Have this week’s events brought good news or bad for older people?
By Rebecca Law, Media and PR Officer
This has been a good week for Centrica’s shareholders, after the company’s dividend was increased by 12%. This follows the news of £1.3billion profits in the first half of the year for the energy giant which owns British Gas.
This may anger British Gas customers who will justifiably feel this has been a bad week since they face increases in their gas and electricity bills of 18% and 16% respectively from mid-August. The increases are particularly bad news for older people, the majority of whom live on fixed or declining incomes.
Centrica’s explanation for the price hikes is that, while the figures may look good, British Gas profits are in fact down 54% in the first half, so, as they claim, if they didn’t increase gas and electricity prices in the second half, their profit could be entirely wiped out, or they might even run at a loss. This will however be of little comfort to all those currently living in fuel poverty – and the increasing number who will be pushed into it as a result of the price hikes. It may be an over simplistic way of looking at it, but profits of £1.3billion can hardly be considered negligible, so British Gas shouldn’t expect sympathy from their customers any time soon.
The pain may however be muted, if only a little, by those with pension funds - many of which contain British Gas shares. Whether this small gain will compensate for the almost eye-watering increases in energy prices, however, is questionable.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
Good week/bad week
Have this week’s events brought good news or bad for older people?
By Rebecca Law, Media and PR Officer
Bad week:
We were left feeling cold this week as we found out that nearly half of all households in fuel poverty contain someone aged 60 or over. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) released its 2011 fuel poverty statistics showing that fuel poor households in 2009 had risen by a whopping 1 million in the UK (from 4.5 million to 5.5million) since 2008.
And the bad news was compounded – for older people and for all – as Scottish and Southern Energy rubbed salt into the wound by becoming the third major UK energy suppliers to announce double digit price increases.
Older people will be particularly hard hit by the changes. They have to keep their room temperatures higher than younger people to stay healthy, and are likely to spend a lot more time indoors. But when caught out by by rising bills, a reduction in their winter fuel payment and changing eligibility criteria of the Warm Front scheme, it’s going to be a long, hard winter in which they may find themselves cutting back on other basics or risking the cold.
Good week:
Better news this week as Age UK announced they are teaming up with the NHS Confederation and Local Government Group to launch the Partnership on Dignity in Care. The commission, which aims to improve the dignity in care provided to older people, will hear from nurses, doctors, patient representatives and leaders across the health and social care. It follows far too many examples of neglect and ageism in our hospitals and care homes (some, not all, of course). It’s a step in the right direction.
By Rebecca Law, Media and PR Officer
Bad week:
We were left feeling cold this week as we found out that nearly half of all households in fuel poverty contain someone aged 60 or over. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) released its 2011 fuel poverty statistics showing that fuel poor households in 2009 had risen by a whopping 1 million in the UK (from 4.5 million to 5.5million) since 2008.
And the bad news was compounded – for older people and for all – as Scottish and Southern Energy rubbed salt into the wound by becoming the third major UK energy suppliers to announce double digit price increases.
Older people will be particularly hard hit by the changes. They have to keep their room temperatures higher than younger people to stay healthy, and are likely to spend a lot more time indoors. But when caught out by by rising bills, a reduction in their winter fuel payment and changing eligibility criteria of the Warm Front scheme, it’s going to be a long, hard winter in which they may find themselves cutting back on other basics or risking the cold.
Good week:
Better news this week as Age UK announced they are teaming up with the NHS Confederation and Local Government Group to launch the Partnership on Dignity in Care. The commission, which aims to improve the dignity in care provided to older people, will hear from nurses, doctors, patient representatives and leaders across the health and social care. It follows far too many examples of neglect and ageism in our hospitals and care homes (some, not all, of course). It’s a step in the right direction.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Good week/bad week
Have this week’s events brought good or bad news for older people?
By Rebecca Law, Media and PR Officer
This was a bad week for Southern Cross residents as the company finally posted the keys through the letterbox and walked away. The firm lost its battle against huge rental bills and cuts in fees from local authorities. Southern Cross promised there would be an “orderly closure of the group’s affairs”. The Department of Health has promised that no one will find themselves homeless or without care, but the events still leave staff, thousands of residents and their families facing uncertainty and anxiety.
This was a good week for cheque users as the Payments Council announced it was bowing to people pressure and abandoning its plans to withdraw cheques by 2018. Many groups who are still reliant on the payment method, including older or housebound people, small businesses, schools and charities, breathed a huge sigh of relief. The media are speculating however whether the move is just a stay of execution, especially given that the guarantee card was axed just two weeks ago. There are also concerns that disproportionately high fees could be attached to cheque usage. But for now at least, the concerned parties have a reprieve (as do the excuse-makers who can still say “your cheque’s in the post!”).
