Why young people don't get involved in politics?

Gavin "shels"

Hopefully this is the right place to post this.

Personally why do you think teenagers don't get involved in politics?

CerebralCortex

Gavin shels wrote: »

Hopefully this is the right place to post this.

Personally why do you think teenagers don't get involved in politics?

You should really try and post your own ideas why and then ask for others opinions. I think teenagers don't beacuase they haven't got a vote.

The Black Oil

I've voted in every election and referenda (or um?) since I was 18, I'm now 25. The only things I don't bother voting in are Student Union elections. None of my family are members of any party so nobody has been breathing down my neck about it.

What do you mean by 'get involved'?

estebancambias

I personally think its obvious: politics is boring. Young people who claim to be interested in politics, are more likely to be conspiracy nuts than genuinely interested.

The only thing I like about politics, is the rivalry between Liberals and Right-Wing people in America, frankly because its humerous. Since I lost Fox(got rid of Sky) I couldn't be bothered.

A totalitarian Goverment is needed for young people to have an interest, or even poverty.

Kaiser_Sma

estebancambias wrote: »

I personally think its obvious: politics is boring. Young people who claim to be interested in politics, are more likely to be conspiracy nuts than genuinely interested.

The only thing I like about politics, is the rivalry between Liberals and Right-Wing people in America, frankly because its humerous. Since I lost Fox(got rid of Sky) I couldn't be bothered.

A totalitarian Goverment is needed for young people to have an interest, or even poverty.

Not necisarily. Young people will often invent an evil opposition where none exists. Suddenly life is too damn comfortable? Wait a sec socialists are cool, there on all the t-shirts, i know lets boycott isreali oranges! Result! Another regime toppled! You know what? Capatilism sucks i'm going to a kibbutz, wait where'd they go?

This is why an apathetic youth is a good thing.

DadaKopf

This is why an apathetic youth is a good thing.

Youths are people too. More apathetic people = a bad thing.

walrusgumble

the politicans do not really listen to the youth (dont really listen to anyone really only building contractors cough cough) some of the younger politicans are just old heads with young bodies (sometimes there is nothing wrong with it if policies are correct). where are all the local youth clubs, further support for youth sporting organistations/leagues etc to improve efforts to keep youth " off the street" or where's the department's efforts to tell children that not getting 350-600 points in the leaving cert is not the end of the world?. youth does not end at 16 (ok i know young people in the 1970's and 1980's had NOTHING, but in this day and age and with the wealth that has been accumalated certainly things should be done)

enda kenny and co were all busy kissing babies last summer, how many will be around your town unless its an oppurtunity to slate the opposition? do national politicans still do the "chicken dinner circuit" any more?

as for some students unions, whilst certain campaigns like banning of coca cola on student campus etc may all be well meaning, some (not all of course) not not put the same amount of energy into issues that really concern students such as accommodation, child care facilities etc (please note anyone who disputes thi;, from witnessing former officers, i know there are a few who worked very hard and were successful) all this tends to lend many students questioning whether or not they spend more time in the pub (note whilst that might look cool and trendy, many officers are in full time paid positions - money coming from students entries) college sometimes is the first port of call for people and the world of "politics". so some cynics may find it hard to take some elected representatives serious. even when the secondary schools had class representative for a students union, principals/school board sometimes ignored their proposals

then of course, people dont really care any more whats going on so long as they have their couple of quid for shopping and pub. suppose no body likes anaroks either - its cool not to care. the corruption does not help either

Trode

As hinted at a few times in this thread, I believe young people are no more (sometimes even less) apathetic about politics than the population at large, they just go about making themselves heard in the wrong way. Sometimes (and this is just a personal observance and is in no way stated as a blanket fact about everyone under 26), the remainders of the knee jerk teenage rebellion and disappointed idealism not only colour their political views, which is of course entirely normal and acceptable; everyone's views are coloured by something, but also influence them to reject the political machine as a whole as being part of the perceived problem. A lot don't want to legitimise the process they object to by taking part, and when they're not part of the process, they don't affect it, leading to a cycle where they see themselves as being ignored, so why bother participating?
I'd bet good money there are more a students who've been on a protest march than have ever seen a ballot box.

mewso

I'm well beyond my teens and have discovered a new apathy. I still vote but I'm voting for who I consider the best of the worst almost every time. A series of bland politicians with nothing to say bar parrot what research has shown will garner the most votes.

