4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018The 2017 General Ele.docx

4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018
T
he 2017 General Election result
was described as a ‘youthquake’
– a shock result founded on an
unexpected surge in youth turnout
and the overwhelming support of younger
voters for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. Ipsos
MORI data released after the election, ‘How
Britain Voted in 2017’, revealed some dramatic
‘Youthquake’: How and
Why Young People
Reshaped the Political
Landscape in 2017
The shock 2017 General Election result was widely
characterised as
a ‘youthquake’, with a dramatic surge in support for Labour
among
younger voters. James Sloam, Rakib Ehsan and Matt Henn
investigate
the new trend that could have profound implications for British
politics.
changes amongst younger voters. Ipsos MORI
and the Essex Continuous Monitoring Survey
(Whiteley and Clarke 2017) both estimated

an increase in youth turnout of around 20
percentage points. The gap in support for the
two main parties amongst this cohort – 35
percentage points – was unprecedented in
size.
The excitement generated by the election
was such that the Oxford English Dictionary
© Press Association
Political Insight April 2018.indd 4 19/02/2018 11:18
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F20419058
18764697&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-02-28
APRIL 2018 • POLITICAL INSIGHT 5
named ‘youthquake’ the 2017 ‘word of the
year’. This decision created much controversy
amongst political commentators who decried
the hype around the choice of word (after all,
the Labour party had not won the election!).
More interestingly, academics have – on
the basis of new British Election Study data
– described the youthquake as a ‘myth’ or a
mere ‘tremor’ (Prosser et al. 2018). In this article
we challenge this argument and emphasise
the importance of youth engagement in the
2017 General Election for several reasons.
First of all, to dismiss the so-called
youthquake as a myth is to take a very

narrow view about what constitutes political
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 1: Party Support amongst 18-24 Year Olds and General
Population
(Source Ipsos MORI: How Britain Voted Since October 1974)
1974 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015
2017
Support for Conservative Party and Labour Party amongst 18 to
24 Year Olds and General Population
— Conservatives (all ages)
— LibDems (all ages)
— Labour (all ages)
— Conservatives (18-24

— LibDems (18-24)
— Labour (18-24) )
Figure 2: % Party support among Young People'
(IpsosMori: How Britain Voted in the 2017 General Election)
(YouGov: How Britain Voted at the 2017 General Election [this
is the source for the student vote])
41
44
8
31
52
10
36
52
5
27
62
5
19

64
10
18
70
4
18
73
5
All Adults Young High Social Grade
(AB, 18-34)
Young Men
(18-24)
All 18-24 year olds
Full-Time Students
(18-24)
Young Low Social Grade
(DE, 18-34)
Young Women
(18-24)
● Conservative ● Labour ● Liberal
Democrat

engagement and political change. Even if
we presume – as some have – that turnout
amongst 18-24 year olds did not increase,
several other changes have reshaped
the political landscape, including, the
unprecedented rate of youth support for the
Labour party, high levels of youth activism
in the campaign (Pickard 2018), and the
distinctive cosmopolitan values of young
Labour supporters.
These changes mark both a long-term
generational effect, as well as a more short-
term period effect, on the values and political
habits of Young Millennials growing up in the
aftermath of the financial crisis, and through
their experiences of the 2016 EU referendum
(Sloam and Henn 2018). When one looks into
the intragenerational dimensions of the youth
vote, the changes in 2017 were remarkable.
As we show (left), the cosmopolitan-left
attitudes and orientations of young people
are particularly marked amongst young
students and young women. These attitudes
and orientations reflect broader societal
changes that, as Norris and Inglehart (2016)
have argued, increase the relevance of cultural
cleavages within contemporary democratic
politics.

A youthquake equates to much more
than voter turnout, and should be seen as
a multi-faceted phenomenon involving
fundamental social, political and cultural shifts.
It is worth noting that the OED itself defines a
youthquake as ‘a significant cultural, political,
or social change arising from the actions or
influence of young people’.
Finally, the narrative effects of the
youthquake should not be dismissed out
of hand. The widespread acceptance that
a youthquake has happened has had a
tangible impact. Corbyn’s deliberate targeting
of the youth vote, Labour’s unusually high
dependency upon young activists, and the
unexpectedly strong performance of Labour
in the election, have already encouraged
the Conservative Government to rethink its
approach to younger voters, leading to a
review of – amongst other things – policy on
tuition fees.
In this article, we move beyond the debate
about youth turnout in the 2017 General
Election, to examine youth participation from
a broader perspective. We investigate the
dramatic changes in youth voter choice in
2017 and over time, the policy preferences of
younger citizens (highlighting the differences
with older voters), and the important role of
online activism.
Turning left
One of the most prominent features of the

