The politics of the left in the UK

[ahinton]

no it isn't news, but he did reiterate it, and it appeared to be an open ended thing.

There is almost no retirement provision worthy of the name for vast swathes of the population. abolishing it, or a decision to abolish it at some future point would provide a spectacular opportunity for somebody like UKIP, or the Greens .

I agree with you on the first bit, but that's partly because most people under pension age, i.e. 55, as well as quite a few above it who are still working and earning, for that matter, simply don't have enough disposable income out of which they can afford to save sufficiently - or indeed even at all - for a pension and partly because of the vagaries of the markets in which the vast majority of pension contributions are invested. As to the second bit, no party is raising the prospect of abolishing pensions per se but what they may do - or indeed most likely will do - is change from time to time both the minimum qualifying age (55 for most people) and the maximum age at which pensions can be vested (75+ for most people, I believe); the confusion arises because there's far too much stuff said and written about "pensions" in cass when what's actually meant is state retirement benefit and it's this that no government wants to admit to phasing out but all likely will nevertheless phase out over time.

I don't see how any action about either pensions or state retirmenet benefit on the part of parties other than UKIP and the Greens would "provide a spectacular opportunity for" either; what kind of opportunity do you mean?

[teamsaint]

I agree with you on the first bit, but that's partly because most people under pension age, i.e. 55, as well as quite a few above it who are still working and earning, for that matter, simply don't have enough disposable income out of which they can afford to save sufficiently - or indeed even at all - for a pension and partly because of the vagaries of the markets in which the vast majority of pension contributions are invested. As to the second bit, no party is raising the prospect of abolishing pensions per se but what they may do - or indeed most likely will do - is change from time to time both the minimum qualifying age (55 for most people) and the maximum age at which pensions can be vested (75+ for most people, I believe); the confusion arises because there's far too much stuff said and written about "pensions" in cass when what's actually meant is state retirement benefit and it's this that no government wants to admit to phasing out but all likely will nevertheless phase out over time.

I don't see how any action about either pensions or state retirmenet benefit on the part of parties other than UKIP and the Greens would "provide a spectacular opportunity for" either; what kind of opportunity do you mean?

simply that if one of the big three parties decided to abolih the SRP, or push the retirement age a good deal higher, say 75, the opportunity for the greens , UKIP or anybody else to get a huge increase in their vote by, say, fixing the state retirement age at, say, 67, would be obvious.

[ahinton]

[/B]

simply that if one of the big three parties decided to abolih the SRP, or push the retirement age a good deal higher, say 75, the opportunity for the greens , UKIP or anybody else to get a huge increase in their vote by, say, fixing the state retirement age at, say, 67, would be obvious.

OK, at least I now see what you meant; that said, however, I don't see that it would offer any such advantage because few people would believe them or figure out how they'd be able to do it without raising taxes to such an extent that many people's ability to save for their retirement would be yet further compromised, even without the additional factor of the general disgruntlement with Westmonster politics that has risen to the surface so effectively during the run-up to the referendum and which is, of course, widely shared by citizens of the other three UK member states.

As someone said to me recently, "pensions? - they're for the rich people, the very rich are wealthy enough not to need them and most of the rest can't afford them"...

[Richard Tarleton]

As someone said to me recently, "pensions? - they're for the rich people, the very rich are wealthy enough not to need them and most of the rest can't afford them"...

That's not right - millions of people on modest incomes were members of workplace pension schemes when Labour came to power in 1997, we had perhaps the best pension system in the world. Brown's pensions raid in 1997 was the death knell for the final salary pension scheme. As it was widely reported at the time, Brown and Balls were the men who "stole your old age". This analysis by Evan Davis argues that Brown was not entirely to blame for this outcome, that employers could have done more to save the scemes - but there is no doubt that Brown and Balls fatally damaged a system that was working extremely well, because they needed the money.

