³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Bit late, they've already let the cat out the bag. Be prepared for plenty of scaremongering like the last blog.

Just to be clear, therefore, the policy has been CLARIFIED (from what was, last night, merely a brief press release), not CHANGED.

Yvette Cooper might like to note the point, since she seems to have got it all wrong this morning. Again.

Both Labour and Conservative plans for raising pensionable age are discriminatory and I'm sure will be challenged in Europe (ha! ha!) on that basis.

Surely, the fairest plan would be to gradually raise female retirement age up to 65 first, and then increase both male and female retirement ages together?

I'm will be affected by this announcement to raise the male retirement age and I must admit, it made me wince! I think it'll be dropped before we get to the election.

I don't see this as that big a deal really. I'm in my thirties and made my peace a while back with the prospect that I'll be working until I'm 70 at the very least.

Nick:

Thanks, and for the urgent information regarding the guidance; On new "proposed" guidelines for Pensions....

~Dennis Junior~

POLICY ON THE HOOF - Don't you just love it !!

By the way, when is someone at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ going to realise that the 'dark horse' of Breakfast Telly Sian Williams is deserving of some promotion ??!!

She is twice as good as Maitlis but with half the profile, which probably explains why she trips up leaders by getting under their radar. Those eejits probably think she is 'just a pretty face' and won't seriously tax their intellect or get them flustered.

But as they say "Never underestimate the power of a woman !"

Go Sian !!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Non defacto! again the tories shout ahead without proper consultation and may I add ignorance of the social chapter.

Osborne, to young, to shaky, to glitchy.

Well, I can't say it's not a good thing that the main parties have finally started giving out some proper information on some of the policies they'll instigate if they're in charge after the next election.

Only a shame that, in this case - as with Labour agreeing with the Tories on Benefits Cuts, and David Cameron's admission that, actually, he may not give people the Referendum on Europe promised by Labour (and his own party, I believe?) either - there doesn't actually seem to be a huge amount of difference between the two.

When Mr Robinson blogged about Peter Mandelson's comments in respect of the "ideological chasm" he was trying to convince us existed between the two main parties, I remember scoffing at the blatent fallacy back then; seems that, so far at least, I've been right.

So, where IS this "chasm", Mandy? Got any policies where either you're not copying from the Tories, or they're not copying you?

Yet another pathetic example of incompetent politicians trying to formulate policy "on the hoof" as they compete with each other in their puerile "My cuts are bigger than your cuts" schoolboy contest. Maybe if some of them (or indeed ANY of them ) had work experience in the REAL world instead of being nothing but professional windbags we'd get some coherent policies instead of juvenile one-upmanship with no substance.

I was listening to Theresa May (Shadow W & Pensions) on Newsnight, last night.

She was at great pains to tell Paxman that the Tories (always subject to them forming next Government) would REVIEW, being the operative word, the Pensions system.

Now this a lot different to frightening women aged 50 years that they would have to work an extra 3 years. This has been the policy of the present Administration, for about 10 years, why such a fuss that an Opposition party talking about the same or similar policy? It was alright yesterday with a different subject matter.

It has been proven many times that the longer you stay in work the longer you live. My uncle worked until he was 75! He died aged 97.

I know of many people who retired tickety boo down to the coast and one or other of them snuffed it after a year or two.

Hey ho. Working conditions are pretty good in this country and H and S requirements pretty stringent so, why not carry on a bit more, it may contribute to our longevity!

oh for Heaven's sake, what's the matter with these clowns? (and I MEAN it this time, small c not Big C) - why on Earth don't they just take a little time to think something through before springing it into the spotlight?

(Lab too, for that matter)

8. Barking: I am sure you mean "too" ? You have made the error three times so I would add that you are TOO in articulate perhaps to be taken seriously by anyone here.

OK so retirement ages are to be brought into line and raised to 66 not a problem.

Haven't women been shouting about equality since the 60's. Equal pay for equal work, equal working life too? Retirement appears to be one area where they don't want it.

Is lady Harriet going to raise this as a step in the right direction for equality? I doubt it.

Don't understand why women's pension age is lower than men.

Women live longer after all.

s'not fair.

This is a continuation of the Conservative Party's attack on the State Pension begun under Margaret Thatcher. Funny how Conservative policies always seem to benefit themselves and their financial backers at the expense of the ordinary citizen. Of the course Conservatives and their backers do not need or bother to consider State Pension when choosing their own retirement. After all the State Pension is just to provide pocket money for the grandchildren.
Voting Conservative would clearly be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas to come twice a year for the majority of the British public.

