Something a little more important than the Sydenham Mosaic - although it has a bearing on it. "Intergenerational" has become a bit of a buzz word recently, and I was recently at a meeting where it came up which was all about setting up conversations between young and old. Good stuff, but it misses the point, which is that, as David Willetts puts it in his book, The Pinch, reviewed here in The Observer: those, like him - and me - who were born between 1945 and 1965 – have "stolen their children's future" through their cultural, demographic and political dominance. The book's on my list to read, but we can see what he means all around. Property prices are still at crazy levels, and it's my generation that has benefited. Many of us live alone, or as couples who never had kids, or who have left home, with way more space than we actually need. Some of the richer among us - not me - even have second homes.
I'm not sure either why he excludes those born before 1945. I'm embarrassed by the fact that my Dad, who had a regular job teaching at a university all his life, now gets a nice government guaranteed index-linked pension, even though the pension scheme has debts about 50% more than its assets, and as a result cannot offer young academics anything like the security he had.
But it's not just the affluent - it's ordinary people, who've held down 'proper' jobs over their working lives, but with way more generous pension arrangements than their children will ever enjoy. Where trade unions are still active, they argue for the retention of such arrangements, aggravating the intergenerational injustice. Even without trades unions, employers are reluctant to upset current employees. They also benefit from generations of legislation protecting the interests of employees, which means that employers try to avoid the costs of such protection for new staff via short term contracts.
Politically it works by the young being deterred from political forums, which are inevitably dominated by older people defending their interests. Politicians know there are more votes in the old, and they continue to pander to their interests. The young see little point in formal politics, and chose not to engage. To see it in practice, just go along to the next Sydenham Assembly meeting, and estimate the average age of people who bother to go.
Over time, it will make our society yet more unequal, as eventual financial security becomes more and more the preserve of those from families rich enough to support them until their children eventually inherit their wealth.
Can anyone suggest a plausible political strategy whereby the young can be persuaded to engage politically, and stop this injustice?
Intergenerational injustice
Re: Intergenerational injustice
To start with give people the right to vote from the age of 16 rather than 18.Tim Lund wrote:Can anyone suggest a plausible political strategy whereby the young can be persuaded to engage politically, and stop this injustice?
Re: Intergenerational injustice
Sorry Michael - I think that would be little more than gimmickry - the sort of thing which would attract established politicians who want to be seen to be doing something for da yoof. A bit like Lewisham's Young Mayor's programme - is there any evidence for this having led to a wider level of youth engagement with civil society here than in comparable London Boroughs?michael wrote:To start with give people the right to vote from the age of 16 rather than 18.Tim Lund wrote:Can anyone suggest a plausible political strategy whereby the young can be persuaded to engage politically, and stop this injustice?
Re: Intergenerational injustice
It is not gimmickry to give the voice of 16 year olds the same as that of all other enfranchised people. You don't stop injustice without treating everybody fairly in the democratic process, and I believe that this means everybody over 16.
I'm not saying it will change everything, it won't. But there is no use talking about respecting young people if you tell them that they are not old enough to have opinions about how the country should be run.
I'm not saying it will change everything, it won't. But there is no use talking about respecting young people if you tell them that they are not old enough to have opinions about how the country should be run.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
I don't have any very strong view on reducing the voting age to 16 - now I think about it, I guess I'd be in favour, in the same way I'm in favour, in principle, of some kind of fairer voting system than first past the post. But I think it seriously misses the point - and I don't think reducing the voting age to 18 did anything much to increase wider civic engagement among the young.
I've been thinking recently about the changing attitudes over time of liberals - such as me - to democracy. Clearly democracy and equality are central to the liberal tradition, but from the late 19th century there was a growing awareness that decisions taken via formal democratic structures could reduce individual freedoms to such an extent that overall freedom was impaired. For example, what happens if a democracy chooses suicide, and with it ends many of the freedoms democracy should protect? Not a purely academic point, since it happened in Germany in 1933.
