Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Axing the triple lock could be another #dementia tax debacle – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 26 in General
imageAxing the triple lock could be another #dementia tax debacle – politicalbetting.com

The former pensions minister during the Coalition government, Steve Webb, has made an acute observation about the government’s state pension triple lock dilemma – the law requires that the triple lock is applied. He noted in the I

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    edited August 26
    Will Labour vote for the required legislation?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    Golly the I is rubbish

    EXCLUSIVE Former pensions secretary tells imoney that Tory manifesto pledges are not the issue. Pensions legislation already allows the Government to estimate the rise in earnings as they see fit.

    In fact Webb says the first sentence, Tom Selby, head of retirement policy at AJ Bell, says the second (which, if true, completely nullifies the first).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283
    AIUI this 8.8% increase is almost entirely caused by the fact that a significant minority of those on furlough only received 80% of their wages (we paid our employees the full amount) and they were not, of course, earning overtime. Recorded wages accordingly fell quite sharply but pensioners were protected by the other aspects of the triple lock so did not suffer in kind.

    Now that furlough is being wound down wages are bouncing back from this artificially low figure to something slightly better than normal. It would be absurd if the consequence of the furlough scheme was a significant increase in pensions and if that requires legislation to change it that change should be in the budget. I really don't see this hurting the government. They just need to do it and ensure that pensions remain in step with the underlying increase in wages.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    edited August 26
    Given the UK took massively expensive economic measures and imposed huge restrictions on personal freedoms largely to save the pensioners from dying, it is seriously adrift for those same pensioners to get a Covid windfall. 3% is enough. Especially with inflation down to 2% this month.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    Whilst they could do that they might leave themselves open to judicial review on the basis that a decision to change the computation of earnings was "irrational". Given the money at stake a legislative change would be the safer option.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.

    It is not just oldies. Youngsters are of course affected too, since it means their future pensions will be lower than would otherwise be the case. Breaking the triple lock affects everyone, even if they work for the NHS.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    DavidL said:

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    Whilst they could do that they might leave themselves open to judicial review on the basis that a decision to change the computation of earnings was "irrational". Given the money at stake a legislative change would be the safer option.
    The overseas aid law change is basically this, a suspension. I presume they can engineer a similar law change here with conditions that will mean the triple lock is re-engaged in a years time.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.

    It is not just oldies. Youngsters are of course affected too, since it means their future pensions will be lower than would otherwise be the case. Breaking the triple lock affects everyone, even if they work for the NHS.
    But people won't think about it that way. And realisticly 3% this year is still a decent uplift. 9% is ridiculous.and artificially high due to other exceptional factors.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283

    DavidL said:

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    Whilst they could do that they might leave themselves open to judicial review on the basis that a decision to change the computation of earnings was "irrational". Given the money at stake a legislative change would be the safer option.
    The overseas aid law change is basically this, a suspension. I presume they can engineer a similar law change here with conditions that will mean the triple lock is re-engaged in a years time.
    The difference is that in the Overseas Aid provision the power to suspend the 0.7 was clearly built in. With the Triple lock it is not as clear cut because the methodology of assessing wage increases is well established and has been followed consistently. But a legislative suspension should not be hard to contrive.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,007

    DavidL said:

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    Whilst they could do that they might leave themselves open to judicial review on the basis that a decision to change the computation of earnings was "irrational". Given the money at stake a legislative change would be the safer option.
    The overseas aid law change is basically this, a suspension. I presume they can engineer a similar law change here with conditions that will mean the triple lock is re-engaged in a years time.
    Yes, the overseas aid law change is a suspension. But does anybody seriously expect this government (or its successor if it's another Tory government) to raise the 0.5% back to 0.7%? Thought not.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,979

    Will Labour vote for the required legislation?

    I would think yes
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26

    DavidL said:

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    Whilst they could do that they might leave themselves open to judicial review on the basis that a decision to change the computation of earnings was "irrational". Given the money at stake a legislative change would be the safer option.
    The overseas aid law change is basically this, a suspension. I presume they can engineer a similar law change here with conditions that will mean the triple lock is re-engaged in a years time.
    Yes, the overseas aid law change is a suspension. But does anybody seriously expect this government (or its successor if it's another Tory government) to raise the 0.5% back to 0.7%? Thought not.
    As i said, with triple lock, if they don't re-engage it, i think thats when they have a problem.

