To think the only reason they're protecting pensions is to buy votes?

[Callani]

Am I the only one who's really cross about the latest pledge to protect OAP benefits when everyone else is being thrown under the bus?

In an ideal world we wouldn't have to be going through cuts, but we are and it seems that certain groups (under 25s in particular) are being targeted to over protect OAPs when many already benefit from final salary pensions and massive increase in the price of their properties.

It just makes me angry that they're planning to "triple lock" pensions when the state pension has already risen 24% in 5 years and they're cutting so many other things more harshly to fund it. Plus there's the more selfish fact that by the time I retire (probably at 75) there probably won't be a state pension anyway and my private pension will be worth about 10p a week so that makes me grumpy.

Is this not the epitome of mortgaging your future generations to pay for luxuries right now (or something better phrased and more eloquent)???

I wonder what percentage of pensioners are Tory voters? I agree OP it's blatantly vote buying IMO.

Old people vote.
Old people in my neck of the woods have started voting UKIP and are very upset about Tory plans to build new housing all over the place.
Of course it's a ploy to grab votes. Just like when the LibDems promised they'd be an effective moderating presence against the Tories in government.

By "buying votes" do you mean they are spending money how people want them to spend money? Is that not what a government is supposed to do?

They probably are protecting pensions to buy votes, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We are supposed to be able to vote for policies we want and politicians are supposed to do what we voted for. That's how democracy works.

I hope that governments always promise to protect pensions and that voters always vote in favour of that, otherwise the majority of us don't have a hope in hell of ever getting anything back off our government apart from the basic education and healthcare.

Pensions should be protected above all other benefits except sickness and disability ones because they are the one thing that every taxpayer will benefit from if they live long enough. Universal benefits are a good thing.

By "buying votes" do you mean they are spending money how people want them to spend money? Is that not what a government is supposed to do?

I think government is supposed to do things sensibly though - if you just did what everyone wanted you could increase holidays to 50 days a year and give everyone subsidised food and fuel like in France and nearly bankrupt your economy and end up completely uncompetitive with all your jobs going abroad.

Being in government shouldn't be a popularity contest, it should be about doing the best for the people and trying to balance the needs of everyone fairly, rather than by paying off the people most likely to vote for you.

Surely if people like what the hear and agree then that is the governments role.

And why do older people tend to vote more.... Can the rest not be bothered??

yes it is vote buying a lot of pensioners have had the benefit of buying council houses under thatcher and also they have had good pension payouts where as nowadays folk are really finding it hard

It's not a "latest pledge"

The triple lock on pensions was from the coalition document (and I think manifestos before that).

Oh I'm probably being really green-eyed monster and unreasonable aren't I?

For what it's worth, if I was a pensioner I'd probably be very happy with the pledge, but it does make me fume a little when my grandma sees her winter fuel allowance as spending money for her 3rd winter cruise this year! Guess that's one way to keep warm though....!

Protecting pensions does balance the needs of everyone fairly. Cutting other benefits might not, but that doesn't make it wrong to protect pensions.

Protecting universal pensions is fair to everyone because we all hope to live long enough to benefit from them. Even where a pensioner is wealthy enough not to need their state pension, it is fair to say that if they are wealthy then they are likely to have paid their fair share into the system over their working life, and there's nothing wrong with them getting something back for that in their old age. Especially when that money is either likely to be spent propping up the economy, or be taken back in inheritance tax when they die anyway.

"Being in government shouldn't be a popularity contest"

Yes it should. The parties should tell us what they're planning on doing and the most popular one should get elected.

Isn't that what politicians do?

I suppose it comes down to whether you think parties should keep their pledges in Government.

I think they are rightly panned when they don't.

But if, as here, they are also going to be panned when they do; then the situation becomes Kafka-esque.

It is the job of the Opposition to point out faults, flaws and better ways of doing things. But in the most recent I can find, they support the triple lock too.

Has anyone shown a proposal which alters the triple lock, and any rough outline of what that will do to the figures?

Being in government shouldn't be a popularity contest

Of course it should! That's the whole point of living in a democracy, the party (or in this case parties) representing the majority of voters are elected into Government. And how else would politicians expect to be elected??

The trouble comes if doing what's "popular" outweighs what's "right".

You could buy a lot of "popularity" by driving the nation into debt and giving an illusion of a particular standard of living.

And a number of extremely nasty dictators have been extremely "popular" too.

I really hope there's more to decisions on government than "popularity", though I have long suspected that it is more to do with fashion than anything else.

YANBU that is why it is important to vote, if you don't participate then you can't expect the politicians to take any notice of you.

I agree with you OP that they are courting older voters and I think it's a hugely unfair policy especially at a time when the poor and young are being attacked from every direction. I wouldn't want a pensioner in need of it to lose out but many pensioners are considerably wealthier than other generations. It should be means tested.

If younger people want their votes to count for something in the same way as the 'grey vote' does, then all they need to do is to go and vote on Election Day.

If they as a group don't make themselves seen and heard, then they don't have any right to complain that other groups make best use of their vote.

YANBU. It's so blatant as to be laughable.

Woo Woo perhaps we should be addressing just why the under25s aren't voting if that's the case. Rather than just dismissing in favour of a sure thing (the over 60s)

Dismissing THEM rather.

And, in answer to your earlier comment, I'm 38 and my hopes of receiving the same benefits as my parents when I get to 67/8 are a big fat zero. Will there even be pensions then?

I'm almost the same age as you, but I haven't completely given up hope of a state pension yet.

Maybe we should address the reasons why the under 25s or even the under 35s don't vote as much as older generations, but at the same time, maybe that is something that that group could address for themselves.

It's no one else's responsibility to make an individual use their vote. It's entirely personal.

If younger people want their votes to count for something in the same way as the 'grey vote' does, then all they need to do is to go and vote on Election Day.

I'm no longer part of the "younger people" contingent but I've voted in every national election since I was able to and this attitude really annoys me. It's not my fault if the rest of my generation don't bother to vote - short of voting myself and trying to encourage friends to vote, what else would you suggest I do?

I agree it's not your fault if others in your (or my) generation don't vote, but it's not the fault of pensioners either, so they shouldn't be penalised for the fact that they do.

Your earlier posts seem to suggest that you think it's not fair that the grey vote has influence, but it is entirely fair. It's democracy.

I think part of the reason younger people don't vote is because they only see our democracy as a choice between the lesser of the two evils. Neither of which stick to their election pledges anyway. I didn't vote for years because of this.

I have voted in the last 2 big elections. But I still feel it's just a 2 horse race, with no one 'courting' my vote particularly.