I campaigned for the Labour Party long ago but that was when they actually represented an alternative. Nowadays every party has gravitated to the middle of the road bobbing every now and again from side to side depending on the latest research into public opinion.

I know alot of people will agree with this 'win the vote regardless' approach but I will always be of the belief that politics has to offer choices and the men and women offering the choices need to have principals and believe strongly in something. I see little of that anymore.

As for the teens they probably just think it's cool to not care.

Kaiser_Sma

You should be thankfull we live in such a drab political climate. If we had nothing but extreme, showboat, speech making, powerhouses then we'd be on a one way trip to some socioeconomic termoil.

Dull politics makes for stability.

DadaKopf

There's a lot of young whipper-snappers in the Labour Party nowadays.

Anyway, look, nobody has any real evidence to show whether kids are more or less political. And adults have an awful habit of crushing the dreams of younger people. In some sense, both occupy two different worlds: young people are still in the making and therefore see the world as utterly changeable; adults see nothing but broken dreams and responsibility, a world not of their making but made and unchanging all the same. This is in part biological, but I'm with the kids on this (as much as emos annoy me): the universe is flux. Change can happen, and histories have proven it so.

Picasso often said that he became more childish as he grew older. His early paintings are brooding, wise, earnest. His later works were playful scribbles, someone in love with life, and curious like a newborn child. You might say he was wantonly naive, but having revolutionised art, and painted one of the most dangerously brilliant depictions of war, he may have been the wisest of all.

For those adults who gave up on their ideals, it's obvious your ideals were never that strong in the first place. Do you believe in anything?

I'm as passionate about my political beliefs as ever. I can sense my brain hardening, and that's the challenge as I see it. To hold on to your convictions, and to remains curious about and open to the world, and new, dangerous ideas.

derek27

We have life pretty good in Ireland lately. Whilst people don't get a vote until they turn 18, there is a marked difference in the proportion of teens that show any interest in who's in government now, compared to 10-15 years ago. Back then, we were a lot less well off, and I can recall 16 and 17 year olds showing an interest in elections - indeed, many of them couldn't wait to come of voting age so that they could have their say. If this country had as much poverty today as it did in the not too distant past, I feel that there'd be a lot more teens showing an interest in politics.

It should be borne in mind that emerging political topics, such as reducing greenhouse gas emmissions to reduce global warming effects, is something that a lot of kids are paying attention to, and at a recent classroom debate on global warming, that one of our secondary school classes had, most of the kids agreed strongly that shake-ups in governments would be one of the primary ways of tackling this pressing issue - <-- that to me is interest in politics, albeit, in a roundabout way.

DadaKopf

Well, everything is political. But there are different kinds of politics. I got into politics through an interest in global issues, and as I studied and worked in that area, I became more involved in particular dimensions of those issues, sometimes focused on international politics, sometimes national, community and personal identity politics. Now I'm looking at local and national politics. They're all connected. I think the point is for people not to confine themselves to a narrow vision of politics, i.e. national, party-driven parliamentary politics. It's certainly important, and something which all people are disengaging from, it isn't a problem unique to teenagers.

cornbb

I think its a symptom of a number of things:

1) The Civil War legacy that differentiated Fianna Fail and Fine Gael is slowly dying out (not slowly enough IMO) and young people are therefore less likely to follow the family/community/county line when choosing their candidate, if they bother to vote at all.

2) Ireland does not have a tradition of left wing vs. right wing, conservative vs. democrat, etc, that most democracies seem to have. Therefore as well as the dying out of the historical reasons to support FF/FG, there is also very little to differentiate the main parties idealistically. I could be wrong but I think this is why the few young people who are politically active are more likely to get involved in the smaller parties like the Greens, Labour etc, who do have a proper idealistic foundation.

