BOX SET: 6 Minute English - 'Politics' English mega-class! 30 minutes of new vocabulary!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English. I'm Neil.

And I'm Sam.

Sam, do you remember the first time you voted?

Hmm, no, I don't, but I remember being very keen to do it.

It would have been the first election after my 18th birthday.

So, over the many, many, many years since then -

Ah, not so much with the ' manys', if you don't mind, Neil!

OK, in the very, very few years since then -

Yeah, that's more like it!

In the years since then, have your political views changed very much?

I think my political views are a lot better informed now.

I think the decisions I make

are based on a better understanding of the political situation,

but I still generally agree with the same things I did when I was younger, I think.

There is a belief that, as we get older,

we become more right-wing in our political views and opinions.

Is this true and if so, why?

We'll be finding out a little bit more about this, but first, a question.

What was the first UK general election in which 18-year-olds could vote?

Was it a) 1929? b) 1950? Or c) 1970?

So, what do you reckon then Sam?

Well, they were all before my time.

I'm going to say 1950 — that sounds about right.

It was the decade in which teenagers were invented, after all!

OK. Well, I will reveal the answer later in the programme.

James Tilley is a professor of politics at the University of Oxford.

He appeared recently on BBC Radio 4's programme Analysis

and was asked why, if it is true, do we become more right-wing as we get older?

What does he think?

The question whether age affects our political views is a tricky one.

I think probably the most plausible explanation

is that people just generally become a bit more resistant to change as they get older

and I think also that they tend to perhaps become less idealistic.

So, what reasons does he give?

Well, he talks about what he thinks are the most plausible explanations.

'Plausible' is an adjective

which means something is 'believable, it's reasonable and it makes sense'.

And what are the plausible explanations?

Well, he says that generally, as we get older,

we like to have more stability in our lives, we don't like change,

in fact, we're 'resistant' to change.

That means we're 'against' change.

When we are younger, we might like the idea of revolution,

we might be very 'idealistic'.

This means, for example, we might think

that 'we can and should change the world to make things better'.

This would cause big changes in the world which, when we are older

and more settled in our lives, do not seem like such a good idea.

Let's listen again.

The question whether age affects our political views is a tricky one.

I think probably the most plausible explanation

is that people just generally become a bit more resistant to change as they get older

and I think also that they tend to perhaps become less idealistic.

Professor Tilley goes on to explain more about why being resistant to change

might lead people to support more right-wing policies.

So, if parties on the right represent a platform

which is perhaps more favourable to the status quo,

it's perhaps more about pragmatism than it is about idealism,

then that might be more attractive to older people than younger people.

So, what is seen as the appeal of moving to the right?

Political parties have a particular 'set of policies'.

This is sometimes known as their 'platform'.

Professor Tilley says that if their platforms support the status quo,

they might be more attractive to older people.

'The status quo' is a Latin phrase we use in English

to refer to 'the situation as it is now' — that is, 'one that is not going to change'.

Traditionally, it's parties of the centre right

that seem to be more supportive of the status quo.

So, as we get older, he says our political views are less about 'idealism'

and more about 'pragmatism'.

'Pragmatism' is 'being practical and realistic

about what can be achieved and how it can be achieved'.

But of course this doesn't apply to everyone

and just because people seem to move more to the right as they get older

doesn't mean that they completely change their politics.

Let's hear Professor Tilley again.

So, if parties on the right represent a platform

which is perhaps more favourable to the status quo,

it's perhaps more about 'pragmatism' than it is about 'idealism',

then that might be more attractive to older people than younger people.

Right, let's get the answer to our question.

What was the first UK general election in which 18-year-olds could vote?

Was it a) 1929? b) 1950? Or c) 1970?

Sam, what did you say?

I thought it was 1950.

Well, you're wrong, I'm afraid. The correct answer is 1970.

18-year-olds have been allowed to vote in the UK since 1969

and the first general election after then was in 1970.

So, a bit later than you thought, Sam,

but congratulations to anyone who did get that right.

OK, let's remind ourselves of our vocabulary.

Yes, first we had 'plausible',

an adjective that means 'believable' or 'possible'.

Being 'resistant' to something

means you are 'against it and don't want it to happen'.

If you are 'idealistic',

you have 'a clear and simple moral view of how things should be'.

This contrasts with one of our other words, 'pragmatism'.

This noun is 'the idea of being realistic and practical about what can be achieved'.

A 'platform' can describe

'the policies and ideas of a political party or politician'.

And 'the status quo' is 'the unchanging situation as it is now'.

OK, thank you, Sam. That's all from us in this programme.