What liberals actually did was to adopt the idea of natural rights, such as articulated in the aftermath of the war in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which limits the otherwise unrestrained power of a sovereign democratic state. In this case, we should be recognising a right for subsequent generations to a financially - and environmentally - sustainable future. Since most representatives of such generations are not yet born - you weren't thinking of reducing the voting age below zeros were you? - it would perhaps be better expressed as human duty on the current generation.
I've been thinking recently about the changing attitudes over time of liberals - such as me - to democracy. Clearly democracy and equality are central to the liberal tradition, but from the late 19th century there was a growing awareness that decisions taken via formal democratic structures could reduce individual freedoms to such an extent that overall freedom was impaired. For example, what happens if a democracy chooses suicide, and with it ends many of the freedoms democracy should protect? Not a purely academic point, since it happened in Germany in 1933.
What liberals actually did was to adopt the idea of natural rights, such as articulated in the aftermath of the war in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which limits the otherwise unrestrained power of a sovereign democratic state. In this case, we should be recognising a right for subsequent generations to a financially - and environmentally - sustainable future. Since most representatives of such generations are not yet born - you weren't thinking of reducing the voting age below zeros were you? - it would perhaps be better expressed as human duty on the current generation.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Intergenerational injustice
The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations was founded in Germany as long ago as 1996. It seems to have inspired a British organization called The Intergenerational Foundation. I expect these bodies could provide useful resources for anyone who wanted to pursue this issue.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
Robin
I'm delighted you found that Intergenerational Foundation web site - the main guy funding it is a friend of mine, and I'll be doing some - voluntary - work for them trying to construct an index.
I'm delighted you found that Intergenerational Foundation web site - the main guy funding it is a friend of mine, and I'll be doing some - voluntary - work for them trying to construct an index.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
How are young people any more voiceless than adults if politicians don't listen?
We're all in it together anyone?
We're all in it together anyone?
Re: Intergenerational injustice
Mosy
To some extent we are all in it together, but younger people are worse affected.
To some extent we are all in it together, but younger people are worse affected.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Intergenerational injustice
It seems to me that there is an immediate problem and a longer term problem.
The immediate problem stems from the fact that, in Britain and no doubt in other Western countries, many (not of course all) of us who grew up during and in the twenty years or so following the war benefitted from a period of unparalleled ecomomic growth and became very rich, in terms particularly of land (owner-occupied houses) and guaranteed pension rights. These boom years have now ended, and younger generations cannot accumulate wealth in the same way. So there is an imbalance, which looks very unfair.
Will the good times, economically, return? If so, our grandchildren may become as rich as, or richer than our children, in the same way as we are richer than our parents were, and the imbalance will, over time, correct itself. (Hard luck on our children's generation, of course). If not (which seems more likely to me) , and our grandchildren become no richer than our children, the problem will also disappear through the effluxion of time, in that when we rich old people die off our children and our grandchildren will share equal misery.
In the shorter term, greater participation by young people in the political process will not, in my view, in itself do very much to address this issue, unless a new neanocratic regime emerges and decides to confiscate rich old people's money (e.g. by punitive taxation) and redistribute it in some way to the young. This doesn't seem to me to be a very likely scenario - what we oldies have, we shall, I suspect, be able to find ways of holding.
The other, longer term, problem is a global one , to do with current generations' greedy depletion of the world's natural resources and man-made climate change. It will affect all our descendants, not just those of us rich (for the moment) Westerners. Paradoxically, I think that this is something we might actually be able to do something about, but only if we all, young and old, are prepared to agree to live in a simpler and less profligate way. This will however require political leadership of a kind which seems currently to be in very short supply.
The immediate problem stems from the fact that, in Britain and no doubt in other Western countries, many (not of course all) of us who grew up during and in the twenty years or so following the war benefitted from a period of unparalleled ecomomic growth and became very rich, in terms particularly of land (owner-occupied houses) and guaranteed pension rights. These boom years have now ended, and younger generations cannot accumulate wealth in the same way. So there is an imbalance, which looks very unfair.
Will the good times, economically, return? If so, our grandchildren may become as rich as, or richer than our children, in the same way as we are richer than our parents were, and the imbalance will, over time, correct itself. (Hard luck on our children's generation, of course). If not (which seems more likely to me) , and our grandchildren become no richer than our children, the problem will also disappear through the effluxion of time, in that when we rich old people die off our children and our grandchildren will share equal misery.
