the brilliantly leaping gazelle

In todays ‘Telegraph’ there is an article that touches upon one of the great unmentionables in our society. And because it has remained so unmentionable for so long, it has gotten much worse leading me to think that only a drastic solution will remedy it

‘Old, rich and living on benefits: welcome to the state pension capital of Britain  

East Preston and the eastern half of the neighbouring parish of Rustington together make up a geographic unit that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) calls an MSOA, or middle-layer super output area. It is an exceptional one.

Telegraph analysis shows that East Preston and Rustington East is the only such neighbourhood, out of the 7,264 across England and Wales, where the over-66s constitute more than half of the population, at 51pc. 

It also has the largest proportion of people receiving state pension, at 49pc.’ 

It goes on to quote all manner of various facts and figures, projections and forecasts, scenarios and imagining’s which all point to one inescapable conclusion. That our ever increasing ageing population is no longer either financially viable for the state to support, or desirable if our society wishes to remain equitable. It also is full of the usual guff from the usual think-tanks about how reducing the state pension, rationing health care or any other similar proposal will become necessary to curb the costs that this ageing population impose.

Last year, 2023-24, the combined cost of the state pension, pension credit and the winter fuel payment was, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility, £142 billions. That’s 5.1% of national income or over 48% of the welfare budget, with absolute the certainty that this number is only getting higher.

When the current crop of pensioners – those over 80 I’m talking about here – were adults of working age and paid tax, successive governments had a realistic expectation that their time as a pensioner might last for maybe 15 years or so. However, the Office for National Statistics estimates that by 2045 there will be 3.1 million of them or 4.3% of the population. So to my way of thinking, anyone over the age of 85 who is claiming a state pension is guilty of benefit fraud. It may well be through no fault of their own, but they’re still claiming a benefit to which they’re not entitled.

Now, remember how early on in the election campaign Prada announced his vision for a new version of National Service? How this was roundly derided on all quarters as an indication of just how out of touch with reality, so utterly bereft of new ideas he was and how utterly irrelevant to combating anything than an impending Conservative defeat it was?

But that the country needed to be “open and honest” about the long-term challenges it is facing and that National Service would give young people had “the opportunities they deserve” was bang on.

The proposals would, he said, see a “bold new model of national service. Only by nurturing our shared culture and fostering a sense of duty can we preserve our nation and values for decades to come. This is an investment in both the character of young people and our security.’

If one considers what might really be a ‘bold new model of national service’, one that gives young people ‘the people the opportunities they deserve’ and one that truly is ‘ an investment in both the character of our young people and our security, then that ‘bold new model’ is state sponsored euthanasia. 

However unpalatable one might find the prospect of state sponsored euthanasia, it doesn’t make it any the less logical. The government could offer pensioners upon retirement a deal, a lump sum equal to the value of their pension and pensioner benefits for 15 years – that’s the state sponsored bit – in return for a guaranteed undertaking for voluntary euthanasia on their part when they turn 80.  If they had a house, the government would buy it at current market value and allow them to live out the remainder of their lives rent free. It could also predict the likely cost to the NHS of caring for them and add that to the pot.

15 years seems about enough time for people to put all their affairs in order, take all the holidays they’d never had and generally depart with dignity. Of course, when the 15 years had elapsed they could renege on their part of the deal, of course they could, but that would mean an immediate termination of any governmental – local or central – responsibility for them. They’d be homeless.

And of course the benefits to society would be worth it. If pensioners knew what the deal was in advance, then the money that they currently invest in private pensions – estimated to be £112 billion in by the Institute for Fiscal Studies – then quite a bit of that might be ploughed back into the economy instead. It would also help the NHS. It’d help reduce its budget for a start, cut waiting lists, the whole bed blocking crisis would soon disappear and it would also alleviate its staffing crisis.

There’d also be a benefit to the housing sector, inasmuch as the government could then offload the properties it had bought at properly affordable prices. This would additionally have a beneficially corrective on the housing market, as prices would fall because there’d be a guaranteed amount of new stock every year. Employment too. There’d be a huge swathe of jobs that’d be no longer needed, thereby freeing up more the workforce to retrain.

And what the over 85’s miss out on? The adult nappy wearing, dementia suffering, lonely and friendless years? If one hasn’t written that book, climbed Everest or achieved some other ambition by then, then lets face it, they never will.

It will happen. How soon it happens and exactly what form it’ll take, is a question of when exactly the unthinkable becomes thinkable.

*****************************************************************

Oh, the search for Jay Slater was abandoned earlier today. Why? I mean even though he went missing nearly two weeks ago, had no water on him, and was in a part of Spain where daytime temperatures can reach more than 27C – or 80F in old money – why stop?

As we know, the rule of 3 doesn’t apply to missing English teenagers. The one that suggests humans can only survive for 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food.

*******************************************************************