to change their mind on who to vote for. Probably yes but the question is why? I can think of a few reasons;

• Using a broader church of media reduces confirmation bias
• Use of the resources such as the internet allows a deeper level of fact checking
• Interaction with a broader demographic (see this forum as a good example)
• Political advertising can be targeted or 'pushed' to the audience

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

So, are the young more easily influenced than the old? By influenced, I mean more likely to change their mind on who to vote for. Probably yes but the question is why? I can think of a few reasons;

• Using a broader church of media reduces confirmation bias
• Use of the resources such as the internet allows a deeper level of fact checking
• Interaction with a broader demographic (see this forum as a good example)
• Political advertising can be targeted or 'pushed' to the audience

Influencing has become so much easier and far reaching due to the magic of the internet and TV.

We are all targeted by influencing all day long, but the 'older' generation have learned (by experience) that much of it is just a con job.

Political influencing is no different to the bombardment of product advertising that hits us whenever we turn something on, they're just trying to 'sell' you a person/promise/idea instead of a product . . actually no, most political parties are now a product too

It's up to the individual and their mindset, coupled with prior experience, which is usually the factor in deciding whether a 'product' is worth all the hype thrown at you about it.

Younger people - in my opinion - are more easily swayed by bull pooh than those who have experienced treading in it a few times


edit: see sig below

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Carth

It's up to the individual and their mindset, coupled with prior experience, which is usually the factor in deciding whether a 'product' is worth all the hype thrown at you about it.

Younger people - in my opinion - are more easily swayed by bull pooh than those who have experienced treading in it a few times


edit: see sig below

Or, to put it another way, the young are more open minded that the old.

The number of times I have heard older people recite what they have been told by the Express and Mail which are, at best half truths and at worst lies suggests that they are influenced.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Or, to put it another way, the young are more open minded that the old.

The number of times I have heard older people recite what they have been told by the Express and Mail which are, at best half truths and at worst lies suggests that they are influenced.

Oh I'm not saying the older generation aren't influenced, but I think the younger ones are more 'open' to being influenced.

There are people of both generations that are easily led (as the saying goes) but it's only life experiences that allow people to judge and trust the information delivered to them . . if they can be bothered to do so

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Oh I'm not saying the older generation aren't influenced, but I think the younger ones are more 'open' to being influenced.

There are people of both generations that are easily led (as the saying goes) but it's only life experiences that allow people to judge and trust the information delivered to them . . if they can be bothered to do so

A fresh sponge soaks up more syrup,but the syrup just runs off an old sponge

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Influence is an interesting argument. A big factor is how different age groups get their information and what they do with it. This paper is quite interesting - https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ion_as_leveler

Unsurprisingly, it shows that social media is a large influencer with the young while traditional print and TV media has a greater impact in older groups. There is a definite 'push' vs.'pull' effect here. Good social media advertising will be well targeted tote receiver and the parties who are good at this will have some success. In this case, information is 'pushed' to the receiver. In print media, we tend to buy papers which reflect us and our values and so to an extent confirms what we think already - the recipient 'pulls' the information.

This works to the extent where groups of people with certain political alignments are almost defined by the media they consume such as centre left 'Guardianistas'.

So, are the young more easily influenced than the old? By influenced, I mean more likely to change their mind on who to vote for. Probably yes but the question is why? I can think of a few reasons;

• Using a broader church of media reduces confirmation bias
• Use of the resources such as the internet allows a deeper level of fact checking
• Interaction with a broader demographic (see this forum as a good example)
• Political advertising can be targeted or 'pushed' to the audience

Well argued.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Or, to put it another way, the young are more open minded that the old.

The number of times I have heard older people recite what they have been told by the Express and Mail which are, at best half truths and at worst lies suggests that they are influenced.

Now you've gone and spoiled it!

The young are more open minded - yes; ability to properly digest what's pushed to them - less likely until they've got a lot older.

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

A fresh sponge soaks up more syrup,but the syrup just runs off an old sponge

A fresh sponge is unlikley to know the difference between proper syrup and fake syrup.

[OLD BOY]

Most of us were idealists when we were young. Then reality got in the way and we realised that things were not so cut and dried.

Experience of life changes that innocent perspective.

[Taf]

The Jeremy Corbyn-supporting group (momentum) claims it has identified a loophole in Electoral Commission rules allowing it unlimited spending.

Momentum incurred the biggest-ever election fine in 2017 for failing to provide enough information about its spending.

In an email to supporters on Thursday, it said it had realised something 'huge' – that there was 'no limit' on spending to get young people to vote.

It said: '£100k was the target for our social media ad blitz. Why? That's how much 'regulated spend' we have left for social media ads according to electoral rules.

'But we've realised something huge. Although our ad spend promoting Labour is capped – there is no limit on how much we can spend targeting hard-to-reach young people and making sure they vote.

'This is a game changer – and with no cap we're aiming sky high. Nearly 2.4 million young people live in marginals. If we can raise £300k in the next six days we can reach every single one of them.'

But strict Electoral Commission rules state that non-party campaigners can run a campaign with the intention of 'encouraging people to vote, but not for anyone in particular'. They add: 'The primary intention of your campaign may not be to influence voters.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...outh-vote.html

[Carth]

Nearly 2.4 million young people live in marginals. If we can raise £300k in the next six days we can reach every single one of them.'

If they could raise £300k in the next six days it would pay for 10 extra nurses this year

Originally Posted by Carth

If they could raise £300k in the next six days it would pay for 10 extra nurses this year

tbf, they only need to pay for 6 of them, as 4 would be staying on, but still count as new nurses, apparently...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

tbf, they only need to pay for 6 of them, as 4 would be staying on, but still count as new nurses, apparently...

Did you miss the obvious? Staying on means being paid; leaving means new nurses who also have to be paid. Doh.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Did you miss the obvious? Staying on means being paid; leaving means new nurses who also have to be paid. Doh.

I'd say Hugh spotted the obvious and wasn't fooled by the shysters, if you omit to mention certain key facts in an attempt to gain greater political capital out of it you're still a lying piece of crap not worthy of the office held

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'd say Hugh spotted the obvious and wasn't fooled by the shysters, if you omit to mention certain key facts in an attempt to gain greater political capital out of it you're still a lying piece of crap not worthy of the office held

Thing is, much as I don't like Boris, the maths stacks up for the reasons I gave.

However, if it's interpretation, namely that Boris has offered 50,000 additional nurses, after replacing those who leave, then the other side will complain.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'd say Hugh spotted the obvious and wasn't fooled by the shysters, if you omit to mention certain key facts in an attempt to gain greater political capital out of it you're still a lying piece of crap not worthy of the office held

Like not mentioning the Kremlin slipped jezza a dodgy dossier.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...nhs-documents/