2017 General Election, was the importance of
age in predicting which party an individual
voted for. The Ipsos MORI data reveals some
dramatic changes (Figure 1). A remarkable
62 per cent of 18-24 year olds voted for the
Labour party, contrasting with 27 per cent for
the Conservative party – an unprecedented
youth gap of 35 percentage points. It is
common to assume that the Labour party is
always more popular amongst younger voters,
but this is not the case. In 2015, 18-24 year
olds only supported Labour over Conservative
by a margin of 42 per cent to 28 per cent.
In 2010, the two large parties were locked
27
17
13
Figure 3: % Most Important Issue during 2017 Election
Campaign
(Source Lord Ashcroft Polling 2017)
38
28
15
9
13
6

3
10
1
8 8
7
5 5
3
2
3
1
1
3 1
2
6
7
NHS/Hospitals
Brexit/Making sure
we get the best deal
Austerity, Cuts
and Inequalities
Education
Economy/ Jobs

Terrorism
and Security
Bene�ts and
Tax Credits
Environment
Immigration
and Asylum● 18-24 year olds ● All adults ● Over
65s
APRIL 2018 • POLITICAL INSIGHT 7
together (in this age group) with the Liberal
Democrats on approximately 30 per cent.
Another feature of the 2017 General
Election, was the Labour party’s capture
of third party support – particularly from
the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. The
Liberal Democrats failed to improve on their
disastrous performance amongst younger
voters in 2015 (collapsing from 30 per cent
in 2010 to 4 per cent in 2015). Although
the Liberal Democrats managed not to lose
further support amongst 18-24 year olds in
2017, tactical voting and a further weakening
of student support led to damaging defeats
for Liberal Democrat incumbents in the
university constituencies of Sheffield Hallam
(Nick Clegg) and Leeds North West (Greg

Mulholland). Labour also gained significantly
from the Green party, whose share of the
youth vote fell from 8 per cent in 2015 to just
2 per cent two years later.
Youth support for parties by class
and gender
The Labour party’s emphatic lead amongst
18-24 year olds varied across different groups
of young people (Figure 2). Labour gained
greatest support from young women (73
per cent), and young people of a low social
grade (70 per cent). Whilst we might expect,
from previous elections, that social grade
and student status have a large impact
on party support, the scale of the Labour
party’s appeal amongst young women was
surprising. These results might be attributed
to the effect of both Brexit and Corbyn (young
women were very likely to vote Remain, and
to sympathise with the Labour leader’s views
on economic inequality and international
relations). Interestingly, the large differences
in party allegiance by gender and class were
not present within the population as a whole
(adults of all ages).
The influence of socio-economic status on
voting intention has become more complex.
In 2017, young people of a high social grade
were more likely to support Labour than the
Conservatives (by 52 per cent to 31 per cent),
but to a smaller degree than the average 18-
24 year old. However, full-time students were
considerably more likely to vote Labour (by 62

per cent to 22 per cent).
Young Millennials – the new
cosmopolitan-left
Figure 3 shows the policy preferences of
young people (18-24 year olds) compared to
the average UK citizen, and the over 65s. For
the youngest cohort of voters, healthcare was
considered to be the most important issue (27
per cent). This would naturally place Labour
at an advantage over the Conservatives, with
the former traditionally holding ownership
of issues surrounding the NHS. The Labour
manifesto promised extra funding for the
health service. The second most important
issue for young people was Brexit (15 per
cent of younger citizens prioritised this policy
area) – another issue where younger voters
were more closely aligned to the official
Labour position than the official Conservative
position – and education (10 per cent). The
next priorities for 18-24 year olds was that of
austerity, poverty and economic inequalities
(13 per cent). In our Populus poll of 1,351
18-30 year olds, we also found that, ‘housing’
emerged as a key theme for young people.
Whilst many of these issues may be long-
term problems that have persisted for several
decades, the polls suggest that young people
associated austerity, economic inequalities
and the increasingly unaffordable costs of
housing, with seven years of Conservative-
led government. Conversely, the Labour
Manifesto included concrete pledges on
greater investment in social housing, and the

