Jilly Forster

Missed and took what? I’m talking about the opportunity for two-way communication with older people about what matters to them in life.

Given Gordon Brown’s performance with Rochdale pensioner, Gillian Duffy, on 28th April, we know that he’s missed the opportunity to listen to what she had to say. To Gordon, she was a ‘bigoted lady’. To anybody else, she was taking her opportunity to raise several matters of importance to her and her family. She was concerned about education for her grandchildren. When she raised the immigration question, however, it seems to have sent Gordon Brown into a bunker, where there was no longer any possibility of discussion. While a politician dismissing anybody’s views on any subject is a matter for condemnation, having this happen to you as an older person tends to reinforce feelings of being at best patronised and at worst ignored. Of course, Brown went one step further than ‘worst’. Then this was magnified a thousand times through the lens of the media.

Anybody who has taken the trouble to listen to what Gillian Duffy had to say can see that she is the voice of so many people of her age in the UK today. In her words was an overall feeling of anxiety caused by experiences which seemed partly first hand, partly learned through the media. The sad fact is that Gordon Brown had all the answers to her questions at his disposal, but thought it best to talk over her with policy rather than merely listen. Listening was what was required. It’s an important form of communication. And this was a chance to show that he was listening to millions of people aged 65 and over.

Given that the Labour government has only recently been communicating its Building A Society For All Ages policy, this leadership failure to walk the talk could cost the government dear among its traditional heartland voters in the North. 

UKIP, strident independent candidates, even the BNP, will all be rubbing their hands with glee at Gordon’s desire to see a disaster in an opportunity. But let’s face it, this is not just a politician’s challenge, but one that faces all of us. More and more older people have more and more views about what matters in their lives. They are not going to keep quiet about it. We all need to listen to what they have to say and learn how to engage with them. They are giving the rest of us that opportunity.

The Digital Participation Consortium is a UK-wide coalition of Government, industry and third sector organisations. Formed in response to the Government’s National Plan for Digital Participation, the Consortium has rightly identified that, while it’s important to encourage people over 55 to get online, it’s just as important to inspire them to engage more widely in the opportunities available to them online. The thinking behind this is based on research that shows that many people over this age use the internet in a very narrow sense. At best, it’s a bit like an old curiosity shop, instead of a stimulating entry point to just about anywhere they could imagine going. At worst, it’s an intimidating, unsafe and complex place they would rather avoid. 

With the lowest level of digital participation, people in the over-55 age group tend to have ten reasons why they shouldn’t engage, for every one that suggests they should. It’s in the interests of all kinds of organisations – from businesses to local government and charities – to help this increasingly numerous section of society overcome their barriers. Access to information of all kinds is increasingly digital. Those who do not engage, citing lack of interest, time or skills, are actually excluding themselves from all kinds of information that is useful to them. If they continue to self-exclude in such large numbers, then the information that society exchanges about people’s needs and desires will be skewed to younger generations. While society simply cannot allow that to happen, it seems that the real opportunities are for commercial organisations to recognise the importance of reaching the over-55s and ensure they stay in the game of life.

Politicians, like policemen, seem to be getting younger and younger.

It’s interesting to note that David Cameron and Nick Clegg are the first post-baby boom leaders contesting a General Election. Did you think that either came to grips in the live TV debates with what it means to be older in our society?

It’s also interesting that, in the lead-up to this general election campaign, the most effective Liberal Democrat spokesperson was 66 year-old Vince Cable, who handed over leadership of the party to Nick Clegg as long ago as December, 2007.  

Had Menzies Campbell had the TV opportunity of equal billing in 2005, would he be getting the same support from the media that Nick Clegg is this time around? Remember the media slating he took for being only 64 in the last General Election?

This sounds like a good time to plug the upcoming Counsel and Care ‘Older People In The Media Awards 2010’.

Counsel and Care is looking for good examples of media coverage – from print, TV, web or radio relating to older people. The awards will recognise individuals or organisations for positively portraying older people and their care and support.

Entry forms can also be downloaded and printed from the Counsel and Care website: www.counselandcare.org.uk/influence/events

The closing date for entries is Friday 2 July 2010.  The awards will be announced in September 2010.

‘Well, active, and older’ v ‘unwell, inactive, and older’ – why put one cohort above another?

In a speech given on Monday 11 January at an event organised by Age Concern and Help the Aged, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Equalities Harriet Harman asserted that society needs to recognise the contribution of the vast numbers of well, active older people – a group that she refers to as the ‘wellderly’. These older people are in the workplace, they care for younger – and older – relatives, friends and neighbours, they volunteer, and many of them have returned to full or part time education.

The key announcement in the speech, however, was that the government will be bringing forward to 2010 the review of the default retirement age – the law that currently enables employers to ‘retire’ workers who have reached 65.  A change in the law would allow people to continue working for longer in relation to their ability, not their age. Clearly the government is keen to put these messages out before the general election to reach out to the ‘grey’ vote.

The need to recognise the growing numbers of active older people is positive. There is, however, a need to balance this with recognition of the fact that longevity inevitably brings with it increased frailty, with more older people having to live with long term conditions for greater periods of their lives.  This point was made by the panel and the audience at the event.  And we need to keep highlighting that the ‘wellderly’ often cares for the frail – or the ‘unwellderly’, as a panel member dubbed them.

This same panel member made another good point, asserting that older people are not a ‘group’ – it is a life stage. Whatever else you are, whichever other ‘group’ you belong to – you will one day be an older person, if you live long enough.  

Current policy that is being pushed through to provide personal care at home for those with the ‘highest needs’ has been criticised because it appears to ignore those with lower needs, who run the risk of becoming more dependent if they do not receive ‘that bit of help’ to maintain their independence.  

So clearly what we need here is balance – to focus on one cohort above others suggests that the crisis of care is not being taken seriously and is simply being looked at now because we are about to have an election.  A former Care Minister once said that social care is the biggest public policy challenge facing this country in the 21st century. So let’s see how all the political parties actually plan to face up to this challenge – for older people from the age of 60 up to 100 – and beyond.