Intergenerational injustice

[Tim Lund]

Summerbreeze - the problem is not getting councillors to let people know they are there for the wider community - the vast majority really are, and all will say they are. Their problem is explaining how the Council works - what they as councillors can and cannot do, where the money comes from, what the limitations on spending it are, what the other priorities are. I think councillors feel as if they are part of a tightly closed shop because they find it hard to open up to explain all this. It's hard, and it also risks making them look less important than they'd like to be, because individual councillors would be seen often to be powerless. Instead they go for some small amount of the mystique which comes from being in the local loop - that delicious feeling of knowing, unlike outsiders, what's really going on.

As you know, I'm a fan of what you've achieved with your cricket club, and I think Councillors have lessons to learn from you, but you have it comparatively easy - as I do at my allotments association. We both have to deal with fairly small groups where there's a clear common interest, and how authority is exercised can shown fairly easily. Obviously with your many young members you're ahead of us in engaging the young, but we don't do too badly at representing our membership.

So - I'd like councillors to tackle the really difficult task of explaining, honestly, the realities of local power. Take a leaf out of the book of Cllr James Barber in East Dulwich and use Forums such as this to open up.

[summerbreeze]

Summerbreeze - the problem is not getting councillors to let people know they are there for the wider community - the vast majority really are, and all will say they are. Their problem is explaining how the Council works - what they as councillors can and cannot do, where the money comes from, what the limitations on spending it are, what the other priorities are. I think councillors feel as if they are part of a tightly closed shop because they find it hard to open up to explain all this. It's hard, and it also risks making them look less important than they'd like to be, because individual councillors would be seen often to be powerless. Instead they go for some small amount of the mystique which comes from being in the local loop - that delicious feeling of knowing, unlike outsiders, what's really going on.

As you know, I'm a fan of what you've achieved with your cricket club, and I think Councillors have lessons to learn from you, but you have it comparatively easy - as I do at my allotments association. We both have to deal with fairly small groups where there's a clear common interest, and how authority is exercised can shown fairly easily. Obviously with your many young members you're ahead of us in engaging the young, but we don't do too badly at representing our membership.

So - I'd like councillors to tackle the really difficult task of explaining, honestly, the realities of local power. Take a leaf out of the book of Cllr James Barber in East Dulwich and use Forums such as this to open up.

Sorry Tim, I thought you were asking how to engage youth as your question asked in becoming more involved. In your OP.

I have dealt with council and Councillors all I would say on that is there are good and not so good with both. Council workers make promises that lead to block doors and dark corridors. Others would go beyond the role of spending and accounting for their budgets but not many seem to communicate within, talking to people in other departments to assist. speak to others in other departments of the council to help and assist you.

I have invited down to the club and met a couple of Councillors and engaged them explaining our aims and objectives for the wider community, as Tim is isn't just cricket we offer the local community, we have social members from 18 upwards, families, young children, old people men and ladies that we provide of it is a safe place to come, and socialise. These are not cricketers or fans of the game.

I was addressing your OP in my responses. Just because cricket is the common interest it doesn't make them want to get more involved. The youth at our club are eager to play cricket which is the common theme but we needed to engage them into seeing the bigger picture in becoming involved. I think you under valued a little, the work that is being achieved in addressing the issues we have in getting youth more involved. As not only are we asking them to give up time we also asking them to do it unselfishly in that we are asking them to do it voluntary. We have been amazed in the maturity, attitude and the building of confidence this is helping to build with our 16- 25 year old that have given time to help the development the younger people that are 6 years plus at the club. It is an ongoing program and it shows we are not a closed hidden committee that believe youth don't have a part to play within that role or any other within the club.

My views are you can't and shouldn't distinguish between any organisation or committee I think the principals are the same. I believe it is to do with the forward thinking attitudes within the people that are there that differs.

Might be why we see ourselves as a country in the state we find ourselves in. I still believe in hope and have faith some of us can make a difference. Maybe some find a place where it is easier to do, as I get a headache bashing my head against brick walls.

[Tim Lund]

Summerbreeze - it's true - I don't know as much about what you do as I could, but I'm learning from what you write.

I think the main difference between us is that you're saying everyone should be involved with running an organisation, and I'm saying every one should be able to see how organisations work, and be free to get involved, but only if they wish. For you, the reason for people not getting involved more is that they are not encouraged to enough, while for me, it's that it's not clear enough how organisations work. Is this fair?

[summerbreeze]

Summerbreeze - it's true - I don't know as much about what you do as I could, but I'm learning from what you write.