In the shorter term, greater participation by young people in the political process will not, in my view, in itself do very much to address this issue, unless a new neanocratic regime emerges and decides to confiscate rich old people's money (e.g. by punitive taxation) and redistribute it in some way to the young. This doesn't seem to me to be a very likely scenario - what we oldies have, we shall, I suspect, be able to find ways of holding.
The other, longer term, problem is a global one , to do with current generations' greedy depletion of the world's natural resources and man-made climate change. It will affect all our descendants, not just those of us rich (for the moment) Westerners. Paradoxically, I think that this is something we might actually be able to do something about, but only if we all, young and old, are prepared to agree to live in a simpler and less profligate way. This will however require political leadership of a kind which seems currently to be in very short supply.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
My view is that having the vote (franchise) should be given to all adults - i.e those who are at an age where it is reasonable expected that they would be mature and sufficiently independent to understand what comes with the vote - responsibility to use it wisely in the context of all around them. If 16 year olds are considered to fall into this category then give them the vote - but also treat them as adults in every other aspect of society. Don't call them 'young' adults... Adulthood to me is binary - you are an adult or you aren't.
One area that comes to mind that has difficulties is school - the whole basis of 'up to' secondary education at the moment is that it is children being taught; the relationships with teachers if those being taught were 'adults' could cause conflict. At the moment this only happens to a few in their last year of of secondary education (i.e reaching 18 in the school year).
Also justice system, and finance systems - as adults they need to take full responsibility - and there should be no special rules for the 16 - 18 year olds (also transport etc.)
I personally don't think 16 year olds should be given the vote - they are still developing mentally and emotionally and are no where near being 'stable'. To me it just doesn't seem a sensible thing to do.
One area that comes to mind that has difficulties is school - the whole basis of 'up to' secondary education at the moment is that it is children being taught; the relationships with teachers if those being taught were 'adults' could cause conflict. At the moment this only happens to a few in their last year of of secondary education (i.e reaching 18 in the school year).
Also justice system, and finance systems - as adults they need to take full responsibility - and there should be no special rules for the 16 - 18 year olds (also transport etc.)
I personally don't think 16 year olds should be given the vote - they are still developing mentally and emotionally and are no where near being 'stable'. To me it just doesn't seem a sensible thing to do.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
I agree 16 far too young to vote , infact should revert to 21.
I know from how my own views have changed that you have not matured politically by 18 .
I know from how my own views have changed that you have not matured politically by 18 .
Re: Intergenerational injustice
When I was 16 .I thought I knew best-
now i'm in my 50s I know I knew almost nothing about life in general
I believe it would be wrong to allow 16 yr olds to have the vote,it would also allow unscrupulous politicians to "play" with the minds of the youngsters to further their own career's .
Just my opinion.
now i'm in my 50s I know I knew almost nothing about life in general
I believe it would be wrong to allow 16 yr olds to have the vote,it would also allow unscrupulous politicians to "play" with the minds of the youngsters to further their own career's .
Just my opinion.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
Nothing much to do with the thread I am afraid but I read in a (fiction) book recently a view that it is nothing special to be young.... everyone is young, but not everybody gets to be old. It is special to be old 
Not expecting people to agree, it just tickled me
Not expecting people to agree, it just tickled me
Re: Intergenerational injustice
I like that, positive thinking I think that will be my mantra from now on Thank you
Thank youRe: Intergenerational injustice
I agree with Eagle and others that there's an age of political maturity, but it's hard to say when it is. There's probably also an age of political sclerosis, after which, no matter how ludicrous the policies of the party your loyalty has finally settled on, you keep turning out for them at election times. I remember hearing something once about brand managers keeping their focus on the under 35s, because after that, people's loyalties were pretty well fixed. I used this as an argument with my children for why the voting age should be raised to 35. In the US and some other countries there is a higher age limit for being elected to congress. But, as in my response to Michael, I think this is all fairly unimportant, not least because many of the age groups suffering from this intergenerational injustice are already able to vote - just for various reasons they don't.
