Young people say they are frustrated at politicians not dealing well with their interests in this year's election.
They admit that opinions vary, but say on balance, many of the issues raised by the competing political parties do not address the interests of people in their teens and early 20s.
Their comments follow an earlier report showing Millennials and Generation Z were worse affected by the cost of living crisis than any other age group.
But new comments suggest their interests are not being well served by competing politicians in the current campaign, either.
"We are pretty disappointed that tertiary education has featured as a side note in most education policies, or has not featured at all," says the national president of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, Ellen Dixon.
"There is a lot of frustration, because there is that sense of a divide between the different generations as to what is being prioritised."
Dixon says New Zealand politics is skewed towards the middle classes, who have some money, so younger people are less likely be in the spotlight.
"I think we also see some selectiveness about what types of young people are being showcased by the political parties.....which means that activism like ours, which is rights-based activism, tends to be moved to the side," Dixon says.
"The priority is not intergenerationalism, which means politicians are not looking at things like student debt, or the inability of many students to be able to afford to live."
Dixon says student debt is often compounded with other financial obligations and is loading people down with an economic burden early in their life.
"There is an increased normalising of debt," she says.
"We have done some studies that show that student loans combined with other things like credit card debt that young people are taking on prior to getting a mortgage, will impact on whether they can actually get a mortgage."
Some parties such as the Greens want to explore ways to mitigate student debt, without saying how the current $15.9 billion debt will actually be paid for.
Some parties are also offering a guaranteed student allowance, but Dixon thinks there needs to be a far more robust debate on subjects like these across the spectrum.
'It really doesn't feel like a youth election'
The range of debate at this election is also concerning the activist group, Generation Vote. This organisation actually sets out to be the politicians' best friend. It runs workshops to teach high school students about parliament, government, the MMP system, lawmaking, the Treaty of Waitangi, and local government.
But its Otago branch director, Liam White, has noted a tone among the competing parties this year that runs counter to the values of this programme.
"It really doesn't feel like a youth election," 21-year-old White says, contrasting it with earlier electoral experience.
"It really felt like young people were central to the discussion. It felt like, Oh wow, there is a recognition that young people are the future, but a lot of people aren't feeling that any more," says White.
"And that is going to translate into, 'I'm not going to the ballot box, I'm not going to have any traditional political engagement'."
White says tertiary education, mental health, housing and child poverty are issues for young people but they are not getting enough attention in electoral campaigning. And he suggests there may be some Realpolitik going on, with National and ACT fearing young people will vote for Labour or the Greens and so pushing them far down their priority list.
Sage Garrett is another young person who is concerned with this. He is a student at Hillcrest High in Hamilton and would love to vote in this year's election. At 17, he can't, but it is not for want of trying. Garrett is a co-director of the lobby group, Make It 16, which took the Government to court, saying the 18 year franchise rule was discrimination based on age.
The group won their case, and the Labour Government responded by supporting a change in the rules. This idea foundered, because opposition in parliament meant it could not get the super majority which is needed for constitutional change.
But Garrett is philosophical, and thinks a compromise measure, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local government elections, is a good start.
"It was a wonderful moment seeing that happen," he says.
Garrett bows to reality over the prospects of 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote in general elections under current conditions. But this failure is still affecting his feelings about this year's poll.
"It is not allowing for proper representation of young New Zealanders," he says.
'A lot of things that young people really care about are things like mental health, climate justice and our education system. All these things really affect us directly.
"A lot of them have been given some weight, but not really to the extent that young people want them to be.
"What we need to do is enlarge the vote so that we can have our voices heard in legislation."
More action wanted on climate change
Garrett adds while politicians have made promises on climate change, they do not go nearly far enough, according to him and many of his friends.
Garrett says this year's election is not a completely negative story, as the franchised over 18s are getting some sort of look-in, via special debates for young people.
But it remains to be seen whether this will be enough to get young people to actually turn out and vote in large numbers.
So far in this election there has been a lower advance voting turnout than in the 2020 election. This has led to fears there might be a smaller turnout of voters overall than in previous years.
It is not clear how much young people figure in the early voting statistics.