3) An apathetic electorate is a sign of a stable democracy, I think. While our political system is rife with problems, its not likely to crumble at our feet in the morning. While this is a good thing for our democracy, it does have the side effect of running on momentum and therefore fewer people are bothered to get involved.

Thats my simplistic view of things anyhoo

The Corinthian

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Georges Clemenceau

Modern, or more correctly mainstream, politics, as has already been pointed out, are not terribly sexy. Thhey're concerned with things like pensions, tax and property prices that are of little or no interest to people under 25 who are unlikely to own property, still students, living at home or not earning enough to hit the higher tax brackets.

As such you'll tend to find that when younger people are attracted to politics, it tends to be towards the extremes and towards the crusades. Socialism is a favourite, as are Fascism or Anarchism to a much lesser extent, however causes such as Feminism, pro-life, pro-choice or Irish republicanism are also a magnet for those seeking a flag to follow.

As you grow older your priorities do change. You find yourself paying huge chunks of your salary to the government, you end up paying bills and owning where you live or what you drive in and you begin to worry about the future - both health and money-wise.

On the other hand, ask your average 18-year old about their fears for the future and they'll think you're talking about Global Warming.

So to suggest that young people are not attracted to politics is mistaken, it's simply that they see no value in mainstream politics and will instead favour more romantic ideologies.

DadaKopf wrote: »

For those adults who gave up on their ideals, it's obvious your ideals were never that strong in the first place. Do you believe in anything?

Or perhaps it's simply that your naivete was stronger. As with everything in politics, it's a matter of perspectives - and who is to say that yours is any more valid simply because it's idealistic?

juuge

Young people that I have spoken to say that as far as they can see all politicians are crooked and in it for what they can get, I'm inclined to agree.
There is no one that I can see in present day politics that is not there for any reason other than to feather their own nest.

PeakOutput

juuge wrote: »

Young people that I have spoken to say that as far as they can see all politicians are crooked and in it for what they can get, I'm inclined to agree.
There is no one that I can see in present day politics that is not there for any reason other than to feather their own nest.

all the more reason to get into politics.

although im a youth myself in my experience the youth of society tend to always have an opposite stance to the government of the countries stance ie most people i know proclaim to be far left wereas(depite berties claims he is a socialist) the government is fairly right.

imo while they disagree with the fundamentals of the right it allows them have a relatively cushy lifestyle and therefore they are not bothered doing anything about it.

if the economic climate seriously changes like it is in america then i can see the left being driven by young voters and young(ish) politicians to be alot more vocal for change


edit;this is purely my own supposing iv nothing to back it up

juuge

PeakOutput wrote: »

although im a youth myself in my experience the youth of society tend to always have an opposite stance to the government of the countries stance .

I don't know........I'm in third level now, but when we were in our transition year in secondary school one of our teachers would have a half hour usually on a friday afternoon to discuss politics and we were encouraged to have at least a political view.
Young people I know could not be arsed about politics mainly because they have no one to look up to and admire. Would you cross the street to listen to the likes of little williw o'dea? I think not.

Gavin "shels"

Personally I think it's due to the youth of today having so much things more "fun" to do. I'm 17 and would everyday read the news and see whats happening in politics, I've also contacted the Government on certain issues (through my local TD).

DadaKopf

I'm not sure about these points...

cornbb wrote: »

1) The Civil War legacy that differentiated Fianna Fail and Fine Gael is slowly dying out (not slowly enough IMO) and young people are therefore less likely to follow the family/community/county line when choosing their candidate, if they bother to vote at all.

2) Ireland does not have a tradition of left wing vs. right wing, conservative vs. democrat, etc, that most democracies seem to have. Therefore as well as the dying out of the historical reasons to support FF/FG, there is also very little to differentiate the main parties idealistically. I could be wrong but I think this is why the few young people who are politically active are more likely to get involved in the smaller parties like the Greens, Labour etc, who do have a proper idealistic foundation.

Ireland isn't unique. Party membership has been declining across Europe for decades, single-issue groups are vibrant, and younger people are politically active in ways other than through political parties.

