There's a real irony in the fact that the proportion of people aged 18-24 years who vote in the election this month will be the lowest proportion of any age group.
No age group will be more affected by the policies and philosophies on which we're all being asked to balance our votes. It's an inescapable fact of nature that it is they who will have to endure the outcome longer than any other group of voters.
They - the 461,890 who the Electoral Commission estimates are eligible to be on the rolls - are, by and large, going to be around longer than any others who are eligible.
More importantly, they also carry the candle for those not yet eligible to vote, for it is they who are heading into what for most are the most important parts of the life cycle: Getting a job and supporting a family. Nothing else matters, but then it could be said, everything else revolves around that anyway.
A first-time voter can therefore, rightfully, ask, who's going to guarantee I will be able to get a job and be able to support a family, meaning a safe and liveable home, decent grub on the table, access to education and the most fair and best chance for the offspring to support themselves and a family when their turn comes around.
Surveys leading into the UK election in June, while not particularly scientific, were fairly clear that those in the age group of first-time voters would want equality of opportunity more than anything else.
With a typical hint of teen rebellion, they would achieve this not so much by deciding to vote for the party that offers the goods, as opposed to deciding NOT to vote for the party that doesn't.
Not a vote for, but a vote against. Not that logical, perhaps, but in the words of Roger Waters: "It all makes perfect sense."