    My point about overseas aid, there was ridiculous screeching, your killing babies etc, and the public, unmoved.

    I highly doubt oldies only getting 3% for one year will cause Tory client vote to shift, even if we get the nad faith actors screaming your killing granny.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,334
    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,520
    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    I think a far bigger danger for the government, JCVI recommend only a few people get boosters. If they go with this recommendation and ICU start filling with oldies (which they will this winter boosters or not), the optics will be horrendous.

    Remember through out the pandemic the likes of the modellers getting it wrong never get the criticism, its the government that the buck stops with.

    Failure to deploy 10 millions of doses the UK has available would be disastrous and certainly kill the narrative about haven't they done well on vaccines.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    The fudgeability is so wide that I am sure a fudge will be found. And I don't think, purely intuitively, that a drop in income (tighten our belts, mustn't grumble, spirit of the blitz, etc) produces the same demented wails of pure outrage from the tory vote that deprivation of capital does.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837

    I think a far bigger danger for the government, JCVI recommend only a few people get boosters. If they go with this recommendation and ICU start filling with oldies (which they will this winter boosters or not), the optics will be horrendous.

    Remember through out the pandemic the likes of the modellers getting it wrong never get the criticism, its the government that the buck stops with.

    It'll reduce the pension bill, mind.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 9,460
    edited August 26
    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are mostly beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,664
    Header is just wrong - no legislation required to avoid what would be an utterly grotesque result.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,664

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    No way this ponzi scheme will survive long enough for me to collect.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    Easy for you to say... you are not a poor pensioner..
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,871
    The whole concept of what the state provides in retirement needs to be rethought. The triple lock isn't the answer it gives people like my dad money for nothing. He's a higher rate tax payer.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,919
    Labour should be using this stoke up massive resentment and discontent among P reg Rover 200 (with an odd coloured door) driving, leave voting, red/blue wall dwelling aged morons but I doubt SKS has the necessary level of cynicism to weaponise this tory betrayal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    And younger voters have elderly parents and grandparents.

    The elderly are fairly likely to be relatively poor in the Red Wall, too, I would think. Which won't help.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 624

    I think a far bigger danger for the government, JCVI recommend only a few people get boosters. If they go with this recommendation and ICU start filling with oldies (which they will this winter boosters or not), the optics will be horrendous.

    Remember through out the pandemic the likes of the modellers getting it wrong never get the criticism, its the government that the buck stops with.

    Failure to deploy 10 millions of doses the UK has available would be disastrous and certainly kill the narrative about haven't they done well on vaccines.

    I just don't understand why they would take the risk, What is the downside to giving the oldies extra jabs? The only one I can see is that it could delay vaccinating the 12-15 age group but they are at minimal risk anyway.

    My mother is 73 and has a weakened immune system and was told previously to shield. She was not prioritised over others in her age group despite her medical condition for the first vaccination round. She has been speaking to her surgery to ensure that if booster jabs do start that she is on the vulnerable list to receive one.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,101
    The politics of this will be fascinating. Both sides have an argument (personally I think its a great policy that needs to be maintained) and will set it out. The issue won't be cash, it will be trust.

    We're debtaing a 3% or an 8+% rise for pensioners. After the years of effort to raise them out of increasing poverty pensioners won't starve with *only* 3%. But the government aren't scrapping this, merely suspending it.

    The question will be do you pensioners trust this government? So far they have been more trusting than other demographics, but haven't so far been betrayed and lied to like other groups have. At the same time as pensioners face their "suspension" of the triple lock the working poor will lose £20 a week that will hot some of them really hard.

    So, will pensioners think "good old Boris, he will look after us" and keep backing the Tories? Or is this the point where they realise he couldn't give a toss?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    And younger voters have elderly parents and grandparents.

    The elderly are fairly likely to be relatively poor in the Red Wall, too, I would think. Which won't help.
    Good point.