This is the Tories first real policy announcement & they can't get the simple facts right, let alone understand the impact. So its a review not a hard ploicy & how do these "clarifications" impact the £13 billion?

Then there is the Equality argument - if I have understood the situation correctly, this is hugely discriminatory to men. Isn't there a EU law against that. Oh, that's their other policy - let's get out of Europe.

I sense a pattern of real incompetence being demonstrated by the Tories. Electorate, beware of what you wish for.

How about MPs leading from the front? A 20% reducton in MP pensions would certainly be a welcome start.

13#

Three words for you mate.

"10p Tax Band"

So far all that has been annonuced at the Conservative Party Conference is going to be a Vote loser for them.

For, it was fine when all Cameron had to do was to say had badly Labour Policies were affecting the U.K., but is quite another thing when you have to defend your position with in contrast even further very poor Policies being championed by your own Conservative Party in return, David.

Nicholas:

Slightly off topic, but do you know what on earth Charlie Falconer is doing at the Conservative Party Conference?

O' dear, Herod the Osborne attacks the children.

Little minds have little attitudes.

@ b-b-jack: you are wrong. the policy of the present (and hopefully future) Government is clear. Standardise retirement age between the sexes & THEN raise it in 2026.

The sound bite tribe who claim £13 billion in savings want to bring forward this to 2016, but forgot to do any real analysis. Which suggests they were blinded by the "£" signs.

Is this the act of a capable opposition, let alone a future Government.

Every position being occupied longer because a 65 year is in it means less 'moving up' for everyone in employment, and in particular less places at the school leaver end. Can we hear the costs of unemployment, training, Job-seeking allowance and all the rest that are a direct result of this policy? No? Thought not.

17. RebelSteve
What absolute rubbish!! And I'm not a Tory supporter.

15. At 12:26pm on 06 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
OK so retirement ages are to be brought into line and raised to 66 not a problem.

Haven't women been shouting about equality since the 60's. Equal pay for equal work, equal working life too? Retirement appears to be one area where they don't want it.

Is lady Harriet going to raise this as a step in the right direction for equality? I doubt it.

--------------------------------------------

Nor, will Boy George raise it.

Could someone explain why women should have a lower retirement age when they live longer (on average) than us men.

Women's retirement age needs to move to equal men asap - I can accept that adding 3 years on for everyone who is the last few years before retirement is a bit steep but at least add 18 months on for the extra 12 months added to male retirement age.

Either way makes tories look inept - this is a blindingly obvious issue which should have been addressed in the initial announcement.

Sadly this is merely the tip of iceberg for pensions. I suspect we will rapidly go to a retirement age of 70 simply to make pensions affordable - otherwise there will be too few workers supporting too many pensioners.

The next issue to be addressed is real cuts in expenditure. No matter how the parties fudge the figures we need to cut govt expenditure by at least 15% (which will only bring down govt expenditure as a %age of GDP to just below 40%). It is pointless talking about tax rises when govt expenditure is rocketing towards 50% of GDP (and where I grew up 3/4rd of all adults are either working for govt or dependent on benefits - not surprisingly nobody is interested in being an entrepreneur). What is needed is either massive real cuts or smaller cuts followed by severe public sector restraint for 5-10 years (no prizes for guessing which policy our MPs will adopt - pain deferred until after next election is always the other lots fault). This size of cut means that govt needs to walk away from certain things it currently does. Where is the debate about what govt should not be doing, where is the debate about whether govt payroll will be cut by 100,000, 1 million or somewhere in between.

#16

Couldn't agree more to be honest. Though, I may feel differently once I approach retirement age.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Looks like Whelan's boys are out!
I'll rejoin the blog later when sanity returns!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If women want equality they can have it. If they don't then we can go back 40 years. Simples!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick after the way Crash Gordon has raided the private pension pot I think that many people would have had to work longer anyway.

What a typical conservative chancellor (well semi in the small sense chancellor)when you have to spend money to keep the cogs wheels of the economy turning, you know the parts that help to distribute the spoils of monies to all relevant areas, the young naive Osborne pops up and says, Hey! stop spending and start saving.Wow! and that is going to help the employment market! NOT.

Good thing is, It's another wasted day for the tories and the tide is on the turn.

