UK Politics 2025, but for Young People (apparently.)
Child benefit cap removal, VAT on private schools, voting at 16 and rejoining Erasmus+ suggest that Westminster might have noticed that the votes of a currently unenfranchised generation will vote in 2029 could be up for grabs for very little effort, or money.
Christmas is not usually peak season for UK politics, but beneath the tinsel and tactical news avoidance, a cluster of recent decisions has brought some policy discussion of issues that children, teenagers and young adults might consider significant. None of it amounts to a generational settlement. Some of it is contested. It is all unfinished and inadequate. Nevertheless, it may be worth taking stock, if only to establish whether it is now worth pushing at slightly open doors, or remains a more sensible option to try to blow up the joint.
Child benefit: redistribution by stealth
One of the most consequential changes for families with children was implemented in the Budget when the government confirmed the removal of the two-child benefit cap (Eleni Courea & Peter Walker, The Guardian, 26th November 2025.) HMG has also rushed through proposals originally scheduled for Spring26 to ease the long-criticised cliff edge created by the high-income child benefit charge (Rowena Mason, The Guardian, 5th December 2025) and a hotch-potch of small-scale projects to inform parents where baby milk formula is cheapest, expand free school meals, re-start SureStart hubs and expansion of Breakfast Clubs.
For younger parents, especially those juggling insecure work and childcare costs, this could be a big change. It does not solve the broader affordability crisis facing families, but it does signal a move away from the idea that support for children should be narrowly means-tested, or just quietly withdrawn.
The removal of the two-child benefit cap seems to be, in its simplicity, likely the most expensive and least effective element of any “youth strategy.” There can be little justification for the state to encourage and support families to have a large number of children above the replacement rate while the idea that the state could incentivise young couples to plan ahead for their future child costs seems to be beyond policy-makers comprehension. (Why not offer a pre-child benefit into an ISA style account with matched funding from HMT for families prepared to make a savings commitment PRIOR to their first child’s birth? Shades of Gordon Brown.)
Along a slightly different track, until the metrics of child poverty assessment are radically changed, all these policies, large and small, will be for nought. Literally. If the identification of children in poverty remains set by a formula based on the RELATIVE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, there will be little progress in alleviating actual child-experienced poverty as every step to boost the average income level will emmesh more families within the “child poverty” metric. This is simple maths.
HMT should develop politically-neutral measures of ABSOLUTE child poverty and re-direct resources to alleviating this group’s experienced extreme hardship.
TWOP has some mathematical suggestions if anyone at HMT could be interested… Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph (Paywall) 23rd December 2025, also has some views.
However, while the proposed changes in child poverty strategy are not radical, they do represent an overdue administrative correction and one that will matter for many families with younger children.
VAT on private schools: a cultural line crossed
HMG confirmed its plans to apply VAT to private school fees, ending a long-standing tax exemption that critics argue subsidised educational inequality. Of course, books remain VAT-free because….errrr, waiting.
Supporters framed the VAT change as a “fairness” measure that could raise revenue for state education. Opponents warned of displacement effects, with some pupils from hard-working families likely to be pushed into already stretched state schools.
For young people, this seems to be less about school fees and more about symbolism. For the first time in decades, a government has been willing to challenge the assumption that elite educational institutions deserve special treatment. Whether the policy’s objectives survive contact with implementation is another question. This seems very much like a policy of envy, rather than a strategy for improving educational outcomes.
One of the key differences that traditional Public (ie private) schools provide is the boarding option. It seems obvious that a boarding route would be ideal for a small but quite easily identifiable segment of the 11-18 age group. Why will no political party look at taking some of the boarding provision of traditional Public schools and, by offering a generous bursary scheme to defray those boarding costs, open up this unparalleled, globally-regarded system to those who could most benefit from it? Just saying.
Harrovian Tom Dyson died of diptheria in 1938 while his schoolmate suffered from long-term mental illness and died, aged just 60, in a psychiatric hospital. In 1998, The Daily Mail traced the three other boys and found that all were alive and living comfortably in their seventies. Not everything is as pre-determined as it appears on the surface.