Last election's official results showed a low overall turnout for young people with just 60.9% of the eligible population of 18 to 24 year-olds bothering to vote. By contrast, 85.3% of the over 70s voted.
Garrett says the Make It 16 campaign might be a way to overcome this.
"What we have seen in evidence from overseas is that 16 and 17-year-olds turn out to vote at a higher rate than their slightly older counterparts, and the younger that people, start to vote, the more likely they are to vote for the rest of their lives."
"A lower voting age will bring in a new generation of lifelong voters," says Garrett.
68 Comments
Before the internet and tech in general, have younger generations always been more adaptable to new tech.
A good example is AI, crypto, tech in general, it seems the nations that dwindle their fingers and watch new innovations take off and take their time to adapt or regulate it overall, lose against those who jump onboard.
Young people are attracted and using these, far more knowledgable than the average older person.
Sad NZ thinks that 40+ should make all the decisions, yet we wonder why we're falling behind in a global sense.
Actually tech literacy is a factor of family wealth and education. High school students unfortunately today are actually worse off (following NZ dropping education performance, poorer mathematics ability, reduced repair & maintenance access in tech and more limited access to custom hardware). Students today are less likely to understand or have critical thought with online social media and even student teachers will open up blogs and SM posts and believe everything they say. Hence sadly the growing trends of conspiracy theories, fraud, scams, online bullying, eating disorders, and mathematics ignorance to a surprising degree. It is quite devastating the severe drop off in science education and reading. Which is why most the youth population is actually very bad with tech skills. Ask any one of them to understand core features of security, app design, judge a website service or use a remote sensor & camera and it is like they hit a brick wall in understanding. Blind faith in reading blogs, SM and lack of science & critical thinking skills is not what we need. It is also not what determines "tech" skills. Actually researching, designing and developing tech is.
It is like you could almost say that those youth using a tv remote in the 80s & programming their recorder had tech skills... There is a big difference between tech skills versus match colour button games & SM.
How do I know this; volunteered in computers in the home initiatives, did tech and science sessions, helped youth who have graduated NCEA mathematics with remedial mathematics a primary school child should know, did tech & science education sessions with new student teachers and even lecturers. The lack of tech & science skills on display for the next generation was shocking; this is backed up by NZ education research on students abilities. Absolutely tragic but it really does show why conspiracy theories, poor tech skills and a lack of ethics is very high in younger populations today. It also is a dark sign of what will happen if we do nothing to improve the education system radically back to even the standards we had earlier.
I think it is like that with every generation. Things that used to require specific knowledge and / or troubleshooting skills become automated and operate more efficiently than when the technology was less developed. As an example, think about vehicles. There was a time you needed to know how to prime the engine, crank it while feathering the gas pedal, manipulate the manual choke and let it warm up before driving. All that vs touch the start button and away you go. The most basic function of the engine is the same, but the automation of all those steps made it a lot more complicated.
Maybe the analogies not the best but I feel like the general idea is still the same, as we go on technology has become much simpler to use so you don’t get forced to learn the technical skills you would of had to know in the past. Whether that’s good or bad couldn’t say, on the one hand it makes it more accessible but on the other people are losing basic technical skills which were previously more common place.
Really there shouldn’t be any excuse as we now have a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips, whatever you want to learn there is boundless resources to help you learn that if you are so inclined.
Actually things are far less automated. For those with tech skills we are developing the tech and the automation. Sadly yes people can pull code off chat GPT but that does not mean it will work, even follows simple code conventions or does as described safely & efficiently. So the lack of understanding of simple logic is not replaced by automation. We actually have to have a higher degree of critical thought and knowledge to know when something is deceptive or plain wrong. Hence why you also can ask chat GPT to write your legal notes but all the references it uses can be bogus and still requires a high degree of legal understanding & fact checking.