    Lay Biden, lay con maj.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,996

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    Easy for you to say... you are not a poor pensioner..
    Most people who are against the triple lock would be happy to pay poor pensioners quite a bit more, just don't want to pay rich pensioners an ever increasing share of government tax revenue.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    It’s blindingly obvious that it’s a statistical anomaly, no matter how hard the Telegraph pushes the “Give the pensioners their 8%” narrative.

    There’s going to be way more people upset by an 8% award - including all of the public sector unions, and fiscally conservative pensioners who see the spending coming from borrowed money, than might be happy with it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,334
    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    And younger voters have elderly parents and grandparents.

    The elderly are fairly likely to be relatively poor in the Red Wall, too, I would think. Which won't help.
    Your red wall point is important. A lot of people in the red wall who switched to Con last time are heavily dependent on the state pension. You’d have to be (Yes Minister) “brave” to screw with them.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,856
    edited August 26

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    Easy for you to say... you are not a poor pensioner..
    Most people who are against the triple lock would be happy to pay poor pensioners quite a bit more, just don't want to pay rich pensioners an ever increasing share of government tax revenue.
    The issue is that as things stand

    1 in 3 Working parents are going to lose £1000 per family but pensions are going to get an 8% rise while public sector workers got nothing.

    To say the optics are terrible would be to understate the issue
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,592

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Mr. eek, public sector workers do get guaranteed jobs and pensions.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.

    Another Tory betrayal for sure if it happens. You could not trust these shysters with anything, but that is Tories for you, always looking after themselves.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,247

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    And younger voters have elderly parents and grandparents.

    The elderly are fairly likely to be relatively poor in the Red Wall, too, I would think. Which won't help.
    Your red wall point is important. A lot of people in the red wall who switched to Con last time are heavily dependent on the state pension. You’d have to be (Yes Minister) “brave” to screw with them.
    And the Express, which is quite popular (so far as it is anywhere) with that sector will go up the wall and down the other side!
  • Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    Easy for you to say... you are not a poor pensioner..
    Most people who are against the triple lock would be happy to pay poor pensioners quite a bit more, just don't want to pay rich pensioners an ever increasing share of government tax revenue.
    Then do that. Apply the triple lock now and either means test the pension or, more easily, extend NI contributions to pensions. Other ways of saving money on pensions are available on the contributions side. But none of these are presented as options, it is just end the triple lock. Your suggestion of paying poor pensioners extra is not on the table.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 896
    MaxPB said:

    The whole concept of what the state provides in retirement needs to be rethought. The triple lock isn't the answer it gives people like my dad money for nothing. He's a higher rate tax payer.

    Then surely he pays the higher rate of tax on his pension too.

    Unless he is a Tory tax-dodger, of course.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No one is going to starve. Some people may pay slightly more for their food.

    I don't remember seeing that slogan on the side of a bus...
    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
    An increase can be in the next manifesto but maintaining the triple lock was in the 2019 manifesto on which this government was elected.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Niall Paterson - The Taliban are not letting Pen Farthing through... so is there any argument for putting British troops outside of the wire to get him & his stuff to safety?

    James Heappey - "Safe passage is also other words for being brought to the front of the queue... "


    https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1430794925889703938?s=20
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,334
    Quincel said:

    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.

    This is only true if we count the only pension as the state pension, but the UK has much more provision for workplace pensions than many other countries. Particularly since we adopted auto-enrolment which 90% of people remain in. If we made auto-enrolment mandatory, a change which would affect under 10% of workers and in practice we are almost at anyway, then we would be near the middle of the pack.

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf
    Two “ifs” in there. My point stands. I explicitly said “state pension”.

    Even if we ignore your ifs, the Mercer rankings (in your link) rate the UK pension system as a whole at C+, behind eg:

    Netherlands A
    Denmark A
    Israel B
    Australia B
    Finland B
    Sweden B
    Norway B
    Singapore B
    Canada B
    New Zealand B
    Germany B
    Chile B
    Switzerland B
    Ireland B

    If only Maggie hadn’t spaffed all that North Sea oil money up the wall during the 1980s. The entire system could have been properly funded instead of the current Ponzi scheme.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Sandpit said:

    It’s blindingly obvious that it’s a statistical anomaly, no matter how hard the Telegraph pushes the “Give the pensioners their 8%” narrative.