I think it's more important to be aware of actual dangers of intergenerational injustices and accept that some kind of action needs at least to be considered. I feel on slightly dangerous ground here, but it's basically the same problem as is addressed by sometimes burdensome equalities policies - which serve only to tick boxes. But if, as I once did, you organised a meeting on local transport policies in Camberwerll / Peckham, and all of the 60+ people attending were white, you should be able to say there's something wrong. The event, nonetheless, was used by Southwark Council to tick a box for community consultation.
To bring this to the here and now, LB Lewisham should look at the membership of any groups it takes as being representative of any part of the community, and look at imbalance between the ages of those taken as representatives, and those being represented. It should not be allowed to tick any box for engagement with young people just because it has set up a young citizen's panel - this is the sort of box you can be sure of ticking if you have assign a budget for such a programme. Instead, it should see if its policies make various different generations - young people, young parents, middle aged, retired - show a spontaneous interest in what the Council is doing, and in communicating with the Council.
I think it's more important to be aware of actual dangers of intergenerational injustices and accept that some kind of action needs at least to be considered. I feel on slightly dangerous ground here, but it's basically the same problem as is addressed by sometimes burdensome equalities policies - which serve only to tick boxes. But if, as I once did, you organised a meeting on local transport policies in Camberwerll / Peckham, and all of the 60+ people attending were white, you should be able to say there's something wrong. The event, nonetheless, was used by Southwark Council to tick a box for community consultation.
To bring this to the here and now, LB Lewisham should look at the membership of any groups it takes as being representative of any part of the community, and look at imbalance between the ages of those taken as representatives, and those being represented. It should not be allowed to tick any box for engagement with young people just because it has set up a young citizen's panel - this is the sort of box you can be sure of ticking if you have assign a budget for such a programme. Instead, it should see if its policies make various different generations - young people, young parents, middle aged, retired - show a spontaneous interest in what the Council is doing, and in communicating with the Council.
-
summerbreeze
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 19 Feb 2010 14:16
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Intergenerational injustice
My View is Tim, like many generations before us we keep making the same mistakes in believing youth don’t have a mind that adults know best. In asking adults how to get youth more interested in politics you are asking the wrong people. Many children from a very young age understand a lot more than many adults give then credit for. Plus there minds are less corrupted than adults in many ways with inbreed and taught views.Tim Lund wrote: Can anyone suggest a plausible political strategy whereby the young can be persuaded to engage politically, and stop this injustice?
They might not know about politics as a subject that we have been taught to try and understand as adults. Many adults don’t understand what the term politics means. Politics is clumped together to mean so many different things and cover so many different areas.
You have asked for a “plausible political strategy. “ If you asked many youth to help you with that many would not have a clue what you are on about.
I once said to a 7 year old that I take to school. Do you ever get days when your head is full of information and it feels all scrambled up. She said no. I said you must do as you are taught so much information at school at home, how does it not get scrambled up. She said I keep all the bits of information that I think is important and put the rest in the delete bin in my mind.
I think ask a basic question you might get just as wiser answer from many youth.
Also judging from my own children, they are more clued up about politics than my generation as youth.
Of course these are just my tried and tested views.
Re: Intergenerational injustice
I'm happy to admit that that the words I use may not always be the best, but it's not easy with a difficult subject, and where there are many audiences. If I was particularly asking younger people I might well use different language, even though I hate ever seeming to talk down to anyone. If there is any target group I do have in mind here, it's current policy makers & opinion formers - the ones who are politically engaged.summerbreeze wrote:If you asked many youth to help you with that many would not have a clue what you are on about.Tim Lund wrote: Can anyone suggest a plausible political strategy whereby the young can be persuaded to engage politically, and stop this injustice?
I think this is a fair point - the word politics has either become debased, or too narrowly focused on the activity of voting at elections - witness the immediate diversion of this thread into a discussion of the voting age. I'm not sure what word would be better, but what I'm trying to get at is what I wrote in my last comment - tosummerbreeze wrote:Politics is clumped together to mean so many different things and cover so many different areas.
make various different generations - young people, young parents, middle aged, retired - show a spontaneous interest in what the Council is doing, and in communicating with the Council.
