Increasingly, political problems of housing, inequality, climate change and so forth, are viewed through a “generational lens”. This has some validity – there really are some major changes to New Zealand society that relate to demographics and generational changes.

But there’s a limit to the usefulness of an analysis that concentrates on problems being caused by one demographic, with the solution lying in a preference for different demographic. Society is much more complicated than this, and all demographic groups – especially age groups – are less socially and politically homogenous than many generational warriors would have us believe.

The strongest critiques of the “OK boomer” philosophy complain that generation-focused activists are jettisoning any sort of socio-economic analysis in favour of an identity politics approach. For example, writing in the Guardian, US socialist Bhaskar Sunkara argues that the popularity of the phrase used by Swarbrick “tells us something about the cultural dominance of upper-middle-class youth” who prefer to see their enemies, not as businesspeople, property developers, or politicians, but just as a particular age demographic – see: Why it’s time to ditch the ‘OK Boomer’ meme.

Sunkara points out that young generation-focused activists “haven’t had to witness – or deal with the ramifications of – old age and precarity for millions of working people in that generational cohort. Instead they get to revel without self-reflection in oedipal angst about their elders – many of whom were kind enough to pass them their ill-gotten privileges. Workers of all ages, after all, barely earn enough to survive, much less save for retirement.”

He concludes that the identity politics of age is a distraction from the economic realities in countries like ours: “If ‘we’ have to divide ourselves, it makes sense to look for these class divisions rather than inventing common cultural characteristics across generations… That means knowing who your friends are and who your enemies are. Here’s a hint: it’s not ‘boomers’ – it’s that investment banker you went to high school with.”

If there was any doubt that Swarbrick’s “OK boomer” approach was anything more than a throwaway remark, she penned a column for the Guardian doubling down on it, arguing her use of the phrase was in reaction to the fact that “our politics has been run by older dudes in suits” – see: My ‘OK boomer’ comment in parliament symbolised exhaustion of multiple generations.

This kind of identity politics is condemned by veteran leftwing commentator Chris Trotter in a column suggesting that such middle class distractions are perfect for those who really benefit from the status quo: the rich – see: Not so much ‘Ok Boomer’ as ‘Ok Ruling Class’.

Trotter argues that a generational especially suits those who have done so well since the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s, because the discontented focus their rage on other sections of society: “whites, males, straights and, most recently and ridiculously, Baby Boomers.” He argues for a return to some good, old-fashioned class struggle – viewing the rich and powerful as the problem, regardless of their age demographic (or their ethnicity, gender, etc).

Similarly, see Steven Cowan’s Chloe Swarbrick: OK Boomer or OK Capitalist? He says Swarbrick’s “casual parliamentary insult not only reeks of smug, middle class conceit but stereotypes the older generation as greedy narcissists, sitting atop a big pile of assets and cash. But, like all stereotypes, it’s not true. In 2015 research by Colmar Brunton revealed that more than forty percent of 50- to 70- year-olds were found to have little or no retirement savings and almost half face spending cuts to make ends meet in their retirement.”

As if to reinforce this point, last week the Herald published Dara McNaught’s arguments about those in aged poverty, using the example of one case study: “With a 40-year work history and a lifetime being mindful about money, Remy didn’t expect to be nearing 70 and struggling to survive. Work hard, save hard, and you’ll be fine – isn’t that how it goes? And if you haven’t got enough by the time you retire, well you’ve obviously been irresponsible, careless, or improvident” – see: Superannuitants caught in the trap of poverty.

McNaught reports: “She can’t work now and is malnourished because she doesn’t have enough money for food. Five years ago, she could manage, just. But superannuation and WINZ supplements haven’t kept pace with steeply rising costs in rents, petrol, heating and especially food. No, budgeting doesn’t cut it.”

One superannuant writes with humour about blaming boomers for using too many resources. Rosemary McLeod explains: “we’re needing the costly, underfunded health system as we disintegrate. We’re a burden on the system we funded through taxes” – see: It’s the Boomers’ fault: we created these Millennial monsters.

Furthermore, “We paid mortgage rates in double digits to hang on to them while successive governments, in the grip of mad market theories of economics, stopped building homes for people in need. We shouldn’t have. Or something. Compulsory acquisition of our houses can’t be far off, to force us into the army camps for the aged springing up everywhere.”

And she points out that woke identitarians therefore have her demographic in their sights: “We’re the one group that woke people feel free to mock. They’re woke on gender issues, race issues, human rights, their own rights, cannabis use (which we made mainstream, by the way) and kindness every which way, except toward us.”

