View more on these topics

Labour takes state pension fight to Conservatives with UK tour

UK-Parliament-Big-Ben-London-Britain-700x450.jpgLabour is taking its fight against state pension age increases on the road as it looks to win votes in cabinet members’ constituencies.

The Government announced that it would implement the recommendations of the independent Cridland review last month, bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 by seven years.

Labour rejected the proposals, however, and has announced it will now meet with pensioners across the UK “to discuss how a future Labour government can provide dignity and security in retirement”.

The party has conducted analysis that shows that Chancellor Philip Hammond’s constituency will have 61,000 people affected by the sped up timetable, with 56,500 in Prime Minister Theresa May’s seat and Work and Pensions Secretary David Gauke’s constituency being home to nearly 60,000.

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Debbie Abrahams says: “Thanks to the Tories increasing the state pension age, 36.9 million people will be forced to work longer, at the same time that evidence indicates life expectancy has stalled in some places and is reducing in others.

“Conservative MPs must explain to the tens of thousands of people in their constituencies, why the burden of Tory austerity is being pushed onto them, while corporations and the richest individuals receive tax breaks.”

Labour is currently reviewing the possibility of a flexible retirement age.

AJ Bell senior analyst Tom Selby says: “Labour is clearly attempting to make state pensions politically toxic for the Conservatives. However, it is telling that while the party has rejected the recommendations of the independent Cridland report, it has not committed to spending more money on the state pension either.

“Labour has previously said it wants to take variations in life expectancy into account when deciding the future of the state pension – a laudable aim but one which risks creating a mire of complexity. That said there are reform ideas out there that merit serious consideration.”


How state pension age changes will impact advice

Whether they like it or not, many in the industry can see where the Government is coming from in bringing forward the state pension age increase to 68 seven years earlier than planned. Increased life expectancy needs to be managed alongside the economics of having to fund the state pension, particularly if the alternatives, such as […]


Govt brings forward increase in state pension age

The Government has decided to bring forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 by seven years. Adopting the recommendations of the Cridland review into state pension increases, the Government has confirmed that the state pension age will rise from 67 to 68 from 2037. Speaking in the House of Commons today, Work […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Trevor Harrington 15th August 2017 at 1:47 pm

    What the Labour party really needs to consider is WHY the Tories have increased the state retirement age at all …

    The answer is, of course, that the previous Labour administration, under Blair and Brown, went berserk with the country’s finances on a spending spree which nearly bankrupted the entire Country, and for which we now pay through substantially reduced state pension expectation.
    Indeed the Blair Brown administration acknowledged it themselves in their own note which they left on the treasury table.
    “There is no money left”.

    Need we really wonder why neither Blair nor Brown have been elevated to the Lords, let alone been given a Knighthood – not so strange eh?

    However, I would also argue that State pensions can be maintained, or even reduced back to at least age 65, if only they would pick something else to cut back on, in order to save the necessary expenditure ….

    …. Such as the current situation where higher rate tax payers receive higher rate income tax relief on their personal pension contributions – which is totally indefensible in current times of need.

    …. Or perhaps, the huge number of public sector pensions, many of which pay substantially in excess of £40,000 per annum to the lucky recipients, and very little of which has been paid for by themselves as individuals, but funded straight out of the public purse.

    If you look carefully at local Council budgets, which they are obliged to send to you with your rates demand, you will see that as much as 20% of budget spending is on pensions, which in many instances is therefore actually over 30% of the salary payments.
    Wouldn’t we all love to work for an employer who is committed to 30% of salary as an employer pension contribution!

    I would make one other point – wouldn’t it be nice if our journalists (such as the one above) were intent on writing stories about the truth, rather than some party political drivel, which at best is totally misleading, and at worst is bordering on lies and deceit.

    I would suggest to you that this is precisely what Mr Trump is fighting for in his own Country, when he refers to “Fake news” and “the establishment feeding frenzy” – quite so – we have the same problem.

  2. Andy Robertson-Fox 17th August 2017 at 10:59 am

    Debbie Abrahams misleading the public (not for the fırst time) in claimıng that 36.9 million people will be forced to work longer. They will not. The NI contribution is not invested as with other pension funds but merely establishes a pensıon right by the accruel of qualifying years. Currently 35 such years are required for full pension. When one chooses to retire is entirely a personal decision and not governed by reaching the state retirement age and state pension receıpt eligibility.
    Life expectancy is not a factor as the guarantee a state pension is from the date of relevant claim until the date of death…there are no refunds!
    The figures quoted for each of those constituencies are simply political red herrings and Labour seem to be happy to try and discredit the Cridland report but have nothing to offer in its place…yet in 1995 recognised the need for change and did nothing.

Leave a comment