    There’s going to be way more people upset by an 8% award - including all of the public sector unions, and fiscally conservative pensioners who see the spending coming from borrowed money, than might be happy with it.

    Yet they are not upset at the Tories filling the pockets of their friends and families with fake contracts. Milking the public during a pandemic , how low can they stoop. As ever with the Tories they cut the money of the poorest sections of the public.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    edited August 26

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
    An increase can be in the next manifesto but maintaining the triple lock was in the 2019 manifesto on which this government was elected.
    Since which time, there’s been a once-in-a-century pandemic - the recovery from which has produced a statistical anomaly in the earnings numbers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 553
    Like the FTPA, the Triple Lock is a lump of half baked stupidity Cameron and Osborne have left behind for someone else to clean up.

    I'd scrap it tomorrow, but given the politics I can see why Boris and Co probably won't.

    If we're stuck with it, my suggestion is that this particular issue is actually quite easy to fix. Keep almost the same system as now, but calculated on the mean of the last 5 years for each value.

    So we'd smooth out any wild year to year swings, whilst still ensuring pensions keep pace with wages and prices.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,334

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    And younger voters have elderly parents and grandparents.

    The elderly are fairly likely to be relatively poor in the Red Wall, too, I would think. Which won't help.
    Your red wall point is important. A lot of people in the red wall who switched to Con last time are heavily dependent on the state pension. You’d have to be (Yes Minister) “brave” to screw with them.
    And the Express, which is quite popular (so far as it is anywhere) with that sector will go up the wall and down the other side!
    Those who live by the Mail/Express, die by the Mail/Express. The Tories have the friends they deserve. Reptiles.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,996

    Quincel said:

    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.

    This is only true if we count the only pension as the state pension, but the UK has much more provision for workplace pensions than many other countries. Particularly since we adopted auto-enrolment which 90% of people remain in. If we made auto-enrolment mandatory, a change which would affect under 10% of workers and in practice we are almost at anyway, then we would be near the middle of the pack.

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf
    Two “ifs” in there. My point stands. I explicitly said “state pension”.

    Even if we ignore your ifs, the Mercer rankings (in your link) rate the UK pension system as a whole at C+, behind eg:

    Netherlands A
    Denmark A
    Israel B
    Australia B
    Finland B
    Sweden B
    Norway B
    Singapore B
    Canada B
    New Zealand B
    Germany B
    Chile B
    Switzerland B
    Ireland B

    If only Maggie hadn’t spaffed all that North Sea oil money up the wall during the 1980s. The entire system could have been properly funded instead of the current Ponzi scheme.
    Yet this is the richest cohort of pensioners ever and the first in many many decades whose grandchildren will on average end up poorer than them.

    Perhaps giving them non means tested ever increasing amounts of cash, earned by those grandchildren is not the answer.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,589

    Mr. eek, public sector workers do get guaranteed jobs and pensions.

    Why not become one as its so cushy there are loads of vacancies
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    MaxPB said:

    The whole concept of what the state provides in retirement needs to be rethought. The triple lock isn't the answer it gives people like my dad money for nothing. He's a higher rate tax payer.

    He can give it away easily, why would they impoverish millions just because your Dad is rolling in it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,509
    kle4 said:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.

    Brexit isn’t just something people did, it’s something people think they *are*. That was the short term genius *and* long term catastrophe of campaigns designed to denigrate facts while stoking feelings of alienation & bogus victimhood. It’s almost impossible to climb down from.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1430511659794239488
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    kle4 said:

    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.

    What Boris and co should also learn from Cameron / Osborne, take some unpopular decisions quickly and move on. Labour spent 5 years screaming about back to wigan pier austerity, bedroom tax, etc, and it didn't do them any good.

    The problem you have is if you keep trying to put those decisions off or fudge them so it neither does much while still upsetting people.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,996

    MaxPB said:

    The whole concept of what the state provides in retirement needs to be rethought. The triple lock isn't the answer it gives people like my dad money for nothing. He's a higher rate tax payer.