Do join us again and, if you can't wait, you can find lots more

BBC Learning English online, on social media and on our app.

— Goodbye. — Bye.

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello and welcome to 6 Minute English. I'm Alice.

And I'm Neil.

The BBC's 100 Women season is back this week.

It will explore women's stories of defiance

and it will include stories of women who inspired us

and that's what we're going to talk about today.

And which woman has inspired you, Alice?

Oh, well, I have many female 'role models'

and this means 'people looked to by others as examples to be followed'.

But I must say I have a great admiration for the 'suffragettes'.

Ah, 'the women who fought for the right to vote in the UK'.

Yes, I think they were very brave.

Yes, so do I. Let's see how much you know about it, Neil.

This is today's quiz question for you.

Which was the first country to give all women

the right to vote in public elections?

Was it a) Finland? b) New Zealand? Or c) the United States?

Hmm, I'm going to say a) Finland.

Well, we'll see if you were right or not later on in the show.

Here in Britain, women's groups 'lobbied' —

or 'tried to persuade' — Parliament for decades

before eventually winning the right for all women to vote in 1928.

So, why did it take so long?

Because Parliament didn't see votes for women as a priority.

Then, 30% of men still didn't have the vote either

and politicians felt they needed to address this

before thinking about 'the woman question', as it was known.

The thing is, without the power to vote, it's hard to influence public policy.

Politicians are worried about losing popularity with the 'electorate' —

that's 'the people who are allowed to vote'.

Women had to find a voice and the suffragette movement gave them a voice.

There were several activists in this movement,

but perhaps the most famous was Emmeline Pankhurst.

Emmeline Pankhurst campaigned fearlessly for women's rights for all women —

aristocratic ladies, factory workers, conservatives, socialists.

Let's listen to Julia Bush, author of Women Against The Vote,

talking more about this suffragette leader.

Well, she was a very charismatic leader,

one of the great women of the 19th century,

and she had a deep compassion for the plight of women

and in particular she was fired

by the inequalities that women experienced at that time.

It wasn't just about the parliamentary vote, the suffragette movement,

it was, she in particular wanted wider reforms for women,

an improvement in women's status and position.

Author Julia Bush. She talks about the plight of women.

'Plight' means 'a bad situation'.

Women did have a really hard time back then, especially working-class women,

and they had little hope of improving their lives

because they had no public voice.

So, that's what Julia Bush means when she says Mrs Pankhurst wanted wider reforms —

access to better schools for women,

to university, to better paid jobs and professional careers.

And it was a big challenge to be heard.

June Purvis, Emeritus Professor of Women's and Gender History

at the University of Portsmouth, here in the UK,

talks about how the suffragettes started to 'raise their profile' —

or 'get noticed' — with deeds, not words.

You have women interrupting theatre plays,

getting thrown out of church services for interrupting,

getting thrown out of Lyons' Corner House for standing up on chairs

and having little impromptu meetings.

But militancy also takes on other forms.

It takes on forms of direct action, which start with large demonstrations

when women will not be turned back by the police

and then it moves on in, in other forms as well to criminal damage.

So, women started to interrupt public events to talk about their right to vote.

An 'impromptu' meeting is one that 'hasn't been planned'.

Lyons' Corner House was a chain of teashops popular at the time.

You can imagine that women suddenly standing up on chairs

and addressing the public would have been quite shocking in those days!

Indeed! The suffragettes started small with teashop talks,

but they began to take more 'militant' — or 'aggressive' — direct action.

And 'direct action' means 'using demonstrations, strikes'.

The suffragettes chained themselves to railings, broke shop windows.

It was quite a struggle,

and there was no way of delaying the decision to give women the right to vote.

In 1914, war broke out in Europe

and, with the men away fighting, many women ran their homes,

cared for children and relatives, managed money, and often had a job as well.

So, when the war ended in 1918,

women had proved how capable they were in so many ways.

To deny them the right to vote now seemed ridiculous.

Although it took another ten years

before all women were given the vote on equal terms to men.

But come on, Alice, it must be time to hear the answer to today's quiz question.

I asked which was the first country

to give all women the right to vote in public elections?

Was it a) Finland? b) New Zealand? Or c) the United States?

And I said Finland.

Mm, well, no, sorry, Neil. It was b) New Zealand.

In 1893, New Zealand became the first country

to give all adult women the right to vote in national elections.

Now, shall we remind ourselves of the words we learned today?

Yes. They were 'role models',

'suffragettes',

'lobbied',

'electorate', 'plight',

'raised their profile',

'impromptu',

'militant',

'direct action'.