According to Massey University’s Steve Elers, the “OK boomer” approach is akin to pointing the finger at the “pale, male and stale” as if they are the homogenous problem – see: Punching up with ‘OK, Boomer’ and ‘pale, male, stale’ may get a laugh but they’re just air swings.

He argues, “classifying and ordering people into a single collective group based on race and ethnicity, gender, and age doesn’t actually do any good for advancing social causes or arguments”, but can actually “mean losing allies who were supportive of particular social causes and arguments.”

This week’s Listener editorial makes a similar case: “Intergenerational warfare is as old as civilisation itself, but it’s in danger of becoming downright uncivilised as we fall into the habit of blaming each other’s demographic tribes for environmental degradation, inequality and much else” – see: The OK, boomer uproar blotted out an important intergenerational moment.

The editorial points out that baby boomers have played a nation-building role in paying higher taxes, building the welfare state, and fostering progressive social change, before concluding: “Looking back in bitterness improves nothing and, worse, risks alienating people into nihilistic inaction. So, OK, boomers and hey, snowflakes: we’re all in this together.”

Similarly, business journalist Rob Stock argues that “the language of intergenerational fairness obscures just as much as it illuminates”, and “It tars a whole group with the same brush, and so doing unifies those using the language: Millennials are the lazy generation, greens are socialists in disguise, all beneficiaries are potential cheats, farmers are animal abusers, men are to women what bicycles are to fish, all baby boomers only care about keeping their tax rates low and the prices of their houses up” – see: Give Baby Boomers their dues.

Stock also suggests that it’s a mistake to talk “about Baby Boomers as if it is a homogenous generation, and the root of all social wrong today, and forgetting all its successes, and the fact that many Baby Boomers are actually poor as dirt”.

Some writers have identified the core economic issue at the heart of the growing generational discontent – housing unaffordability. In his evaluation of the generational war, millennial Richard Meadows says: “Time to address the trillion-dollar elephant in the room. Back in 1980, you could buy a decent house for $28,000. That was only two to three times the median income – a level of affordability which was normal for decades. Today, a median home costs six times the median income (and in Auckland, nine times). Houses are fully two to three times less affordable today than they were for the boomers” – see: The Boomers are OK.

So, are boomers to blame for the housing crisis? Peter Calder says this view would be a divisive mistake, distracting “us from the conversations we should be having”. He says the fault lies with former and contemporary politicians who have not only refused to deal with the problem, but continue to benefit from it – see: Baby Boomers weren’t sitting idly by, it was the politicians.

Here’s Calder’s main point: “The only Boomers who could have stopped the national average house price rising from $110,000 to $600,000 (and in Auckland from $130,000 to $800,000) in the past 25 years were the ones sitting in Parliament… The sitting-by took place, all right, but it was calculated, for electoral advantage, and not idle at all. To say that my generation ‘failed to see’ what was happening is insulting.”

Finally, although his analysis might also escalate the generational wars, Damien Grant’s latest column is worth checking out, simply because it ends with his own clever generational poem riffing on Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” – see: Quit whinging Millennials, Boomers built your houses and endured actual nuclear war.

Could the most interesting aspect of the current local government elections turn out to be generational change? At the moment, there is a surge of media and activist focus on younger candidates standing for office. It suddenly seems to be “cool” again to want to be a local body politician. 

Some are calling the apparent surge of youth candidates “the Swarbrick effect”, after the surprisingly successful 2016 Auckland mayoralty campaign by now-Green MP Chloe Swarbrick when she was only 22. Others are calling it a “youthquake”, and pointing to the global Zeitgeist of young people getting involved in political activism, standing for office, and rallying against climate change.

Yesterday’s Political Roundup column looked at expected voter participation in this year’s elections – see: Will more than a third vote in the local government elections? Part of the problem in the past has been a very low voter turnout for youth. But perhaps that might change if young would-be voters see a number of dynamic young people standing for office and drawing attention to issues that interest them more.

There are an unprecedented number of young candidates standing for office this year – the best available count of candidates under the age of 40 puts the number at 86. Many of these are young women, as covered last week in a four-minute item by Whena Owen for TVNZ’s Q+A – see: Wellington council candidate part of global movement of young women ‘standing up and stepping up’.