abolition of university tuition fees.
© Press Association
The perception of the ‘most important
political issue’ clearly varies across generations.
The differences between young and old
were largest in the areas of Brexit (minus 23
percentage points), the NHS (plus 14 points),
education (plus 9 points), austerity, cuts and
inequalities (plus 7 points), and immigration
and asylum (minus 5 points).
The cosmopolitan-left attitudes and
sentiments of Young Millennials diverged
remarkably from those of the over 65s. This
relates not just to their policy priorities, but
also to the positions adopted on the issues.
This is particularly the case with regard
to the political-cultural issues of Brexit
and immigration. Our previous study of
young people in the run-up to the 2016 EU
referendum, found these two issues were
underpinned by diametrically opposed
attitudes towards cultural diversity amongst
young and older citizens.
Online mobilisation
There is growing evidence to suggest
that social media is increasingly trusted

and consumed by young people, when it
comes to accessing political information. We
investigated the official accounts of the Labour
party, Conservative party, Jeremy Corbyn
and Prime Minister Theresa May across three
platforms: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
The Labour party was more effective
at communicating its messages amongst
younger voters (Fletcher 2017). Boosted by his
celebrity endorsements and the emergence
of left-leaning, online news platforms (such
as The Canary), Jeremy Corbyn achieved
about three times as many Facebook likes (1.4
million) and Twitter followers (1.42 million)
as Theresa May. And unlike May, Corbyn was
more popular than his own party in these
social media (by 400,000 Facebook likes and
almost a million Twitter followers). The Labour
social media communications strategy –
pioneered during Corbyn’s party leadership
bid by the grass-roots campaigning group,
Momentum – provided an effective means
of reaching out to younger voters through
attractive, interactive content.
Profound changes
We believe that efforts to downplay the
importance of youth participation in the
2017 General Election are too heavily focused
on youth turnout. And, even on the subject
of turnout, it is still possible that there were
significant increases in youth turnout as
a whole, in certain geographic locations,
and amongst various sub-groups of young

people (eg students).
It is also important to think carefully about
the what constitutes a young person. Andy
Furlong (2016) and many others in the field
of youth studies have shown that young
people’s transitions from youth to adulthood
have become delayed and staggered in
modern societies. Although we have focused
in this article on 18-24 year olds, it may
actually be more helpful to think of younger
rather than young citizens.
It is generally accepted that in 2017,
age replaced class as the key predictor of
party choice. We propose two possible
explanations for the large differences
in voting for parties across age cohorts.
First, the redistribution of resources away
from younger citizens and youth-oriented
public policy over the past ten years, has
attracted more young people to the ideas
of state intervention and increased public
spending. Second, cultural differences across
generations have deepened. Young people
are more approving of cultural diversity,
welcoming of European integration, and less
concerned about immigration than older
cohorts. Thus, younger voters were attracted
by Corbyn’s opposition to austerity, his
internationalist outlook and his acceptance of
immigration and cultural diversity (in contrast
to the nationalist-authoritarian populism of
Nigel Farage and Donald Trump).
In the 2017 General Election and the 2016

EU referendum, support for the Labour party
and Remain was particularly strong amongst
citizens who were young, highly educated,
female and supportive of cultural diversity
in Britain. Younger voters were politically
energised by Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn’s
Labour party. In an echo of the 1960s, they
expressed themselves as left-of-centre
cosmopolitans, reacting both to austerity
politics and the cultural conservatism found in
older generations, and embodied by the Leave
campaign in the EU referendum. If voting and
voter choice is habit-forming, the mobilisation
of younger voters by the Labour party in 2017,
means that all political parties, particularly
the Conservative party, need to try harder to
develop a package of policies that can appeal
to young people if they want to avoid the
further ageing of their support base.
The Labour party also managed to engage
many youth activists through its policy
platform and the direct efforts of the party
leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to interact with
younger citizens. Labour certainly enjoyed a
comfortable advantage over the Conservative
party in the social media space where political
information is relatively trusted and highly-
consumed by Britain’s young people. This
led to Conservatives, such as Robert Halfon,
a former Minister for Education, to argue for
a Tory-affiliated version of Momentum, to
counter Labour’s domination in the digital
space.