Automation is only as good as the user and developer. Hence those tasks and tech skills are not removed but the need for the public to demonstrate critical thought and mathematics on their own is now higher. Sadly public education in essential core skills has not kept up for the past 50 years. Our fastest algorithms are still those from the 1950s and are across all services. Encryption and security skills are barely moving decade to decade. Likewise with electrical hardware devices & design (core skills still needed especially if you want a high tech device to operate). But skills and knowledge that is essential to even operate & understand automated tech is now completely absent. It is now trivially easy to set up scam conspiracy sites to make millions while killing a few people through stupidly, such as say getting them to drink unsafe water with toxic levels of chemicals. Or setting up fake articles and fake social communication campaigns. Automatically believing the next device with more lock down in services and tech must be better because that is what they are told (even after class action lawsuits and international standards prove otherwise). It is literally moving towards idiocracy levels of dumb... "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHfBobgLSI
I'm more stating from a user standpoint that UX design has advanced to the point where tech skills aren't really required. You can give a child an iPad and they can get it working but if you give them a windows 95 desktop they won't be able to do much with it.
And I don't disagree that critical thought is greatly lacking these days.
UX use is not tech skills. That is simple physical control skills (often referenced as hand controls). Some people use hands, some use feet, some use mouth controls but they are literally not tech skills. Much like using a knife and fork is not tech skills, nor playing with toys or with joysticks & flashing buttons. Yes older people have difficulty with hand controls... have you ever had nerve damage, severe arthritis, cysts growing between finger joints and fast developing blindness. But that does not mean they cannot use tech.
Often the inaccessibility of applications is ignorance of the designer to basic tech design conventions that have existed for decades. It is a failure of the designer not the user. Inaccessible applications are infamous for being slow clunky and useless compared to accessible ones. The most advanced mobile application users for instance that can perform tens of actions in a single second across multiple devices have actually moved back over to using mouse and keyboard controls on computers (running emulators) and this gives them a significant competitive advantage over poorer designed single hand control device users.
Most advanced applications that require high amounts of controls with extreme speed are highly flexible & accessible. Where accessible designed features are used mostly by those who don't need accessibility (hyper successful optimizers) rather than those with disabilities (but it benefits the disabled or those with hand control difficulties also). Things like rebinding keys to different controls or devices means you can operate a drone from a phone or from a keyboard or from a mouth control etc. For mouth control description think of a device with 16 sensor points and directed touch control; each one can be combined with others for massively more permutations than a typical hand (5) & directional touch or a mouse (3) & keyboard (10) etc.
The lack of designers to consider more efficient accessibility is just a sign of the degrading standard of tech education. It is far more limiting to have just a single hand control system and most serious tech people will never use this for high skill work. I would not expect a person without hands to be able to use solely hand controls but that does not mean they do not have tech skills nor that they cannot use an accessible application. Many of the best techies I know pick up RSI and they use accessible design to speed up work to 100x time that of average people. It is what is known as productivity improving technology rather than those who in the same way as a baby duck continue to use a poorer control method because it is what they grew up with. That is why even for all their widespread sales mobiles are not used for tech design, nor for development. Even artists prefer moving back to more flexible detailed control systems with additional devices.
Ironically because of the speed improvements and a heart problem I can now operate 4 mobile devices at once and make control movements to all of them at the same time to perform different tasks. I am not considered advanced though being only able to operate 4 mobile devices at once... the more advanced operate around 5-6 and I still need a new screen for more devices. It is pretty trippy but more can be done once you open understanding of UX design to include good UX design rather than the Apple or Android flavour of the season because that is what you grew up with. It is unfortunate but the knife and fork analogy is perfect. It is a control scheme, it has limitations, it is often not accessible but it can perform some functions slowly... A mobile is like just having a knife alone. Then start using accessible applications and better control devices (add a fork and spoon) and a person who has been excluded from dining can often perform faster and consume different types of food than just a knife. Add in a robotic tool that can use a faster communication method with the user and even more efficiency can be gained. Finally setup a system that can automate some task control elements e.g. automate the cutting with a different device & human guidance on rules plus a feedback review and it is faster again.
Birds and octopus are proven to be more advanced at UX skills and tool design than children and youth. All they need is to rebind to accommodate claws in zoom controls and they surpass most humans in a single year what it takes us to learn over 5-15. Yet I would not hire a kea to operate a retail till register or do photography... even though it is trivial for them to learn controls once you put something they actually want as a goal behind their use.
Yes, and no.