3) An apathetic electorate is a sign of a stable democracy, I think. While our political system is rife with problems, its not likely to crumble at our feet in the morning. While this is a good thing for our democracy, it does have the side effect of running on momentum and therefore fewer people are bothered to get involved.

I really don't agree with this. Conservative democratic theorists in the 1950-70s in America did actually believe this. Because people weren't engaged in politics, it meant democracy was working well. All this means is the masses were being kept busy while the elites ran things their way. Studies in the 1970s found that people were far from happy; instead, their lack of engagement was due to anger, frustration and a sense of helplessness about being able to influence things for the better. The elites were so powerful that they saw no chance of changing things. Is this democracy? Equally, we don't want a situation like Italy where there seems to be a new government every six months. Neither situation is acceptable.

In Ireland, people feel remote from national politics, and it's been designed that way. You join a party - if you want power, you'll join FF (or FG sometimes) who see themselves as identical with the state - 'l'etat c'est nous'.

If I was to describe the Irish political system, it'd be somewhere between the machine politics of Irish mafia-ridden New York and Chicago fused with elements of post-colonial African states, grafted onto a British colonial legal-rational state. I don't think we've really come so far.

duggie-89

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

You should be thankfull we live in such a drab political climate. If we had nothing but extreme, showboat, speech making, powerhouses then we'd be on a one way trip to some socioeconomic termoil.

Dull politics makes for stability.

but surly engery and a sense of change can be exrtremly import. a dull stability bascially means upholding the status quo which over along period of time is never good.

i would agree about showboating but lets face it i persoanly think FF are semi showboating and taking their power for granted.

i personally beilieve politics for young people is boring for alot of people who dont understand iit. it can be confusing. but what i have noticed is those who do take time out to try and understand and work out have gotten interested and wanted to make a difference its not because they have some ind of mad conspicarcy.

and radical politics interst younger people more and unless those radical politics are under threat young people wont feel as much need to change "the system"

Kaiser_Sma

duggie-89 wrote: »

but surly engery and a sense of change can be exrtremly import. a dull stability bascially means upholding the status quo which over along period of time is never good.

i would agree about showboating but lets face it i persoanly think FF are semi showboating and taking their power for granted.

i personally beilieve politics for young people is boring for alot of people who dont understand iit. it can be confusing. but what i have noticed is those who do take time out to try and understand and work out have gotten interested and wanted to make a difference its not because they have some ind of mad conspicarcy.

and radical politics interst younger people more and unless those radical politics are under threat young people wont feel as much need to change "the system"

Dull politics isn't usually just a miantanence of the status quo, it's usually involves a slow stable change towards the better. Authoritarians who tell you what you think you want are the real danger.

Young politicly minded folk often see that there are still problems in the world and think that the most drastic action is needed to solve it. But real politics takes time and consideration, the reprocussions of rushed extremeism can last for decades.

jb91

walrusgumble wrote: »

even when the secondary schools had class representative for a students union, principals/school board sometimes ignored their proposals

I'm in Transition Year and the most student council members ever do is sell raffle tickets, greet guests and represent the students at funerals. The only suggestions that aren't ignored are ideas for the school musical.

Most of the students only nominate/vote for their friend who has no interest in actually being on the council and will never attend an event that doesn't get them time off class.

We're told it's an important opportunity to practice democracy and learn how important it is to be represented. But if our first impression of politics is being forced to vote, a set of representatives that couldn't care less and any concerns we have being ignored, why would we be interested in getting involved in it outside school?

artanevilla

I'm 17 and have a big interest in politics, some people are just political, others aren't.

jb91

artanevilla wrote: »

I'm 17 and have a big interest in politics, some people are just political, others aren't.

I'm interested in politics too, but the OP asked why young people don't get involved in it and I think that's one of the reasons.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote: »

Studies in the 1970s found that people were far from happy; instead, their lack of engagement was due to anger, frustration and a sense of helplessness about being able to influence things for the better. The elites were so powerful that they saw no chance of changing things. Is this democracy? Equally, we don't want a situation like Italy where there seems to be a new government every six months. Neither situation is acceptable.