Amongst various young candidates interviewed, 21-year-old Victoria Rhodes-Carlin, who’s running for the Wellington Regional Council, explains what has inspired her to stand: “Pania Newton and Greta Thunberg are both inspirations for me. And other women such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US. There’s a movement of young women across the world standing up and stepping into leadership positions.”

To get a sense of the growing movement of youth candidates, and the fact that many of them are consciously working together as a generation, see Todd Niall and Brittany Keogh’s article about a new closed social media page titled “Young People taking over Local Government 2019” – see: Young candidates’ secret Facebook page as they unite for local elections.

Here’s the main part: “A secret Facebook page is part of a nationwide move by young candidates for their generation to be heard in October’s local body elections. From mayoral to local board campaigns, the mostly 20-somethings are determined to gain a democratic foothold and inspire one of the least-likely groups of voters to tune-in. Unusually in politics, their pitch to voters is less about ‘Why me’ and more about ‘Why my generation’, and the communities they represent.”

Driven by climate change and other generational issues

The above article quotes one candidate, Sophie Handford (18), saying “There is this whole kind of notion of a ‘youth quake’ and I’m definitely feeling that. It’s awesome to be a part of that.” Handford is one of the leaders organising the Strike 4 Climate marches, and she says she’s standing for the Kāpiti Coast District Council because “she struggled to find anyone she identified with or who seemed concerned about what she considered to be big issues facing her generation – climate change, youth homelessness, community resilience.”

Many other youth candidates are also citing climate change as their main motivation for becoming politicians. See for example today’s RNZ article, Younger diverse range of kiwis make bid at local elections. This item profiles three young women who are part of a “new generation of politically active people who want change.”

One 21-year-old profiled, Rabeea Anayatullah, who is standing for Porirua City Council says: “Young people are leading at the moment on things like climate change. All the rallies you see at parliament – there’s always young people backing [them]… I think we are already leading today, but having young people at that decision-making level is so crucial because it is our future.”

It’s becoming apparent that the various climate change actions and other current activist concerns are now also driving youth into more official forms of politics such as local government. Victoria University of Wellington academic, Amanda Thomas is quoted in this regard, saying “Out of [the school strike for climate change] we’ve seen a bunch of young people who’ve put themselves forward to run for councils” – see Nicholas Boyack’s A climate of change: Calls for diversity at the council table in 2019.

According to this article, Thomas “said activism was a growing gateway for young people to realise their political power. She said events like the student strike for climate movement and protesting development at Ihumātao helped young people who were involved better understand of their ability to be politically powerful and affect change.” Furthermore, “Thomas said she expected more youth engagement with the local authorities in the coming years, especially on issues of decolonisation, housing, climate justice and social security issues.”

In terms of climate change, another Victoria University of Wellington academic, Jonathan Boston, suggests the surge of youth candidates is driven by “a growing disconnect between generations over climate change.” The article reports: “Boston said it is more important than ever that young people are elected to councils, which nation-wide have been slow to grasp the threat posed by climate change.  Young people are rightly concerned about their future and Boston urged councils to start listening to them or risk going head to head on the ballot.”

Similarly, Waikato University political scientist Patrick Barrett says a youthquake is exactly what is needed at the moment, and young people might be the answer to making this year’s election more interesting and relevant to people, driving up voter turnout and ensuring that important big issues are dealt with – see: Council polling day in cross hairs for young Hamilton voters.

Here’s his main point: “The School Strike 4 Climate represents a fresh expression of agency by post-millennials who likewise feel betrayed, in this instance by the lack of action on climate change by current political leaders. This year secondary school and university students, inspired by Greta Thunberg, have led a worldwide movement pressuring central governments and local authorities for stronger action. It’s not only climate change that is motivating young activists in New Zealand. The unaffordability of housing is a critical issue facing 20 and 30 somethings, and for many, home ownership is no longer possible.”

Barrett detects something new going on in terms of generational politics: “Against the background of these issues we may be seeing a new degree of generational assertiveness, where younger people are claiming the right to have a say about policies that affect their futures. This surge of interest by millennials and post-millennials demanding to have their issues heard in New Zealand politics offers hope.”

And he heralds the arrival of a new generation of leaders locally and globally: “New Zealand millennials such as Jacinda Ardern and Golriz Ghahraman, post-millennials like Chloe Swarbrick, and recently elected US House of Representatives members including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, represent a new and assertive generation of politicians.”

The need for more youth candidates

Traditionally, elected politics is not the territory of youth. Although local government is becoming more diverse, this is happening only slowly, and young people continue to be severely underrepresented at council level.

