If the mantra of generational conflict was persuasive in the coalition years, the general election seems to have cemented it. The over-65s, showered with state largesse, expressed their gratitude to their Conservative benefactors in the polling booths: 47% plumped for the Tories. Among the repeatedly kicked 18-24 age group, it was a Labour landslide: 43% for Ed Miliband’s party, with just 27% opting for a candidate with a blue rosette.

Though my own youthful credentials are now tenuous, it might seem natural for me to champion generational conflict, calling for a crusade against the cushioned existence of the baby boomer generations. Wrong: the newly published report by the Ready for Ageing Alliance is right to take on “dangerous myths” that set generation against generation. “Baby boomer”, they say, is now a term of abuse, and the conditions of pensioners are diverse. They’re absolutely right, of course. According to Age UK, one in six pensioners live in poverty, or about 1.6 million people. Well over a million more are on the brink of poverty. Among women, single people and private tenants, the risk is even higher. Despite the fact that the state pension has been increased, it is still one of the least generous in Europe. German, French and Spanish pensioners are all at less risk of poverty.

It is depressing, indeed, to imagine that, in one of the biggest economies on earth, hundreds of thousands of Britons end their lives in deprivation: often in cold homes, worrying about bills, unable to enjoy the comforts that should be the reward of a lifetime of work. And this is why it is so difficult to generalise about generations, because there is a chasm between the lives of a retired miner in Ashington and a multimillionaire in their 70s.

Yes, George Osborne has shielded the over-65s from much of austerity, and indeed extended to them a generosity denied to others. And we know young working-class and middle-class people have suffered a shellacking: the trebling of tuition fees, the attack on benefits, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, a slump in income, the housing crisis, cuts to youth services, the lack of secure, well-paid jobs, the rise of unpaid internships, and so on. But the lives of young people will not be improved by kicking the older generations, any more than attacking the pensions and wages of public-sector workers helps private-sector workers, or further immiseration for the unemployed benefits the low-paid. The real targets – the financial sector that caused the crisis, or politicians inflicting unnecessary austerity, or the richest 1,000 who have doubled their wealth – are spared, and replaced by our grandparents.

Attacking the conditions of pensioners would be yet another attack on the young. That’s because all young people are future pensioners: all of us will one day retire. Stripping away benefits enjoyed by older people, or raising the retirement age, will mean that today’s younger generation will be hit by a double whammy: a standard of living now that is worse than that of their parents; and a standard of living when they retire that will be worse than that of their grandparents .

But it would be suicidal for the left to indulge generational conflict for more pragmatic political reasons. Labour enjoyed its best result among 18 to 24 year-olds in May, though fewer than half voted. As is well known, nearly eight out of 10 of the heavily Tory-voting over-65s filled out a ballot paper. The solution here, of course, is twofold. Labour needs a leader with policies that can actually inspire the suffering younger generation to come out and vote, giving them confidence that politics offers solutions to the everyday problems and insecurities they face.

Moreover, Labour self-evidently needs to win over more of the older generation if it is get in power again. A good start would be to implement the policies suggested by the International Longevity Centre – and deal with the crisis of adult social care.

It would be suicidal for the left to indulge generational conflict for more pragmatic political reasons

That both we and our parents may not receive the care we need in retirement, stripping us of independence and happiness, should terrify us all. Because of cuts to English councils – leaving them with a gap in funding of £1.1bn – the social care sector is unable to employ the number of workers it needs. This is of course putting pressure on our struggling NHS. The longevity centre is calling for the full implementation of the Dilnot reforms, which cap individual contributions to care. For the sake of both generations, the centre also advocates incentives for downsizing, to free up family homes.

At the last general election Labour was committed to unpicking the universalism that should underpin the welfare state, taking away benefits from older pensioners. Partly because of means-testing, we know that many pensioners are not getting the benefits they need, suppressing their standard of living. About £5.5bn worth of benefits – such as pension credit and housing benefit – that should be in the pockets of older people goes unclaimed each year. Labour should be promoting universalism, because without it, many of the pensioners who most need benefits don’t get them.

Inspiring young people and addressing their problems; finally eliminating pensioner poverty; addressing social care; defending pensioners’ benefits: these are not contradictory strategies but complementary ones. They will ensure that today’s young people can reclaim a sense of optimism for the future, rather than one of foreboding. The mantra of generational conflict is poison – and if indulged by the left, it will help to destroy the left.