Going for gold for the old?
At the risk of being repetitive, I keep coming back to the Olympic Games as a vivid example of clumsiness. To repeat (again) the idea of clumsy solutions (developed by adherents of ‘Cultural Theory’) lies in the attempt to combine the three basic forms of seeing and exercising power: hierarchy, solidarity and individualism (there is a fourth – fatalism – but it’s not so relevant to this specific argument).
The success of the Games lay in strong and effective hierarchical leadership, the powerful solidarity of national pride and the Olympic spirit, and, of course, the enthralling efforts of individuals competing to be the world’s best. Rarely, if ever, are the ingredients so richly available as they were for London 2012, nevertheless to see a nation prone to scepticism and pessimism amazing itself, and impressing the world, with its capacity for engagement, mobilisation and collective joy is to get a glimpse of the kind of step change this alignment of forces can enable.
As I said earlier in the week, as a motivating force the Olympics started with all sorts of unique advantages, but rather than making the best the enemy of the good, we should seek to learn its lessons. Take the issue of care for older people, which I am glad to see the Government is promising now to address in next year’s spending review, is there anything to carry over to such a tough issue from the exuberance of the Games?
The first might be to set an inspiring goal. Instead of presenting elder care as a depressing problem that we can only hope slightly to mitigate, how about a celebration of the virtues of long life and a population of all ages, linked to the vision of England as the best place to grow old in the world?
Second, we could learn from how Games organisers derived power from the simple imperative of having to deliver the Games on time and according to the promises made when winning the bid seven years ago (we may have quibbled about Olympic transport lanes and officiousness over logos but in the end we knew there was no alternative). So, the Government might consult on an absolute commitment to deliver a particular outcome by a particular time (say reducing by half the proportion of people over 80 who are consigned to institutional care). Having won support for the goal ministers would then have a mandate to make tough decisions and stick to them.
Third, there needs to be valued role for us all. In the Olympics there was the splendid volunteer force, but also every fan with a ticket felt privileged and expected to shout their heads off, and even the rest of us knew we had to enter into the spirit of it (even my mum who HATES sport got quite excited). So an Olympic approach to making England great for frail older people would be one in which we could all feel we were playing a useful role; social care professionals, carers, volunteers and all of us committing to being more positive about old people and old age.
Finally, can there be anything in normal life even remotely as inspiring as the individual pursuit of medals? Perhaps not, but as well as the right financial incentives to insure care needs, a individualistic component to a plan might involve a message crafted and promulgated by older people combining a demand for dignity and respect along with a focus on what all of us can do to put off the time when we need care, or to be better prepared for having those needs or meeting them in loved ones. A loose analogy might be with the way the gay community responded to AIDS through a message of pride and self help. Such a narrative might inspire the independently-minded baby boomers now entering retirement.
There are, of course, lots of riders to attach to the ambition of an Olympian plan for population ageing. It is a challenge that will last a generation not just two weeks (no government can credibly have more than small handful of such transformational goals at any one time). My high level long-term strategy still leaves a myriad of tough policy issues (including the crisis of care facing us right now). But the point remains: whatever the scale of the issue, to make a big difference in a challenging context we need to align bold leadership, strong solidarity and individual aspiration. Maybe if we did so we could be the envy of the world for something a little longer lasting than the Games.
Comments
9 Comments on Going for gold for the old?
-
Carl Allen on
Thu, 16th Aug 2012 7:48 pm
-
Carl Allen on
Thu, 16th Aug 2012 9:43 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Fri, 17th Aug 2012 4:00 pm
-
Bernard Mason on
Fri, 17th Aug 2012 5:20 pm
-
Bernard Mason on
Fri, 17th Aug 2012 5:28 pm
-
Bernard Mason on
Sat, 18th Aug 2012 11:13 am
-
Robert Burns on
Sun, 19th Aug 2012 3:21 pm
-
Bernard Mason on
Sun, 19th Aug 2012 6:03 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Mon, 20th Aug 2012 12:33 am
For some unfortunate people, through no fault or lack of effort on their part, help with care is something they will need and at any age.
But for most it is not about ageing but about ageing well rather than decaying through lack of maintenance.
It would be a sight to behold this multitude of old fogies making the qualifying time all on the same day across the land.
By way of note, as my 60th approacheth, can the government then pay me the amount of £500 annually if I make the qualifying time for some sort of triathlon event along with the free bus pass?
That last post of mine is rather mysteriously not in sequence i.e. third and fourth paragraph needs changing around.