For a must-read analysis of the current demographics of the various elected offices, see Charlie Mitchell’s article, The white, male, middle-aged face of local government. In this he shows how in 2001 only 2.2 per cent of elected figures were under the age of 40, and by 2016 it was 6 per cent.

Here are his main findings: “The median New Zealander, as of 2019, is around 38 years old. This means roughly half of New Zealanders are younger than 38, and roughly half are older than 38 (and some, of course, are 38). Taking into account the quarter of the population who can’t stand for council because they’re younger than 18, this would mean, all things being equal, around 215 councillors should be aged between 18 and 38… As of 2019, the number of councillors nationwide who are either 37 years old or younger is approximately 32, nearly seven times fewer than would be expected given their share of the population.”

Mitchell suggests that to make the councils proportionally balanced by age, about 180 seats would have to be won by the under-40s at this election. And he says that there does seem to be a move in the right direction, with more candidates standing: “with the rapidly warming climate, low housing affordability, and gender and racial inequality emerging as key issues for young people, political momentum may be with the young. Already this year, an unprecedented number of young candidates have put their names forward.”

Of course, many councils already make attempts to consult younger citizens who aren’t represented at the council chambers. But is that enough? Do the various “youth councils” and other mechanisms amount to real consultation or are they just tokenistic box-ticking? This is well discussed in Brittany Keogh’s Young people sick of being ‘at the kiddie table’ in local government.

The chair of Local Government New Zealand’s youth elected member committee, Aaron Hawkins (34), is reported making some good points about this, believing “youth councils tended to attract ‘high achieving prefects’ who didn’t represent all young people in a community, so councils should also consult with youth who were less political inclined to make sure their voices were heard.” And he concludes that “I think doing it in a tokenistic way can be worse than doing nothing at all.”

The new generation of candidates profiled

Currently the media appears to be making a significant effort to profile younger candidates for office in this year’s election. Below are some of the more interesting examples.

Four young Wellington region candidates are profiled by Kate Green in her article, Young candidates step up for Wellington council roles. It is pointed out that in the Wellington ward of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, four of the five incumbents are over the age of 70. And in Porirua, where 40 per cent of the population is under the age of 30, there are no elected politicians of that age.

In Auckland, 21-year-old Jannaha Henry is standing for mayor, and is profiled by Todd Niall – see: Auckland mayoral race: 21-year-old to run.

In Wellington, the current president of the Victoria University Students Association is standing for council saying she’s standing because of the “huge gap between the people that are supposed to be representing us and what we think and care about” – see Emme McKay’s Wellington council candidate ready to start a ‘youthquake’ in capital.

In Dunedin, Ryan Jones (22) is standing for a second term for a community board, and says “This election I’ll be pushing for more young people to stand in the city council and community board elections. Hopefully, we’ll see a higher turnout as a result of that” – see Juliet Speedy’s Increased number of young candidates looking to stand in 2019 local body elections.

In the Hutt Valley, the two mayors have been there for a long time, but are both being challenged by “young turks” – see Matthew Tso’s Battle of the generations in Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt mayoral races.

One of the youngest candidates this year is Rohan O’Neill-Stevens (19), who says “I think the tide is turning” on generational and diversity politics – see Skara Bohny’s A Nelson teen is running for council after watching along for two years.

Māori TV has a profile of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki councillor Nerissa Henry (31) and Bay of Plenty councillor Arapeta Tahan (38), who says “It is a big deal for youth to be on our councils so they can change the thinking and the culture of these boards” – see Talisa Kupenga’s Local govt reps want more rangatahi on councils.

But how will the various new generation candidate fare if they make it into office? Nicola Martin is an enthusiast for the current “youthquake”, but she worries that it’s not going to work out: “I wonder how good the fit is going to be when they are faced with the reality of the cumbersome nature of local government politics” – see: Surviving local government reality.

Looking at some of the new candidates for change, such as Louise Hutt (26) running for the Hamilton mayoralty, Martin says: “People like her want change, they have big ideas and they want to see action. So, I’ve also been wondering, if they get elected, how long it will take for the aftershocks to hit. How long before their millennial enthusiasm is reduced to rubble by the lethargic speed of the local government democratic process?”

Finally, for the younger options in your own area, see this online spreadsheet that has been put together by many of the young candidates standing for office – see: Young + Young Adjacent Candidates – Local Body – 2019.