    The triple lock is, in any case, mathematically illiterate. If maintained permanently, it would ultimately lead to an ever-increasing proportion of the nation's income going to pensioners. This is, of course, unsustainable, so the triple lock has to be broken at some point!
    Indeed! Somewhere around 2100-2150 the whole government budget would be spent on pensions to maintain it. After then we would have to keep borrowing more and more and fund nothing else at all, before going bankrupt.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.

    Brexit isn’t just something people did, it’s something people think they *are*. That was the short term genius *and* long term catastrophe of campaigns designed to denigrate facts while stoking feelings of alienation & bogus victimhood. It’s almost impossible to climb down from.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1430511659794239488
    Quoting James O'Brien...a man driven more mad by brexit than you.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    edited August 26
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.

    Brexit isn’t just something people did, it’s something people think they *are*. That was the short term genius *and* long term catastrophe of campaigns designed to denigrate facts while stoking feelings of alienation & bogus victimhood. It’s almost impossible to climb down from.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1430511659794239488
    Wow, James O’Brien does’t like Brexit, and really despises those who voted for it.

    Whoever would have known that?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,260

    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.

    Trouble is that voters have voted to rip themselves off.

    The original pensions-earnings link was broken in 1980, and it allowed taxes to be lower for the following 30 years. The generation that benefited from those lower taxes are now reaching retirement and are understandably shocked that the state pension is pretty naff.

    But short of a time machine, what's a government to do?

    (One important difference between pensions and international aid, though. Rightly or wrongly, the aid cut was popular with voters and everyone knew it. Restricting pensions will be unpopular with some of the Conservatives' core vote. Labour might as well go with being the party of working age people with some gesture to protect poorer pensioners.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,509

    Quoting James O'Brien...a man driven more mad by brexit than you.

    Unable to refute the argument you go for the player instead of the ball
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837

    Niall Paterson - The Taliban are not letting Pen Farthing through... so is there any argument for putting British troops outside of the wire to get him & his stuff to safety?

    James Heappey - "Safe passage is also other words for being brought to the front of the queue... "


    https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1430794925889703938?s=20

    Holy shit. An issue that even the Taliban are right about.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    Scott_xP said:

    Quoting James O'Brien...a man driven more mad by brexit than you.

    Unable to refute the argument you go for the player instead of the ball
    He is totally unhinged, like yourself, on this. Its rather sad actually, day in, day out, dawn to dusk, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit... triple lock discussion, no back to Brexit tweets.

    I didn't vote for Brexit, I own a company in the EU, its far from ideal, but I move on, being pragmatic about what to do.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.

    It is not just oldies. Youngsters are of course affected too, since it means their future pensions will be lower than would otherwise be the case. Breaking the triple lock affects everyone, even if they work for the NHS.
    But people won't think about it that way. And realisticly 3% this year is still a decent uplift. 9% is ridiculous.and artificially high due to other exceptional factors.
    Were you Tories not whining about wages going up at 7.4% just last week. Where is the difference in pensions going up 8%. Never have a greedier bunch of rats been gathered at one time than the greedy grasping me me Tories on here. Not happy with being loaded they want the poor to be robbed to boot.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837

    MaxPB said:

    The whole concept of what the state provides in retirement needs to be rethought. The triple lock isn't the answer it gives people like my dad money for nothing. He's a higher rate tax payer.

    The triple lock is, in any case, mathematically illiterate. If maintained permanently, it would ultimately lead to an ever-increasing proportion of the nation's income going to pensioners. This is, of course, unsustainable, so the triple lock has to be broken at some point!
    Indeed! Somewhere around 2100-2150 the whole government budget would be spent on pensions to maintain it. After then we would have to keep borrowing more and more and fund nothing else at all, before going bankrupt.
    We knew a bit less about exponential progression back in 2015 than we do now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,247
    edited August 26

    kle4 said:

    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.

    What Boris and co should also learn from Cameron / Osborne, take some unpopular decisions quickly and move on. Labour spent 5 years screaming about back to wigan pier austerity, bedroom tax, etc, and it didn't do them any good.

    The problem you have is if you keep trying to put those decisions off or fudge them so it neither does much while still upsetting people.
    The lesson to learn from Cameron/Osborne is find someone else (the LibDems) to blame. So far Johnson hasn't found anyone.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 624
    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,509

    day in, day out, dawn to dusk, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit...