-
summerbreeze
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 19 Feb 2010 14:16
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Intergenerational injustice
[/quote]make various different generations - young people, young parents, middle aged, retired - show a spontaneous interest in what the Council is doing, and in communicating with the Council.
Tim, just my views again. Based on me being on a committee serving all ages from 6 years to 69 years. The committee was made up of men mostly over the age of 40. This year we have 2 under 25 years and another two women on committee, some of which are parents. To attract them you have to sell what you do by going out and talking to people let them know you have their interests at heart too.
I believe the council is seen as a tightly closed shop, I know they have tried by sending out leaflets etc, but I doubt many youth would bother to read them.
Many schools have school councils even primary schools, where children's views and ideas are put forward I know a primary school local to me who let the children help to decide on a new school uniform, I thought it was amazing that children have asked for school ties.
I personally think this is a place to start, if you want more youth to start to understand you have to sell it to them, maybe councilors could meet up with school councils and let them know they are there for the wider community. I think even in primary schools make them aware what the council is there for. Make them feel part of the bigger picture, maybe then they might feel part of the society and community in which they live.
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
Re: Intergenerational injustice
Well a really good way to alienate the young is the lower the voting age to 18, send 50% of them to University, promise if they vote for Party X they won't get slaughtered on tuition charges - and step back and watch what happens.
Of course should you choose to protest about it - you are told you are the criminal and instead of marching and chucking a bit of paint at Chuck - you are instructed to rely on the parliamentary political process and the very people who just shafted you. Oh, yes?
Not that I'm blaming it all on Party X. I've heard the long tortuous explanations offered at why they are unable to stand by their promises. But the bottom line is we have a democratic process where we were offered a clear choice between Policy A & Policy B on so many important issues. Over 60% voted for policy A (as manifestoed) and we get policy B.
Us oldies surely want to engage our young in our shared society but that implies they must want to be part of our political process. But if we think it bankrupt - what of an even more cynical young? Its not the young we need to sort out - its us and our acceptance of a system that does not deliver justice but seeks to retain power for itself. None of the parties now have a significant membership base. They are more separated from their constituents than ever. We are becoming less democratic with, as Dave Cameron himself succinctly put it, only the right to chuck out a party that has become unpopular every five years. To be replaced by a party (parties) that soon achieve the same status.
Democracies should be about policies and the efficient execution of them - not parties. However we have a power system where change requires Turkeys voting for Christmas. It isn't going to happen. This problem has been solved elsewhere by revolution. But we Brits don't do revolutions. Well except from the deck of an aircraft carrier off a far away land. And that will soon be a thing of the past!
Oh dear i guess its today's weather that makes me so grumpy.
PP
Of course should you choose to protest about it - you are told you are the criminal and instead of marching and chucking a bit of paint at Chuck - you are instructed to rely on the parliamentary political process and the very people who just shafted you. Oh, yes?
Not that I'm blaming it all on Party X. I've heard the long tortuous explanations offered at why they are unable to stand by their promises. But the bottom line is we have a democratic process where we were offered a clear choice between Policy A & Policy B on so many important issues. Over 60% voted for policy A (as manifestoed) and we get policy B.
Us oldies surely want to engage our young in our shared society but that implies they must want to be part of our political process. But if we think it bankrupt - what of an even more cynical young? Its not the young we need to sort out - its us and our acceptance of a system that does not deliver justice but seeks to retain power for itself. None of the parties now have a significant membership base. They are more separated from their constituents than ever. We are becoming less democratic with, as Dave Cameron himself succinctly put it, only the right to chuck out a party that has become unpopular every five years. To be replaced by a party (parties) that soon achieve the same status.
Democracies should be about policies and the efficient execution of them - not parties. However we have a power system where change requires Turkeys voting for Christmas. It isn't going to happen. This problem has been solved elsewhere by revolution. But we Brits don't do revolutions. Well except from the deck of an aircraft carrier off a far away land. And that will soon be a thing of the past!
Oh dear i guess its today's weather that makes me so grumpy.
PP