[ahinton]

That's not right - millions of people on modest incomes were members of workplace pension schemes when Labour came to power in 1997, we had perhaps the best pension system in the world. Brown's pensions raid in 1997 was the death knell for the final salary pension scheme. As it was widely reported at the time, Brown and Balls were the men who "stole your old age". This analysis by Evan Davis argues that Brown was not entirely to blame for this outcome, that employers could have done more to save the scemes - but there is no doubt that Brown and Balls fatally damaged a system that was working extremely well, because they needed the money.

I don't quite understand; you begin by saying that what I wrote is "not right" (and I was in any case merely quoting someone else rather than giving my own view) but then continue to point out what's become of the pension market since the beginning of the Blair era. The only obvious differences (at least to me) are of approach; you're writing about the damage done to the UK pensions system since 1997 and I was writing more about the fact that few people can afford to save anything like enough for their retirement; the similarity is in the effect, in that a damaged system and a climate of unaffordability gives rise to a double whammy in the pensions market.

Evan Davis's useful article is mainly about the various impacts of different of corporation tax régimes on the pensions market, which is undoubtedly an important factor, but when most working people can't afford to save for retirement it's usually the case that they can't afford to save for anything much else either, so the very notion of "retirement" as a prospect becomes ever more remote. In such a scenario, the relevance of "state retirement age" contines to reduce and for that reason alone it is perhaps unsurprising that it is being abolished a bit at a time by the back door at a time when ever more people are working beyond it anyway (provided that they can find that work).

[Richard Tarleton]

Well, yes - I was just pointing out yet again that the UK had a perfectly good pension system which worked for millions of people until 1997. And it may have been the Blair era, but the pensions raid was actually cooked up by Brown and Balls, the latter being still very much with us and will be again if Labour wins next May. The Evan Davis article was as I understand it trying to unpick how they did this - slightly more nuanced than this - saying perhaps that the consequences didn't need to be that bad, but that was nevertheless the effect.

[P. G. Tipps]

As someone said to me recently, "pensions? - they're for the rich people, the very rich are wealthy enough not to need them and most of the rest can't afford them"...

That 'someone' is patently mistaken. Many workers are /were on company schemes, some non-contributory. I, and thousands of others, now live in some comfort in retirement thanks to these pensions and have never been 'rich' in our lives.

Maybe we were a lucky generation in so many ways but I see little reason why decent pensions for employees cannot continue to be provided by our very many large companies and that they should be positively encouraged to do so by the government via the tax system.

The gradual and deliberate erosion of final-salary pension schemes has been one of the most short-sighted and regressive measures in recent years and will only mean the Treasury will be faced with an even more horrendous bill in the future in order to support millions of poor pensioners ... and, even more worryingly, due to ever-increasing State debt it might be quite unable to do so.

It is our kids and grand-kids who will be the main sufferers and also reflect a quite appalling legacy left to them by the luckiest generation(s) in UK history.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

....Ed 'Amnesia' Millipede was a Brownite too

Miliband stayed on in the Shadow Treasury team and was promoted to work for Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown.[18] In 1995, with encouragement from Gordon Brown, Miliband took time out from his job to study at the London School of Economics, where he obtained a Masters in Economics.[14] After Labour's 1997 landslide victory, Miliband was appointed as a special adviser to Chancellor Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2002

so Ed squared for the pensions pot eh?

i found his speech dispiriting ... a blatant plea to the public sector base of the party and just as unworthy as Dave Boy's duckin and divin to keep the right in the gang ...

[ahinton]

Well, yes - I was just pointing out yet again that the UK had a perfectly good pension system which worked for millions of people until 1997.

That's true - or at least to a far greater extent that could possibly be achieved today or in the foreseeable future. That said, however, pressures on people's incomes are greater now than they were pre-Blair and are likely to become greater still; this naturally affects people's ability to save.

And it may have been the Blair era, but the pensions raid was actually cooked up by Brown and Balls, the latter being still very much with us and will be again if Labour wins next May.