    This is what we voted for.

    Suck it up...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,879
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No one is going to starve. Some people may pay slightly more for their food.

    I don't remember seeing that slogan on the side of a bus...
    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.
    Its all they're left with.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    Scott_xP said:

    day in, day out, dawn to dusk, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit...

    This is what we voted for.

    Suck it up...
    Sad. Screaning at the moon isn't going to get you anywhere.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Peter , I hardly think the current state pension , that most people have contributed to for almost 50 years , is mollycoddling.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - people dont need to get over Brexit, but they really really do need to get over that f*cking bus.

    Brexit isn’t just something people did, it’s something people think they *are*. That was the short term genius *and* long term catastrophe of campaigns designed to denigrate facts while stoking feelings of alienation & bogus victimhood. It’s almost impossible to climb down from.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1430511659794239488
    I think you've missed my point, particularly since I explicitly said people dont have to get over Brexit.

    I really did mean specifically the bus thing. I think people think it's clever, but for me all it does it make people look obsessed with a slogan on a bus, which makes it easier for their criticisms to be dismissed - after all, if someone is still moaning about a slogan on a bus what worth their current criticisms?

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    YOU would soon know if you had to live on it. If that is your only income you are in poverty for sure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    Fiscally scrapping the triple lock may make sense.

    Politically however it may be difficult. A few years ago a poll found scrapping it would put 34% of over 55s off voting Conservative and they are the Tory core vote
    https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2017/04/24/scrapping-triple-lock-would-cost-votes-poll-finds/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    HYUFD said:

    Fiscally scrapping the triple lock may make sense.

    Politically however it may be difficult. A few years ago a poll found scrapping it would put 34% of over 55s off voting Conservative and they are the Tory core vote
    https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2017/04/24/scrapping-triple-lock-would-cost-votes-poll-finds/

    So before the pandemic, and the 8% earnings anomaly?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 26
    malcolmg said:

    Nonsense....if it is a one year suspension and oldies only get ~3% this year, i think pretty much every oldie understands the situation i.e. this isn't the government breaking a commitment just because and they will still see a rise. Everybody understands the past 2 years have not been normal.

    Its only a problem if they don't revert to it once the pandemic is over and things have settled down.

    The great overseas aid betrayal was going to be a killer as well, and it never shifted the needle, despite the screeching for weeks.

    Its nothing like the dementia tax, as that was spun as people losing their homes that they worked hard to buy.

    I would argue the optics would be far worse if they give oldies 8%, while NHS is getting 3%.

    It is not just oldies. Youngsters are of course affected too, since it means their future pensions will be lower than would otherwise be the case. Breaking the triple lock affects everyone, even if they work for the NHS.
    But people won't think about it that way. And realisticly 3% this year is still a decent uplift. 9% is ridiculous.and artificially high due to other exceptional factors.
    Were you Tories not whining about wages going up at 7.4% just last week. Where is the difference in pensions going up 8%. Never have a greedier bunch of rats been gathered at one time than the greedy grasping me me Tories on here. Not happy with being loaded they want the poor to be robbed to boot.
    Not a Tory....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,247
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    edited August 26
    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    The full SP is £179.60 pw, a bit under £9400 pa (they have a weird way of calculating per week rather than by month or year).

    However that assumes you've made enough full years of NI contributions. Many people have not.

    The State basically admits that the state pension is not enough to live on by adding dole money aka Pension Credit to those who have to rely on it.I'm not sue what the trigger level is - I imagine it depends on renting costs etc. as well as savings.

    https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

    Edit: SP is also taxable, as is pension credit I believe. And many occupational pensions are quite small.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,879

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    To be fair to them they thought they were paying in on that basis, and no one went out of their way to set them straight.

    I think the "not paid into a fund" argument is pretty specious anyway. When it raises its head in any other sphere it's about who gets what in a bankruptcy. With an entity which can't go bankrupt and whose word is thought except by Philip T to be its bond, it makes no odds whether there's a designated pot or not.

