Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Owen Jones: The war isn't between young and old – it's the rich versus the rest of us

30 replies

ttosca · 24/03/2012 16:50

Britain is at war. The pampered baby boomers have feathered their nests at the expense of an increasingly besieged and impoverished young generation. George Osborne's "granny tax", the Budget's freeze in pension allowances, will hit a group in society that has barely been touched by austerity, and in any case it's peanuts compared with what others are expected to cough up.

While greying Britain retires with comfy pensions and decent homes they own ? snatched from the rest of us during the heyday of right-to-buy in the 1980s ? today's youth is being hammered by mass unemployment, a housing crisis and the biggest cuts since the 1920s.

Or so the prophets of generation war tell us. As Cameron's Government crunches through the remnants of post-war social democracy, the myth that society's key divide is young vs old has gained traction. Scenes of newly politicised, angry young faces taking to the streets after the trebling of tuition fees by middle-aged politicians who benefited from free education have only reinforced this theory. As Ed Howker ? co-author of Jilted Generation ? wrote this week, the Budget left a "whole range of benefits" in the hands of older Britons. His think- tank, the Intergenerational Foundation, suggests pensioners should be helped to downsize to free up housing for young families.

But pitting the generations against each other is as misguided as it is dangerous. There is a clear division in society: the rich ? of all ages ? who continue to boom, and everybody else who face the biggest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s. It is possible to generalise about the wealthy: by definition, they are all doing very well compared with everybody else.

The generations, on the other hand, cannot be lumped together. The prospects of, say, an 18-year-old in an ex-mining community are entirely different from those of an Eton-educated son of a millionaire. Austerity Britain cannot be understood without the prism of class.

There is no question that young working-class people are getting a real kicking under this Government. The educational maintenance allowance was snatched away from the poorest students, leading to nearly half of sixth-form colleges last year reporting a decline in applications. With up to five million people languishing on social housing waiting lists ? largely in working-class communities ? while private rents soared by 12 per cent in London last year, the prospects of the average working-class youth getting an affordable home grows ever more distant.

Youth unemployment hurtles towards one-quarter, but the impact is uneven. Last year, the biggest rises were in ex-industrial northern communities such as Hartlepool and Darlington. The numbers flatlined in leafy, middle-class Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond and Kingston in Surrey, where the number of young people out of work is four times lower than the national average.

Well-heeled youngsters simply do not share the same concerns as their poorer peers. Parents are there to fund them through university. If their first job doesn't pay the bills, many can expect the Bank of Mum and Dad to cover the rent. Parental assistance is even there for the lucky (wealthy) few to put down the first deposit for a house. Some can draw on parents' contacts, and they can afford to work for free for months in unpaid internships, transforming professions such as the media, law and politics into upper-middle-class closed shops.

Neither can we make sweeping generalisations about the older generation. There are certainly those thriving with cushy retirements, but there are also two million pensioners in poverty. Up to 2,700 old people froze to death last winter because they could not afford to heat their house. Sure, some of today's ageing population were among those for whom 1980s Britain was one long party, particularly in the South-east. But others were among the millions who lost their jobs in the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, as industries and communities were irrevocably shattered by Thatcher's economic savagery. Even today, more than one-third of those claiming jobseeker's allowance are over 40 ? and many of the middle-aged unemployed struggle to claim any benefits at all.

Other groups are also being forced to pay disproportionate costs for a crisis they didn't cause. Chilling new figures reveal that the number of young black men out of work has nearly doubled since Lehman Brothers went under. Women are also being made to suffer because of cuts to public sector jobs, benefits and services. The long march to gender equality has been sent into reverse. But this is not a race war imposed by whites as a whole, nor a gender war waged by men, even if existing divisions are becoming more entrenched. More binds together an unemployed black man with an unemployed white woman than unites them with a globe-trotting millionaire of whatever gender or race.

Nothing would be more beneficial to our rulers than a "hierarchy of grievances", dividing those being pummelled by austerity according to how severely they are being hit. The young could turn against the old, demanding that their grandparents suffer more pain to diminish their own. Outright ageism ? discriminating against older people in jobs and housing, for example, to favour the young ? could be given a progressive veneer.

But the reality is that the majority of society really is "all in it together", while it remains boom time for the top. Indeed, those lucky enough to make the Sunday Times Rich List enjoyed a surge in wealth of nearly a fifth last year; in 2010, it leapt by 30 per cent. We know from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that the richest 10 per cent are doing better at the hands of this Government's policies than the bottom 40 per cent. Here are the divisions that really matter.

The gospel of generation war has its appeal, not least to a young person from a cushioned background who wants to feel a misplaced sense of persecution. If it is allowed to catch on, it could help shatter a potentially invincible coalition against austerity: the unemployed working-class youth in Glasgow; the graduate without a future in London; the part-time checkout worker in Birmingham having her working tax credit slashed; the lollipop lady in Swansea having her pension attacked; the struggling pensioner in Sunderland. There's no shortage of frustration in Cameron's Britain. But, for God's sake, let's make sure it doesn't get directed at the wrong targets.