[Speaking as a prisoner of this system, TWOP can exclusively reveal that the attempt to make private education unaffordable for more UK families is reinforcing the trend towards servicing the Chinese/Far East and ex-pat markets, restricting this distinctive educational choice, so valued by so many, to the truly super-rich, but it is unlikely to “break the bank.” A few mediocre private schools will close, but most will soldier on with richer and more foreign pupils benefitting from their skills. This policy reeks of the same ignorance and prejudice as the recently announced lunacy of the “animal rights” basis for banning trail-hunting. If you’re going to wage class warfare, you should expect SOMEONE to notice your policies are actual rubbish. Like anyone who has actually lived in the countryside, TWOP does not support the inalienable right of foxes to kill and maim chicken, ducks, rabbits and squirrels at will…hunting them with hounds may not be the most efficient solution but they are definitely a menace that needs to be managed and constrained. Let’s hear it for the chickens!]
Votes at 16: democracy, earlier
The Government has committed to lowering the voting age to 16 for UK-wide elections (Becky Morton, Adam Smith & Jonelle Awomoyi, BBC News, 17th July 2025.) The arguments are familiar: if 16-year-olds can work, pay tax and consent to medical treatment, they should have a say in who governs them. Critics raise concerns about political maturity and turnout.
What is striking is how un-dramatic the debate now feels. Once framed as radical, votes at 16 has become a managerial reform rather than a constitutional rupture. That alone says something about how the centre of gravity has shifted.
Counter-intuitively perhaps, TWOP does NOT support the extension of the franchise to 16-17 year olds. Some things are worth waiting for and are better exercised after some thought when you are able to make judgments not likely dominated by your family.
Erasmus+: mobility restored, at a price
The UK confirmed that it will rejoin the Erasmus+ programme with effect from the 2027–‘28 academic year, restoring access to EU-wide study and training exchanges for students, (Jon Stone, politico.eu, 17th December 2025.)
This is one of the clearest policy wins for young people since Brexit. Erasmus was not just about travel; it was about reciprocity, networks and institutional depth.
The UK’s replacement Turing scheme, never fully replicated those features (although by going beyond Europe to take in the USA, Canada and Japan it did offer some useful alternatives that hopefully may be retained as additional options for UK exchangers.)
The return comes at a higher financial cost than before Brexit and critics will frame it as ideological backsliding. For most under-25s, however, it will simply feel like a door reopening that had seemed just weirdly counter-productive to have slammed in our faces.
Your roving TWOP reporter still has hopes focused on New Zealand 2026/7, but that’s another story…
Military gap years: opportunity or optics?
The Ministry of Defence announced plans to expand voluntary military gap-year style programmes, offering young people paid placements combining training, skills development and service experience (Aneesa Ahmed, The Guardian, 27th December 2025.)
Supporters describe the scheme as a route to skills, confidence and social mobility. Critics worry about normalising military pathways for teenagers without adequately addressing long-term recruitment pressures, or ethical concerns.
For a generation accustomed to precarious work and expensive education, the appeal is obvious. Whether the policy represents genuine opportunity, or a partial response to deeper structural problems remains open. In setting a target of 150 gappers in the scheme’s first year (possibly expanding to 1,000 – gasp!) the government shows its truly pathetic imaginative scope. There are about 750,000 UK students entering universities every year – so 150 military gappers represent just 0.02% of the entry cohort. If it’s worth doing at all, it must be worth trying to recruit 1.0% – that would be 7,500 places. Come ON guys!
National Youth Strategy: recognition without resolution
The government’s newish National Youth Strategy (PDF here) is the first of its kind in 20 years and tries (but fails) to pull together youth hubs, wellbeing initiatives and participation mechanisms under a single banner. (Kristian Johnson, BBC News, 10th December 2025.)