    I really hate posters who make a contentious point and then say I must be off now, but I must be off now. Surf at Bude 2-4' and clean.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited August 26
    Defending the triple lock just seems like another Waspi women situation to me. You can find problem cases in any policy proposal without it making the proposal itself not the right thing to do, but opponents present as if it is a moral outrage and I just have not been persuaded it is.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    edited August 26

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    I think that is also a timing thing - get the pensioners in on Thursday for their hairdoes and keep Friday clear for da yoof and the weekends for working parents with families.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,101
    The "triple lock would take all public expenditure by 2050" argument - whomever said it would be permanent? All policies change. This one either carries on a bit longer or all those Tory leaning pensioners will feel betrayed.

    As for the optics, think about how "we're all in this together" will sound in the red wall. "We can't afford to maintain the recovery plan to pay you a decent pension because we're busy cutting your UC and giving you a real terms pay cut. Can we count on your vote again at the next election?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fiscally scrapping the triple lock may make sense.

    Politically however it may be difficult. A few years ago a poll found scrapping it would put 34% of over 55s off voting Conservative and they are the Tory core vote
    https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2017/04/24/scrapping-triple-lock-would-cost-votes-poll-finds/

    So before the pandemic, and the 8% earnings anomaly?
    I think HYUFD is right to assume that will have made little difference to the views of that group. Not when push comes to shove.

    I'd hope hed agree it may be the right thing to do and the hit needs taking.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    kle4 said:

    Defending the triple lock just seems like another Waspi women situation to me. You can find problem cases in any policy proposal without it making the proposal itself not the right thing to do, but opponents present as if it is a moral outrage and I just have not been persuaded it is.

    Good comparison.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    To be fair to them they thought they were paying in on that basis, and no one went out of their way to set them straight.

    I think the "not paid into a fund" argument is pretty specious anyway. When it raises its head in any other sphere it's about who gets what in a bankruptcy. With an entity which can't go bankrupt and whose word is thought except by Philip T to be its bond, it makes no odds whether there's a designated pot or not.

    I really hate posters who make a contentious point and then say I must be off now, but I must be off now. Surf at Bude 2-4' and clean.
    No need to apologise - some of us do have a life outside PB. Which reminds me, someome has sent me something urgent to check, so I must be off too.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,919
    edited August 26
    It's good to see that British forces in Kabul are maintaining the proud tradition of 'tactical vehicle acquisition'. Fucking LOL.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    kle4 said:

    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.

    What Boris and co should also learn from Cameron / Osborne, take some unpopular decisions quickly and move on. Labour spent 5 years screaming about back to wigan pier austerity, bedroom tax, etc, and it didn't do them any good.

    The problem you have is if you keep trying to put those decisions off or fudge them so it neither does much while still upsetting people.
    The lesson to learn from Cameron/Osborne is find someone else (the LibDems) to blame. So far Johnson hasn't found anyone.
    If he doesn't know political lesson number 1 'blame others for things' after 20 years in politics that's a big surprise.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,794

    Quincel said:

    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.

    This is only true if we count the only pension as the state pension, but the UK has much more provision for workplace pensions than many other countries. Particularly since we adopted auto-enrolment which 90% of people remain in. If we made auto-enrolment mandatory, a change which would affect under 10% of workers and in practice we are almost at anyway, then we would be near the middle of the pack.

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf
    Two “ifs” in there. My point stands. I explicitly said “state pension”.

    Even if we ignore your ifs, the Mercer rankings (in your link) rate the UK pension system as a whole at C+, behind eg:

    Netherlands A
    Denmark A
    Israel B
    Australia B
    Finland B
    Sweden B
    Norway B
    Singapore B
    Canada B
    New Zealand B
    Germany B
    Chile B
    Switzerland B
    Ireland B

    If only Maggie hadn’t spaffed all that North Sea oil money up the wall during the 1980s. The entire system could have been properly funded instead of the current Ponzi scheme.
    Sure, but ahead of a bunch of places too. My point is that the UK pension system is not an outlier in desperate need of improvement. It certainly could be improved, but we should view it fairly for what it is.

    By contrast, there are a bunch of working age benefits where we truly are one of the worst in the developed world. And the government is freezing those so they get even worse - in order to fund pension increases. Lest we forget, the poverty rate of pensioners is lower than that of working age people (and children, who for some reason there is no political momentum to address long term and rather dramatic child poverty rates).