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-the-war-isnt-between-young-and-old--its-the-rich-versus-the-rest-of-us-7583986.html

OP posts:
Ryoko · 24/03/2012 17:12

Divide and conquer has all ways been the way of governments, People have all ways known it to be so, it's just the media that follows the designated witch hunt of the month, the majority of people know better but they have no voice, in this day and age, only the mouthpiece of protest, a freedom that is constantly being eroded away by governments that have seemingly won, they have warn us down and taken the fight out of us.

claig · 24/03/2012 19:45

Very good article by Owen Jones.

'Intergenerational' is a progressive buzzword that will become progressively important. They made 'climate catastrophe' and 'sustainability' household words and 'intergenerational' will become one too. There are think tanks thinking about it and spreading the word.

Owen has got the right idea when he says
'discriminating against older people in jobs and housing, for example, to favour the young ? could be given a progressive veneer'

They are studying and thinking about the 'intergenerational' divide. They claim they are doing it because they are fair and because they care. But Ryoko, Owen and the comments on the Independent know that it is just a tool for divide and rule.

ttosca · 25/03/2012 12:44

You're confused, claig.

OP posts:
edam · 25/03/2012 12:47

Claig, it's not the left who want to get young people to blame old people instead of the government - it's the government. Cui bono and all that.

claig · 25/03/2012 13:09

No. Read the website of the think tank called the 'Intergenerational Foundation'
www.if.org.uk/

It looks pretty progressive to me.
They have a link on their blog to an article by Dr. Rupert Read on 'Guardians of the Future'.

'Dr Rupert Read, Reader in the School of Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, has come up with a novel scheme for protecting the interests of future generations. He proposes the creation of a powerful group of ?Guardians? who would have the power to veto legislation and even have the authority to initiate new laws and to work on studies about the needs of future generations.

On 10th January 2012 at the House of Commons Rupert launched his report with a debate and comments from MPs and others. There was great enthusiasm for constitutional change to counter parliament?s short-termism from the MPs attending: Caroline Lucas, Jon Cruddas, Norman Baker.'

www.if.org.uk/archives/1560/dr-rupert-read-launches-his-guardians-of-the-future-proposal

Not only do they want to "save the planet", they also want to "save future generations". Expect to hear much more of this in the future as they ramp up their 'intergenerational' rhetoric.

And progressive newspapers like the Guardian report on it and raise consciousness.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/04/climate-politics-future-generation-justice

It is not all progressives, Because Owen himself is a progressive and he seems to understand where it is going.

'It's a new year, so let's start with a new idea: a democratic body to safeguard the basic needs and fundamental interests of future people.

That is the proposal of Rupert Read, a philosopher at the University of East Anglia, in a report called Guardians of the Future for the think tank Green House.'

Dr. Rupert Read wrote his report for another think tank called 'Green House'.
Go to their website and you will see a type of logo of the houses of parliament in green with a few twigs and branches underneath to show how much they care, oh yeah.

Green House is a think tank set up in 2011.
In a time of austerity, when libraries are closing, think tanks are growing. Have you ever wondered who funds them? Do you think there are any think tanks that ask questions about why it is only old people who seem to die on hospital wards due to dehydration?

Do you think that think tanks represent the public or the progressives?

The Guardian article tells us

'Read accepts the idea of a powerful legal body protecting future people will be seen as extreme. "It is a very radical idea but many great ideas in history were once seen as outlandish," he says. When the Green Party, of which Read is a member and a former councillor, started promoting recycling in the 1970s and 1980s, he says "people laughed at and ridiculed us - now it is taken for granted."

You may think that it will never happen, but Read thinks differently. You may think that the sensible conservatives will never go in for all this 'intergenerational' progressive redistribution of wealth. You may think that they will never be part of 'divide and rule' You may think that these are progressive things but never conservative things.

But the amazing thing is that conservative David 'Two Brains' Willetts is also thinking about the 'intergenerational' divide.

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

edam · 25/03/2012 13:12

There are think tanks on the right and on the left - the ones on the right currently more influential.

EdithWeston · 25/03/2012 13:21

The baby boomers have had, an continue to have, the weight of numbers on their side.

They are in the senior and influential positions right now. They are the commissioning editors in the media. They are the people who made their money in the Thatcher years, who are richer in both assets/income and the opportunities they had throughout their lives.

They need a new bogeyman to deflect attention. Looks like they have, once again, pulled it off.

OneHandFlapping · 25/03/2012 13:26

"The pampered baby boomers have feathered their nests at the expense of an increasingly besieged and impoverished young generation"

Sorry you lost me at this point.

The baby boomers are just people, doing the best they can in whatever circumstances present themselves. What were we supposed to do? Say no to a well-paid job? Take less than offered when we sell our house? Pay extra tax over and above the requirements?