Indeed so and, in so doing, the havoc that these measures have generated is such that thee's no going back; that's the largest part of the problem, I think.

The Evan Davis article was as I understand it trying to unpick how they did this - slightly more nuanced than this - saying perhaps that the consequences didn't need to be that bad, but that was nevertheless the effect.

As I suggested, Davis's piece is indeed useful insofar as it goes, although it doesn't do enough to warn readers that what happened under the Brown/Balls régime (if I can call it that) was largely irrevocable and, once more and more people find themselves obliged to budget ever more from their incomes towards tghe cost of healthcare, education, housing and the rest, the means whereby to save will be eroded ever further, so pensions will indeed look set to become the province of the rich.

[ahinton]

That 'someone' is patently mistaken. Many workers are /were on company schemes, some non-contributory. I, and thousands of others, now live in some comfort in retirement thanks to these pensions and have never been 'rich' in our lives.

I don't think so. That person was speaking only of the here and now and the likely future, not what it was like for people like you who are already retired and who probably benefitted from the kind of situation that Richard Tarleton describes above as having applied before the Blair/Brown era. Just imagine for a moment if you were at the other end of your professional life, having just emerged from university with two degrees and a five-figure debt and then spent fortunes in marketing yourself for work and struggling to maintain a roof over your head when you get that job, which won't in most cases be a "job for life"; how would you be able to save for your retirement and why do you suppose that you'd be able to survive solely on any pension to which you will have contributed over some half century or more? In any case, the value of company schemes to the contributors diminishes every time an employee leaves the scheme to take employment elsewhere and, as the labour market involves far more such moves, this is an important factor. Then there's the risk of abuse of company schemes, &c.

Maybe we were a lucky generation in so many ways but I see little reason why decent pensions for employees cannot continue to be provided by our very many large companies and that they should be positively encouraged to do so by the government via the tax system.

In that case, ask the companies why that is! After all the damage that's been done (and the consequent erosion of final salary schemes to which you rightly draw attention), I suspect that the only way to kick-start a meaningful set of repairs to this state of affairs would be to abolish corporation tax altogether but insist that the savings made by firm be reinvested in (a) growth of the kind that will improve employement prospects and (b) better pension schemes. Even all of that, however, won't be of much help to the self-employed who run small businesses but who one would assume are as entitled in principle to a comfortable retirement as employees are.

The gradual and deliberate erosion of final-salary pension schemes has been one of the most short-sighted and regressive measures in recent years and will only mean the Treasury will be faced with an even more horrendous bill in the future in order to support millions of poor pensioners ... and, even more worryingly, due to ever-increasing State debt it might be quite unable to do so.

Spot on - except that, for "might" read "will"; governments already know this but, as it would be the bitterest medicine to dispense to citizens, they have no obvious option but to keep their mouths shut, carry on increasing state retirement age until it goes beyond that to which most people stand a chance of living and hope that few will notice.

It is our kids and grand-kids who will be the main sufferers and also reflect a quite appalling legacy left to them by the luckiest generation(s) in UK history.

I think that this is broadly correct, which is why (a) I began my response to as I did and (b) the person whom I quoted knew of what he spoke.

[P. G. Tipps]

Well, we've always had the self-employed amongst us though admittedly they are increasing in number according to reports.

My point is about the millions of us who work for large organisations both in the public and private sectors. We are still a relatively rich nation. I see no reason why proper pension provision cannot be provided for employees as was the case until quite recently. Much cash is spent on undeserved bonuses to management staff which could instead be used to boost pension funds. It is not a question of having to occupy 'a job for life' ... I transferred my pensions four times in my working life to new employers ... many others no doubt did the same.

