*This future gazing think-piece, never published, was written by Malcolm Fisk in 1999 together with a report ‘Our Future Home: Housing and the Inclusion of Older People in 2025’ released by Help the Aged. It imagined, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, as he might have been 25 years later.*
Lord Sedgefield rose from his seat. He was well for his 71 years. His posture was upright, his gait was sure.
The House fell quiet. Lord Sedgefield, though young among members of the upper House, still commanded substantial respect for the reforms which had taken place during his successive terms in office. Not, of course, that these met with universal approval. Far from it. But opposition in the Lords was now muted. Hereditary peers were relatively few in number and the House of Lords was considered far more ‘in touch’ with contemporary issues than had been the case just two decades earlier.
A hallmark of the House was its business-like approach. Gone were many of the ceremonials and much of the old public-school ethos. Speeches were now interrupted only occasionally by puerile remarks and personal slights. Instead, the Lords was generally focused on its role to provide a check on the excesses of the Commons in a period when economic and social instability had invested some MPs with an extremist zeal.
Smaller parties, whose representation in both houses had never been greater, were particularly conspicuous having often secured high public profiles through the pursuit of single issues, sometimes in response to public anger that followed unfortunate incidents. The Sheffield pollution disaster was just one of these, giving two MPs an unexpected passage to Parliament and leading to a wholesale reform of the government’s water protection policies.
Other parties, using the resources of rich benefactors and media magnates, had exploited the government PIMS (People’s Interactive Media Service) which had been intended as a vehicle for information and education but now was increasingly slated as a conveyor of ‘porn and propaganda’. PIMS, according to 2024 government figures had reached 96% of British households.
Generally, the country was in rather an ‘uncertain’ mood. The political crises in central Africa and South-East Asia meant that Britain and other developed countries had in some ways ‘battened down the hatches’. Overseas aid now stood at its lowest level for decades and penal legislation meant Britain (and other countries of the GEU, Greater European Union) was host to only the tiniest numbers of refugees who were fleeing from one or other famine, war or pestilence. Much of the refugee problem was put down to global warming.
Strains were omnipresent in Britain, too. Unemployment had risen to an unprecedented level and the consequences of abject poverty were beginning to sit uneasily alongside the relative wealth of most Britons. True, crime levels against individuals had been kept under control, but local bombing campaigns targeted at communications centres had caused some chaos and had recently brought the prestigious Severnside Airport to a standstill. ‘Steady as she goes’ was Lord Sedgefield’s dictum and never, in the 21st century, had the country needed it more.
Some reporters suggested that this period had echoes in the early 1900s when the British government had to use a combination of guile and brute force to ensure that the widespread strikes and discontent (in what were then major industrial areas) did not develop into general insurrection. The sending of troops to Middlesbrough in 2021 had parallels with Churchill sending troops to Tonypandy in 1910. Then the Great War had helped to give a new and unifying focus to Britain’s working men, but it was difficult to see how, in 2025, a stronger feeling of unity might be engendered.
The government and the people were getting nervous. The size of the gap between the haves and the have nots had, either as a result of inertia or the lack of effective remedial policies (at central and local government levels), widened almost inexorably year on year since the millennium. The most effective way to thwart the consequent unrest among the have nots, it seemed, was to maintain a dual policy approach. This confined the poorest people to marginal locations and used high tech methods to ensure the speedy identification of any criminals operating outside of them.
Moral objections to such policies were dismissed in the clamour for more security and stronger retribution against wrong doers. The government, in any case, could point to its Community Actions Zones (CAZs) as reflecting their commitment to poorer areas and ‘helping people to help themselves’. The problem was that there were just 58 of these when probably several thousand were needed. ‘Better to contain than convert’ was one sentiment adhered to by most politicians (though not publicly acknowledged) who considered that such initiatives were throwing good money after bad.
These matters were often the subject of debate on both Houses with Labour Party policies being regularly criticised as likely to consign people to a deepening poverty trap – creating the same poor and marginalised communities that they purported to help. However, the other parties had few alternatives to offer, and Britain (it seemed) was inexorably sliding towards becoming a divided nation. And if you were born on the wrong side of the tracks, you were almost certainly destined to stay there.
The matter under discussion, on which Lord Sedgefield was poised to speak, was the 2025 Retirement (Further) Extension Bill. Its passage through the Commons had been difficult but the legislation was necessary to bring Britain into line with the GEU.
Many members of the lower House had expressed their concern that to extend the retirement age to 75 would cause even higher levels of unemployment among younger people. They also pointed to the substantial concerns of a myriad of people on low pay such as caterers, labourers and factory workers. Many of then had every intention of retiring at the earliest possibility and some, because of the debilitating effect of their work, would find even part-time employment in their later years difficult to do.
The same arguments, of course, had been rehearsed in the previous 20 years which led to the Flexible Retirement Age Act in 2006 and the Retirement Extension Act in 2018. And yet, back in the closing years of the last century, all parties had argued for a lower retirement age. It was one matter to the former Labour government’s credit that by the millennium they had realised the folly of this approach.