The boomers saw the likes of Bill Gates get super rich, so there was a subsequent massive push for successive generations to gravitate towards computer literacy. This wasn't necessary, as technology becomes innate to people exposed to them from birth.
It does now seem like there's an over emphasis on technology, but the reality is for every high paid coder or whatever, there's 10 of more low rent jobs involving just operating a computer, doing more efficient administration, and are competing in a global workforce of other computer operators. Hence there's a massive deficit in vocations that require more kinetic involvement, and everyone's scratching their heads as to why fruits' so expensive and plumbers charge almost as much as lawyers.
and everyone's scratching their heads as to why fruits' so expensive and plumbers charge almost as much as lawyers.
Take a look at the cost of a mechanic now compared to 10years ago and they will have near doubled their hourly charge out rate. There are less and less people willing to do more physical vocations requiring hard work as more and more roles are available today requiring less. One way to make money will always be to do the things others don't want to. Ask the bloke emptying sewerage tanks what they get paid, and you might be surprised on the figure.
also for most young people including myself, its the lack of care for addressing the housing situation. We're doing a Canada, bringing in more immigrants and using "housing crisis" but then doing nothing serious about it.
It 100% is a major f*** you to the younger generations.
I'm sure we would be building a lot more houses if land was 1/3rd of the price. No shortage of young guys wanting to get into trades, but we have a leveraged and financialised economy that swings between feast and famine so it's not helpful when a whole bunch of them get laid off because the interest rate has gone up a few %.
The world no longer revolves around young people. Those younger people got older and the revolving world continued to follow and cater to their every need, while they proclaim "bootstraps".
So those young people go abroad where they are valued. Just don't be surprised if the migrant care home workers we had to import to fill the shortages lack empathy and are a little heavy handed with the residents.
Did it ever?
or were young people only valued if they "respected their elders" settled down, got married, had kids and generally did what their elders wanted them to do
in the 60's and 70's if you didnt conform to society you were definitely on the outer more so overseas where "those bloody hippies had the audacity to protest the likes of the Vietnam war
Well, post-WW2 the sentiment and policy approach was that an average Kiwi on an average wage should be able to afford their own home, and much building was facilitated to achieve that. That benefited today's older generations. Running policy to drive up house prices to enrich older owners beyond their productive means off the back of ever larger costs foisted on following generations is quite a contrast.
Post WW2 the average Kiwi was able to build their own home, usually with a bit of weekend help from relatives, neighbours & mates. Including plumbing, drainage & basic wiring.
Back in the day relevant council inspections signed off key stages & as the inspectors were elderly ex builders you got a lot of free practical advice.
Until the leaky homes fiasco & then DIY got dragged into what was a totally professional stuffup by politicians, architects, specifiers, builders & councils.
Now, in addition to enhanced building codes & regs, you have to engage & pay a LBP to supervise yourself doing almost all the foundation, structural, cladding & roofing work. Good luck if you can find any tradesperson willing to sign off on the risk, for a job they could be paid for doing entirely; why would they. Plumbing & Drainage trades have now captured the regulators to ensure no alternatives to their incomes there.
The council consenting & permitting staff are also now full of tick box graduates, the councils can't even agree on common interpretations of the building code.
Then there's Off Grid / Tiny homes which used to be baches & cribs designed to suit whatever scrap materials you had lying around... not multimillion $ designer lifestyles for a few weeks a year.
In a way it mirrors the professionalisation of sport ... back in the day most top athletes had day jobs and took a few extra days leave if they had to go off to the Olympics or whatever. Now kids are getting streamed into special sporting academies from as young as 7, and high schools now employ full time sports coaches and physios. At the time same more and more teens are inactive and put off sport completely, and a decent proportion of the country doesn't care much about rugby etc.
You absolutely nailed it kknz!!!! Wiliamson the wannabee rocket scientist solved (LOL) the leaky homes fiasco by basically making the self home builder pretty much illegal and feathering the nest of all the shonky builders at the same time! Still makes my blood boil every time I think about it. At the time we lived next to a town house development that leaked before it was even finished. All designed and specified by architects. Owner builders were never the issue!
^ Prime example of why we as a nation are losing the bright kiwis.
