The only group that stands out is the 50–64 one where *inactivity* has surged due to long-term sickness and just as important, *other* reasons which may well include the ones Right Wing media apply to the group they choose to find fault with - with one specific reason being the reason why?*IT HAS BEEN A USEFUL TOOL TO PUT BLAME BLAME ONTO THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT*
When media narratives overwhelmingly target young people, creating a damaging and inaccurate public perception, blaming the government as well as the 16 - 24 year old group for purely political purposes is frankly cruel on the youngsters as well as crudely untrue when you bring real life statistics into their world.
New analysis of ONS labour-market data shows that young people are being misrepresented in UK media narratives about economic inactivity. When full-time education is removed from official figures, non-education inactivity among young people is not rising — it is falling. The real increases are occurring among older working-age groups, yet public debate continues to frame youth as the problem.
The data is clear.
1/. In 2010, non-education inactivity among 16–24-year-olds was approximately 15–16 percent.
2/. Today it is approximately 11–12 percent.
This is a four-point decline. Young people are more engaged, not less. The rise in total inactivity for this group is driven almost entirely by full-time education, which is excluded from NEET measures. Young people are studying, not disengaging.
3/. By contrast, non-education inactivity has risen across older working-age groups:
Among 25–34-year-olds, inactivity has increased from 10–11 percent to 13–14 percent.
Among 35–49-year-olds, inactivity has risen from 8–9 percent to 11–12 percent.
Among 50–64-year-olds, inactivity has climbed from 18–19 percent to 22–23 percent.
Pension-age inactivity remains stable at around 86–87 percent.
4/. These figures show a consistent pattern: young people are not the outlier. Older groups are. Yet media framing overwhelmingly targets youth, often portraying them as lazy, disengaged, or lacking resilience. Older adults experiencing long-term sickness are described with compassion; young people experiencing mental-health consequences of lockdowns are not afforded the same understanding.
WHY TARGET 16 - 24 YEAR OLDS:
This misframing ignores the structural reality of Covid lockdowns. Young people lost the developmental experiences that shape identity, confidence, and early employment: peer contact, social learning, transitions into independence, 50 - 64 YEAR OLDS DIDN'T - BUT THEY TEND TO BE RIGHT WING VOTERS - AND THAT IS WHY
Mental-health research shows steep rises in anxiety, depression, and loneliness among young people during lockdowns, especially those already disadvantaged. These effects did not simply disappear. Many entered adulthood carrying disrupted education, unstable housing, reduced support, and lost opportunities. These are structural scars, not personal failings.
Media misrepresenting young people has consequences. It deepens stigma, undermines confidence, damages mental health, and creates a pariah group out of those who were most disrupted by lockdowns. It tells harmed young people that their harm is their fault. Treating them as a pariah group doesn’t fix the problem. It is the problem.
*POLITICISING YOUNG PEOPLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RIGHT WING PARTIES IS A DISGRACE*
It's time DECENT *Left Wing* voters spoke out against this kind of barbarism - if only for the YOUNG?
Click Here ALWAYS LOOKING OUT FOR THE GOOD IN PEOPLE