By Rebecca Law, Media and PR Officer
This was a bad week for Southern Cross residents as the company finally posted the keys through the letterbox and walked away. The firm lost its battle against huge rental bills and cuts in fees from local authorities. Southern Cross promised there would be an “orderly closure of the group’s affairs”. The Department of Health has promised that no one will find themselves homeless or without care, but the events still leave staff, thousands of residents and their families facing uncertainty and anxiety.
This was a good week for cheque users as the Payments Council announced it was bowing to people pressure and abandoning its plans to withdraw cheques by 2018. Many groups who are still reliant on the payment method, including older or housebound people, small businesses, schools and charities, breathed a huge sigh of relief. The media are speculating however whether the move is just a stay of execution, especially given that the guarantee card was axed just two weeks ago. There are also concerns that disproportionately high fees could be attached to cheque usage. But for now at least, the concerned parties have a reprieve (as do the excuse-makers who can still say “your cheque’s in the post!”).
Friday, 8 July 2011
Good week/bad week
Welcome to our new, regular Friday feature Good week/bad week: a round-up of how the week is looking for older people.
Good week for economists: Andrew Dilnot's thoughtful review single-handedly raised the reputation of a much maligned group of academics this week, not to mention offering a glimmer of hope to thousands of people by reducing the anxieties that many feel about paying for care in later life. The suggested cap on the amount someone should pay for social care (around £35,000 or no more than 30% of their assets) is a much clearer way for people to know in advance how much they might be expected to pay. We don't agree with every single word (not quite convinced by the “granny tax” idea) but the almost universally positive response to the report made George Osborne's apparent intent to kick it into touch that much harder (and gave economists a temporary reprieve as we all have a bona fide reason to hold on the jokes about them, for now at least anyway.)
Bad week for Elaine McDonald and what her case says for the potential care of older people. The 68-year-old disabled ex-ballerina was denied the right for an overnight carer to help her use her commode following a stroke. Instead, she has been left to use incontinence pads overnight even though she is not incontinent. Elaine herself described the decision to be an "intolerable affront to her dignity". We have to ask ourselves, if going to the toilet is now regarded as a privilege in our overstretched social care system, what on earth are they going to cut next? We have to decide whether, as a society, we would rather have our older friends, parents and grandparents in incontinence pads, because we are not prepared to face the question of how best to pay for care. This is a clear warning of what care and support will become if the coalition fails to act on Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations.
Good week for economists: Andrew Dilnot's thoughtful review single-handedly raised the reputation of a much maligned group of academics this week, not to mention offering a glimmer of hope to thousands of people by reducing the anxieties that many feel about paying for care in later life. The suggested cap on the amount someone should pay for social care (around £35,000 or no more than 30% of their assets) is a much clearer way for people to know in advance how much they might be expected to pay. We don't agree with every single word (not quite convinced by the “granny tax” idea) but the almost universally positive response to the report made George Osborne's apparent intent to kick it into touch that much harder (and gave economists a temporary reprieve as we all have a bona fide reason to hold on the jokes about them, for now at least anyway.)
Bad week for Elaine McDonald and what her case says for the potential care of older people. The 68-year-old disabled ex-ballerina was denied the right for an overnight carer to help her use her commode following a stroke. Instead, she has been left to use incontinence pads overnight even though she is not incontinent. Elaine herself described the decision to be an "intolerable affront to her dignity". We have to ask ourselves, if going to the toilet is now regarded as a privilege in our overstretched social care system, what on earth are they going to cut next? We have to decide whether, as a society, we would rather have our older friends, parents and grandparents in incontinence pads, because we are not prepared to face the question of how best to pay for care. This is a clear warning of what care and support will become if the coalition fails to act on Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
The Final Countdown
By Claire Nurden, Research and Policy Officer
Of all the challenges that Dilnot has faced in his review of social care over the past year, the final key decision seems to have boiled down to this: do we or do we not compel people to contribute to the potential future costs of their social care?
General speculation has certainly pointed in the direction of an insurance scheme to help people protect themselves against the cost of future care and support needs, but as the ABI suggests, the general public currently have little awareness of the need, or indeed willingness, to pay into a scheme of this sort, especially if a state funded option is available as a safety net.
A serious anomaly exists here. Without making contributions to an insurance scheme for social care compulsory, the most effective incentive to encourage people to sign up is to make the state funded option unattractive. But not only would this be unfair to people that have been forced to rely on the state funded option as a result of financial hardship, but deliberately constructing a sub-standard system of social care is unacceptable, if not immoral, in a civilised society.