A full time educated working couple shouldn't struggle to afford to have a stable living situation in NZ.
A shame Three Veg, with enough of your attitude over the next decade, boomers comfy retirement will come into risk as more and more young kiwis exit with low educated immigrants being moved in to replace.
Actually those crossing the ditch are very far from the definition of "youth" (the late teens to early twenties bracket). Most of those leaving are post graduates with work experience in high skill roles such as medical fields like nursing, tech, engineering, and those with qualifications in trades. You don't get experience without years of training and work. Which most youth do not get until they actually put in the 10000 hours.
Also most reasons for leaving are better pay, better work & employment conditions (the key driver), and better access to housing. None of which will be changed by this election, any previous or any in future. Those things are all determined by private markets with little to no major change available to NZ governments. The NZ government very rarely updates & sets wages even in departments they control which is why many nurses have been funded to pay rates BELOW MINIMUM WAGE for the past decade and still are (on October 6 the govt reneged on the court won pay increase and turned it down leaving more than 60000 nurse employees funded below minimum wage). Likewise all the NZ government can do is tinker around the edges of the NZ housing market; they literally cannot force those badly managing investment stock to sell homes. At best they can take properties that are the direct proceeds of crime (but not white collar crime) and sell them on the open market (most often to investors).
Governments can easily change the housing vs. wages equation. The availability of possible policy options is not the problem, the problem is the lack of political will because too many MPs and older voters are utterly dependent on inflating house prices to enable them to live beyond their productive means by passing ever larger costs to following generations.
And yet, the more the double down on policies to support their own financial self interest, the worse the outcome will be when support for said system collapses.
Which is unfolding all around us.
The 4th turning is happening. Just as it last did in the 1930's-1940's.
I just view National as the democratic party for landlords now - not a party that represents New Zealanders as a whole.
Luxon hasn't put his assets into a blind trust! So he isn't even trying to hide what he represents. At least Key had the intelligence/integrity to try and hide his bias.
In 10 years time, around half of the boomers will be dead. If you have boomer parents, there is a good chance one of them will be dead in 10 years time, if not already.
In my current street, 50% of the properties are owned by widowed women (have recently realised it was a high proportion than what I initially realised) in their 60's and 70's. All their male partners dead in their 60's and 70's.
These properties are too big for them and they require weekly assistance to keep their properties in order. I find myself cleaning gutters, fixing irrigation systems, spraying wasp nests, doing lawns etc during the evenings and weekends as they are unable to maintain/manage their own properties.
This housing crisis, will fix itself in due course under its own steam in my opinion.
There is going to be a massive supply of 3-4 bedroom homes coming to market the next 10 years or so as the boomer demographic downsize - as I say I think half of my street will need to sell in the next 5-10 years to downsize.
The boomer generation, much despised by some, are hanging on by a thread. And they need the support of the generations below them to maintain their current unsustainable lifestyles.
The world is going to be a very difficult place for them as we transition out from this 4th turning (a book I highly recommend to everyone on this site). They may have much of the capital, but that won't bring them happiness, no will it wipe their arse when they are in the retirement village. They need the support, especially family, below them.
I admit the comment was a bit flippant, but I am annoyed by the naivity shown by the young sometimes.
For better or for worse, we live in a democracy, and there's never going to be enough 'youth votes' to make a difference. Go on and make the voting age 18, 16 ,10... makes no difference.
Boomers etc run the show, do you think complaining is going to make the boomers give you a 'youth election'? Do you think they are interested in complaining on instagram and waving some placards at some school climate change rally? Get real.
Young people, these boomers are you parents/grand parents, or uncles/aunties or family friends. Engage with them with humility and work to change their minds.
BTW I am few generations younger than a boomer, and share the view that us young people have been royally screwed over.
There is a good amount of young people that have a level headed brain, that aren't pushing for lowering age or following sheep think with placards hehe.
Good to hear that you're one of the more level headed ones though.
Sadly I've just hit the point where I don't see change happening soon enough so I'm going to exit NZ.
Not my first choice but life is short and waiting for change doesn't result in an outcome, not something easy to shift change too.