Poor example. A change in government does not imply voter engagement and while Italian governments may have changed a lot since the end of World War II, the reality is that Italy has had fewer general elections in that period than Ireland.

If I was to describe the Irish political system, it'd be somewhere between the machine politics of Irish mafia-ridden New York and Chicago fused with elements of post-colonial African states, grafted onto a British colonial legal-rational state. I don't think we've really come so far.

Twenty years ago it was akin to Guelphs and Ghibellines, so there's some improvement there at least.

jb91 wrote: »

But if our first impression of politics is being forced to vote, a set of representatives that couldn't care less and any concerns we have being ignored, why would we be interested in getting involved in it outside school?

The reality of politics is that just because you get elected does not mean you have free reign to do or change whatever you want. All democratic offices have clear mandates that set limits to what they can and cannot do. The question in schools is when people run for these positions do they actually know what these limits are or are they simply assuming them?

Then of course there are the limits imposed by reality. You can't give away free money to everyone unless you actually have or borrow it and if you do the latter you're going to end up paying it back one way or another.

Ultimately you should not confuse democracy with dictatorship. The former always imposes limits upon elected officials the latter cannot and that is part of what learning about democracy is all about.

artanevilla wrote: »

I'm 17 and have a big interest in politics, some people are just political, others aren't.

The point is that most young people are not. More correctly not in mainstream politics.

kf1920

I'm 20 and i do vote and am interested in politics, but if you mean getting involved in politics as joining a party etc, the reason i don't is because I find no party that i agree with.

And as for student councils and student elections, the reason why people dont get involved with them is that often they are a joke, In my secondary, the "student council" were voted for, then ignored by teachers and management alike. College Councils have more influence alright but at the end of the day they can be pushed aside quite easily

Riddle101

TBH i'm a teenager, i'm 18 but i was 16 when i got interested in politics, i know lots of teens who are interested in politics. It's just people don't want to listen to a teenager when we voice our opinions because they think we don't understand. If a 17 year old went up to Bertie Ahern one day and say where's the money, he'd basically snub them and tell them to get lost. Although he' proberly say that to an adult but what i'm trying to say is we don't get listened to

gurramok

Surprised no-one has said it yet. Teenagers/Young Adults are looked down by older people as immature with no grasp of day-to-day issues as they still have not experienced the real world.

Thats the way i see it and as Riddle101 describes, your view would not be taken seriously hence not worth the while for teenagers to get involved in politics.

walrusgumble

one post made a very good point on the realities of democracy and groups like student reps.

but, in my experience, these secondary school reps where ask to assist the principle to get their messages across to students, they always said that there door was open to students via these reps. any time an issue came up and brought to principles attention, it was met by resistence.

and i am talking about issues like time allocation for use/access of the canteen, different items to sell in canteen - all this before jamie oliver and co (ok not always healthy food but..) opening of library during wet days (look they still had teachers on corridor during lunch - could it even be opened for the senior years) more use of the music room for musicans during lunch time (again only give access to responsible students and limit amount that go in on one time), even asked to raise issues / or speak on behalf of certain students who were not getting the needed attention by teachers due to issues like slow learning (we were not asking for anything extra ordinary just to give person more encouragement and leniancy)

how many town councillors offer to give up one weekly meeting to invite the youth to the town hall and just discuss every day issues and what they think is needed to improve the town for all age groups. they are well able to come to them (even if u-18 but look older) when election time is on, whether to vote or help them put up election posters or hand out flyers and car stickers.

i remember a certain leader of the opposition coming to my town to canvass for the local candidate in the recent election. like a robot he (well in todays politics it wasn't a woman) zoomed around the street dying to shake your hand or force you into a crappy propaganda photo oppurtunity (i had to good grace to tell i voted for the other chap and walked) not a word he would say, it was like he wass on a personal best for how many hands he could shake in one day. (ok he is busy, and it should always be about what he is offering as a leader, but at least bertie would stop and chat) all that and he did not even say why we should vote for so and so. do not get me wrong, we the youth of today have it easy compared to the older generation, we are spoilt for choice and we as youth are more confident to speak up when we want something

i point about the politicans ignoring youth is that how can they reduce or encourage to reduce the anti social behaviour and other aspects that give youth of today a bad name (in some cases its merited) without even attempting or even pretending to listen to their opinions. it was the same years ago in a european minister's council meeting exclusively about women's issues. i cant think of the date but the out of ten or so from the irish contingent, there was only about two member members, not sound daft to you?