That's the end of today's 6 Minute English

and we would like to invite you to follow the special programmes and events

on the 100 Women season, which will be on till December the 9th.

It's produced and created by the BBC's 29 language services.

Check the BBC website in your language

and you can also join the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag 100women.

Enjoy the programmes.

— Goodbye! — Bye!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello and welcome to 6 Minute English. I'm Rob.

And I'm Neil, hello.

Hello, Neil! Today, we're talking about voting.

Now, I'm sure it's something you've done, Neil?

Of course and earlier this year we had a general election in the UK where I voted

and I'd feel guilty if I didn't exercise my right to vote.

Now a 'right' in this case means somebody's 'legal claim' to vote.

In a 'general election', we 'vote for a government that runs the whole country',

but we also have local and European elections too sometimes.

Yes, but voting in the UK is 'optional', so you 'don't have to do it',

whereas in some countries voting is compulsory —

and 'compulsory' means something that you 'have to do'.

So, if you were in Australia,

where the government passed a law that made voting compulsory,

you would have had to pay a fine of $20 for not voting.

And that's because the Australian government

believes that voting is a duty and not just a right.

A 'duty' means 'something you have a responsibility to do'.

And it's your duty, Rob, to ask me today's quiz question!

Yes, sir! OK, so can you tell me what is a constituency?

Is it a) the people who live in and vote in a particular area?

b) the politicians who make and change the laws of a country?

Or c) a town or district that has its own government?

Well, I'm no expert on politics, but I'm going to go for c),

that's a town or district that has its own government.

OK. Well, we'll find out later on in the show whether you're right or wrong.

Now it's time to hear what a truly young person has to say about compulsory voting.

— Oh, right, unlike me you mean? — Mm-hm.

Well, here's Michael Yip, who is a student at Warwick University

and therefore much younger than me.

A lot of the people that I speak to just say "I don't care"

or "I don't really know what's going on" and in this way...

Another reason why I'm quite cautious about this is because it could sort of

engender this sort of slapdash attitude towards politics

where, you know, it's sort of seen as, you know,

being conscripted for national service.

You just want to get it over and done with.

So, Michael says he is cautious about the idea of introducing compulsory voting.

So, why is that, Neil?

He thinks forcing young people to vote will 'engender' — or 'give rise to' —

a slapdash attitude.

Now, what does 'slapdash' mean, Rob?

Mm, it's a good word, isn't it? It means 'doing something quickly and carelessly'.

Oh, you'd never do that, would you, Rob?

Now, Michael compares compulsory voting to national service.

'National service' is 'compulsory government service'

that usually means military service and is also known as 'conscription'.

So when it's something you haven't chosen to do,

or which you actively don't want to do —

it's a case of getting it 'over and done with'.

And that means

'finishing something difficult or unpleasant as quickly as possible'.

Mm, young people might just 'pick a political party out of a hat' —

which means to 'choose randomly' — rather than making an informed choice.

So, some people think that politicians need to improve political education.

Now, let's listen to broadcaster and writer Rick Edwards talking about this.

If you said to politicians,

"Right, 3.3 million first-time voters are definitely going to vote",

then they will have to speak to them

and they will have to make an effort to go to where they are

and I think that's the change that it would create.

So, compulsory voting would mean a responsibility for the politicians too.

That's right. They need to engage and educate young people.

Otherwise, reluctant voters may deliberately 'spoil',

or 'waste', their votes.

The government could also include a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

Can you explain a bit more about that, Rob?

Well, it means you 'tick this option if you don't want to vote

'for any of the listed political parties'.

An interesting idea.

Well, my option for now is to get the answer to the quiz question.

OK, well, I asked what is a constituency?

Is it a) the people who live in and vote in a particular area?

b) the politicians who make and change the laws of a country?

Or c) a town or district that has its own government?

And I said c) a town or district that has its own government.

Ah, well, you ticked the wrong box, Neil.

The answer is a) the people who live in and vote in a particular area.

Now, did you know the UK is currently divided into 650 areas,

called Parliamentary constituencies,

each of which is represented by one MP in the House of Commons?

And each constituency can have a different area.

The largest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber in Scotland

measuring approximately 12,000 square kilometres.

The smallest constituency is Islington North in London,

measuring a little over seven square kilometres.

Now, can we hear today's words again please, Neil?

OK. We heard 'right',

'general election',

'compulsory',

'duty',

'engender',

'slapdash',

'national service',

'conscription',

'over and done with',

'pick a political party out of a hat',

'spoil'.

Splendid! Well, that's the end of today's 6 Minute English.

I hope it got your vote!

You can hear more programmes at BBC Learning English.com.