28. At 12:43pm on 06 Oct 2009, Justin150 wrote:

The next issue to be addressed is real cuts in expenditure. No matter how the parties fudge the figures we need to cut govt expenditure by at least 15% (which will only bring down govt expenditure as a %age of GDP to just below 40%). It is pointless talking about tax rises when govt expenditure is rocketing towards 50% of GDP (and where I grew up 3/4rd of all adults are either working for govt or dependent on benefits - not surprisingly nobody is interested in being an entrepreneur.

---------------------------------------------------

I agree with you upon the Retirement issue.

However, I wonder how many Conservative Voters working for the many Government Department, and Quangos will Vote for the Conservative Party at the next General Election once it has hit home to them that their Jobs are on the Line, with deeper and more savage Cuts being proposed by any next Conservative Government which will be far deeper than can be expected under any renewed Labour Administration?

26 & 31 Zydeco. Nice of you to share your your insults. Any clues as to your views?

derekbarker 23

What attack by Osborne on children? Or is this just your usual random, fact-free style of posting? Still, I see some progress - you've learnt to spell "Osborne" at last. Keep trying!

Ah, here we go again. Sounds like the Canine Notting Hill Carnival in here ...for a change.

This is an opposition conference! To be fair both David Cameron (with Sian Williams, whose amazing technique someone cited is simply based upon the fact she does not listen well and interrupts rudely) and Theresa May said they want to review but will be looking at raising the pension age for men and then women. Nothing wrong with any of this and it's far from policy on the hoof unless the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ expect signed legislation at each interview...

Where is the foucus on Neu Arbeit doing all they can to announce things during the Tory conference? Their refusal to meet troop demands for Afghanistan? I assume Labour are still on the offensive as the Conservatives orchestrated a master-stroke using The Sun at the (note this timing Labour) end of the Labour conference.

It's sad watching the pathetic rabble try to cling to power and deluding themselves that they have done some good when they have simply endured during the golden years without investing well in anything (gold sales when going was good anyone?).

Trolling in force today I see.

30. 10 years are exactly what the Tories are saying. 13bn a year. x10. =13bn. Not difficult. And the majority of posts so far on this blog have been empty and lazy minded (ie. not even bothering to understand the policy before criticising it, not a single person has got to the bottom of any real reasons for critising this).

17. Tory attack on pensions? You realise the pension pot is empty because of Brown's mismanagement? I will have to work until I am 70 to stand any chance of a state pension thanks to the incompetent scot.

21. Harris, just because you are not now going to vote Tory, and never were in the first place, does not = the Tories losing votes. Nothing wrong with what they have said so far, along the lines of public service pay being brought back into line with what is going on in the real world at the moment. Entirely sensible, your outrage is fairly amusing in its simple mindedness.

Its just beyond comprehension that everyone still has their hands out, demanding more more more. Don't you realise, THERE IS NO MORE MONEY. You can not insist on pay rises, and expect everyone to keep their job, while bleeding the private sector dry so that it shrinks further and further. Ever heard of killing the cow to get the milk?

"manuinlondon wrote:
@ b-b-jack: you are wrong. the policy of the present (and hopefully future) Government is clear. Standardise retirement age between the sexes & THEN raise it in 2026.

The sound bite tribe who claim £13 billion in savings want to bring forward this to 2016, but forgot to do any real analysis. Which suggests they were blinded by the "£" signs."

Well as sound bites go - £130 billion saved over 10 years is a good one, considering the level of public debt we will have after the failure of this present government we need all the money saving options available.

Compared to this the Labour policy of freezing public sector pay for the highest earners is the equivalent of cutting out coupons from magazines.

#39

For god sake' Sherry! dont you listen to what your fledgling is advocating.

The Tories need a better publicist. A great idea, sold badly.

The point is this: retiring on the state pension on it's own will remain a painful experience, so putting it off is a good thing, especially if it solves the problems we are facing now without recourse to the far more painful alternatives of tax rises etc.

Further, there are many who WANT to carry on working after 65 and are simply laid off by their employer without any form of redundancy payment at state retirement age. Anything that delays that should be seen as a good thing.

IMO it would have been better to also include the OPTION for the worker to choose to defer retirement to age 70, possibly in return for an increased pension, but certainly in return for the option not to be "laid off for free".

But the key point is... for God's sake SELL the idea better than you did yesterday! It doesn't just FORCE people to work longer, it ALLOWS them to do so. It provides CHOICE (if you want to retire earlier you can increase your own pension provision - surely increasing your pension by the paltry amount of the state pension over a single year can't be all that difficult?).