The Corinthian

Riddle101 wrote: »

If a 17 year old went up to Bertie Ahern one day and say where's the money, he'd basically snub them and tell them to get lost.

So what you're saying is that the 17 year old would be treated exactly same as everyone else..? :rolleyes:

moe_sizlak

cornbb wrote: »

I think its a symptom of a number of things:

1) The Civil War legacy that differentiated Fianna Fail and Fine Gael is slowly dying out (not slowly enough IMO) and young people are therefore less likely to follow the family/community/county line when choosing their candidate, if they bother to vote at all.

2) Ireland does not have a tradition of left wing vs. right wing, conservative vs. democrat, etc, that most democracies seem to have. Therefore as well as the dying out of the historical reasons to support FF/FG, there is also very little to differentiate the main parties idealistically. I could be wrong but I think this is why the few young people who are politically active are more likely to get involved in the smaller parties like the Greens, Labour etc, who do have a proper idealistic foundation.

3) An apathetic electorate is a sign of a stable democracy, I think. While our political system is rife with problems, its not likely to crumble at our feet in the morning. While this is a good thing for our democracy, it does have the side effect of running on momentum and therefore fewer people are bothered to get involved.

Thats my simplistic view of things anyhoo

the vast majority of people in this country still vote for partys which there familys do and i include young people
the smaller partys are making little inroad in general

gurramok

moe_sizlak wrote: »

the vast majority of people in this country still vote for partys which there familys do and i include young people
the smaller partys are making little inroad in general

No they don't. The 41% achieved by FF in the last election was helped by their promises of a good economy not because 41% are die-hard loyalists.
If you add up core support of FF/FG, you'd be lucky to hit 50%.

There is enough swing away from each and the growth of smaller parties like Greens/PD's/SF in recent years plus odd swings to Labour over the years prove that there are enough people out there who are not party loyal to the bone of the big two.

moe_sizlak

gurramok wrote: »

No they don't. The 41% achieved by FF in the last election was helped by their promises of a good economy not because 41% are die-hard loyalists.
If you add up core support of FF/FG, you'd be lucky to hit 50%.

There is enough swing away from each and the growth of smaller parties like Greens/PD's/SF in recent years plus odd swings to Labour over the years prove that there are enough people out there who are not party loyal to the bone of the big two.

that is not in anyway borne out in the recent election , sinn fein lost a seat , the greens i think held there own and the pd,s lost 6
labour lost 1

the big 2 are more dominant than ever and i firmly believe that what dictates which party you vote for in this country depends on which party you mum and dad and grandad and grandmother voted for

were extremly predictable in this regard

Dr Galen

this most definitely happens, especially down the country and in rural areas. We also have the situation we're the sitting TD that brought along the funds for the new community centre/bypass/planning permisson gets looked on as a decent chap and gets the vote. But tbh that happens everywhere really and is not just an Irish problem.

On the OP question......well some young people still get involved in politics as in joining a party, canvassing etc but this has always been a small number really. If your talking more along the lines of why young people aren't as vocal as they used to be, you've got to look at the world we live in. We've no world war to get hot and bothered by. Sure Iraq could be looked at like a modern Vietnam in the media but its not really. There's no big social revolution like the 60's or the civil rights movement in the North, and its not like the 80's and early 90's when we were q'ing up to flee the country and the horrible ecoomic situation. Things are plodding along fairly well or so it appears on the surface, so thus the younger generation can worry about cheap cider, nightclubs and the Big brother rather than jobs,wars or civil rights. This also stands for most of the older population too if I'm honest so i think it crosses the generations, and is not an issue linked to only the young

ninty9er

There have been some valid points made about certain issues in this thread, but the fact remains that parties (are supposed to) do what members tell them.