Young people do have an option, if I were a first-time voter TOP would appeal the most to me with a structural change in the tax policy seemingly very well-balanced. Unfortunately, instead many of them are going with the Social Justice Party, sorry, Green Party as some sort of protest against the establishment.
Speaking of taxes: Average Kiwi pays over $1 million in tax over their lifetime | Kiwiblog
I have a problem with media describing political parties as "major" / "minor" (see headline). This terminology is not constitutional, and only exists to serve the established status quo, by perpetuating a false assumption that governments must always be led by either National or Labour.
Around 50 years ago, I voted in the first election after the age was reduced to 18.
I well remember many of the same arguments then that are raised about minimum voting age today. So, I have been sympathetic & previously quite supportive of the move to reduce the voting age to 16.
I changed my mind around a year ago when the Judiciary, with the connivance of defence & prosecution lawyers & the academic Social & Psych industries decided that people under 25 weren't capable of making rational decisions & therefore were not responsible for their serious crimes & avoided the serious consequences.
Disagree given that the average life expectancy is in the early '80s today. Shouldn't set aside all that experience merely because they've reached the age of entitlement for superannuation.
I agree that the age of eligibility for voting should be higher than it is currently. The brain is mature by the age of 25, so perhaps 25 should be the age for voting for government. Perhaps also for buying alcohol and cigarettes too.
On the other hand, listening to talkback radio suggests degrading of the brain in older populations to a dangerous extent, and that may have been exacerbated by lead poisoning. Could pretty safely let 14 year olds vote and they'd be comparable to many of the older voters showing themselves up.
I don’t know if you’re being serious but 30 seems stupid high. You’ll have people with good jobs and good incomes having zero say in the democratic process. I just can’t see how reducing representation and voting rights could improve anything it’ll just cause more dissatisfaction and anger if anything.
Can't have your cake & eat it. Age of criminal responsibility is 14.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328217.h…
What should really terrify the young is not the lack of lollies they are being offered right now, but the fact that they will be picking up the tab for the champagne policy still being dished out to older generations. As future taxpayers they'll be covering higher superannuation, higher interest on government debt, and greater infrastructure costs from deferred maintenance and investment. Poorer for longer.
This is a frequent topic of discussion with my mother (baby boomer), and many friends and colleagues with their parents of the same age bracket. It can be difficult for them to understand that super seems great for now, it is getting paid for by the current working population which is lower than necessary to sustain it, therefore there will be cuts and extra costs imposed on the working population to fund the current scheme, coupled with the current cost of living hikes, thus taking away from the financial ability to afford housing, children and the future possibility therefore of having a family and future.
On this topic, I think it is great that Kennedy has gone independent to remove himself from the toxic relationship between DNC/GOP and CNN/Fox as well as the associations with other large corporates that support each party.
Many 'politicians' today don't represent 'the people' (ie the point of the constituion), they represent the donors and supports (e.g. large corporates and media).
In NZ, I view Luxon as a puppet for the real estate/banking sector not as a real politician who exists to support 'the people'. He supports money, not people. And this can be difficult to differentiate, but it is an important distinction. It is a sign of political rot (not just in NZ, but across the world at present).
As Jefferson said, and this quote is as true today as it was 200+ years ago:
"The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life… And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale"
Somebody could say this today and it would resonate so well with our current problems. We have people gambling with debt (supported by the banks) and it has corrupted the morals of our citizens (see the specuvestors) where house prices have to keep going up no matter the cost to society.
Also note that Jefferson relates this discussion regarding finance, to the 'creator of the world', which I have also been doing on this site, but told regularly that religion has no relationship to 'making financial decisions'. It doesn't if ones intellect is not large enough to see the correlation between religion, morals/ethics, society and decision making and how one's decision impact other people within a financial system.
Oh dear. How sad. The kids don't feel pandered to. Never mind. Perhaps when you're older.
If they don't feel they have enough money then can always get a better job, or ask their parents for more.
Not the role of the government to prop up other people's Mini-Me's while they do "Gender studies", or other equally worthless degrees.
Western governments aren't propping up Mini-Me's...they are propping up the asset prices of the old and wealthy via out of control fiscal and monetary policy.
The 'Me Generation' are now in their 60's and 70's.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.