    Saying that the state pension is the lowest in the OECD is accurate but misleading, since pensions go far beyond the state pension - by design.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757
    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    Over the lifetime of the triple lock, pensioners are about £10 a week better off than they would be but the state pension is still below the national minimum wage and, as @StuartDickson posted earlier, amongst the lowest in the OECD. That is the full state pension. Many pensioners get less than that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    The percentage of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) has been flat since 2017, but has decreased in recent quarters.

    9.3% is a record low for the series


    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1430814377230352384?s=20
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fiscally scrapping the triple lock may make sense.

    Politically however it may be difficult. A few years ago a poll found scrapping it would put 34% of over 55s off voting Conservative and they are the Tory core vote
    https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2017/04/24/scrapping-triple-lock-would-cost-votes-poll-finds/

    So before the pandemic, and the 8% earnings anomaly?
    I think HYUFD is right to assume that will have made little difference to the views of that group. Not when push comes to shove.

    I'd hope hed agree it may be the right thing to do and the hit needs taking.
    Given the way in which IHT has been fine tuned to pander to the target Tory demographic in the SE, and the U-turn on the dementia tax, i will be genuinely surprised if the Government has the courage to do so.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,007

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    I admit I was surprised when my season ticket renewal (PL team) arrived and it was £250 less than the previous year as I had reached a 'certain age'. I'd rather the club found a way of reducing prices for those who really struggle to afford tickets rather than for those who happen to be older but are comfortably off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    kle4 said:

    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.

    What Boris and co should also learn from Cameron / Osborne, take some unpopular decisions quickly and move on. Labour spent 5 years screaming about back to wigan pier austerity, bedroom tax, etc, and it didn't do them any good.

    The problem you have is if you keep trying to put those decisions off or fudge them so it neither does much while still upsetting people.
    I think that is an interesting point. Certainly I think dragging things out does not help and gives little time to attempt recovery if you take a hit.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,879
    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    I think its a more general image change.

    A generation ago there were fewer pensioners, they owned fewer homes, went on fewer holidays, went to restaurants less frequently.

    Now there are still many poor pensioners but they are not visible in the way the affluent oldies are.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited August 26
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fiscally scrapping the triple lock may make sense.

    Politically however it may be difficult. A few years ago a poll found scrapping it would put 34% of over 55s off voting Conservative and they are the Tory core vote
    https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2017/04/24/scrapping-triple-lock-would-cost-votes-poll-finds/

    So before the pandemic, and the 8% earnings anomaly?
    I think HYUFD is right to assume that will have made little difference to the views of that group. Not when push comes to shove.

    I'd hope hed agree it may be the right thing to do and the hit needs taking.
    Given the way in which IHT has been fine tuned to pander to the target Tory demographic in the SE, and the U-turn on the dementia tax, i will be genuinely surprised if the Government has the courage to do so.
    They've been kite flying it for some time. That's not a good sign for the strength to actually do it. Its an invitation for people to change their minds (whereas if you announce it you get an amount of core supporter automatic backing and rallying round).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,757
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
    An increase can be in the next manifesto but maintaining the triple lock was in the 2019 manifesto on which this government was elected.
    Since which time, there’s been a once-in-a-century pandemic - the recovery from which has produced a statistical anomaly in the earnings numbers.
    Has there been a "once-in-a century pandemic" since Boris pledged to retain the triple lock just two months ago?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 553
    malcolmg said:

    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    YOU would soon know if you had to live on it. If that is your only income you are in poverty for sure.
    I think one of the issues (and its not straightforward to fix) is that the state pension is fairly stingy if you're single, and actually quite generous if you're a couple, as most of the time a couple gets 2x what the single does.

    The other factor is that if you are a home owner, or in old fashioned subsidised social housing, a pension shouldn't be too bad to live on, and if you are renting privately it's going to be grim.

    My parents - married, home owners - are looking at what they'll get in a couple of years when they're both eligible to draw their pensions, and thinking they will be really comfortably off.

    But I can imagine say a recent divorcee whose just lost his house in the divorce having a pretty rough time of it.


This discussion has been closed.