Tories ain't down with the kids

David Cameron with young people from 'Not in our Name' campaign (Image: Vosizneias.com)

There is something about the Conservative Party and young people that don't seem to bond. Some may argue that it's not who the Tories target as they have their own same crowd to please. The media have a habit of portraying the youth as the angry left-wing bunch who, in their spare time, protest in their masses against austerity. If not doing that, they're likely to commit a crime of some sort, not being 'aspirational' enough in school, likely to get up late and aren't as skillful as those heading for retirement.

It is easy to criticise 'them kids'. 'The youth of today aren't what they used to be back in the good ol' days'. You can avoid controversy shunning young people because 'they can take it'. If you said the same thing about millionaires who have achieved lots, someone who is celebrating early retirement, army officers who have served in Afghanistan yet committed a crime in the UK, you'd be the one getting the abuse.

Now, I'm not saying that these three particular examples should be victim to 'death by media', but I think children receive a huge amount of unnecessary negative attention - fuelled by certain members of the public and the press. More press than not in this country, it's worth noting, tend to flirt with the Conservative Party so if there is a story that's anti-child in anyway, you may understand the reasons behind the Tory snub.

Conservative voters that may read this feature may be thinking 'hang on, we love children - we target working people and therefore, we support their children, and their children's children'. I may be inclined to agree, but their party isn't making it obvious that this is the case. Not lately anyway as the government announced their budget and recently refused to back a children's charity.

George Osborne, 8 July 2015 (Image: Telegraph)

Let's talk about that budget first - the one that took place this week. Being Chancellor George Osborne's first budget without the Liberal Democrats assistance, he was keen to show off the Tory track record - how the party wooed the women when it came to historically changing the voting system a century ago, for example. Osborne's hour-long speech was filled with policies and gushing over party credentials covered nearly everything that would benefit the private sector - the '£9 per hour by 2020' pledge was something he and Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith seemed pretty pleased with (time will tell if they keep to that promise, of course). Public sector get a pay rise too - by 1% in the next four years. How generous, seeing as MPs are likely to receive a big pay rise themselves, by nearly £10,000 per annum.

I'm going off topic, of course. My focus here is on young people - from 24 year olds down. These are the people who will miss out on the new Living Wage, getting University grants taken off them, more loans to pay back should they choose to go onto Higher Education. Well, at least there are more 'quality' apprenticeships to look forward to - the ones which you may, or may not gain a permanent job after obtaining the required training for that position. But then of course, because of these undue pressures and uncertainties, comes stress - some suffering more than others, and that support from the government is frozen until the next parliament in 2020.

The budget, which Osborne seemed so pleased with, did nothing that would benefit the young. Little chance of independence, offering minimal support for anything they want to do. It's either you get a job at 16 and rely on the fact the economy is doing okay for the rest of your teenage years, or receive further education and chances of getting your desired career choice is as likely as winning the lottery. Osborne likes to think that because youth unemployment has decreased since 2010 that young people should be left to their own devices.

I'm lucky to be 24 now as this no-policy farce doesn't affect me so much but I sincerely hope that businesses, small and large, are taking young people seriously. I think that's what the government is relying on too. But that's not taking care of the country. It's barely the 'One Nation' or 'Big Society' notions David Cameron introduced. These seem flawed at the moment with independent powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North West, South East and the Midlands. That's 'Six Nations' but I suppose that name has already been taken by something more worthy.

Which leads me to my next point - Big Society is the integration of all societies together, in unison. I'm sure that's what Cameron meant when he came up with that idea out of the blue. However, when he damages crucial relationships with people who are visibly making a difference, this 'Big Society' is thrown out of the window. The government, for nearly 20 years, has been financially supporting Kids Company, the children's charity that's helped thousands of deprived, disadvantaged young people in London and beyond. So much support, it received £4m last year. But this year, now Conservatives don't have Liberal Democrats by their side, the Party is doing things a little different.

Camila Batmanghelidjh with Helen Mirren (Image: Standard)

Cameron has decided to not give Kids Company any money at all after a BBC and Buzzfeed joint investigation discovered some out-of-the-ordinary activity within the charity such as its founder Camila Batmanghelidjh giving children physical cash so that they can afford electricity for the night, or food that would keep their stomachs full for a few hours. It may be a lot of trust there but would you not give money to a homeless 'in case they spent it on cigarettes'? These children need help and Kids Company provides that, and the results have been staggeringly good - so much so that the likes of JK Rowling, Richard Branson and Coldplay are noted donors and have shown their support to the charity at this uncertain times.

Of course Kids Company is singled out because of the sheer amount of coverage it received since its introduction nearly 20 years ago. Yet, we hear no other government-backed charities in the same situation. It's this particular charity the Tories seem to have a vendetta against and if they had to consequently cut down in any way possible, then it's the children who rely on these services at their time of need that are the true victims. Camilla Long, a respected journalist of Sunday Times noted that when she visited the charity's offices, that she saw more staff than children. For me that's probably because they have done such a good job that the children originally needing these services are starting to use it less. On the other hand, the organisation is so big that there may have been plenty of activity happening out of the office.

We certainly don't know the full story of the latest comings and goings of Kids Company but its unwelcomed publicity of late is an indication that children are on the edge and not sure what support they'll get - whether that's from a parent who themselves have tax credit cuts from the recent budget, or external services that may be cut due to austerity. I think austerity in some areas are constructive but if you're going to do it, at least consider every age group because children, who are our shaping our next generation will become angry at their later stage when they understand the true neglect they're receiving from the top. Just because most of them can't vote yet doesn't mean they aren't effected by adult policy.