Leaders can wear baggy trousers

Sorry, I haven’t blogged for a while, primarily because my new job (details) that kind of took over the last couple of weeks (plus my birthday).

During that time, two interesting new pieces of news broke. Firstly the report of the Youth Citizenship Commission, and secondly the launch of The Youth of Today, the butterfly that resulted from the caterpillar that was the National Body for Youth Leadership.

I’ve been wanting to blog about the Youth Citizenship Commission since it reported the Friday before last, but having seen the reaction from others it doesn’t exactly set the world alight. Perhaps I should at least read the whole report prior to writing about it, but if the press release is anything to go by I can’t exactly imagine it being a riveting read.

Yes, there are some interesting nuggets of ideas, including keeping schools open when polling is going on and proper funding of UKYP, but essentially it boiled down to revealing that young people felt disengaged with politics and that there needed to be better citizenship education in schools. Hardly earth shattering.

What was even more disappointing was its stance on Votes at 16.  Personally I’m in favour of a reduction of the voting age, although I don’t actually think it’s the number one priority and I understand there are quite reasonable arguments against reducing it. So what annoyed me the most about the commission’s finding was that they didn’t come to a conclusion. If the Government of the day produces a Green Paper, asks a commission to investigate various elements of it, it doesn’t really want it to come back going “erm, we don’t really know – make your own mind up.” That’s a bit like a forensic scientist saying “well, what do you think happened?”.

And, once again, I see mandatory volunteering being bandied about: this time for Key Stage 4 pupils. I’m all for using lesson time to allow young people to help in their community (I used to help out at a local school instead of do PE), but I really worry when I see words like compulsory being thrown into the mix. Before it becomes compulsory, someone has to at least answer the concern that it could alienate a generation of future volunteers.

Perhaps what is most depressing though is that I can’t help feeling somewhat cynical that the much more radical Power Inquiry came up with far more exciting solutions to these problems, yet it faded into nothing. What is the point of these inquiries if change doesn’t come about from them?

The Youth of Today looks a more promising proposition. I’ve already blogged about it when the original proposal was announced, and I still really hope it is a catalyst for recognising the importance of developing young leaders. But, as other commentators have pointed out, my reaction was that it seems a bit too heavy on the institutionalised mandate: leadership appears to be about MPs, councillors and similar elected bodies. I realise there are other schemes that promote innovation and individual excellence, but I’d hope the Youth of Today takes a broader, more grassroots approach to what leadership is. With the exception of our friend in the States, I struggle to think of many politicians who really fit my idea of what good leadership is. And not all young leaders get excited by the prospect of a trip to the Houses of Parliament.

As an example of what I mean, I’ve been party to conversations about the Young Achievers Awards, an independent charity that seeks to recognise inspirational youth volunteers (colleagues of mine are trustees for the charity). Young Achievers Awards are presented to people like Ryan Hartson, a 23-year-old from Rotherham, who was described by his MV co-ordinator as “an all round mentor and role model to literally hundreds of young people.” Ryan initially helped and then ran dance lessons, before organising a Battle of the Bounce competition that attracted over 200 young people. He’s gone into schools to talk about his work, not bad for someone who had to deal with bullies when he was younger due to a speech impediment.

As part of his prize for winning a Young Achievers Award, Ryan met with Jonzi D, artistic director of Breakin’ Convention (an international festival of hip hop dance). As a result of that meeting, Ryan was invited to audition for this year’s convention in Nottingham. His company was successful, and got the opportunity to perform with some of the biggest names in hip hop theatre.  They’ve also performed in Bradford as part of the Breakin’ Convention there, as you can see:

Apart from being a great opportunity for Ryan, what was brilliant was the feedback from the Breakin’ Convention, which included him being described as “very organised and a complete joy to have on our stage.” To me, Ryan absolutely symbolises what a young leader should be about, and exactly the sort of person that The Youth of Today should be championing.

Incidentally, you might like to know that this year’s Young Achievers Awards are now open. You’ve got until the 27^th September to nominate a suitable young person.

Image courtesy of colodio. Used under licence.

Tags:breakin' convention, national body for youth leadership, power inquiry, ryan hartson, the youth of today, ukyp, young achievers awards, youth citizenship commission

Participation doesn’t just mean parties

Last week Harry Phibbs, writing in the Guardian, attacked the UK Youth Parliament and other young participation organisations for wasting tax-payers money on a “state-sanctioned system of bogus school elections to create smug, tame ‘youth politicians’”. His central thrust is that young people should get involved in ‘adult politics’ rather than a “segregated, pretend version”.

Harry’s justification for why there is no need for organisations like UKYP and BYC is based on his personal experience of joining a political party and writing letters to newspapers. That’s great that he did, and there are many young people who do today. But the assumption that because he did and knows others can therefore means that any young person can is both naive and quite possibly elitist. It also assumes that the only way to be involved in politics is via an existing political party, and that young people should respond to existing issues rather than be able to set the agenda themselves.

I know nothing about Harry’s background (bar the fact he went to a comprehensive school), but I’m assuming at some point – either at school or through his home life – he learned about the political process and how he could get involved in it. Not everyone is as fortunate to be in that position, and many young people in the UK have parents who have little understanding of how to engage in politics, save for sticking a cross on a ballot paper once in a while (and even that is debateable). Citizenship education, where stuff like this is learned, was only formally introduced onto the curriculum within the last ten years. It’s provision remains patchy, partly because Harry’s party, the Conservatives, have strongly hinted that they would seek to remove it should they regain power.

Outside of the education service, only the Electoral Commission has the statutory remit to promote political participation, and their publicity is aimed squarely at getting the vote out (not even understanding what you are voting about). There is not a single penny spent within government on any kind of public education about standing for election, the right to protest, how to campaign and what your MP could do for you.

Harry might see this as a good thing: that spending tax-income on trying to widen participation is pointless. But from where I’m standing, as someone who is passionate about politics but finds both the current political system and the parties totally demoralising, I struggle to comprehend why giving citizens the tools and knowledge to participate in politics is anything but a ‘no-brainer’. A view echoed by the findings of the Power Inquiry.

So both UKYP and BYC are filling a role that parliament and political parties are failing to do: teaching people about how the political process works and giving them the tools and knowledge as to how to get involved in the political process. Where Harry sees “tame”, I see rational. Where he sees “smug”, I see confident. That Harry managed to pull only two names of note, both from several decades ago, suggests that the majority of graduates of these programmes aren’t career politicians but citizens who pursue other walks of life, just having the skills to take on the politicians at their own game should the need arise.

If Harry doesn’t like UKYP, BYC and the local youth councils that span the width and breadth of the country, perhaps he’d like to suggest an alternative?  From where I’m standing, it sounds like his vision is that unless you’ve inherited the knowledge and confidence to participate, and you believe in one of the established parties, then you don’t deserve an invite to get involved in politics.

As a side-point, Harry loses credibility somewhat with one of the laziest snides at students: namely that they “are too apathetic even to boycott lectures or hold a sit-in”. It’s a shame he (and the many others who use this argument) don’t appear to have given any thought to what successive governments have done to universities over the last 20 years, and the fact that those loans, tuition fees and living costs don’t magically get paid for these days. While he had the luxury of a juicy grant and free education that allowed him to spend his spare time involved in a sit-ins and protests, the average student in 2009 is spending around 20 hours a week in paid-employment. Protest is, unfortunately, a luxury of the rich.

Image courtesy of masyomo. Used under licence.

Tags:byc, citizenship, conservative, electoral commission, guardian, harry phibbs, power inquiry, ukyp