STEPHEN GLOVER: The bishop should stop whingeing about baby boomers. The truth is we've NOT always had it so good Last week, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls announced that, if re-elected, Labour will cap state pensions, which have so far escaped cuts Are "baby boomers" selfish creatures who graspingly hang on to their excessive privileges, and consume more than their fair share of government spending? Many people think so. Last week, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls announced that, if re-elected, Labour will cap state pensions, which have so far escaped cuts. In the tax year just ended, welfare for pensioners accounted for £110 billion out of £202 billion spent on benefits. And on Monday the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, suggested that "the fortunate generation" of which he is part - he is 65 - had "absorbed" much of the increase in public spending. He said that this raises "severe questions of inter-generational equity." This follows similar bouts of breast-beating from apparently guilt-ridden luminaries such as the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman and Tory minister David Willetts, who seem to believe that baby boomers like them have nabbed all the cream for themselves. According to the Bishop of London, since "the period of unchallengeable Western hegemony is at an end," our best days could be "behind us." The implication is that younger people may be left economically stranded while the baby boomers (he did not use this phrase) continue to enjoy disproportionately rich pickings. The Bishop is usually one of the best things about the Church of England. And, to be fair to him, these musings formed only a small part of an interesting lecture about the spiritual future of this country. But they are bound to be seized on because so many people, seemingly including Mr Balls, find them seductive. Youth unemployment stands at well over 20 per cent - nearly three times the general rate. While pensions have been left untouched, there have been cuts in other welfare payments, albeit small ones so far. And, of course, even young people on good salaries find it well-nigh impossible to get on the housing ladder. This is all true. But I want to dispute the widespread notion, endorsed by the Bishop, that baby boomers (which I define as people born between 1946 and 1955, though some authorities cite a later end-date) are unfairly privileged. And I also want to take issue with his contention that the younger generation are unlikely ever to enjoy the supposed privileges of the baby boomers as a result of Britain's inevitable economic decline, and the rise of China and other Asian powers. The first, and most obvious, point is that despite the benefit of a decent education system and other advantages, the baby boomers (in which I include myself) did not always have it so good. The older among us were brought up in "austerity Britain," in which there was still food rationing and other shortages. As we grew up, we endured sluggish economic growth in the Sixties, as well as economic stagnation, plus near hyper-inflation, in the Seventies. Sixty-year-olds lucky enough to own their own houses today will very likely have paid exorbitant rates of interest on their previous mortgages. Throughout it all, most of us will have contributed to society, and paid our taxes (generally higher in the past) and national insurance. Governments have long since cut the link between national insurance and benefits, but many baby boomers, not unreasonably, see themselves as having "paid in." According to the Bishop of London, our best days could be 'behind us'. The implication is that younger people may be left economically stranded while the baby boomers continue to enjoy disproportionately rich pickings What do we get at the end of it all? The present single pension is £107.40 a week, which does not seem a fortune to me. As a result of welcome Coalition reforms, this will rise to £144 for most pensioners from 2017 - still hardly a king's ransom. Those who have worked for the State may also enjoy an index-linked pension, but the much larger number of people who have worked in the private sector may well find that their pensions are much smaller than they had hoped, either because of the demise of final salary pensions or due to the recent collapse in annuities. In any case, most members of the fashionably derided tribe of baby boomers have not yet begun to draw a pension of any kind, since to do so you have to be aged 65 if you are a man, or 61 if you are a woman. Even when they reach this age many people feel that they have to go on working. Figures released yesterday by the Office for National Statistics to accompany slightly improved unemployment figures show that the number of employed people over 65 has reached more than a million - the highest level since records first began in 1971. As the older among us grew up, we endured sluggish economic growth in the Sixties, as well as economic stagnation, plus near hyper-inflation, in the Seventies I suggest that many of these people would put their feet up and enjoy their retirement if they could, but are unable to do so because the basic state pension does not provide a tolerable standard of living. They may also have inadequate pension arrangements of their own, or none at all. Of course, it is perfectly true that some pensioners own valuable houses on which they have paid off their mortgages over many years. If they have been owner-occupiers for 15 years or more, they will have almost certainly seen the value of their properties far outpace the rate of inflation. Even so, some of them may downsize, either because they want to help their children before the taxman takes his whack when they die, or because they are forced to do so in order to obtain a half-decent income in retirement. It is obviously regrettable that young people can't afford to buy their own homes unless they stump up a hefty deposit, not infrequently helped out by their parents. But this is a consequence, I trust not permanent, of the worst banking crisis for 80 years, not the fault of baby boomers who have saved to own their own homes. Successive governments are also to blame for not building enough houses. By all means, let the Government take away perks such as the winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners - which would save a little money. But don't start attacking the basic state pension, or ordinary pensioners I'm afraid the Bishop of London is plain wrong, and risks setting generations against each other, though I'm sure that was not what he intended. Most pensioners are not flush with cash. They have worked, and saved, to build up what they have - which is usually not very much. By all means, let the Government take away perks such as the winter fuel allowance or free bus passes from wealthy pensioners - say, those with a joint annual income of more than £100,000 - which would save a little money. But don't start attacking the basic state pension, or ordinary pensioners. The way a society treats the elderly is surely the ultimate test of its humanity. I'm sure the Bishop of London would agree with this - which is why his depiction of an over-privileged "fortunate generation" is regrettable. Equally regrettable is his insinuation that the young can never enjoy the advantages of the baby boomers because of current economic conditions. Why should this be so? As I've argued, the baby boomers lived through the doldrums of the Sixties and the economic calamities of the Seventies. Better times will return one day, as they always have. There is no reason to suppose that members of the present generation will not thrive, if they work and save. They should be encouraged to make their own good fortune without the baby boomers being penalised for making theirs.