It’s Budget time. Brace yourselves, people. But while you do, spare a thought for our seniors. It will be revealing to see whether they will merit a line or two in today’s Budget Statement. They ought to; maybe even a paragraph or two.

They have issues which, frankly, are also our issues that need to be discussed and addressed. And, here’s the kicker, they are not going to disappear any time soon, if ever.

It isn’t just because our seniors are a very vulnerable group who are literally on the front line of hard times, in the trenches as it were, trying desperately in many cases to make ends meet in what are tough times of rising prices and cutbacks in services.

There are a host of other good reasons, too, and credit here to Cordell Riley, the data analyst and social commentator, who popped the question that stumped the audience at a recent public meeting on Ageing in Bermuda, one of a number of such forums incidentally organised by the Peace and Social Justice Committee of the Catholic Church and planned for the coming months.

What major event, he asked, is scheduled to take place in the summer of 2017? Duh. You would have to be a brother from another planet not to know about the America’s Cup, and coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

But that wasn’t actually what he had in mind. Turned out it was a trick question — and a very good one at that. The summer of 2017 is when it is predicted that seniors, those over 65 years, will outnumber our youth population, ie, those under 16 years of age. The forecast, in fact, is that by 2020 seniors will number about 12,063 people, a rise of 38 per cent from 8,716 in 2010.

In contrast, the youth population is expected to decline from 12,179 to 10,339 during the decade, an 18 per cent decrease for those who like to also think in percentages. Some turnaround, huh? This has significant implications, too — and what this demographic change will bring will not come at us like some train that suddenly appears out of the mist.

It will be no runaway train, either; more like an ocean liner that moves slowly, but deliberately, and can be spotted from afar. Some of what’s coming is already on our doorstep:

• PENSIONS: they are funded not so much by yesterday’s contributions as they are by today’s. With fewer paying in, there may be little or nothing in the kitty when today’s contributors reach retirement.

Economist and lecturer Craig Simmons has been heard to describe the Government’s pension fund as the ultimate Ponzi scheme. The Sage Commission, which studied the problem to whom Mr Simmons also drew attention — remember them? — figured that on present trends, the well could be dry in 30 years.

People won’t be too happy about that then, I am certain, although their hurt may be eased by mandatory private pensions and retirement savings with a little forward planning and — dare I say it? — collaboration.

• HEALTHCARE: costs continue to rise despite best efforts to the contrary and cuts continue here and there. While seniors place the greatest demand on the system, some if not most of whom, can least afford to pay. Meanwhile, the insurance pool continues to shrink. Home care could be part of the answer on both fronts, providing it actually works (and not just on paper), and the investment is made now.

• RETIREMENT AGE: mandatory retirement at age 65 is looking more and more like nonsense and no answer to today’s challenges. Enough study. It is past time to extend to employment the ban on age discrimination. Make innovative use of their experience and skills. This could also have a beneficially welcome knock-on effect on the first two issues.

It’s the politics of arithmetic, and of ageing, and — here’s the thing — some very real issues come into play: the interests of the young versus those of the old; of today’s needs versus those of tomorrow; and balancing the two. These competing interests could well spell intergenerational conflict.

Seniors will need representation. But too often politics seems to be about blooding the new and the young, a preoccupation — as we have once again recently seen — with replacing the old guard with the new. But that is so yesterday. There is a lot to be said for the wisdom that comes only from experience.

Advocacy and attention, even special attention, is good, and a shout out here to Age Concern, but places for seniors at the decision-making tables would be even better, whether Cabinet or caucus. More seniors in the Legislature may be just the answer — and more women, too; a little less Mars and a lot more Venus, Mr Editor, may make for a refreshing change in the way public affairs are conducted on and off the Hill. On this, I am reasonably certain that the late Louise Jackson, who blazed the trail, would agree.

Now, over to the finance minister and the Budget.