It is not young people’s responsibility to care for their ailing elders

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

It's society's responsibility to care for the elderly (Getty)

Michael Pate berates the young for not taking their responsibilities towards the care of their ageing parents seriously enough, saying that the parents cared for them in their young years so they in turn should look after their elderly mums and dads.

There is another way of looking at this. People choose to conceive children and therefore have a responsibility to raise them to the best of their ability. Children did not choose to be born and therefore have no responsibility towards their parents. If they do assist it is ex-gratia help, not a moral requirement.

I understand it was not uncommon in middle class Victorian and Edwardian households for the youngest daughter to remain at home, unmarried, to look after the ageing parents and then become the spinster aunt relying on the largesse of their siblings for support after the death of the parents.

I'm not suggesting that the letter is arguing for such an extreme and, to our society, repugnant practice but I believe that the responsibility of the young towards the old – parents or society in general – is to be prepared to pay for an adequately funded social care programme that ensures that the elderly get all the support they need either in their own home or in a retirement home, according to their requirements at any stage in their twilight years.

I write as a 77-year-old with two sons with whom I have a great relationship, and who I have assured they have no moral imperative to look after me. To put the onus on them would be anathema to me.

Patrick Cleary
Devon

I would like to counter the argument that people don't look after their relatives in this country. I have worked in social care for 26 years and in my experience most families provide a lot of support to their relatives.

However, a number of things cause significant difficulties. One is that a lot of carers still work and are unable to manage if they give up their jobs. Many carers either have children themselves or may be assisting in caring for grandchildren.

Many families do not live nearby – they provide a lot of emotional support over the phone but can't provide that daily practical help. A lot of carers are retired themselves and have their own health difficulties and might be trying to care for a parent in their nineties. Some people might have their parents to live with them but others do not have a house that is suitable – they may have stairs, or no downstairs toilet and often older people have poor mobility.

Most carers that I meet help in all kinds of ways – they help with medication, take people to appointments, help with shopping, with cleaning and with laundry. They may be assisting someone with their mail and with their finances. They may be providing meals and drinks and they are usually keeping a close eye on their relative, are in regular contact and provide a huge amount of emotional support. They also provide emergency support (such as if a relative has a fall) as they may be the first one to be called out.

Carers have a huge responsibility in looking after their relatives and they live with the worry 24 hours a day. I looked after my mum who had dementia while having two young children and a job. I visited my mum three times a day and had to respond when she left her home in the middle of the night.

Do not criticise carers – they already support their family members as much as they can and I for one would like to say how much I appreciate their efforts.

Nicki Bartlett
Cardiff

We should be worrying about Theresa May

The Independent has reported that Theresa May dismissed concerns over President Trump’s mental health.

Unfortunately, this can only increase the United Kingdom’s concern in respect of her own.

The Prime Minister appears to be in denial over the crisis in the NHS, in denial over the crisis in education, and now also in denial over the crisis in America.

Robert Bottamley
East Yorkshire

As Shadow Foreign Secretary, I have always supported promoting human rights

Among other things, you accused me in yesterday’s editorial of “the most appalling moral cowardice” for saying that Westerners cannot impose our views on other countries, on issues like human rights. As Shadow Foreign Secretary, I have consistently said the exact opposite, so if I had made the comments you attributed to me, I would agree with you. The problem is that I did not.

What I actually said was that, when we assume every individual protesting against a regime we oppose must automatically share our opinions and objectives – literally imposing our views on them – we risk making grave mistakes, such as in Syria, where in the UK Government's eagerness to remove Assad, it has ended up funding Jihadist terrorists, or in Egypt, where we have gone from Mubarak to Morsi to Sisi, with every revolution hailed by UK commentators, but the human rights situation remaining dire.

Emily Thornberry, MP
London

Politicians must put the country before their own interests

Jeremy Corbyn's reluctance to join a cross party summit on the single market is yet another example of political parties putting their sectional interests before the interests of the country.

Corbyn does not wish to alienate any section of the electorate for fear of jeopardising what he sees as his inevitable election into power. Consequently, he prefers silence or ambiguity.

Sadly, Theresa May refuses to give any clarity on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations for fear of splitting her party, and refuses to consult anyone – her own civil servants, the CBI or Chambers of Commerce – in another example of jeopardising the country's future by putting the party first.

The Brexit negotiations are vital to the future of the country. Is it too much to expect cross-party cooperation on doing what is best for the country based on rational discussion and put aside individual party interests temporally? Yes I suppose it is too much to expect.

Chris Elshaw
Hampshire

The Tories shouldn’t worry about the youth vote – people grow out of being Labour supporters

Naturally the Tory Party is concerned it has fewer than 10,000 members under 30. I'm a floating voter and don't beat a drum for any party but I'd suggest Theresa May shouldn't be panicking.

Most parties or political movements have particular demographic profiles. I'm reminded of SNP MP, Tommy Sheppard, famously telling us – and I paraphrase – that Scotland will be independent once the old No voters are dead. But he’s being naive.

As a generalisation, younger voters tend to be more idealistic and vote Labour; many older voters are more pragmatic and support the Tories. Similarly at the Scottish referendum, men in their twenties voted heavily for the break-up of the UK, whereas most middle-aged and older people backed the economic security of status quo, questioning an independent Scotland's ability to fund effectively its public services.

The reality is, as people get older, start families and have rent or a mortgage to pay, they become more risk averse. They don't aspire to change the world, they seek a financially secure future for their families, and efficient public services in exchange for an often growing tax contribution.

Voters' priorities shift and opinions change as they age: the Tory party will continue to attract decent numbers of members as it will always be more appealing to older voters than Labour.

Martin Redfern
Edinburgh

It’s bye bye to Theresa May then

Great news from our Prime Minister this weekend. She has agreed to remain in the position for as long as the people want her there. I suppose it’s bye bye to her then.

David Higgins
Somerset