The “Strategy” belies its name: it is best understood as a container rather than a breakthrough. McKinsey are quietly crying in the corner. This “Strategy” is just a newly labelled repository with very little new content: much of it predates the “Strategy” itself and funding levels are pitifully modest.
The National Youth Strategy’s importance lies less in what it may deliver (which will be marginal at best) but more in what it admits: to date youth policy has been fragmented, ineffectual and underpowered.
The “Strategy” is meant to be read alongside a new “Youth Matters: State of the Nation.” This document could make you cry with frustration. No-one seems to have briefed its writers or editors to make it actually readable. An odd omission, or deliberate obfuscation?
The Youth Guarantee: managing the NEET problem
The November 2025 Budget included a strengthened Youth Guarantee, funded (apparently!) with £820milion, promising access to education, training or tailored job support for 18–21year olds, alongside funded placements for younger people suffering long-term unemployment . [WARNING: This gov.uk “news release” mostly consists of 16, yes 16, quotations from people keen to demonstrate they are towing the party line. It reads as a litany of uncritical toadyism. We read it so you don’t have to. You really shouldn’t if you’re feeling delicate.]
The guarantee responds to persistently high NEET (16-24 year olds “Not in Education, Employment, or Training”) rates. Whether it becomes a genuine bridge into stable work, or simply a holding pattern will depend on implementation, not announcements. TWOP is sceptical of practical effects and questions the mathematics of the £820million pledge (it inevitably includes recycled, previously-announced funding.)
Catch-22 have some observations about the Guarantee here.
Apprenticeships for under-25s: shifting incentives
The government also committed to funding apprenticeships for under-25s in small and medium-sized enterprises, removing employer co-investment requirements (Billy Camden, FE Week, 26th November 2025) so that Small & Medium Businesses (SMEs) will no longer pay training costs for apprentices aged 22-24, matching the funding arrangements already available for under-22s.
This is a targeted attempt to unblock a system that has often worked better for older workers than for school leavers. It is practical, limited and potentially effective, although unlikely to alter youth employment much one way or the other, particularly as it is basically lifting the funding for apprentice training already available for under-22s up to the age of 24, so it’s hardly likely to make much difference to the 16-22year olds. [More maths issues at HMT, it makes you wonder.]
Post-16 education reform: pathways under review
Proposals in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper (PDF here) suggested further changes to how young people move between education, training and work, with an emphasis on skills alignment and labour-market relevance.
These reforms matter because transitions, rather than qualifications themselves, are where young people tend to fall between the cracks.
These reforms matter because transitions, rather than qualifications themselves, are where young people tend to fall between the cracks.
SEND reform: the quiet crisis
Ongoing debates around special educational needs and disability (SEND) provision may prove some of the most consequential for young people, particularly those navigating mainstream education without adequate support.
A review of the year in youth politics is not the place for an in-depth review of SEND, but TWOP is far from convinced that the scale of this issue is being tackled in any manner that recognises its significance. According to DfE’s own statistics for 2024/5 5.3% of pupils in schools in England (that’s almost 500,000 kids) had EHC statements in 2024/5 and 14.2% (ie 1.250m kids!) require SEND support. We’re sorry to state the obvious: this can not be right and is clearly unsustainable financially and educationally. If 1 in 7 kids have “special” educational needs then, definitionally, that is no longer special; it’s normal. 1 in 7 kids also live in families with three or more children; that doesn’t make them a special case either. Mathematical craziness.
The (totally useless) Department for Education announced £3.0bn to fund up to 50,000 places for SEND places in mainstream schools saying this will end the “postcode lottery.” Of course it won’t: their own data suggests that there are 1.250m kids with SEND needs. 50,000 SEND-supported mainstream places will address just the tip of the iceberg – but the iceberg has been created by inappropriate definitions and processes. TWOP can not understand why DfE officials seem to have avoided taking basic maths qualifications as this sort of policy-building wouldn’t obtain a passing grade at GCSE.