The 2017 General Election marked
some profound changes in youth political
participation. To suggest the youthquake
was a myth, takes a reductionist approach
to youth political participation. It also fuels
a much more dangerous myth; that young
people are apathetic and not interested
in politics. This counter-narrative has the
potential to undermine young people’s sense
of political efficacy and undermine political
support for youth-oriented public policy.
References
Fletcher, R (2017) ‘Labour’s Social Media Campaign: more
posts, more video, and more interaction’, UK Election Analysis,
in Thorson, E, Jackson, D and Lilleker, D (Eds.) UK Election
Analysis 2017, http://www.electionanalysis.uk/, pp. 92-93.
Furlong, A (Ed.) (2016) Routledge Handbook of Youth and
Young Adulthood. Taylor & Francis.
Norris, P and Inglehart, R (2016) ‘Trump, Brexit, and the rise of
populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash’, HKS
Working Paper No. RWP16-026 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2818659.
Pickard, S (2018) ‘Momentum and the Movementist ‘Corbyn-
istas’: Young People Regenerating the Labour Party in Britain’.
In Pickard, S and Bessant, J (Eds.) Young People Re-Generating
Politics in Times of Crises, pp. 115-137). Palgrave.
Prosser, C, Fieldhouse, E, Green, J, Mellon, J and Evan, G
(2018)
The Myth of the 2017 Youthquake Election, http://www.
britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-myth-of-the-2017-
youthquake-election/#.WnFpBUx2s2z.
Sloam, J and Ehsan, R (2017a) Youth Quake: Young People
and the 2017 General Election. London: Intergenerational
Foundation.
Sloam, J and Ehsan, R (2017b) ‘Against the Tide: Young People

and the 2016 Brexit Referendum’, Paper presented to the 2017
APSA Annual Meeting, 2 September, San Francisco.
Whiteley, P and Clarke, H (2017) ‘Understanding Labour’s
Youthquake’. The Conversation, 3 July 2017, https://theconver-
sation.com/understanding-labours-youthquake-80333?utm_
medium=ampemail&utm_source=email.
James Sloam is a Reader in Politics at
Royal Holloway University. Rakib Ehsan is
a Doctoral Researcher at Royal Holloway,
University of London. Matt Henn is Chair
of Social Research at Nottingham Trent
University.
Human Computer interaction
Introduction
Purpose
Your goal is to create a design for a software interface. You
will experience the scope of the design process from
brainstorming ideas and gathering information about users’
needs to storyboarding, prototyping, and finally, testing and
refining your product.
As you work on the software interface, you will demonstrate
your ability to apply fundamental Human-Computer Interaction
principles to interface analysis, design, and implementation.
You will be responsible for delivering project components to
your professor at several points during the course.
Deliverables
This project should follow the main steps of the first three
phases and presentation. Details description and diagrams
should be included in each phase.

Phase One:
You will need to decide on an idea for an interface. It could be
a web site, a mobile app, an appliance touch screen, etc. Don’t
make your idea too broad. Focus on something that solves a
problem or fills a need.
Your project idea needs to be sufficiently complex to show your
ability to design multiple screens and interaction flows as the
user carries out a small number of tasks. For that you need to do
the following:
1. Brainstorm ideas. You might want to use a free, online mind-
mapping tool like SpiderScribe or Mindomo (Optional). Here
are some questions you might want to consider to focus your
brainstorming:
0. Think of a service you or your friends use. What’s the
biggest avoidable hassle (inconvenience) customers must
endure?
0. What happens in your daily routine that is complex or
confusing? How could you simplify it?
0. Think of a domain that interests you: shopping, elementary
education, exercise, social media, etc. What possibilities are
there to do something new or better? What might be redesigned
for newer or different technologies like smart phones or gaming
platforms?
1. Narrow your choices down to one idea.
1. Write a brief description of the problem, including the
following main points:
2. The Problem
2. Why It’s Interesting
2. Main Users Affected
2. Current
Solution

s (if any)
2. Make a list of the needs/goals/tasks you observed (at least
10). Group and organize this list as appropriate.
2. A brief literature review of at least two literature resources
related to your idea. The resources can include peer reviewed
journal and conference papers, books, product manuals and
product websites. All resources must be cited in APA style.
Phase Two:
A high-fi prototype shows the main elements of a user interface
connected and working together using a software tool. Its
purpose is to get a quick clear and precise look of the final
interface, which provides both designer and user the ability to
interact with the system and check some of its functions. You
can use a high-fi prototype to identify usability issues such as
confusing paths, bad terminology, layout problems, and missing
feedback. Please note that your prototype does not need to be as
extensive, 3-5 interfaces to show the main functions will be
sufficient. Your prototype should allow people to navigate from
screen to screen, recover from errors, and change their choices.
Don’t try to show every possible action or detail. Focus on the
main interactions.
1. Using any software prototyping application, create a
prototype for your interfaces following the instructions above.