I think the main difference between us is that you're saying everyone should be involved with running an organisation, and I'm saying every one should be able to see how organisations work, and be free to get involved, but only if they wish. For you, the reason for people not getting involved more is that they are not encouraged to enough, while for me, it's that it's not clear enough how organisations work. Is this fair?

Actually Tim I Don't believe everyone should be involved with running an organisation only if they wish to, but can still be part of it. I was just trying to explain how you can make people young and old want to become part of it. To want to become part of it is to understand how it works and how your involvement would be a benefit. Many people young and old don't realise they have qualities to offer unless they can see what they can offer within the organisation.
So Tim I believe we are in more of an agreement.

[Tim Lund]

Summerbreeze - I thought we'd basically be in agreement, in particular:

Many people young and old don't realise they have qualities to offer unless they can see what they can offer within the organisation.

I think I've seen studies on leadership showing that when it is required, it will emerge, whether or not any of the people in a group have shown previous signs of being 'natural' leaders. In either case, for a group to be led effectively, there has to be adequate understanding of the situation the group are in - after which they will be able to see what they do have to offer. That's why I think Councillors, to the extent that they do understand more than the rest of us about what can and cannot be achieved, should share this knowledge. I suspect that much of this knowledge is rather technical and full of jargon - so not actually easy to understand. And what goes for leadership, applies more generally to involvement.

The flip side of the potential for anyone to be involved is that if it is thwarted by systems which generally exclude, anyone get get depressed as a result.

We may seem to be straying a bit from 'Intergenerational injustice', but in fact we are describing a more general problem of how to involve the excluded. What's new in the last 20 years of so is that younger generations have tended to be excluded when previously they were not.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

I see our glorious Chancellor is getting to grips with this intergenerational cross funding issue.

In a very quiet announcement our millionaire oligarch loving Boy George has decided to make travel a little more problematical for the eldery and disabled. From the 31st of October the half price concession for coach travel (those that can't afford trains, cars or a luxury ocean going yacht) ends. Info here: http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/Offers/Over60s.cfm

I'm sure all us pensioners & cripples are delighted to be especially chosen to pay for the banker's follies. It just a bit sad that we no longer have the energy of the young to ... err compensate by looting his dear friend & fellow tax dodger Philip Green's tacky stores .. or setting them alight to save his heating bills.

Oh dear, I appear to be getting grumpier by the minute ...

PP

[Tim Lund]

Who's rattled your zimmer frame, Paddy?

I'd suggest that age threshold for concessions should be depend on the proportion of the population over that age, so fixing proportion of older people the rest have to subsidise. It's because so many people are living well beyond the established retirement ages of 60 & 65 that pension schemes are facing bankruptcy or closure to new - younger - employees.

So Paddy, on yer bike!

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Has age befuddled your brain Tim?

We are not talking raising age thresholds. This is NO concessionary coach travel for the old and disabled after October 31st. Period. Doesn't matter how disabled or if you are 90+

This is targetted at a group who are almost exclusively poor (when did you go on one of these coaches Tim?) for whom it is their only way of moving around the country. Not a great cost to the nation. Is this really 'sharing the pain' with Bullingdon Boys?

We established and contribute to the welfare state on the basis of paying when we can and taking when we need. Just like your house insurance Tim. When it burns down (don't tempt me!) will you think the pay out a subsidy?

PP

[bensonby]

Aren't there two distinct topics here?

Social exclusion amongst young people and ways to get them involved in the political process.

Economic disadvantage amongst (a greater number) of younger people when compared to the older generation. (specifically in matters relating to pensions, healthcare and home-ownership).

I'd argue that the latter is a far more pressing and damaging problem: It has an immediate and potentially devastating impact on people's lives and relegates them to a state of permanent relative poverty and financial insecurity when compared with their parents generation. I don't feel particularly "engaged" with the political process (locally or nationally) but what I feel is more important is my personal financial security. That said, it doesn't all have to be doom and gloom. It is still possible to own a house/have a pension etc at a young age - it just takes some prudent planning, some personal sacrifices and a bit of luck. I have a decent pension plan (for the moment), some (modest) savings and I have a mortgage (fixed rate for another 9 years). I'm 24 and have had no imput from the "bank of mum and dad".

That said, shifting demographics are making retirements longer and I'd rather see the pension age etc raised rather than benefits (that have been paid for) eroded. Much the same as Tim suggests. That's basically common sense.

[Tim Lund]

Paddy - age has not befuddled my brains - I was suggesting something rather fairer than the proposal to abolish all such concessions. And, as a non-car owner, I use coaches fairly often.