Please join us again soon.

— Bye-bye. — Goodbye.

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English, I'm Sam.

And I'm Georgina.

How do you do feel about politics, Georgina?

Well, there's a lot around at the moment!

Yes, indeed!

One thing I would like to see in politics, particularly British politics,

is more women in Parliament.

About 34% of our MPs are women,

which is the highest it's ever been, but it's still not close to 50%.

In order to be elected though, you first have to stand, don't you?

Yes, we use the verb 'stand' when you are 'a candidate someone can vote for'.

Women in politics is our topic today.

Before we get into it, today's question.

Which country has the highest percentage of women in its parliament?

Is it a) Rwanda? b) Sweden? Or c) New Zealand?

What do you think, Georgina?

Hmm, I'm not sure.

I know New Zealand was one of the first countries to allow women to vote

and they currently have a female prime minister,

but I think it's actually an African country, so I'm going to say Rwanda.

OK. We'll see if you're correct at the end of the programme.

There are a number of projects in the UK at the moment,

trying to get more women interested in standing for Parliament.

One of these is the campaign Sign Up To Stand,

from an organisation called 50:50 Parliament.

Lucrece Grehoua is someone who has taken up that challenge

and is hoping to stand in upcoming elections.

She was a guest on the BBC radio programme, Woman's Hour.

She wasn't always interested in politics, though. How does she describe it?

I didn't really see myself in the Houses of Parliament.

When we see it on TV, it looks extremely boring, politics looks boring,

especially as a young person,

and so when I saw that 50:50 Parliament were including women

and including young women and including a diverse range of young women,

I thought, "Wow, this is really for me and it can be for me".

So, I decided to sign up to stand and, ever since I've just been excited

at the prospect of me standing for Parliament.

So, what was her original feeling about politics?

Boring! She thought it was boring, particularly as a young person.

In fact, she couldn't 'see herself' as a politician.

She couldn't 'imagine herself' doing it.

She says that she's now excited at the prospect of standing.

What does she mean by that?

The 'prospect of' something is the 'possibility of' something.

So, before, she thought it was boring,

now she's excited at the possibility that she could be a Member of Parliament.

So, what was it that made her change her mind

and think that politics wasn't so boring after all?

Here's Lucrece Grehoua again.

I think everybody has a politician within them,

because we all get angry about something,

but unfortunately when we see it, it's all jargon, um, it's not very

It's not words that we can understand as, um

Even just as a working-class person who hasn't, you know, been to a private school

and who's come from a disadvantaged background

and so I've realised, you know, politics is for absolutely everybody,

it's just the way that you speak about it that has to be tailored to everyone.

One of the things she didn't like about politics was the jargon.

Well, no-one likes jargon, do they?

'Jargon' is 'the very specific language and vocabulary

'relating to a particular profession'.

Inside the profession, people know what it means,

but from outside it can seem very complicated and confusing.

Lucrece said she came from a 'disadvantaged background'.

This means that when she was growing up,

her family 'didn't have very much money'

and 'that made life and study very difficult'.

But even though, or maybe because, she came from a disadvantaged background

she has become interested in politics

and thinks that it can be something for everyone,

but rather than use jargon you have to tailor the way you speak for everyone.

To 'tailor' something is to 'make it fit',

in the same way that a tailor makes clothes fit,

you can tailor your language to make it easy for everyone to understand

and one way to do that is to cut out the jargon!

That's just about all we have time for today,

but before we review the vocabulary,

it's time to get the answer to today's quiz question.

Which country has the highest percentage of women in its parliament?

Is it a) Rwanda? b) Sweden? Or c) New Zealand?

Georgina, what did you say?

I made an educated guess of Rwanda.

An educated guess and a correct guess. Well done.

And well done to everyone else who got that right too!

According to 2019 figures, Rwanda's parliament has over 60% women MPs.

Go Rwanda!

OK, let's remind ourselves of today's vocabulary.

Of course.

To 'stand' is the verb we use when someone is 'a candidate in an election' —

when someone 'stands' for election, you can vote for them.

If you can 'see yourself' as something,

it means that you can 'imagine yourself' doing that thing.

The 'prospect of' something is the 'possibility of' something,

so, for example, the prospect of becoming an MP is something that excites Lucrece.

Something that we all hate, except when we use it ourselves, is 'jargon' —

'words and language that are very specific to a particular job'

and which are difficult for people outside that profession to understand.

People who 'grow up without enough money and without access to education'

can be said to come from a 'disadvantaged background'.

And finally, to 'tailor' something

is to 'change it to make it suitable for a particular purpose'.

