Are we entering into the era of new ageism?

If you’ve started this article expecting, or hoping for, candles, incense and gongs, you’re in the wrong place. This is about the new ageism, not New Ageism.  Or is it the other way around?

The idea was prompted by a report about the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, whose youth wing within his centre-right party, the CDU, had revolted over his proposed budget because it was seen as favouring older people too much. Recently, I heard about older adult programmes being cut in California and Chile by both left-wing and right-wing administrations. The EU also recently published a report on intergenerational fairness which, initially framed as an attack on older people, was moderated into something rather more balanced.

Closer to home, the government under Keir Starmer seemingly showed little interest in the ageing agenda. For example, while high-profile attempts are being made to resolve the youth employment crisis, there has been no reciprocal push to tackle the 50+ employment crisis despite similar numbers of people impacted.

Recently David Miliband, told the BBC that,

On the one hand, this new ageism might be seen as a natural response to the tough position in which many young people now find themselves. But it has taken on a rather more worrying form in recent years. Old age is now too often equated with wealth, despite clear evidence to the contrary which shows that there is greater inequality within generations than between generations. Older voters are blamed, through this new ageism, for the position of young people, as well as for the state of the planet, the housing market, low wages, the Beatles’ split and many other ills.

The result of this new ageism is a disregard for older people in policymaking across mainstream programmes, including housing, poverty, employment and place. Moreover, the lack of planning for population ageing — another feature of the new ageism — will affect young people in profound ways, as today’s struggling parents become tomorrow’s impoverished pensioners. The new ageism also undercuts prospects for economic growth through overlooking the opportunities of what has been called the silver economy, or the longevity dividend.

So, the new ageism is a set of policy assumptions and prejudices now in play, building on the institutional ageism that has been a feature of clinical, housing and social policy agencies for many years. The irony is that the last Labour government was a trailblazer on the ageing agenda, publishing and funding significant programmes aimed at creating a society that supports a good later life.[NV1] 

There are, of course, some exceptions to this. The gathering of more than 800 delegates at the World Congress of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in June demonstrated a commitment to promoting a narrative that tackles this new ageism. The Greater Manchester delegation that I was part of presented, moderated and organised clear, positive messages and examples of work and research, not least to challenge the new ageism at every point.

With a new Prime Minister now spelling out his vision for the country, now seems the ideal point for a national debate about how we prepare and plan for an ageing society, the position of older people on low incomes and/or in marginalised positions, and the policy and practical solutions available to us. We can draw on the energy of age-friendly work, but focus it around challenging the inequalities — ethnic, gender and disability-related — affecting older people, renewing high streets and community spaces, and recognising the work of older people as workers, carers and community leaders. This won’t be possible if the country buys into the new ageism.