Bensonby - they can be seen as different problems, and the economic aspect probably is more serious, but I think they are deeply linked. One of the main themes of the Nobel prize winning economist, Amartya Sen, is that societies with functioning democracies are better at preventing econonic injustices. So the politics of exclusion are also vital.

[Eagle]

Very interesting discussion. I can see not just a black and white issue.

The bus/train pass anyway moving up now all the time as it should do.

Rather puzzled by ladies who are complaining that they are having to retire the same time as gentlefolk. They have had it too good for too long.
I am 62 and oblbect to fact that ladies of my age have had a pension since 60 whilst I have to wait until 65.

I am especially anoyed when I here a retired couple saying they are going to spend it all on themselves rather than assist future generations. Often these are the same people who gained capital from their parents houses and deciding to cut out future generations.

The younger generation have been pandered to by their parents and it is not surprising that some of them have problems with accepting work.
Youngsters rarely do chores at home which were de rigeur for my generation.
Also expect to be taxied when they want from events , parties etc.

[mosy]

Could I mention, thanks to the link in Paddy's post,that the National Coach concessionary fare rate for 60+ years and disabled people does expire on 31 October, however, if one books a ticket before then it can be used up to or on 31 Aug 2012 - so plan ahead folks if relevant to you or yours.

On topic, I tie myself in knots when I try to figure out where future employment for anyone will come from what with outsourcing, sale to non-UK owners and to conglomerates, and with wealth not reinvested in the UK or that is just put into tax havens leaving the government as a major employer, so who will there be left to tax? Also, I can't find out what neanocratic means, so back to you

[bensonby]

I don't feel the loss of concessionary coach travel is too much of an issue to be honest: local buses are now free nationally and I've, personally, always found long-distance train travel very cheap (even cheaper than coaches). When i was at university I could get between London and Manchester for about £5 if I planned properly and used my railcard discount. Indeed, on a student's income I was able to commute between the two cities weekly in order to do a course.

Re. Eagle's point about different (state) pension ages between men and women - I never did understand this. After all, women can expect rather a longer retirement than men anyway due to differences in life expectency. If anything I would have thought women would have wanted to work longer, not just as they keep their health longer, but also as many are more likely to have taken time out of work (and out of pension contributions etc) for having, and caring for, children, in order to boost retirement incomes and financial security in old-age.

[Eagle]

I agree Bensonby this issue of coach travel is not a major problem for elder people. Buses/trains and trams in London are free and with a Senior rail card they can get a long way cheaper than younger persons

Governments cannot provide jobs in the private sector , they can only create conditions that allow entrepreneurs to invest.
Younger people should be more willing to start on a lower wage ( whilst they are learning a trade ) .
There hundreds of thousands of jobs in London being done by immigrants. One should be asking why British school leavers are not doing these , or some of them.

[sfhyouthforum]

I have loads of ideas, as we all have, but it takes time and investment to see them through. All the ideas I put forth in http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6572, get young people doing things that benefit the whole community.

All it takes is for people to give a small monthly donation of £2 a month and the forum can begin to distribute these funds to our members, ensuring great programmes like the ones in the thread above exist. They will all be evidenced through our website, www.sfhyouthforum.org.uk.

There are lots of points to consider from the OP. I would say that the Young Mayor elections still have higher turn out rates than local elections, as high as 42%, when I did my research in 2008.

Also, what engages young people may not be the same as our ideas of what they should engage with. I run the forums with youth completely different to the adult ones.

There is also something to be said ito learning politics as a subject in school. And lowering the voting age. I can honestly say every member of The Amazing Fun-draising Group could make a fantastic decision, and their average age is 14.

What really is and should be pushed for, that doesn't cost a lot, is intergenerational talking. Chats. Getting to know you, your background, history, experiences, life lessons.

Sadly as a youth worker there are so many restrictions because of Criminal Records checks needed, that simply initiating a one-to-one with a child and a adult tunrs into a risk. We are, quite frankly, suspicious of the adult-chiuld relationship and certainly of men. If this mindset changed, things would improve greatly.

[Tim Lund]

I have loads of ideas, as we all have, but it takes time and investment to see them through. All the ideas I put forth in http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6572, get young people doing things that benefit the whole community.

When you say 'benefit the whole community' - would it also be okay if of their own initiative they did something to benefit just an individual member of the community, or a group? And would it be okay if at the same time they benefited financially? I think such an approach would be more sustainable, not requiring the intervention of others, and possibly more attractive for those involved.

what engages young people may not be the same as our ideas of what they should engage with.