Not to mention the fact that this group of people is not universally well-off at all.

claig · 25/03/2012 13:31

No, the baby boomers are ordinary people who worked hard and struggled throughout many years, including the usual stock market crashes that wiped many out and teh usual housing bubbles that meant that many were as usual landed in negative equity. The ones who managed to come through with some wealth don't expect any conservatives, of all people, to even think about progressive wealth redistribution.

Owen's article is right. They are being set up as a scapegoat by the real rich elite, who were immune to all the hardships of the last 30 years. This is classic divide and rule to deflect attention from the real elite who have prospered and always do prosper. I think that many think tanks think for that elite, not for ordinary people. I think that some have made up their minds about the 'intergenerational' issue, and the views of ordinary people don't even count. They don't get access to MPs in teh House of Commons who listen to their reports, but the think tanks do.

You ask cui bono with the 'intergenerational' think tanks and their progressive policies. Well, it's the same as always, the real elite do.

fridakahlo · 25/03/2012 13:32

Who is this Owen Jones? I like the way he thinks.

claig · 25/03/2012 13:34

Very well said, OneHandFlapping.

Owen's article is excellent. Let's remember that great song by the Who - "Won't Get Fooled Again'

claig · 25/03/2012 13:35

Owen Jones is the author of the book 'Chavs'.
When I first saw him on Newsnight, I didn't think he was that good. But I have changed my mind. He is great and we need more people like him.

claig · 25/03/2012 15:55

Yoy have to wonder why they are stoking teh 'integenerational' divide. Why?

One reason is that they have squeezed the squeezed middle and they need to find other people to squeeze. They will start squeezing the elderly - cutting back on their pensions, cutting their benefits and their care. So far, the elderly have not had a political voice. But as the country ages, this will change. The elderly will become more politically active, and the elderly are clever, turn out to vote and aren't easily fooled by spin and propaganda. They've seen all the lies, they've got open eyes, they're not naive like the easily fooled young.

The elderly are not fools, they're not young and cool, the easier to be fooled, they're not part of Blair's 'Cool Britannia', but they are people who worked all their lives for Britannia.

When they become politically active and united, then the squeezing will become a hot topic. So the 'intergenerational' divide theories are trying to divide and rule, to stop the elderly causing waves in the elite's and progressives' paddling pool.

claig · 25/03/2012 16:17

The elderly are not young in years, they haven't got donkey's ears and they're not green behind the ears.

When they look at the green house on the green hill with the green door, they ask the question what's it all for.

And some of them even sing an old song called "Green Door". Some say it's not cool, like the Arctic Monkeys, who are their favorite band, but I for one beg to differ.

If you listen carefiully, in the future, you will hear the elderly ask the question

"Green door
what's that secret you're keepin'?
"Green door
what's that secret you're keepin'?
don't know what they're doin'
But they laugh a lot behind the green door.
Wish they'd let me in
So I could find out what's
behind the green door.'

Disputandum · 25/03/2012 16:47

Before anyone becomes too impressed by Owen Jones, have a look at him on This Week where he struggles to make any sensible point, flounders horribly, is proven to be relying on inaccurate facts and just generally looks like a bit of an idiot.

claig · 25/03/2012 16:48

They will start to ask the question who represents them on the green benches in the green house with the green door - the one with the subsidised restaurants and bars that they all pay for. And they will ask why the think tanks are invited in, but they, the people, have to remain outside the green door and have to remove their green tents from their protests on the greens of the common land.

claig · 25/03/2012 17:10

Owen made some good early points on that show, but then he should have fessed up that he got his facts wrong about cabinet ministers being an extra £40,000 better off. He is still young and not as experienced as some of the other schmoozers on TV.

Disputandum · 25/03/2012 17:33

I could forgive his inexperience if he appeared to be even remotely aware of it.

claig · 25/03/2012 17:35

Smile yes, he just carried on regardless, somewhat in the manner of Gordon Brown

claig · 25/03/2012 17:37

and Sid James. Maybe he was modelling that Labour Party guru, the Rumpo Kid.

chipstick10 · 26/03/2012 13:20

Owen Jones is a total tosser who i would never get tired of slapping.

CommunistMoon · 30/03/2012 13:43

His book is very good. ^dipstick^

chipstick10 · 30/03/2012 14:10

Andrew neil put the little tosser firmly in his place last week on the politics show. It was class.

glasnost · 30/03/2012 15:14

Only thing Andrew Neil has put in its place recently is his rancid toupeé.

2old2beamum · 30/03/2012 22:19

Ttosca as you may have gathered I totally support your views, but on your comments re old fogies i have many friends who are OAP,s like us have adopted DC,s with severe /complex needs none of us live in luxury have holidays etc we are now living in fear of our DC's allowances being cut. Fair enough we do own our Victorian tatty 8 bed terrace house, but sadly not worth a great deal. We have saved the tax payer millions with our 8 children who without us would be languishing in care. We may be old but I can assure you we struggle and there are many morelike us.