18th May 2006, 03:22 PM
Its a slightly different issue from the one I was trying to get at, but yes (under tremendous pressure to follow the Turner Report in full) they have decided to re-institute the link between pensions and earnings.
Of course, by delaying until 2012, the pension will have fallen even further behind what it would have been if the link was never got rid of in the first place. By that time, the pension would probably need to be increased anyway to save on the cost of clearing the bodies of pensioners who couldn't afford to eat off the streets.
Even this slight benefit has an edge: The pension age will be raised to 68 by 2050. In the 21st century and being the third wealthiest country in the world, shouldn't we be reducing the pension age instead of taking this retrograde step?
I think I'm right in saying that the Tories have agreed to all this, so they are unlikely to overturn it, which incidentally shows how radical it isn't.
Of course, by delaying until 2012, the pension will have fallen even further behind what it would have been if the link was never got rid of in the first place. By that time, the pension would probably need to be increased anyway to save on the cost of clearing the bodies of pensioners who couldn't afford to eat off the streets.
Even this slight benefit has an edge: The pension age will be raised to 68 by 2050. In the 21st century and being the third wealthiest country in the world, shouldn't we be reducing the pension age instead of taking this retrograde step?
I think I'm right in saying that the Tories have agreed to all this, so they are unlikely to overturn it, which incidentally shows how radical it isn't.