Editorial, Tuesday July 12, 2016

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

We've done our bit

CAN'T remember who suggested this (a sign of advancing age, perhaps), but the idea that older folk should not be allowed to vote should not be dismissed out of hand.

The wit/idiot - sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference - who offered that response to the UK's EU referendum argued that it was the older generation who voted to leave, while their children and grandchildren, who would have to live with the outcome, wanted to stay. The theory is that in one fell swoop selfish geriatrics created an environment that their offspring will have to inhabit for years to come, long after those who voted to leave have gone to their reward.

There are a few holes in that theory, of course, as there so often are in such advanced thinking. The fact seems to be that younger generations in Britain, and everywhere else no doubt, often can't be bothered voting at all. Whether that's because they haven't a blind clue about the issues, they are so bound up in their own precious lives that they don't have the time or spare mental capacity to consider bigger issues, or are simply lazy is irrelevant. They don't vote so they don't always get what they collectively want.

Not sure how you fix that, although in this country schools are being blamed, once again, for not meeting their obligation to produce citizens who are interested and equipped to play an active role in society. Perhaps while they are not being taught their times tables and how to read and write they should be sentenced to the old civics classes that were once part of the curriculum.

But it was ever thus. Various people have been credited with one version or another of the saying that if one is not a liberal at 25 they have no heart, and if they are not a conservative at 35 they have no brain. To that perhaps could be added that if you're not interested in helping to shape your society in a way that appeals to you it's probably better for the rest of us that you not bother to vote at all.

The thing about older people - and the writer has not yet received his Super Gold card but can speak as a Baby Boomer - is that they have memories. They know from their own experience what has worked before and what hasn't. In Britain's case they can remember what life used to be like before a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels started telling them what to do, how and when to do it.

They can remember what it was like to be the masters of their own destiny. And while they might be tempted to vote for the unrealistic restoration of the good old days, they don't accept that what they have now is normal. This is not true of those born post-EU, and who think that there is no alternative.

The same applies here. Older folk listen to what politicians promise with a healthy degree of scepticism, because experience automatically filters out rubbish marketed as innovative thinking that is actually the recycling of ideas that didn't work in the past and won't in the future.

The younger voters who elected to stay in the EU have generally been portrayed as selfish. They liked being part of a borderless Europe, and whether they voted or not, are now queuing up to berate their 'selfish' parents and grandparents for depriving them of that. Hence the suggestion that once people reach a certain age they should not be allowed to vote because they won't have to live with the consequences.

That's worth thinking about. But if those in their dotage are not allowed to vote, nor should they be allowed to pay taxes. They well and truly paid for the government services they needed when they were younger, so why should they have to keep paying now? If their children and grandchildren want to decide how things are going to be, let them pay.

Mind you, you don't have to look to the other side of the world for evidence of thought processes that owe more to oxygen deprivation than intelligence. Last week this newspaper quoted an Auckland man who reckoned that the banning of scooters, skateboards and bicycles from Kaitaia's main street footpaths is "anti-kids." He even labelled the ban as close to fascist.

That's a view that is unlikely to be shared by anyone who understands what fascism actually is, let alone those who are old enough to have encountered it first-hand. But this arguably deranged individual is not alone. A number of locals agreed with him, if not to the extent that the district council is one short step away from recruiting storm troopers then at least sharing his view that the ban is anti-youth.

But let's not be too hasty in dismissing these people as idiots. It is in Kaitaia's interests, after all, to ensure that all generations feel included, as having a role to play in deciding how their town works, as having ideas that are worth hearing and thinking about.

Who gave the council the authority to decide how Kaitaia uses its footpaths? Kaitaia paid for the footpaths, and Kaitaia surely has the right to decide who uses them and how. Is the occasional geriatric victim of a broken hip or a dislocated shoulder not a fair price to pay for instilling in our children and young folk the knowledge that their rights are as important as anyone else's? If they feel unwanted because they have to carry their skateboard between shops, how will their inevitable sense of alienation manifest itself?

At 55 years of age, this Aucklander who was so incensed by this display of authoritarianism really should know better. He should just about be old enough to remember what it was like way back in the mists of time when councils didn't need to make rules like this, because parents beat them to it. Perhaps he can remember when children were taught to behave themselves, and to develop the common sense and consideration for others that would equip them for life as responsible adults. If he tries hard he might be able to remember a time when children had the right to be fed, clothed, educated, housed and protected from harm, but not to behave in ways that could cause harm to others.

If he grew up in a small town he might recall an age when any adult had the right to chastise any child who might have been regarded as misbehaving in a public place. And the term misbehaving had a much lower threshhold than it does now. He might also ask himself if there could possibly be a link between the disappearance of community-imposed rules that as far as children were concerned were non-negotiable and enthusiastically enforced and what we have now, where many children display a lack of consideration for the persons and/or property of others.

Some children, even in small towns, are in much greater need of rules and boundaries than their parents and grandparents ever were. That should not be a revelation that depends upon age and experience, but seemingly it does, even if it bypasses a few individuals here and there. Far from being rejected as selfish, older generations should be seen as a source of guidance and advice. They know stuff because they've been there. Some people should try listening to them.