Governments and employers using pension arrangements as a way of cutting costs is economic madness for everyone in the long run.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think so. That person was speaking only of the here and now and the likely future, not what it was like for people like you who are already retired and who probably benefitted from the kind of situation that Richard Tarleton describes above as having applied before the Blair/Brown era. Just imagine for a moment if you were at the other end of your professional life, having just emerged from university with two degrees and a five-figure debt and then spent fortunes in marketing yourself for work and struggling to maintain a roof over your head when you get that job, which won't in most cases be a "job for life"; how would you be able to save for your retirement and why do you suppose that you'd be able to survive solely on any pension to which you will have contributed over some half century or more? In any case, the value of company schemes to the contributors diminishes every time an employee leaves the scheme to take employment elsewhere and, as the labour market involves far more such moves, this is an important factor. Then there's the risk of abuse of company schemes, &c.

A brilliant summation, iimss.

What really deserves mulling over is that nevertheless it has been possible in my lifetime (1945 -) to build houses, protect sites of special environmental and/or scientific interest, create an NHS up to a certain standard, offer free at point of need libraries and education up to higher levels, eradicate polio and many other fatal diseases (here), raise living standards (though not always or necessarily the quality of life) and sometimes avoid wars; and I think when one gets to the bottom of such achievements I think money was always a secondary issue because it was made to be secondary by people realising there was more to life than money; it's just what gets done with it, by whom and to what ends, that has been where things have always gone wrong.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

What really deserves mulling over is that nevertheless it has been possible in my lifetime (1945 -) to build houses, protect sites of special environmental and/or scientific interest, create an NHS up to a certain standard, offer free at point of need libraries and education up to higher levels, eradicate polio and many other fatal diseases (here), raise living standards (though not always or necessarily the quality of life) and sometimes avoid wars; and I think when one gets to the bottom of such achievements I think money was always a secondary issue because it was made to be secondary by people realising there was more to life than money; it's just what gets done with it, by whom and to what ends, that has been where things have always gone wrong.

hear hear!

[ahinton]

Well, we've always had the self-employed amongst us though admittedly they are increasing in number according to reports.

They have been doing so for quite some time now and, whilst they're not the majority of working people, they're far too large a group to ignore where this subject is concerned and, of course, many of them are as likely as many employees to encounter problems with saving for anything, including pensions.

My point is about the millions of us who work for large organisations both in the public and private sectors. We are still a relatively rich nation. I see no reason why proper pension provision cannot be provided for employees as was the case until quite recently. Much cash is spent on undeserved bonuses to management staff which could instead be used to boost pension funds.

I agree about undeserved bonuses, although not all bonuses are undeserved and if one added them all together in any one year for the entire contry I rather doubt that they alone would add a significant amount to the sums that could be invested in pensions for employees, although naturally it would help.

It is not a question of having to occupy 'a job for life' ... I transferred my pensions four times in my working life to new employers ... many others no doubt did the same.

Well, of course, but one problem with having constantly to transfer pensions because of employment changes is that it's harder for the short-term contributor to benefit from pension fund value growth, especially when he/she might at one or more times during working life move to an employment where there's no pension scheme in place.

Governments and employers using pension arrangements as a way of cutting costs is economic madness for everyone in the long run.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that; could you explain more clearly?

[ahinton]

A brilliant summation, iimss.

What really deserves mulling over is that nevertheless it has been possible in my lifetime (1945 -) to build houses, protect sites of special environmental and/or scientific interest, create an NHS up to a certain standard, offer free at point of need libraries and education up to higher levels, eradicate polio and many other fatal diseases (here), raise living standards (though not always or necessarily the quality of life) and sometimes avoid wars; and I think when one gets to the bottom of such achievements I think money was always a secondary issue because it was made to be secondary by people realising there was more to life than money; it's just what gets done with it, by whom and to what ends, that has been where things have always gone wrong.

That's largely true and needs to be said over and over again; I wouldn't go quite as far as you do in describing money as a "secondary" issue in those days, not least because none of that homebuilding, SSSI creation and maintenance, setting up and running of the NHS and all the other things that you mention would have been possible without a great deal of it, but where you are right is in that money was not treated as the only thing that mattered in life as is so often and so widely the case today.