I joined FF in 2005 and in general there are only 2 senior politicians who give Ógra the time of day....Mary Hanafin and Mary Coughlan.

Hanafin is somewhat interesrted in gathering opinion for the post she holds, while Coughlan is more interested in "how's life" stuff.

Seamus Brennan was a founding member of Ógra and does his bit in and around Dublin, but the vast majority of politicians are loathe to travel for their own. Local TDs and Ministers are only on the other end of a phone and I've gotten to know the secretaries etc...which is very handy if you want something done ~(cynical, but it's the way things are in EVERY country on God's green Earth)

I would encourage anyone to join a political party. FF/FG have particularly positive social aspects. I only joined at 18, 2 and a half years ago but at the end of this month I'll be contesting an election to represent all 3rd level cumainn (units) on the Fianna Fáil Ard-Chomhairle (102 seat governing authority)

YES there are questions of corruption, but I was born in 1986 in a basket case country, to struggling parents (who are not politically aligned, though my mam's parents are cardholding Blueshirts), but I've turned out fine, I've never experienced what it's like to not know where next month's car loan payment is coming from and I'm getting an education at the expense of the state. If anyone wants to point to a TD who they honestly rate as being a better alternative to Bertie as Taoiseach, then they should probably join the party that person belongs to.

Let's face it. Hundred's of thousands of people (the above mentioned grandparents included) have had run ins with Revenue and settled their liabilities and penalties. Bertie is resolving his tax liability and it's Enda Kenny and Eugene O'Regan piping all day long about something that they'd be prosecuted for publicising were it any ordinary citizen. Personal issues of the Taoiseach may be questioned, but sidelining EVERY OTHER F*ING ISSUE is completely irresponsible and just goes to prove the electorate were right not to vote in enough numbers to put them in power. If they can't be a good opposition, how the hell can they be a good government. I pray and pray that Labour will eat the FG vote, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Ireland will only ever be governed by FF or FG led governments as we have a tendancy as a nation towards centrist populist politics. While in theory a grand coalitions is sonething I have no objection to, the threat that poses to political stability is something not worth thinking about.

I didn't join FF to accept the entire status-quo, nobody does (see the Clár here), I'm not even fully convinced of the necessity of fulfilling the core aim of a 32 county Republic. IMHO it would jepardise the progress of the peace process and stability in Northern Ireland. Before anyone asks, I don't believe remaining part of the Union is the best way forward either.

Do it. Join a political party. It's great craic....the Greens or Socialists don't have much of a sense of humour, but then again, I can only speak from experience on that front.

PM me for details, I have details for FG and FF if anyone wants them

phew...thank God for Firefox, system stalled and all this stayed in the reply box. Don't think I could have written it all again

Kevster

estebancambias wrote: »

I personally think its obvious: politics is boring. Young people who claim to be interested in politics, are more likely to be conspiracy nuts than genuinely interested.

I'm young (24) and have been interested in politics for many years. I think that the majority of young people aren't interested in it because they have too many other distractions in life and the fact that patriotism has gone out the window. Then again, this country is a miserable place to live in... ...

Overheal

Gavin shels wrote: »

Hopefully this is the right place to post this.

Personally why do you think teenagers don't get involved in politics?

Pardon me for pressing FFW on this thread but its late - ill read it tommorow

Why do you think? For one - Teenage opinion is disregard almost wholly. Besides that, teens have enough little things to bother themselves with. Not too long ago I was consumed with classwork and self-esteem issues, family problems and a liking for hashish... when did I have time for politics? Especially without the internet... that was harsh.

But to be fair I'm 20 and I'm fairly interested in the subject. It requires having/allotting the time to keep yourself updated on current events. Internet has been great in that regard: between wikipedia, google-news and http://www.thedailyshow.com I have a fair gist of what goes on.

It also requires a little bit of faith too I suppose: lots of people see it as useless to worry themselves with something they can never hope to fix, so they dont.

I havent joined a political party however, and I'm not registered to vote: mainly because the American Electoral College is a complete sham, and because I live abroad: meaning my vote would count for even less of a rigged vote anyway.

