A young person as minster for young people

GarIT

Currently the government is discussing the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 which I as many other people think is a bad idea. However young people in Ireland are definitely under represented and I have a solution. Why don't we have one government minister. The minister for young people, who must be under 21 at the time they start in the position and the only people who can vote on this minister are people aged 13 to 18. This one minister would automatically be a member of the government no matter who gets into government and would be elected at the same time as the rest of the government.

Zombrex

GarIT wrote: »

Currently the government is discussing the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 which I as many other people think is a bad idea. However young people in Ireland are definitely under represented and I have a solution. Why don't we have one government minister. The minister for young people, who must be under 21 at the time they start in the position and the only people who can vote on this minister are people aged 13 to 18. This one minister would automatically be a member of the government no matter who gets into government and would be elected at the same time as the rest of the government.

We already have one, Frances Fitzgerald, who is the minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

I'm not sure what requiring them to be under 21 would do, other than ensure someone with very little experience is in the job.

GarIT

Zombrex wrote: »

We already have one, Frances Fitzgerald, who is the minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

I'm not sure what requiring them to be under 21 would do, other than ensure someone with very little experience is in the job.

The current minister doesn't have a clue at all about young people and is elected by adults to represent young people. The young people of Ireland should be allowed elect one young person who can actually represent them properly that can work alongside the adult government minister.

Being young doesn't always mean being inexperienced, although it is often the case. A young persons minister would better represent the views of young people and could work as a team with the minister for children to get stuff done. A quick survey done on a small group of young people shows that 80% of young people do not feel that the minister for children actually represents them, rather that the current minister represents what adults want for young people.

Also the governments own research has shown that young people feel underrepresented in government. Their solution is to lower the voting age, I think having a minister for young people by young people would be better as it would represent all young people rather than have people 16-18 voting on everything.

oscarBravo

GarIT wrote: »

The current minister doesn't have a clue at all about young people...

Maybe the next minister for children should be someone who used to be young.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

GarIT wrote: »

Currently the government is discussing the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 which I as many other people think is a bad idea. However young people in Ireland are definitely under represented and I have a solution. Why don't we have one government minister. The minister for young people, who must be under 21 at the time they start in the position and the only people who can vote on this minister are people aged 13 to 18. This one minister would automatically be a member of the government no matter who gets into government and would be elected at the same time as the rest of the government.

We already have a Childrens Obudsman.
Should we also have a Mimister for Health that only the sick can vote for, a minister for Defence that only the DF can vote for?

GarIT

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe the next minister for children should be someone who used to be young.

I assume that is sarcasm, but as a young person that has an interest in politics I have found that the minister for children historically has represented adults views on young people rather than those of young people.

RichardAnd

Well there is the old adage of "no tax without representation." It seems to me that many of the policies coming from the houses of power are greatly bias against people within the "young" age bracket.

Any young person with a job has to pay taxes yet with jobbridge schemes, reduced welfare rated and poorly implemented education systems, I sometimes wonder how well the young group of people is represented. That's not to mention the condescending attitude I've seen and continue to see being displayed towards the young...

"Ah shure yer young, yer meant to have it hard!"


sigh...

Foxhound38

Such a position would not be taken seriously - it would be a bit like the Youth Crime Commissioner debacle in the UK. Personally, I don't care what age the Minister is as long as the person is competent and has some good ideas. Fitzgerald actually hasn't been the worst in fairness to her - better than some of the other eejits in Government anyway.

GarIT

Old and grey wrote: »

We already have a Childrens Obudsman.
Should we also have a Mimister for Health that only the sick can vote for, a minister for Defence that only the DF can vote for?

There's a difference here though, a healthy person may become sick, an adult may join the defence forces or need to be defended. An adult wont be young again. It is much easier for a sick person to talk to a minister that it is you a young person. As a young person the first few times I wrote to ministers were quite daunting, while If there was a young person there dealing with young peoples problems it would have been much easier. Schools often do polls and petitions and things like that, and a young peoples minister would be a much better person for things like that to be sent to.

Our four major political parties agree that young people are not represented in government. I don't believe that lowering the voting age to 16 will represent young people but having a minister voted for by young people will.

GarIT

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Such a position would not be taken seriously - it would be a bit like the Youth Crime Commissioner debacle in the UK. Personally, I don't care what age the Minister is as long as the person is competent and has some good ideas. Fitzgerald actually hasn't been the worst in fairness to her - better than some of the other eejits in Government anyway.

