by Emily Bick, Web and Publications Officer
According to a new poll of 15,000 Saga members (all aged 50-plus), two thirds of them wanted to switch to Central European Time to avoid the disruption caused by the clocks moving back an hour for winter.
If you think about it, this makes sense. Longer hours of darkness can keep older people from feeling safe driving or venturing outside, keeping them isolated from their communities. Dark afternoons spent indoors equal higher energy bills for lighting and heating, real worries for anyone on a fixed income. Add Seasonal Affective Disorder, the seasonal depression caused by lack of sunlight, to this mix of loneliness and financial worry, and it's surprising that the two-thirds figure is not higher.
Additionally, a move to Central European Time would help almost everyone, for all of the reasons above as well as being environmentally friendly and energy-efficient, things to consider in these austere times.
If this one change can make such a difference to older people's quality of life, why not make it policy? What do you think?
Read more from the Daily Telegraph.
Thursday 28 October 2010
Tuesday 26 October 2010
Questions questions – what would reform of the state pension mean for us all?
By Claire Nurden, Research and Policy Officer
News of proposed reforms to the pensions system hit the papers in the last few days, and as we all get our heads around the possible changes only one thing is clear – we need more information!
At Independent Age our initial reaction was that, of course, any moves to transfer the cost of bureaucracy into older people’s pockets are welcome. But we mustn’t forget that pension credit currently plays an important role in passporting people through to other support, like council tax benefit. If these reforms go ahead then thought must be given to ensuring the poorest older people still receive everything they are entitled to. Or could this signal the end to means-tested benefits altogether?
And what of the Government’s calculation that the money saved from eliminating means testing will be enough to fund the change? Some personal financial experts are already expressing concern about the effect this could have on the state second pension. Will it just be rolled into the single £140 payment? And will all pensioners feel the benefit of the reform or will it only affect those retiring under the new rules? In which case, can it really be the case that there will be no losers, only winners? If funding a move like this is really so simple, then the question must be raised, why on earth hasn’t it been done before?
Only one thing is certain - it was a very timely announcement given that many of this week’s winners (women and carers) were last week’s losers in the spending review.
News of proposed reforms to the pensions system hit the papers in the last few days, and as we all get our heads around the possible changes only one thing is clear – we need more information!
At Independent Age our initial reaction was that, of course, any moves to transfer the cost of bureaucracy into older people’s pockets are welcome. But we mustn’t forget that pension credit currently plays an important role in passporting people through to other support, like council tax benefit. If these reforms go ahead then thought must be given to ensuring the poorest older people still receive everything they are entitled to. Or could this signal the end to means-tested benefits altogether?
And what of the Government’s calculation that the money saved from eliminating means testing will be enough to fund the change? Some personal financial experts are already expressing concern about the effect this could have on the state second pension. Will it just be rolled into the single £140 payment? And will all pensioners feel the benefit of the reform or will it only affect those retiring under the new rules? In which case, can it really be the case that there will be no losers, only winners? If funding a move like this is really so simple, then the question must be raised, why on earth hasn’t it been done before?
Only one thing is certain - it was a very timely announcement given that many of this week’s winners (women and carers) were last week’s losers in the spending review.
Monday 25 October 2010
Whatever happened to localism?
by Simon Bottery, Director of Fundraising, Policy and Communications
Localism was supposed to be one of the coalition's main drivers, but local authorities are faced with seven percent annual decreases in their grant from central government, while many central budgets have got off more lightly. The one token concession to localism in the comprehensive spending review was the decision not to ringfence the additional £1bn of funding provided for social care. Small comfort for local authorities, this. They can use it to plug the holes opening up in social care provision as our population ages (which is exactly what they should do as we await real long term proposals in July). Or they can spend it on 'non-essentials' (nb intention here is irony) like roads, children's services and refuse collection, which already face huge cuts. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Localism was supposed to be one of the coalition's main drivers, but local authorities are faced with seven percent annual decreases in their grant from central government, while many central budgets have got off more lightly. The one token concession to localism in the comprehensive spending review was the decision not to ringfence the additional £1bn of funding provided for social care. Small comfort for local authorities, this. They can use it to plug the holes opening up in social care provision as our population ages (which is exactly what they should do as we await real long term proposals in July). Or they can spend it on 'non-essentials' (nb intention here is irony) like roads, children's services and refuse collection, which already face huge cuts. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The dilemma of council spending and social care
by Simon Bottery, Director of Fundraising, Policy and Communications
Barnet Council's budget dropped through my letterbox today (I live there, so this was not some random chance event). It has a nice pictogram, displayed above, showing how they spent their money in 2009-2010 (this image is from a screengrab so it's a bit hard to read, but you can see it in more detail at http://ideas.barnet.gov.uk/sites/barnet/files/infographic/main.html.)
It shows clearly the dilemma facing councils on social care. Though the council spent nearly £850m in 2009-10, over half of this money was either on schools or housing benefit, neither of which it has any control over because it is dictated by central govenrment. This leaves Barnet with five main areas of spending it can control: housing (£23m), environment and roads (£44m), adult social services - which is mainly social care (£112m), children's social services (£80m) and corporate services (£76m). Smaller amounts are also spent on libraries (£7m), corporate governance (£7.5m), chief executive's services (£2.8m) and commercial services (£11m).
So social care is the council's single biggest area of spending under its own control. If it simply took seven percent ofthis expenditure every year, in line with the overall cut in its funding, it would have to reduce spending on day services by £3.6m over four years; domicilary care by £7.5m; care homes by £14m and direct payments by £1.9m. In theory, it will have a share of the additional £2bn a year in funding for social care with which to offset its cuts, but it's difficult to see how this would compensate in full.