Eh, dont get me wrong though: I don't give a toss about irish politics - you all need to throw out your government in a complete vote of no confidence and re-draft the whole thing. That pay rise thing is surely just the tip of the iceberg and thats about all I know of it.

Meirleach

In answer to the OP, I know the reason I've never got into politics, is because the whole damn thing just looks so corrupt.

Thinking about it slightly more, I also find the party system deeply flawed, once parties get involved it all goes to hell, you have elected officials representing their parties interests, and their parties funders interests, rather than the people they were elected to serve.

layke

I'm probably alone here (and I have a fear of the politics forums) but I'll give it a shot.

When I was 16-17 I had no sense of democracy at all, your parents told you what to do all the time and lets face it school wasn't exactly partial to listening to students either. It was more a case of I 'know what's best for you so shut up and don't talk back'.

How can you expect young people who only get a sense of freedom from this when they leave school (or turn 18). I didn't care about politics at all until my early 20's (and not that early either). When I left I was only just starting to experience life and start work when then I saw how politics are affecting me.

Before that I lived quite a sheltered life. So, in summery I didn't care or have any interest because; a) I had no sense of democracy and b) it didn't affect me until I was part of the work force.

mikemac

I'm going to only post on one small aspect where Irish politics is boring.
Back as a college student waster I was often home by lunchtime and the only time on TV was Prime Ministers Questions.
Like him or loathe him, Tony Blair is the best public speaker I've ever seen and probably will see.
Himself and William Hague going toe to toe was like a boxing match and all their comrades heckling from the sidelines.
It is interesting how they do it. Imagine having to answer a question on some random or obscure topic in front of the entire parliment and on live TV. Now that's pressure!

Ever watch Oireachtas report? My god, there has never been a more boring program on TV. Joe Higgens would get the odd remark in, Pat Rabbitte was a good debater but apart from that I saw very little.
Politics can be interesting but you won't be seeing much cut throat debate in the Dail.
Maybe we should introduce a question time for the Taoiseach. One hour for the opposition to ask any question, however obscure. Maybe we have this already but why is it so boring compared to Westminister?

Overheal

Meirleach wrote: »

In answer to the OP, I know the reason I've never got into politics, is because the whole damn thing just looks so corrupt.

Thinking about it slightly more, I also find the party system deeply flawed, once parties get involved it all goes to hell, you have elected officials representing their parties interests, and their parties funders interests, rather than the people they were elected to serve.

You join political parties for this very reason: to have someone represent your interests. I assume though the actual point you were getting across is that an elected official might only look at the interests of one party and not all?

brianthebard

micmclo wrote: »

Ever watch Oireachtas report? My god, there has never been a more boring program on TV. Joe Higgens would get the odd remark in, Pat Rabbitte was a good debater but apart from that I saw very little.
Politics can be interesting but you won't be seeing much cut throat debate in the Dail.
Maybe we should introduce a question time for the Taoiseach. One hour for the opposition to ask any question, however obscure. Maybe we have this already but why is it so boring compared to Westminister?

I'm with you on this, but there actually is a question time for the Taoiseach, he just doesn't have to be there. So half the time he isn't. Even when he is its rarely interesting. He sounds like he doesn't give a damn any more tbh when speaking in the dail.

To go back to the original point, what sort of involvement should us young people be getting into? I know that tons of people belong to the youth wings of the different parties (even in NUIM, which generally sees itself as the most apathetic college in the country. Not that we put effort into that mind you) and a lot of other students are interested in different aspects of politics without necessarily joining a party.

DadaKopf

One hour for the opposition to ask any question, however obscure. Maybe we have this already but why is it so boring compared to Westminister?

It's called Leaders' Questions.

Anyway, in the Irish political system, parliament has been hugely emasculated. The Dáil is weak as a legislating and debating body; the rules are fixed deliberately to limit debate, with little time allocated to debate bills and change them in a democratic fashion. Instead, most things get decided at Committee. In effect, Cabinet has most of the power, parliament has little.

So, in a way, whether we have Leader's Questions or not is a moot point. In the UK, it's a showcase - optics. Here, its just rasping and annoying and pointless.