Rupert Murdoch basically has the power to choose who gets into power because he owns so many newspapers.

Don't fight fire with fire. This is exaggerated well beyond the truth.

For some reason, the BBC gives an overwhelming amount of coverage to UKIP despite the fact that up until recently they didn't have any members of Parliament. They give so much coverage that they could only ever help UKIP's cause. Which they have.

I've heard this being said increasingly as of late. Do you remember The British National Party controversy on Question Time? The BBC has to give a certain amount of representation to certain parties. Ignoring the dubious link that you've made — between BBC UKIP exposure, the inevitability of increased UKIP votes, and the increase in votes for UKIP — this feels hyperbolic. Whether or not you agree with Farage, his political input on a wide range of matters has demanded his party's representation in the media and it's only fair that it's received.

I've voted three times (UK) since I am but a wee bairn and I've only actually had the chance to go to three elections.

Out of interest, are these three elections all general elections? Or do you mean other types, such as the European?

To address the article: I'd be reluctant to apply too much of its theory to our own political situation. There are large distinctions between the United Kingdom's and America's political culture.

However, I think a sense of political ennui is common to both countries. Ergo: "Like half her generation... identifies with neither the Republicans nor the Democrats". I remember Noam Chomsky referring to this situation as 'narrow spectrum politics', where party differences are rather specious. In Britain, the three Big Parties have congregated around the centre for most of this century. People no longer have a place to find themselves represented. This creates more issues in the US than it does in the UK.

As an anecdote: I'm 17. My peers — my age and politically active — tend to be of extreme opinions. There's a good chance I'm more like them than I'd like to admit. UKIP in the UK has appealed to the 'youth conservative' movement and the increasing culture of tolerance and social justice has led to a fair amount of people who would consider themselves of a socialist inclination.

I think there is an important question here, and it's one of many that must be answered to reach this article's conclusion (which seems thoroughly unsupported here): "wooing young voters is of paramount importance". Ennui is indeed an issue, but the article places the onus of unilateral appeal on politicians. Not to discourage freedom of belief or idealism, but one must have realistic expectations of our system and recognise the virtues of its simplicity. You've implied concern over UKIP getting into power; I'd have similar doubts about any far-left party gaining actual power. And as a whole, I'd express doubts about the integrity of youth voting, the worth they have in terms of political issues, or that public debasement ("She has also danced the “Wobble” at a tailgate party and has helped a 28-year-old perform a “keg stand”"; "Obama told students that voting might improve their sex lives") is, in any form, an imperative responsibility of politicians.