Representing around 35 per cent of the population, Christchurch in Dorset has the highest proportion of elderly individuals of any local authority in England. The picture of tranquillity, this strong Conservative seat seems the ideal retirement spot. Ahead of the release of the social care green paper on Tuesday, the Financial Times spoke to Christchurch residents, who voiced their disapproval of government policy.
“I don’t think the government does enough”, Joan, 70, a former post office clerk said, addressing the government’s financing of social care. She disapproves of the ‘compulsory insurance for all’ scheme where individuals will pay around £20,000 ($33,000) either upon retirement or through their estate after death. “I don’t think anything should be taken from the estate”, she said. “I think it’s unfair that for some, the state will take the whole lot.”
Len, 80, also a former post office employee, was highly critical of the means-tested system. “I think its wrong – I’ve worked all my life, never cost anything to anybody and then they take it away from you”. The “cruel lottery”, as described by health secretary Andy Burnham, results in some elderly people selling their homes and using up their entire savings to afford care, while others pay nothing. “You just feel like you’re hard done by”, Len said.
It seems many pensioners feel they are being punished for being sensible by saving. “It’s better to be lazy and go on the dole,” Len said “We’ve saved all our lives for our retirement and want to be comfortable with it”. This point was echoed by Joe, 85, a former engineer. “If we’ve saved to buy a house why should we have to pay for care because of that?” Joe proposed a solution to the issue. “Spend it now” he said to his surrounding peers, “if you’ve got nothing they can’t take it away.”
By Abadesi Osunsade
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009