That is a fear I would share although I don't think it should stop it. Things are changing fast and I think many adults are out of touch with young people, I think it would be safe to say that someone that is over 21 now would not have grown up with the internet. The internet is a whole new world that children are exposed to and while it is an amazing thing to have it comes with many dangers and problems for young people. I don't think it would be exaggerating if I said 99% of adults don't fully understand how young people use the internet and everything they do on it. I believe that things change so fast now that if you haven't been in secondary school within the last 5 years you cannot say you understand young people.

I'm kind of unsure about the age part myself. On one hand I feel that a younger person would be better suited for the job and could relate better with the young people, on the other I think a minister that actually has to answer to young people rather than just adults of voting age could do the job too. At a minimum I think that if the role was created the rule of being a minimum of 24 to be in government should be removed for this position.

GarIT

I should probably explain what I intend to do. My intention is to get feedback on this, see if the idea needs to be improved and to send it to my local representative and se what they think. The purpose of this is as an alternative to letting every 16 year old vote on the whole government. What would the people of boards say to this as an alternative to letting 16 year olds vote on the whole government.

conorhal

GarIT wrote: »

That is a fear I would share although I don't think it should stop it. Things are changing fast and I think many adults are out of touch with young people, I think it would be safe to say that someone that is over 21 now would not have grown up with the internet. The internet is a whole new world that children are exposed to and while it is an amazing thing to have it comes with many dangers and problems for young people. I don't think it would be exaggerating if I said 99% of adults don't fully understand how young people use the internet and everything they do on it. I believe that things change so fast now that if you haven't been in secondary school within the last 5 years you cannot say you understand young people.

I'm kind of unsure about the age part myself. On one hand I feel that a younger person would be better suited for the job and could relate better with the young people, on the other I think a minister that actually has to answer to young people rather than just adults of voting age could do the job too. At a minimum I think that if the role was created the rule of being a minimum of 24 to be in government should be removed for this position.

That ill; informed diatribe reminds me of a great quote by Mark Twain:

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Whisht now whippersnapped!

seamus

GarIT wrote: »

I believe that things change so fast now that if you haven't been in secondary school within the last 5 years you cannot say you understand young people.

I'm pretty sure every young person in history has said something like this.

At a minimum I think that if the role was created the rule of being a minimum of 24 to be in government should be removed for this position.

Let me guess, you're under 24?

Though I don't think there is such a rule, is there?

The minister for children's affairs has more to represent than children in the 12-18 bracket. They have to manage matters of social welfare, access to childcare facilities, schooling, children's health, etc etc etc.

Their remit is to represent the interests of children from birth to 18, but also the interests of parents (since that has a direct effect on children). It's a far wider role than simply being "down with the yoof", and requires experience across quite a wide range of disciplines.

GarIT

conorhal wrote: »

That ill; informed diatribe reminds me of a great quote by Mark Twain:

How is it ill informed? Mind telling me your own opinion?

seamus wrote: »

I'm pretty sure every young person in history has said something like this.

Let me guess, you're under 24?

Though I don't think there is such a rule, is there?

The minister for children's affairs has more to represent than children in the 12-18 bracket. They have to manage matters of social welfare, access to childcare facilities, schooling, children's health, etc etc etc.

Their remit is to represent the interests of children from birth to 18, but also the interests of parents (since that has a direct effect on children). It's a far wider role than simply being "down with the yoof", and requires experience across quite a wide range of disciplines.

I'd say that every young person that has said it is right, it's just that nobody has taken it seriously. Yes I'm 19. When I looked into running for election before I was told that I must be 24, I just checked there and I've found it saying 21.

I know what the minister of children does. I'm not saying to get rid of the minister for children, I'm just saying they don't do the job from a child's point of view. We need a young person in the government that can encourage the government to take action on issues such a bullying, childhood depression and discrimination.

Amirani

Can you give an example of where the Minister For Children has failed to see things from a young person's point of view and/or hasn't properly represented young people?

I really can't see it making any significant positive difference to the current situation.

Amirani

GarIT wrote: »

We need a young person in the government that can encourage the government to take action on issues such a bullying, childhood depression and discrimination.

Do you not think that Government is taking action on these issues? I think you'll find they are.

GarIT

NiallSparky wrote: »

Can you give an example of where the Minister For Children has failed to see things from a young person's point of view and/or hasn't properly represented young people?

I really can't see it making any significant positive difference to the current situation.