And who could forget the uproar about the Royal Commission report ‘Our New Futures’ released in 2005? It was rare for a politician, let alone a Prime Minister, to stick their neck out and unequivocally endorse the major change of direction indicated. But Lord Sedgefield (or plain Tiny Blair as he was then) did so and, as subsequent events have shown, it heralded the emergence of a society in Britain where for many, getting older no longer meant being in the scrapheap at 55.
True, it wasn’t just political vision that took the then Labour Government along this course, it was a case of economics. The image of the Prime Minister standing outside No.10 Downing Street following his meeting with the B6 (representing Britain’s main industrial sectors) comes to mind as he called for a ‘new deal’ for older people. In doing so he laid the foundations for the programme that followed and eventually created over a million jobs reserved for people who would, more than likely, have otherwise permanently retired.
Though viewed with scepticism by some, Lord Sedgefield’s words struck a chord with many when he affirmed the need to find a way to harness the skills and energy of people who, though approaching the then retirement age, had so much more to give. The fact that mere demographics had resulted in Britain’s population comprising a higher proportion of older people than ever before, of course helped his case and he was happy to focus on what he saw was a relatively ’soft’ target for future political support.
Admittedly Tony Blair ducked the question posed by one of the journalists as to ‘What then, Prime Minister, do you think should be the new retirement age?’ But this would have been missing the point. After all, it was not the notion that people should have to work for longer that he was attempting to put across, but rather that they should have the freedom to do so, and that they should benefit from more flexible working arrangements prior to retirement.
The position in Britain, he was fully aware, was not as critical as in many other countries where the numbers of older people with support needs had continued to increase with fearful rapidity, putting substantial strains on statutory service providers. But with Britain being in a somewhat favoured position financially there was significant opposition to the Bill. This had led to the issue being drawn out in Parliament. Across the English Channel this was seen as British foot dragging. Still, it did give the President of the GEU the opportunity to make her now famous quip that “The trouble with the British is that they think they live on an island”.
In Britain itself, however, opponents of the Bill ran the risk of being seen as ageist and, given the size of the older population, of losing substantial blocks of votes in ensuing elections. The newspapers summed up the dilemma in ageist caricatures (from both perspectives) of younger and older people in punch-ups outside the school gates or the Job Shops (that were sporting some advert or other about the latest job vacancy).
There was continuing opposition, therefore, to the change. The decline in wage levels, together with the insecurity of employment, meant that many people in their 60s were simply unable to retire if they were to enjoy any real quality of life. Most people were, at the same time, living longer and healthier lives – though some of the poorer districts, notably in the North of England, were stubbornly bucking the trend; and even some of the leafier parts of new cities like Ashford in Kent, had their ghettos of poverty where to be over 60 still meant poor health and a short life expectancy.
Not that the jobs undertaken by older people were necessarily well paid. The Bill, furthermore, did not seek to promote full time work for older people since this would have been seen, more than was already the case, as potentially thwarting the creation of new job opportunities for younger people (and courting further political opposition).
True, some executives had managed to retain six figure salaries at the same time as reducing their working week to 3 days, but for others it was a case of more of the same, i.e. short term and insecure contracts and, at the end of the week, little more than the guaranteed minimum income of €220 per week. There was some resentment too, that the government’s recently introduced ‘parity payment’ scheme that brought those who were not working almost up to this level. Members of the upper House were well aware of these issues, but being mostly older people, were ready to respond favourably to initiatives involving their (age) peer group.
Lord Sedgefield began to speak, hesitatingly at first as if struggling to find the right words, but then more fluidly as he embraced familiar themes which echoed the early years of his period in government. He obtained some comfort and reassurance from these – reflected in his relaxed style of presentation.
“My Lords … It is several decades since we, as a New Labour government still finding its feet after 18 years of Tory rule, set out on the road to transform the position of older people in our society. You know, it wasn’t easy. Few of us had experience of government at a senior level. We had, however, a vision. Not an ‘old Labour’ vision of state ownership and municipal benefaction, but a New Labour vision which valued people as individuals. People of all ages …” He emphasised the word ‘all’ “… young and old, who wanted to take responsibility for their own lives, and who were eager to play their part in a better, more fulfilling society.
So, we had chosen our direction and set out on a new road. We knew the road would be difficult, that we would encounter thieves and robbers on the way, that we would get tired and feel the need for rest, and that we would face gateways, rivers and mountains as barriers to our progress”
Some Tory Lords shifted in their seats, fearing a long peroration about Lord Sedgefield’s so called ‘glory days’ where his popularity led to his terms in office and his two sweeping electoral victories. A voice was heard to mutter ‘Get on with it’. If he heard the utterance, Lord Sedgefield chose to ignore it.
“I was a young man then” he continued. “And so that I would be able to work out the best way ahead, I tried to step into the shoes of older people who were themselves seeking to establish their place, a better place, in a society that was then wracked by negative views of old age. Housing and social policies were, as many of you will remember, typified by institutions that, if we’re honest about it, had their roots in the poor law and the workhouse”.