So which group is right? Young people, or the older and wiser such as we are perhaps? Surely there is a place for people who have thought about how politics, society and the economy work to say to young people "these are the things you need to understand - even if it's not what you're particularly interested in at the moment." Even life lessons from talking to older people in intergenerational chats. If you're young and idealistic, and you want to make the world a better place say by becoming a doctor, or engineer, there's some stuff to learn first. Why should making the world a better place by being a good citizen be different?

There is also something to be said ito learning politics as a subject in school.

Hmm ... I suspect politics is best learned outside the formal structures of school ... you'll get me going on Ivan Illich and Deschooling Society at this rate

[sfhyouthforum]

The SFHYF ideas also benefit individuals in the community. They include possible financial benefits to individuals. For example using the fund to subsidise the wages of young employees, contributing to their wages, supporting local businesses who employ them. Or gardening, as you Tim are keen on. Using the fund to train young gardeners to tidy front gardens for as little as £20 fee to the home owner or free to higher contributers to the £2per month scheme. May I mention we currently take in a whopping £31.00 per month. We're hoping to get this up to £400pcm by March. So if you're tired of paying for over-priced coffee in the morning, feel free to take a day off once a month and donate it to the Sydenham and Forest Hill Youth Fourm: Barclays s/c 20-49-81, acc. 50934224).

Re learning politics in school - certainly needs to be done. The structure of Parliament. Voting ages. The different parties. The history of things. Most of our politicians get this valued understanding of the inner workings of society at their fee-paying schools. Why can't we? I never had the opportunity to read Politics as a subject until I went to university. Had I had the chance, I would have done GCSE and A Level Politics and who knows, could have been PM by now!

[Tim Lund]

Re learning politics in school - certainly needs to be done. The structure of Parliament. Voting ages. The different parties. The history of things. Most of our politicians get this valued understanding of the inner workings of society at their fee-paying schools. Why can't we? I never had the opportunity to read Politics as a subject until I went to university.

To start with the last point in this lot - what was stopping you when you were at school from going to a library and getting out a book on all this stuff? - the mecahnics of elections are not difficult. If the answer is that it would have made you look terminally nerdy, then your - and anyone's - understanding of politics needs to start with these sort of sociological questions. If you also wondered why some of your friends' families were poorer, and some better off, then you might have started thinking about economics too. Other things being equal, I'd have welcomed you learning about the development of parliamentary democracy, but it wouldn't have made much more sense than all the other boring subjects you had to do if you didn't understand the social and economic history.

If you actually want to learn about politics at school, you'd do better to try to work out all the changing dynamics of your friends and others from your peer group - which is the sort of thing I'm sure you did anyway, without it being on any syllabus - and it's no more than this that kids at fee-paying schools might be doing. The only difference is that if your school friends' families divide between the "haves" and "have yatchs", then it's easier to imagine yourself applying the school playgrond lessons in public life or business, and you approach them with that much more confidence.

If you want to learn about politics now and in Sydenham, try to work out why the Assembly allocates £12,000 to a mosaic. But don't expect there to be any teacher ready or able to give you a sensible overview - it's something you'll need to work out yourself.

[mosy]

In terms of teaching politics in schools, at one time, a GCSE in "British Constitution" was considered a soft option (versus economics, say) and considered relatively useless in pragmatic terms in the same way that "media studies" is today. My instinct tells me that many teens are just not interested in achieving the historical grasp of "how we arrived at this point" when they'd much rather be learning how to animate a computer game.

Also, perhaps memory retrieval capability is relevant - consider Tony Benn's seemingly encyclopaedic memory, which not many people have however bright they might be otherwise. Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals" lists some who have shaped modern thinking over the last couple of centuries, although with the Romans and the English 11th Century (I think) shaping of courts and judicial proceedings to take in as well it could easily be a bridge too far for many, who'd just remember at its simplest that we have n(number) of MPs and that general elections are held every five years.

In some ways, I'd suggest that trying to "break into" a political system which is increasingly over time closing its ranks to "outsiders" is almost a hide into nowhere for most. Perhaps individual entrepreneurial or craftsman skills would help more which I suppose could be summed up as "If you can't join them, beat them"

However, let's not forget that William Pitt the Younger became an MP at 22 years in 1781 (albeit with some nepotistic connections) and that prime ministers have been getting younger recently...

And what I've just written is probably what drives youngsters mad - i.e. the spoutings of someone twice their age

[Tim Lund]

The SFHYF ideas also benefit individuals in the community. They include possible financial benefits to individuals. For example using the fund to subsidise the wages of young employees, contributing to their wages, supporting local businesses who employ them. Or gardening, as you Tim are keen on.

I was asking if you thought the free working of market forces, without any call for subsidies, might also beneft the community in this case.