The council is running an exercise inviting residents to suggest budget savings (it's not got a huge or very constructive response yet, but it is probably early days). I haven't submitted ideas yet, but am going to take a long look at that £76m on corporate services and, in particular, the £55.3m spent on central expenses. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I'll want to know it's all more important than providing a carer to help a disabled older person get dressed or go to bed.
Barnet Council's budget dropped through my letterbox today (I live there, so this was not some random chance event). It has a nice pictogram, displayed above, showing how they spent their money in 2009-2010 (this image is from a screengrab so it's a bit hard to read, but you can see it in more detail at http://ideas.barnet.gov.uk/sites/barnet/files/infographic/main.html.)
It shows clearly the dilemma facing councils on social care. Though the council spent nearly £850m in 2009-10, over half of this money was either on schools or housing benefit, neither of which it has any control over because it is dictated by central govenrment. This leaves Barnet with five main areas of spending it can control: housing (£23m), environment and roads (£44m), adult social services - which is mainly social care (£112m), children's social services (£80m) and corporate services (£76m). Smaller amounts are also spent on libraries (£7m), corporate governance (£7.5m), chief executive's services (£2.8m) and commercial services (£11m).
So social care is the council's single biggest area of spending under its own control. If it simply took seven percent ofthis expenditure every year, in line with the overall cut in its funding, it would have to reduce spending on day services by £3.6m over four years; domicilary care by £7.5m; care homes by £14m and direct payments by £1.9m. In theory, it will have a share of the additional £2bn a year in funding for social care with which to offset its cuts, but it's difficult to see how this would compensate in full.
The council is running an exercise inviting residents to suggest budget savings (it's not got a huge or very constructive response yet, but it is probably early days). I haven't submitted ideas yet, but am going to take a long look at that £76m on corporate services and, in particular, the £55.3m spent on central expenses. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I'll want to know it's all more important than providing a carer to help a disabled older person get dressed or go to bed.
Thursday 21 October 2010
The cuts: smoke and mirrors?
We were left facing a bit of a conundrum after yesterday’s spending review. In the case of social care, the chancellor seemed to be giving with one hand but taking away with the other. An extra £2bn appears to have been earmarked for the care and support of elderly and disabled people, but the money is not ring-fenced and councils are under no obligation to use it for this purpose. The reality is that while any extra funding is welcome, most is likely to be used to plug the holes left by huge cuts in other council funding.
The social care system is already at breaking point. In most areas help is already restricted to those with the most severe needs, leaving many others alone and without very basic support. It has never been more important for communities to mobilise and put pressure on their local councils to use the money in the way it was intended, and protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
The social care system is already at breaking point. In most areas help is already restricted to those with the most severe needs, leaving many others alone and without very basic support. It has never been more important for communities to mobilise and put pressure on their local councils to use the money in the way it was intended, and protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Making sense of 'society', 'Big Society' and the state
by Simon Bottery, director of fundraising, policy, and communications
I hit a raw nerve when I asked Lord Victor Adebowale at a conference Tuesday about David Cameron's view that, 'there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same as the state'. I was expecting him to be sceptical about aspects of the Big Society. I was vainly (both senses of the word) hoping that he might like my joke that, 'there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same as Guardian Society.' So I was surprised that he refused to find any truth whatsoever in Cameron's statement. I may have misunderstood, but he seemed to be saying that in reality there was no point in discussing one without the other.
Can this really be true? If I offer to help my neighbour clear her snow away from her front door, surely that is a good reflection of society. But has it anything to do with the state? Surely not. I may want and expect my local authority to clear snow from the roads and pavements, but am I really expecting thestate to have a role all the way up to my neighbour's front door and ven inside it?
My neighbour regularly collects parcels for me that are delivered when I am out. My family regularly feeds her cat while she is away. There are thousands of acts like this every day, carried out by individuals across the UK, who never expect to be supported by the state, paid or 'capacity built'.
Of course, there are also thousands of voluntary organisations who need support, development and funding. Formal volunteering roles are not free and anyone who thinks they are will be horribly confused if funding and support are withdrawn. But we shouldn't confuse or conflate one with the other.
I hit a raw nerve when I asked Lord Victor Adebowale at a conference Tuesday about David Cameron's view that, 'there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same as the state'. I was expecting him to be sceptical about aspects of the Big Society. I was vainly (both senses of the word) hoping that he might like my joke that, 'there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same as Guardian Society.' So I was surprised that he refused to find any truth whatsoever in Cameron's statement. I may have misunderstood, but he seemed to be saying that in reality there was no point in discussing one without the other.
Can this really be true? If I offer to help my neighbour clear her snow away from her front door, surely that is a good reflection of society. But has it anything to do with the state? Surely not. I may want and expect my local authority to clear snow from the roads and pavements, but am I really expecting thestate to have a role all the way up to my neighbour's front door and ven inside it?
My neighbour regularly collects parcels for me that are delivered when I am out. My family regularly feeds her cat while she is away. There are thousands of acts like this every day, carried out by individuals across the UK, who never expect to be supported by the state, paid or 'capacity built'.
Of course, there are also thousands of voluntary organisations who need support, development and funding. Formal volunteering roles are not free and anyone who thinks they are will be horribly confused if funding and support are withdrawn. But we shouldn't confuse or conflate one with the other.
Monday 11 October 2010
New Job - Area Network and Volunteer Manager, London
That's right, we're looking for an organised self-starter to manage, recruit and develop a network of Independent Age volunteers in the London area. In this role, you'll help our volunteers better support the older people we work with, while promoting Independent Age's activities and raising funds for the charity. If you're curious and want to know more, visit our jobs page for a full job description and details on how to apply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