1. Write a description of each of the interfaces (include
screenshots) explaining the following:
1. The purpose of the interface.
1. The main functions in the interface.
1. The previous and next status of each action.
1. The layout of the interface.
Phase Three:
1. You will conduct a heuristic evaluation of your prototype
with expert users. Your classmates in this course would make
great expert reviewers. You should use Jakob Nielsen’s Ten
Usability Heuristics or another set of heuristics approved by
your professor.
0. Allow at least 3 expert users to use the high-fi prototype.
0. The purpose of the heuristics is to guide your expert users
and help them find as many different types of usability issues as
possible.
0. Instruct your experts to describe each issue noted as
specifically as possible. Allow the expert to explore the
interface and follow any paths.
1. Make sure to practice with your prototype so that you can
operate it effectively and not waste time. Doing several practice
runs or walkthroughs will help you identify missing pieces and
dead ends.

1. It would be a good idea to do this testing in groups. One
person can be the expert tester while another works the
prototype and the others take notes. Then, everyone can switch
roles until all participants have been experts and had a chance
to test their designs.
1. Review the feedback you got from your reviewers.
1. Write a summary of the prototype testing results describing
what worked and what did not. In addition to a list of specific
changes you want to make to your interface. This summary must
include;
4. Average subjective satisfaction of reviewers
4. Number and details of terms/metaphors unfamiliar to
reviewers
4. Number and details of action sequences considered confusing
lengthy by reviewers
4. Number and details of inputs/outputs not understood by
reviewers
And you can add any further items of interest from review
activity.
Phase Four:
Prepare a presentation of your project idea describing all of the
following:
1. Background: Introduce the idea of project you chose

including problems with existing interface and its possible
impact.
1. Summary of Work: Explaining what your implemented
changes to interface accomplish, how you designed it, and what
possible improvements were brought in comparison to problems
you listed earlier.
1. Features: Describe of the main interface elements and
features you implemented
1. Reviewer Testing: Describe briefly the reviewer evaluation
results as you compiled those in your report including all
problems identified.
1. Evolution: Describe how your implemented interface makes
the system better from perspective of usability and user
satisfaction. List all improvements experienced by reviewers or
other sources who evaluated your interface. Include graphics to
show before and after.
1. Conclusion: Briefly discuss the conclusion and any future
improvements you can suggest about interface of your selected
system. Address problems that remain and what your next steps
for the product might be if you were to continue further working
on same system.
you will present this in front of your class at the end of the
semester, your instructor will provide you with the time/date for
your presentation.

One way to identify changes in popular culture is to examine
new terms and concepts that arise and quickly become prevalent
in society. For example, you may be familiar with the new
phrases that arose with the use of smartphones (LOL! OMG!
YOLO!) and the new meanings for already familiar words such
as text, data, refresh, application, etc. We use “Google” as a
verb today, “Spam” used to be a canned meat product, and
“Amazon” no longer first brings to mind a river in South
America.
Oxford Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/) takes on
the challenge of the ever-changing English language by
providing definitions for newly adopted and used words in the
English language and even selects a “Word of the Year” – a
word that takes on a certain significant meaning in the context
of current events and culture. In 2015, it was notable that the
“word” of the year wasn’t even a word at all, but instead an
emoji! No one 10 years ago could have predicted this, and it
demonstrates clearly the role that communication via
technology has in today’s culture.
For this assignment, you will be creating a PowerPoint
presentation about popular culture and this year’s Word of the
Year. Look up Oxford Dictionaries’ most recent Word of the
Year and consider the cultural influences and events that drove

this word selection. What events are related to this word and
what are their significance? How does this word present itself
in your own thoughts, experiences, and beliefs? What is the
connection between the “Word of the Year” and the concept of
Popular Culture?
Specifications:
· Submission: A 10-12 slide PowerPoint presentation or Prezi to
address the questions posed above. Include speaker notes,
images, and videos where applicable. In your presentation:
· Clearly explain the meaning of the Word of the Year.
(Youthquake)
· Provide 4-5 examples of cultural events that led up to or
evolved from this word usage.
· Reflect on thoughts, experiences, and beliefs regarding this
word’s usage in society and your own life.
· Provide speaker’s notes on the PowerPoint to accompany each
slide. The total word count of your notes should be 750-1000
words. Include a title slide and include your references page in
APA format on the last slide of the presentation.
Note: This assignment is submitted through SafeAssign. Please
review the SafeAssign report. If the report is over the 20%
threshold, please correct your document and re-submit by the

due date. You will have two attempts for submission.

4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018The 2017 General Ele.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018The 2017 General Ele.docx

Similar to 4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018The 2017 General Ele.docx (20)

More from troutmanboris

More from troutmanboris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

4 POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2018The 2017 General Ele.docx