The government has failed to provide any safety for children from cyber bullying as you said they have been "working on it" but don't feel the need to actually put anything forward after people are killing themselves. The government has shown on several occasions a complete lack of understanding of the internet and cyber bullying. The government have failed to put out a code of behaviour to be used in all should even thought it has been suggested to them several times every time they just say that will eventually and then forget until the next person dies.

Foxhound38

GarIT wrote: »

How is it ill informed? Mind telling me your own opinion?

OK, here goes nothing...

GarIT wrote:

I think it would be safe to say that someone that is over 21 now would not have grown up with the internet

Yeah, I'm in my late 20's. Me and most people I know grew up with the internet. To most intents and purposes, people under the age of about 32 would have been quite familiar with the interwebz growing up. Also, most of the adult populations use said interwebz every day.

GarIT wrote:

I don't think it would be exaggerating if I said 99% of adults don't fully understand how young people use the internet and everything they do on it.

I'm sure the adult population are likely aware of the existance of porn and facebook on the internet.

GarIT wrote:

I'm just saying they don't do the job from a child's point of view

In what sense? What should Francis Fitzgerald be doing that she isn't already doing on the issues you outlined? She may not be "hip to the groove" or whatever way you crazy kids do be talkin these days, but the role of Government is policy-based more than anything...

Amirani

GarIT wrote: »

The government has failed to provide any safety for children from cyber bullying as you said they have been "working on it" but don't feel the need to actually put anything forward after people are killing themselves. The government has shown on several occasions a complete lack of understanding of the internet and cyber bullying. The government have failed to put out a code of behaviour to be used in all should even thought it has been suggested to them several times every time they just say that will eventually and then forget until the next person dies.

Cyber bullying is a very difficult to legislate for because one person's bullying is another person's "joking around". It's all very subjective. If you're going to be prosecuting people for saying things that make people feel bad then you're on very tenuous ground. Excessive sort of stuff is already covered by hate speech laws.

What they have done is introduce anti-bullying campaigns in schools in attempt to use education to resolve the problem. This is probably something similar to what I'd opt for if I was given legislative powers.

What would you or a Minister for Young People do? Do you think there would be consensus in the decision?

I'm only 22 by the way, and still in full-time education, so I'm not exactly that far removed from the demographic you're talking about.

Zombrex

GarIT wrote: »

The government have failed to put out a code of behaviour to be used in all should even thought it has been suggested to them several times every time they just say that will eventually and then forget until the next person dies.

And what would a 17 year old minister for young people do to change any of that?

You seem to be stuck at the actual implementation bit. You list problems. Yes there are problems. And then you say that the current minister is not young. Yes she isn't young. And then you say the current minister should be young, and you seem to sort of assume that this will fix the problems.

How exactly will that fix the problems? It is not enough to simply say that the government is "out of touch". You need to explain what, in your view, having a young person will actually achieve in practical terms.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

GarIT wrote: »

How is it ill informed? Mind telling me your own opinion?



I'd say that every young person that has said it is right, it's just that nobody has taken it seriously. Yes I'm 19. When I looked into running for election before I was told that I must be 24, I just checked there and I've found it saying 21.

I know what the minister of children does. I'm not saying to get rid of the minister for children, I'm just saying they don't do the job from a child's point of view. We need a young person in the government that can encourage the government to take action on issues such a bullying, childhood depression and discrimination.

They are not supposed to do the job from as you say " a childs point of view" if they did we would be passing laws on minimum rates of pocket money and banning homework!

GarIT

Foxhound38 wrote: »

OK, here goes nothing...



Yeah, I'm in my late 20's. Me and most people I know grew up with the internet. To most intents and purposes, people under the age of about 32 would have been quite familiar with the interwebz growing up. Also, most of the adult populations use said interwebz every day.



I'm sure the adult population are likely aware of the existance of porn and facebook on the internet.



In what sense? What should Francis Fitzgerald be doing that she isn't already doing on the issues you outlined? She may not be "hip to the groove" or whatever way you crazy kids do be talkin these days, but the role of Government is policy-based more than anything...

First of all as a reply to both posts I'll say that it would be up to the candidate to make their policies, not me, I was just giving examples. Another possible better example is those chewing gum ads, they are a disaster, I know children that won't put rubbish in the bin because they will get slagged by their friends as a result of those ads. In reality those ads were the government trying to appeal to kids and it ended in disaster. Luckily most people seem to have forgotten them already.

But are they aware of sites like ask.fm where you say things anonymously about people, or teenage dating sites like tagged.com that claims to have something like 60k Irish members under 18, where explicit picture swapping is extremely common. I'd say nearly every person I know has been rated out of 10 publicly by their friends at some stage. I don't even know how you would deal with all of that.

