As an exercise in futility, it would be hard to think of a better example than King Canute trying to hold back the tide.
But Government plans to create an “age friendly society” are not far behind.
This country is facing a population shift of massive proportions. Unprecedented in history and bringing with it issues and problems which no Government has had to deal with before.
There are already more pensioners than children. One in every four babies born today will live beyond 100. Within a few years there will be almost as many people living on pension incomes as there are people in work and paying for them.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown (well, at least he is for another few months...) is quoted as saying “more people living longer lives is a cause for celebration.”
Forget, for a moment, the massive financial pressures building up in the country as this ever-growing army of pensioners struggles to survive. Forget, if you can, the pressure on the health services and local authority care provision of so many more people in frail health. How many people can honestly say that living for a few more years into their 90s or beyond is a cause for celebration?
Undaunted however, the Government has published a vision for its “age friendly society” and over the last two months, has been going through a public consultation exercise.
Even now, somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall, the members of the “Ageing Strategy Stakeholder Team” are reviewing the results of this research and will report back before Christmas on just how age friendly (or unfriendly) people think society has become.
Among the ideas proposed are a national “Grandparents Summit”, a “Good Place to Grow Old Programme” and “digital inclusion projects” to help older people in sheltered housing keep in touch. Are they for real?
What do they think any of that is going to achieve? If I attended one of their workshops to plan for my later years are they going to look into a crystal ball and tell me how long I am going to last, how much money I am going need to survive, and what kind of state my health will be in? Would I even want to know?
For any families going through the trauma of seeing a loved one succumb to Dementia or Alzheimer’s, is a “digital inclusion project” going to help them cope?
It is estimated that within the next 20 years, more than a million people over the age of 65 will be acting as full-time carers to a husband or wife. That is a million families for whom no amount of Government platitudes or initiatives can make things seem any better.
The plain fact is that the Government (regardless of its political colour) is just like King Canute here – powerless to halt the relentless growth in our ageing population and powerless to do anything to improve life for the really old members of society, other than provide adequate healthcare. You can’t turn back the clock.
It is true, however, that the current generations of 50, 60, 70 and even 80 year olds, enjoy much better health (generally) and have a more active and socially engaged lifestyle than their parents or grandparents.
I know from my own experiences and those of my peer group, that while we may be conscious of more aches and pains, we have no intention of slowing down and fully intend to make the most of life while we still can.
My weekly squash partner is in his 60s and regularly thrashes me...he intends to still be playing when he is 80, and will probably still be thrashing me. And last week I met a man who still plays goalkeeper for a veterans hockey team at the age of 82.
But no amount of Government hot air and consultation can take away the fact that 20 years beyond that, if we all live to be 100, it is almost certain at that age we won’t be playing sport, going down the pub, driving to the shops, visiting Portman Road or doing anything which currently contribute to the quality of life we enjoy. So where, in that, is the cause for celebration?
While medical technology may improve, with replacement joints built to last 50 years instead of 20, and transplant operations becoming more routine and replacement organs being rejected less often, it doesn’t get away from the fact that in very old age, we will be living very restricted lives.
Scarily, and perhaps unhelpfully, a geneticist at Cambridge University – Aubrey de Gray – has said that barring accidents and suicide, there are almost certainly people alive today who could live for centuries. The technology exists to keep them alive – but what possible quality of life will they have?
The US Government spends more than $2 billion a year on biological research into ways and means of prolonging life. I can’t help feeling that money would be better spent on providing free healthcare for those people who are young enough to enjoy a good quality of life but can’t afford to pay doctors to treat them.
At the end of the day, age and ageing is unavoidable and unwanted. No amount of words can turn us into an age friendly society if the inescapable truth is that no-one wants to be old.
• Dick Lumsden is Managing Director of Senioragency, one of the few companies specialising in marketing and advertising to the 50+ group. If you have any views, or are over 50 and would like to take part in occasional consumer research, please contact him on dlumsden@senioragency.co.uk or sign up on his website at www.senioragency.co.uk
