Cameron's U-turn on retirement age.

[Gromit]

Yesterday the Tories announced the retirement age would rise to 66, which came as a bit of a shock to women expecting to retire at 60.

Last night party spokesmen told journalists that the change in retirement age would save £13 billion a year from 2016 and said it would be portrayed today by George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, as a tough measure showing how serious he is about reducing the soaring budget deficit, expected to rise this year to £175 billion.

Today, Cameron has made a dramatic U-turn (I mean clarified the situation) and now non of that will happen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6862815.ece

Lost his bottle, or was this not meant for public consumption this side of the election?

[jake-the-peg]

Gosh Tory U turns provoke much less contraversy on here than Labour ones don't they ?

[jno]

well, he's authorised a review, and that's the main thing.

[R1Geezer]

Keep clinging on to hope, guys, these little titbits can't save Noo Labour, The Tories are comming!

[jno]

indeed they are, geezer, but in that case wouldn't it be nice to know what their policies were? Wouldn't it be nice if they knew what their policies were themselves? Or is that too much to ask of someone who wants to rule your country?

[buildersmate]

Keep up, Gromit. Women who are not 60 by April next year (2010) progressively have their retirement age increased to 65 in bite-sized chunks. This all happens before 2016 when this would take effect and the news was announced yonks ago. An outcome of the prat-of-a-man who took the UK Government to the EU courts over 10 years ago on differential retirement ages and won - expecting that the UK would magically find the money to allow him (and me as it happens) to retire at 60.

[sherminator]

Y'Know R1 you really surpirse me(annoy me) you even had nicknames for Gordon for bottling it as you say and its taken the tories a whole 24 hour period to show us their strategy and then change their mind. Then you come on here and seem almost happy that the tories are coming?

Care to explain your hypocritcal approach?

[R1Geezer]

Yes I can explain. I don't think it's a good idea for Politicians to say up front in detail what their policies are because it's a bit like saying I'm not going to wear a coat on Friday, Friday comes and it's pi55ing down. We tend to demand policy detail and then moan when it changes but on the other hand we react badly when they don't change when intervening circumstances change. All we need is general policy direction and intention. Politicians of both sides try and please everyone and the mischievious press use the ammo thus provided. The cockup was mentioning detail at all. They should have said somthing like "we intend to improve the whole system of retirement and pension funding" - for example

[sherminator]

R1 surely you cant just like a party for saying
"we will look ath NHS"
"we will reform pensions"
we will reform blah blah blah
that doesnt give you anything tangible to vote on? I actually like this approach and recognise that most of what their doing needed to be done at some point and the sooner the better for most things. Tthe pension age is irrelevant though as im to young to care. I do also hate that they plan to put up inheritance tax allowances when that could have been a valuable income stream but everyone should realise we need to pay for the banks mess and they have been open about it and i think its a decent approach.

[kinell]

i thought our state pension was supposed to come from national insurance contributions?

what a crummy insurance policy that is, one where the contract you have paid into is subject to change and you dont have the option to opt out totally

please send me £10 of your hard earned money today and in ten years time i will give you less than £10 back, but i might change the payout date before then to maybe 12 years, or 15, or 20

what? you dont want to participate?

the next move in respect of the pathetic national pension fund may well be to only pay out when you reach your 110th birthday

even the t0$$ers who run ni should be able to sideways enough cash to fulfil that obligation

[anotheoldgit]

In this age of sexual equality, which is loaded to mainly benefit women, how can it be fair for a man to retire at 65 when a woman can retire at 60, especially when women tend to live longer than men?

If this Tory plan to increase the retirement age to 66, is to save money, how much will it cost extra in unemployed pay to those that are unemployed during those extra years of old age employment?

[R1Geezer]

Listen Sherminator no one should commit themselves to specific activities when they are
A) not even in power
B) Not in possesion of all the facts
C) Not in a posession of the conditions prevalent at the time when A and B become true.
for example:
It's fine to say "We intend to cut public spending by as much as is practical by making efficiency improvements and cutting waste".

It is folly to say "we will raise retirement age to 65 by 10pm on August 15th 2011"

Kinnel, your naivity is cute whatever gives you the idea that National insurance covers anything specific? It all goes in the pot and gets paid out as soon as needed. It is poorly named "insurance" as nothing is actually invested or ring fenced.

[sherminator]

to AOG
I disagree that society(in general) favours women but def agree that they should retire at same time as us! how and why that ever got to be like that i do not know.

To R1
I dont know why they wouldn't have all the facts? surely they have access to to all the public records?
I am not a tory but i prefer politics to be out in the open so that I can compare how each party will deal with the money crisis and then decide what i think is best. Yes they could end up chaniging their minds but thats ok if it is done with newly available evidence or something affects market conditions etc. and plenty of dates are set for future planned increases in pension ages already so bringing it forward isnt that big a deal(again it doesnt affect me so maybe some older abers will beat me down for that last remark.)

[kinell]

R1

i agree of course

it is labelled an insurance when in fact it is just direct taxation

it aint insurance, it aint a fund, it is a feeble con

the more you work hard and more you pay in makes no difference to your end payout

[R1Geezer]

Even if he had all the facts Sherminator, and the oposition does not, Cameron may not be in power for 6-7 months, it's folly to make specific commitments when the information at the time may support a different decision. That's why I say only statements of general policy direction are really possible. It's pressure from the media that encourages Politicians to attempt to name specifics and yes it's a Uturn and Cameron realised the error. Plenty of examples of this from both parties.

[sherminator]

But R1 this policy comes in in 2024 anyway! this was decided ages ago and will be upheld by tories.
for them to bring it forward isnt that big a deal. to announce it and then change your mind one day later is just appaling .
i think we will, as usual have to agree to disagree on this one.
ironically i'm agreeing with what the tories are doing and you're disagreeing?!!!

[buildersmate]

Mr Git - you need to keep up with events instead of pontificating about the unfairness of women getting a state pension at 60. That is about the change in 2010, but the deal was set over 10 years ago. Would have been impossible to change 60 to 65 instantaneously, all those years ago. Time scale needed to allow women to plan financially for the change.