The point of a new minister is not even that the current one is doing anything wrong. It's that young people don't feel represented, the government have found this themselves. What I'm suggesting isn't a solution to a problem like bullying but to make young people feel represented rather than lowering the voting age,

NiallSparky wrote: »

Cyber bullying is a very difficult to legislate for because one person's bullying is another person's "joking around". It's all very subjective. If you're going to be prosecuting people for saying things that make people feel bad then you're on very tenuous ground. Excessive sort of stuff is already covered by hate speech laws.

What they have done is introduce anti-bullying campaigns in schools in attempt to use education to resolve the problem. This is probably something similar to what I'd opt for if I was given legislative powers.

What would you or a Minister for Young People do? Do you think there would be consensus in the decision?

I'm only 22 by the way, and still in full-time education, so I'm not exactly that far removed from the demographic you're talking about.

I agree with your first point, but any anti bullying campaign that I have seen as a child would only encourage me to bully people. Having a young person involved with its creation and implementation might help it. Children will always do the opposite of what adults tell them.

In my view the minister for young people would be a sort of gateway of communication between young people and the government. The minister would be expected to visit schools and see how young people think things could be improved for them. One example of this is directing the government on where the main issues of bullying are that need to be addressed, a member of the government talked about how 'fraping' was a major issue for children and we need to legislate to stop it when its never been an issue for any child. Where something productive could have been done instead like banning sites from allowing users under 18 if the site has an anonymous posting feature or making it illegal for children under 13 to use social networking and making the parents legally responsible for what they do.

Currently everyone has a voice in the government except the young, everyone else can vote. The problem is you can't just let kids vote, it would be too dangerous, someone would abuse it, this would give children a voice in government without giving them the power to sway elections massively.

GarIT

Zombrex wrote: »

And what would a 17 year old minister for young people do to change any of that?

You seem to be stuck at the actual implementation bit. You list problems. Yes there are problems. And then you say that the current minister is not young. Yes she isn't young. And then you say the current minister should be young, and you seem to sort of assume that this will fix the problems.

How exactly will that fix the problems? It is not enough to simply say that the government is "out of touch". You need to explain what, in your view, having a young person will actually achieve in practical terms.

I gave a few reasons in the last post just there. But having one young person in there would hep the government gain some direction in how they tackle issues and what issues need to be tackled. At the moment the governments attitude is "We know something needs to be done but where do we start"

The current minister has a lot to deal with and in my opinion doesn't always see the issues that are there for young people. Young people are the only people without a voice and should be given one.

GarIT

Old and grey wrote: »

They are not supposed to do the job from as you say " a childs point of view" if they did we would be passing laws on minimum rates of pocket money and banning homework!

I think is a bit simple to say that is all that affects young people to be fair.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

GarIT wrote: »

I think is a bit simple to say that is all that affects young people to be fair.

Well what is it that so affects young people and doesn't affect the rest of society?

GarIT

Old and grey wrote: »

Well what is it that so affects young people and doesn't affect the rest of society?

Depression in children is very different to in adults, parental abuse, bullying is a lot more common.

Amirani

GarIT wrote: »

In my view the minister for young people would be a sort of gateway of communication between young people and the government. The minister would be expected to visit schools and see how young people think things could be improved for them. One example of this is directing the government on where the main issues of bullying are that need to be addressed, a member of the government talked about how 'fraping' was a major issue for children and we need to legislate to stop it when its never been an issue for any child. Where something productive could have been done instead like banning sites from allowing users under 18 if the site has an anonymous posting feature or making it illegal for children under 13 to use social networking and making the parents legally responsible for what they do.

There's a lot of sense in this. I don't necessarily get why this new gateway of communication has to be a "minister" though. Why not keep it at gateway or some such?

GarIT

NiallSparky wrote: »

There's a lot of sense in this. I don't necessarily get why this new gateway of communication has to be a "minister" though. Why not keep it at gateway or some such?

I don't think it has to be, that was more an initial concept for the idea, I thought that being a minister would give the person a better platform to speak to the government. At a minimum whoever did it would have to have some involvement in the government otherwise it would be a pointless role. Would it be possible to have somebody who would be allowed speak in the dáil but isn't a minister and maybe works with the minister for children. I wonder how it could be run, elections somewhat similar to college union reps maybe done through secondary schools? I know that the students don't have to vote but it would need to be made mandatory for schools to facilitate voting.