Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this government are ageist

81 replies

JazzAnnNonMouse · 11/02/2013 08:47

But because it's not against older people no one seems up in arms about it.
If the government said 'over 75s are only allowed a room in a house because thats all they need' there would quite rightly be uproar. Why is it ok to tell younger people that they are only entitled to that?
arguably over 75s aren't going to be having children so don't need a family home...
I think ageism has swung the other way now and it's not fair. Ageism in any respect isn't fair - why must it be age that dictates how you live- why not circumstance?

OP posts:
ethelb · 11/02/2013 09:44

@clouds because young people's needs aren't being met due to policy that has favoured a generation that has pulled the ladder up after them.

I'm not saying that the baby boomer (or older generation) necessarily had a choice in their behaviour, or knew the impact of what they were doing, but I do think it is unfair that when the fact that ickle, wickle, elderly granny's are actually sitting on a pretty cushy deal in comparison you young people, disabled people and familes, that you are accused of jealousy.

Should people just be happy with their lot? Know thy place etc?

TroublesomeEx · 11/02/2013 09:46

young people's needs aren't being met due to policy that has favoured a generation that has pulled the ladder up after them

Yes.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 11/02/2013 09:47

Because when we're talking about cuts that say if you're under 25 you don't need a roof over your head, to then say in the same breath that over 61s can live in as big a house as they want...is a bit unfair.

And the welfare state really stands or falls on its perceived fairness.

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 09:48

But the older generation who are living in social housing aren't to blame for what is happening to younger people now, so there is no reason to bring them into the debate. If they are in social housing, their circumstances were back then, probably very similar to those that young people are facing now. If they had the option to buy their homes, then many of them would have done, and did when their council houses were offered to them at a bargain price.

It isn't their fault, they didn't knowingly cause this, so I honestly can't understand why they are seen as worthy of attack.

TroublesomeEx · 11/02/2013 09:50

Clouds but there are a lot of people suffering from the cuts etc who aren't to blame either.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 09:51

Oh for gods sake.

No one is attacking them. Why does pointing out unfairness equal attack?

If anyone is being attacked its the under 25s who are facing homelessness because of their age.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 11/02/2013 09:52

The government has made the rhetoric of the cuts, 'we're all in this together'.

Their justification is that the country is broke, blah blah, we see it on here all the time.

But somehow we can afford to keep every single one of pensioners' benefits and perks?

It's not about attacking old people - but it is about taking a long hard look at where we spend money.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 09:55

'But the older generation who are living in social housing aren't to blame for what is happening to younger people now,'

Nor are younger people. And by your whole premise of providing for yourself, if they didn't buy their houses when they were cheap, now they are not subject to reduction in benefit and younger people are? How is that fair?

Why is that construed as an attack?

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 09:56

Clouds but there are a lot of people suffering from the cuts etc who aren't to blame either.

That may be, but I still don't think it's right to state that something should be taken away from one group just because another can't get it.

Why does pointing out unfairness equal attack?

Because you can talk about it being wrong that young people are not getting what they deserve without bringing anyone else into it. By pointing out unfairness, it often implies that the group that are being treated the best don't deserve it, and that's not the case.

Startail · 11/02/2013 09:58

I don't get this, we still descended on DMIL when she was 75 or my grandparents when they were 85.
We used their bedrooms and my younger cousins played in their garden.

DMIL still did all her own garden and loved it, grandpa still did woodwork in his big garage.

My 74 year old dad has computers and model boats all over their spare room. There is no where for us to stay.

Just because you are old doesn't mean you want to sit in one room and wait to die.

My Dad was out in the snow in his 4x4 messing about like he would have in his 20's. DMIL rode every week.

At ~ 88 my grandparents did move, they were both dead within the year Sad

ethelb · 11/02/2013 09:59

I don't think anyone is attacking elderly individuals @cloud. It's just the policy is awful, and to suggest that pointing this out is jealousy is unfair.

Plus many people in social housing didn't have to fulfil the same criteria as people today have to do today as there was lots more of it.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 09:59

'That may be, but I still don't think it's right to state that something should be taken away from one group just because another can't get it.'