Of all the challenges that Dilnot has faced in his review of social care over the past year, the final key decision seems to have boiled down to this: do we or do we not compel people to contribute to the potential future costs of their social care?
General speculation has certainly pointed in the direction of an insurance scheme to help people protect themselves against the cost of future care and support needs, but as the ABI suggests, the general public currently have little awareness of the need, or indeed willingness, to pay into a scheme of this sort, especially if a state funded option is available as a safety net.
A serious anomaly exists here. Without making contributions to an insurance scheme for social care compulsory, the most effective incentive to encourage people to sign up is to make the state funded option unattractive. But not only would this be unfair to people that have been forced to rely on the state funded option as a result of financial hardship, but deliberately constructing a sub-standard system of social care is unacceptable, if not immoral, in a civilised society.
Friday, 13 May 2011
Plastic fantastic
By Claire Nurden
Research and Policy Officer
Apologies in advance for ranting about this! But is it any wonder so many women resort to surgery? Two articles in the Daily Mail this morning, one describing a 68-year-old, dare I say it, natural, Jean Shrimpton as “grey-haired, prim, and almost severe”, while the other proclaims “Sexier than ever at 73”, and plasters photos of Jane Fonda’s surgically enhanced face and body across the page.
There are a hundred different issues here, but I’ll try and keep it brief. The first thing that springs to mind is how dangerous it is for us to constantly uphold images of beauty in older age that depend almost entirely on expensive, and invasive, surgeries to hold back the years. But moreover, I have to ask, why are we so ashamed about showing our age in the first place? What is everyone so afraid of? It is sad to think that so often older people are not judged by their achievements, but how effectively they have erased the markings of the experience that makes them who they are. Lines are simply the signs of having a life, and if we’re lucky we’ll make it to our later years, so why deny it? If nothing else we will save ourselves a huge amount of money.
Hmm I really hope I don’t change my mind about all of this when I get to 40...
Research and Policy Officer
Apologies in advance for ranting about this! But is it any wonder so many women resort to surgery? Two articles in the Daily Mail this morning, one describing a 68-year-old, dare I say it, natural, Jean Shrimpton as “grey-haired, prim, and almost severe”, while the other proclaims “Sexier than ever at 73”, and plasters photos of Jane Fonda’s surgically enhanced face and body across the page.
There are a hundred different issues here, but I’ll try and keep it brief. The first thing that springs to mind is how dangerous it is for us to constantly uphold images of beauty in older age that depend almost entirely on expensive, and invasive, surgeries to hold back the years. But moreover, I have to ask, why are we so ashamed about showing our age in the first place? What is everyone so afraid of? It is sad to think that so often older people are not judged by their achievements, but how effectively they have erased the markings of the experience that makes them who they are. Lines are simply the signs of having a life, and if we’re lucky we’ll make it to our later years, so why deny it? If nothing else we will save ourselves a huge amount of money.
Hmm I really hope I don’t change my mind about all of this when I get to 40...
Monday, 9 May 2011
Are you ageless and amortal?
By Claire Nurden, Research and Policy Officer
Interesting piece in the Mail this morning. Sitting right at the top of the gossip column, at first glance it seems like yet another article feeding the public’s fascination with looking younger (note the photos of cosmetically enhanced Demi Moore). But on closer inspection the message is actually very different. While yes, some of the discussion is about how we look, it goes on to recognise that looking ageless is more than skin deep, and that more and more men and women are now challenging the stereotypes they are faced with in their older age – and reaping the rewards.
Granted, the fact that they have led with the headline, “Can you believe this woman is 65?” (and some of the less than pleasant reader comments!), is evidence of how far we have to go in terms of challenging ageist ideas of later life in this country, but as a whole it does seem like a positive step in the right direction.
Interesting piece in the Mail this morning. Sitting right at the top of the gossip column, at first glance it seems like yet another article feeding the public’s fascination with looking younger (note the photos of cosmetically enhanced Demi Moore). But on closer inspection the message is actually very different. While yes, some of the discussion is about how we look, it goes on to recognise that looking ageless is more than skin deep, and that more and more men and women are now challenging the stereotypes they are faced with in their older age – and reaping the rewards.
Granted, the fact that they have led with the headline, “Can you believe this woman is 65?” (and some of the less than pleasant reader comments!), is evidence of how far we have to go in terms of challenging ageist ideas of later life in this country, but as a whole it does seem like a positive step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