So, for example, if you want to make politics accessible for more people,

you have to tailor your language and cut out the jargon.

Indeed.

Well, it's time for us to go now, but do join us again soon. Bye for now.

Bye.

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Rob.

And I'm Sam.

When it comes to US presidential elections,

some are more dramatic than others.

But few elections have been as controversial as this November's contest

between current President Trump and his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

In America, where many votes are cast digitally,

there is a risk of cyber-attacks on election day

and with so much depending on the result, US election officials are worried.

In this programme, we'll be hearing about plans to prevent election cyber-attacks

which involve election officials working with a very unusual group of people —

volunteer hackers.

'Volunteers' are 'people who work willingly, without being paid'.

And 'hackers' are 'people who break into computer systems without permission

in order to find information or do something illegal'.

But cyber-attacks from hackers

are not the only threat to fair and democratic elections.

In 2000, the presidential race between Al Gore and George W Bush

ended in recounts and disputes over missing votes.

George Bush became the first modern president to win the election,

despite gaining fewer popular votes than his opponent — but how many fewer?

That's our quiz question —

how many fewer votes did Bush win than Gore

in the 2000 American presidential election?

Was it a) half a million votes? b) a million votes?

Or c) two million votes?

I'll say b) a million votes.

OK, we'll find out later.

Now, the project Sam mentioned, where official administrators

team up with expert volunteers to keep the election secure,

is called The Election Cyber Surge.

The BBC World Service programme, Digital Planet,

met up with project organiser Maya Worman

to discuss the importance of keeping the election free from interference.

Any attempt to manipulate or interfere with election infrastructures —

the machines or the information sets

that determine who is eligible to vote and where — undermines the right to vote.

And it puts burdens on voters and it impacts public confidence

and, you know, high-profile elections, especially like the one coming up,

heighten the types of risks that we're talking about.

You can only vote in an election if you are 'eligible' —

'qualified by having the necessary requirements' —

for example being a US citizen who's aged 18 or over.

It's up to each of the 8,000 local jurisdictions around the United States

to keep their area free from cyber-attacks and misinformation,

risks which have increased because the coming election is so 'high-profile' —

'attracting a lot of attention and interest from newspapers and the public'.

The Cyber Surge project to put expert volunteers

in touch with local officials aims to prevent these risks.

It covers everything from making sure administrators

are using the latest anti-virus software

to more serious threats from troublemakers.

Now, that's got me thinking actually, Rob.

Suppose I'm a troublemaker who wants to influence the election result,

so I sign up as a volunteer and gain access to all kinds of information.

How do we know that the volunteers who sign up are trustworthy?

That's a good question, Sam,

and one that BBC World Service programme Digital Planet put to Maya Worman.

The expectation is not that the volunteer

will have the keys to the castle, by any means,

more that they will have an open dialogue with an election administrator

who wants to know more,

to explore cybersecurity enhancements in general or specifically.

Volunteers are carefully selected

according to their experience and skills in 'cybersecurity' —

'measures that help organisations and countries

keep their computer information safe

against crimes and attacks carried out through the internet'.

Volunteers share their expert advice by talking with election officials.

They won't be given access to sensitive information,

so they won't have 'the keys to the castle' —

an idiom meaning 'to possess information or knowledge

which gives the possessor access to power'.

All of which means that the 2020 election result

will, hopefully, be accepted by everyone.

Unlike the situation twenty years ago.

Ah, you mean our quiz question, Rob, about the 2000 US presidential election

which George W Bush won, despite securing fewer votes than his opponent.

I asked you how many fewer votes Bush won than Al Gore that year.

And I said b) a million votes.

Mm, but, in fact, it was even closer — just a) half a million votes in Florida.

Mm.

In this programme, we've been looking ahead to the US presidential elections

and its 'cybersecurity' —

'measures taken to protect countries and their computer information

against online crimes and attacks'.

The Cyber Surge project aims to put officials in touch with 'volunteers' —

'people who work for free', who also happen to be expert 'hackers' —

'people who break into computer systems without permission'.

But the idea isn't to commit election crime,

rather to prevent it by making sure

only those who are 'eligible', or 'qualified', to vote, do so.

The project was set up because the November 2020 election

has become so 'high-profile' —

'attracting a lot of attention and interest from the public and the media'.

And of course the volunteers themselves

are carefully chosen to be impartial experts who give advice

without holding 'the keys to the castle' —

an idiom about 'possessing information which gives access to power'.

What's certain is that the world will be watching this election,

so if you're eligible, remember to vote.

And remember to join us again soon. Bye for now!

Bye-bye!

6 Minute English.

From BBC Learning English.