And the £500 would need to keep pace with inflation and airline ticket prices.
And that would all be lovely Matthew….if there was the real potential for it to happen.
Alas, the population of this country live in the real world and the prognosis is not good.
Firstly, again, again and again, who is this ‘we’ you keep on talking about?
The political parties in this country can’t even put together an education system for the young (a declining proportion of the population) that is outside arbitrary sound-bite politics.
So how are they going to put together something like you propose for an expanding portion (those beyond working age) of the population?
As someone privy to the inner workings of the Blair machine and its clones you should know better.
Except at the macro (sinking ship) level the population of this country do not inhabit a common narrative.
Those who define and create ‘solutions’ to problems are not the people who live out those problems and their consequences.
Nor do these ‘problem solvers’ have any will to look deeper than the conclusions they wrap around issues – the Gordon Brown ‘bigot’ gaff being a symptomatic exhibition of this mindset.
Solving that problem is what ‘we’ need – but it won’t happen.
All dressed up and ready for an evening out, but no one wants to go where any one else wants to go.
Matthew,
you write “the Government is promising now”.
The problem is that all governments find it easy to promise and as easy to squirm out of the committment after the promises have delivered the votes of the target group. As this particular government seems to have been the champions of this technique in the years since I saw the Atlee government deliver, I fear that you will be disapointed.
Dear Matthew
You write “the government is promising now”
I have watched governments since the Attlee administration which delivered its promises.
Most governments since have been excellent at promising and even better at squirming out of their commitments as soon as the target group have delivered their votes. So far, the components of the coalition have been the clear champions of this technique, so I fear that you will be disappointed
Dear Robert
I think that you have put your finger on the problem; there is no “We” in England.
Since at least the Norman Conquest we have been what Disraeli called “Two nations” – an “Us and Them”, never a “We”. Over time, different dominant groups, warriors, aristocrats and now merchants have occupied the “them” slot but all have put their sectional interests above the commonality of the nation.
I feel that cultural theory’s “four groups” merely describes emotional responses to this underlying power relationship rather than explaining it.
Remember who mouths “We happy few” in Henry V. It is an Angevin king, calling himself a Plantagenet, speaking English whilst pursuing his own dynastic ends at the expense of the lives of common people who have nothing to gain from his escapade.
Thank you Bernard.
And on ‘Cultural Theory’ I believe you are right. None of it is new on the packaging has changed.
If I was to be a bit picky on a point the use of the word ‘merchants’ would deserve a closer look.
The people who exercise the greatest influence in the economic and political domains are not primary wealth creators, they live entirely off the foundations that others have laid and maintain.
These people are not ‘merchants’ in the common sense that language has passed down to us.
They are the heirs of a tradition that has nothing to do with the Industrial revolution or the development of democratic institutions and this shows in how they go about their activities. ENRON and the Rover Cars fiascos being particular examples.
Commentators have often expressed the concern that an attack upon them is some kind of attack on ‘aspiration’, this is false.
It is not aspiration per se, but their model of aspiration that is shown to be ever more unworkable, unsustainable and, therefore, unacceptable.
It is not:
(a) the NHS
(b) providing high quality educational opportunity for all
(c) providing decent housing that doesn’t cost 50-70% of net income
that this society can’t afford, but what it costs us all to support them.
If anyone is inclined to disagree please bear in mind that you must answer this:
The kind of people being criticised here are people who get paid 100,000+ per year and can ‘earn’ annual bonuses of of millions of pounds by carrying out transactions that do nothing but ‘earn’ bonuses.
These ‘bonuses’ are paid out in quantities that make their aggregate amount large enough to influence national wage inflation calculations.
So a person working for £6.50/£8 an hour (the majority) has to pick up the slack in the form of depressed living standards to support ‘bonuses’ AND be looked down on into the bargain!
Lastly, you (the apologist for City Traders) don’t have the luxury of blaming this resentment on Marxist/Leninist claptrap.
Now stand in that persons shoes and convince that person why they shouldn’t be pissed off.
This isn’t system isn’t simply unjust, it is immoral and obscene.
Thanks Robert
Quite happy re your comments on merchants.-
I was using a tongue in cheek classification from an old teacher who defined three methods of gaining power — physical coercion [Warriors] deception [wizards e.g. priests] and buying it [Merchants] — those who inherit power from from any of these were Aristocrats who tend towards decadence. 
B
B
LOL!
The perils of irony deficit syndrome:-)
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.