At some time when in government, Lord Sedgefield (as Tony Blair) had referred to those historic policies towards older people (which underpinned residential and nursing home provision) as ‘like many bastards, born in the poor house’. The Lords braced themselves for a repetition of these words but were disappointed. Instead, Lord Sedgefield took a less vitriolic line.
“I tried, though this might be considered unfashionable today, to reconcile what was going on in Britain with what I believed was our Christian duty to older people. And I tried … I have to say, with some success … to convey to my Party the need for us all to change our attitudes to older age. I said to them, as I say to you here, that there can be no better endeavour than for us to do the very best we can to safeguard the position of our older people. It is through their hard work in war and in peace, that we have today a prosperous Britain. And it is to them that we owe a debt of gratitude”.
He halted before continuing, as if to allow his thoughts to move through two decades of ageing.
“Now, I wear the shoes of an older person and I gain some satisfaction from the knowledge that my work, the work of New Labour, started those 20 years ago, has come to fruition in successive legislation that has brought older people in from the margins and ensured that they are able, as full citizens, to contribute in a host of positive ways to the life of our country”.
Some years previously he would have used the word ‘stakeholder’ in place of citizen. But the word stakeholder had become discredited with the persistently high levels of unemployment and the repeated assertions (made in the latter part of his government) that most people didn’t have any stake. Lord Sedgefield was understandably reluctant to countenance more jibes to this effect and had taken, instead, to stressing citizenship rather than stakeholding – with the latter’s implied rights rather than responsibilities. He continued.
“Indeed, most of us in this upper House have reaped the benefit. Older people enjoy a position in our society which commands more respect and recognition than was ever the case before. Older people have more control over their lives and, except for the smallest proportion, no longer live in institutions.
You know there’s no turning back. We must not even think about it. The decade of the 1990s was no golden era. At that time, even where older people were not warehoused in institutions, they were frequently marginalised in their own homes. Too often they were considered of little value in a society nurtured by years of Thatcherism, when people seemed to worship designer trainers and Coca Cola rather than the values of community, responsibility, and of respect and of care for our fellow citizen.
How things have changed. This Bill simply consolidates, in a perfectly natural way …” He smacked his papers rhythmically down when emphasising each of these five words “… the Acts that have gone before it. It means that it will not be just in the House of Lords where people can continue to work, to contribute and be valued into their 70s, but in almost all walks of life”.
There were, as it happens, some exempted areas of employment for older people, though arguments still raged as to why, for instance, airline pilots and police men and women had to retire at 55. Lord Sedgefield would rather that a veil was drawn over such anomalies since they left the government open to the criticism that they had bowed to lobbying on the part of some representative organisations who fiercely fought to defend what they portrayed as attacks on ‘their’ professions. But such was the back-up available to pilots and the police in terms of automation and communications technologies that arbitrary age barriers were becoming less and less sustainable. He went on.
“I understand the fears that some of you have about this legislation. I recognise that some of you are rightly concerned about the levels of unemployment that young people are faced with today. But you must understand …” He peered around the chamber, with a scowl that defied anyone to disagree with him “… that by extending the retirement age to 75 we will be in a position to harness energies, skills and knowledge that, if applied carefully, will add considerably to the wealth of our nation. Would you …” He again scowled “… Could you oppose this Bill knowing that to do so would mean that we, as a prosperous and caring nation, would be opening the door again to ageism, the institutionalisation and marginalisation of older people?
Yes, there is another challenge. The challenge of creating opportunities for younger people. But we must not allow one group to be set against the other. We must find the ways to constructively engage people of all ages. This Bill is, however, about older people and it is to the task of ensuring their well-being that we must address ourselves today. Raising the retirement age to 75 is an essential part of this. I commend this Bill to you and urge you to endorse it, in its entirety, prior to its return to the lower House”.
Lord Sedgefield swayed a little uneasily before easing himself back onto the luxurious red leather. It had been one of his better performances … one where he could relax in the knowledge that the extent of cross-party support was probably enough to ensure the Bill’s passage. He allowed himself a smile of satisfaction. He was, in any case, well armed to rebuff the likely, predictable, criticisms. What’s more, he realised that, although there had been heated debate in the Commons, not too many Lords would want to make a big issue of this Bill because of the risk of another brush with the European Parliament. Many of them still sported the bruises of the previous encounter.
A few of the Lords, having maintained a courteous silence, coughed, murmured or sorted their papers as the Speaker called another to address the House. The Bill would probably go through, though no doubt with a token final skirmish in the Commons before its ratification. Lord Sedgefield could rest assured, therefore, that although Britain was a divided society from the point of view of the disparities of wealth, he had been instrumental in ensuring that the worst aspects of ageism had been addressed.
The position of older people in 2025 was immensely better that at the turn of the millennium. Older people in Britain were, Lord Sedgefield recognised, valued much more than they were in his father’s generation. As an ageing man himself, he hoped that older people would continue to justify their new status in their contributions to work, their families, and their communities.
BACK TO THE FUTURE: LORD SEDGEFIELD’S IMAGINED NEW DEAL FOR OLDER PEOPLE