SEND reform is not framed as youth policy, but its impact on life chances, wellbeing and exclusion is profound. However, SEND costs are now unsustainable and threaten the whole structure of education for everybody. This requires urgent and structural intervention now. It is at least as important and as woefully ignored as the need for a solution to social care.
Media literacy and participation: democracy in practice
Finally, growing concern around media literacy and youth political engagement reflects unease about how young people encounter politics in a fragmented, algorithm-driven environment (Media Literacy, House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, 25th July 2025, PDF here.) This under-regarded Lords committee pointed out that: “Schools are central to delivering media literacy education to children and young people. But current provision in formal education is inadequate. We urge the Government to use the curriculum and assessment review to embed media literacy across the curriculum.” The committee was very far from wrong.
Votes at 16 expands formal rights, but it will be improving media literacy and civic education that will determine whether those rights can be meaningfully exercised. TWOP is sceptical of the value of lowering the voting age without improving education in civics and investing in media literacy for teens. The Electoral Commission agrees, but will the DfE or LEAs be given the funds to support extension of civics education before 2029? Of course not.
En passant, TWOP was interested to see the research conducted by More in Common for politico investigating the political knowledge, attitudes and opinions of a focus group of 12-13year old school children (who will now have a vote if there is a General Election in 2029.)
None of the schoolchildren knew who Kemi Badenoch was, but more knew Nigel Farage and some appreciated his anti-immigration, benefit-reducing reputation. However, the savvy kids seem to have been united in their view of Starmer as a figure of absurd uselessness.
“Sophie”, a 12-year-old from Worcester in the West Midlands, was equally withering, saying she thought the PM is doing a bad job. “He keeps making all these promises, but he’s probably not even doing any of them,” she added. “He just wants to show off and try to be cool, but he’s not being cool because he’s breaking all the promises. He just wants all the money and the job to make him look really good.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/britains-teens-are-getting-the-vote-so-we-asked-them-what-they-really-think
It is no surprise (to anyone who is less than 20, but perhaps also their parents) that these kids were far more interested in climate change, mental health and homelessness than immigration, defence or welfare costs. (See TWOP’s analysis of the issues that matter to 16-25year olds from June 2025 and/or the John Smith Centre’s more comprehensive analysis.) If David Attenborough would run for Parliament (given that he is quite rightly immortal) the Greens could well form the next administration.
There’s fun ahead for the 2029 election cohort, but what’s the betting that the Labour back-office whizzes who thought that they could confidently command this demographic get cold feet and decide that some spurious technicality should delay the inclusion of 16-17 year olds from the next General Election? Labour HQ has form in running scared of election results as anyone living in Essex, Sussex & Brighton, Hampshire & The Solent and Norfolk & Suffolk can attest, having had first their council elections and then their “upgraded” mayoral elections delayed twice – presumably until more of them can be bribed to vote Labour somehow (ie never.) Be careful what you ask for Labour!
What does this add up to?
Taken together, these developments do not amount to a coherent “youth agenda”. They are uneven, politically contested and often driven by administrative logic rather than generational justice.
They vary wildly in ambition, funding and seriousness. Some are structural. Others are symbolic. A few may quietly improve lives, but often “despite” rather than “because” of new regulations and policies.
What these developments suggest is grudging recognition that young people cannot be ignored for ever, even if the political system still struggles to act at the scale required. For a generation accustomed to being noticed mainly when something goes wrong, that recognition is thin comfort. But it is not nothing. Not a settlement. Not a strategy. But more than the usual indifference.
Notice seems to have been taken, but action remains elusive. Too much self-congratulatory chat, insufficient action. This is not a generation that accepts delay. We live in a tik-tok world. If you want this generation’s votes it might be wise to work out what they want and move faster.
For now, however, it is enough to say: if you are young and feel that politics rarely notices you, the past few months provide some encouragement to your involvement. Speak louder, argue more coherently, make sure we are heard! It will be our future.
You (may have) heard it first on insta: @theworldofukpolitics 😂
Leave a Reply