Really? Even though it is welfare? So by that token, no one should have child benefit removed just because another group can't get it, tax credits, the whole shebang.

If it's about having provided for yourself and providing for yourself than you make it apply to everyone or no one at all.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 10:00

And again, this reduction doesn't apply to anyone age 61+. Is that old to you? That's not even pension age!

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 10:01

Free bus passes for all over 60s? WTF? So they get to ride free to work, but everyone else subsidising them?

Salbertina · 11/02/2013 10:01

Yanbuoldies cosseted by all govs as so much more likely to vote

ethelb · 11/02/2013 10:03

@salbertina it is a self-fulfilling prophesy imo

Salbertina · 11/02/2013 10:04

I worked with one woman, lovely incidentally, who having reached pension age, "retired", claimed said pension and returned to work as freelance consultant 5dsyd a week at a cost of £100s per day to taxpayer )public sector) . I yhoughy Hmm but no one else seemed to question it!

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 10:04

A 61 year old doesnt deserve a home any more or any less than a 25 year old.

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 10:07

Really? Even though it is welfare? So by that token, no one should have child benefit removed just because another group can't get it, tax credits, the whole shebang.

Not the same thing.

Everyone needs housing. Not everyone needs extra money in the form of benefits. It's about need.

And again, this reduction doesn't apply to anyone age 61+. Is that old to you? That's not even pension age!

I think you and I have had this conversation before expat. I do think that 61 is young, but people in their early sixties vary a great deal. Some are older than their years, some are fit and healthy and years of active work left in them. I do see where you are coming from on that, but I think 61 is fair if it is in place to protect those who would find it too much to move at that age.

If things carry on the way they are and more homes are built, this so called 'bedroom tax' will be a good thing. It will encourage people to downsize when they are still young and their dc have left home. Then we won't have his problem where you have people in their sixties and seventies who have been living in a home too big for their needs for 10/15/20+ years.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 10:08

Are more affordabe homes being built though? I dont think they are.

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 10:13

Are more affordabe homes being built though? I dont think they are.

I don't think they are either, but thats where the problem is. It isn't with the older generation.

It makes the government crap at sorting out the housing problem. It doesn't make them ageist. They are two different things.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 10:17

'I do think that 61 is young, but people in their early sixties vary a great deal. Some are older than their years, some are fit and healthy and years of active work left in them. I do see where you are coming from on that, but I think 61 is fair if it is in place to protect those who would find it too much to move at that age.'

But it's okay for young people who also vary a great deal in that, well, the reduction also applies to those under 61 who are disabled, because the disabled are not exempted from the reduction, unless of course, they are 61.

Yes, everyone needs housing, but it is ageist to declare that some require more housing benefit only because of their age, not their abilities, but their age.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 10:17

They are crap at sorting out the problem full stop.

But their main point of change is the welfare budget. Which includes provisions for the elderly.

So they are ignoring a huge area of the thing they are trying to reform. Its based on age. Therefore it is ageist.

Salbertina · 11/02/2013 10:20

Expat, indeed, ditto re free transport. Should not he universal benefit for older people but available for all in need. In that group i wd include unemployed younger people travelling to interviews/training.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 10:21

'If things carry on the way they are and more homes are built, this so called 'bedroom tax' will be a good thing. It will encourage people to downsize when they are still young and their dc have left home.'

That won't happen until there is massive reform in private sector rented housing.

Why? Here is why: because people will move heaven and Earth to stay in a secure tenancy. This reduction in housing doesn't apply to those who do not receive housing benefit, even if they are under-occupying. Think those folks are going to move/downsize? LOL! They'll stay and then retire and then, 'Oh, this doesnt apply to anyone over 61. That's me sorted.'

And here is the other thing: moving people from social housing to private sector rentals, even with the LHA caps, will increase the housing benefit bill.

Why? Because many who can pay full rent and council tax in a social housing home will need to claim LHA if they move into a private-sector home.