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)???

Well I kind of disagree I think. If an entire section of society doesn't think that it's worth their whole voting because it won't have any effect on them, I think that's society's problem. Why do they feel so disenfranchised and out of the loop? I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in, bwcauae....well, why not?

X posts with fluffy.

It is definitely a vote buying tactic but IMHO the Torys will not honour this pledge as they have a tendency not to honour any campaign promises they make.

Pension isn't a lot just googled and it £110.10 per week.

Oap generally can't work, I know there is some pensioners that do.

Where as a heathy adult does have the opportunity to work, retrain and have WTC ect to top their income. < rose tinted glass emotion>

I agree that it is society's problem, but I don't think it's the sort of problem that is down to the government to fix.

Well it doesn't suit the current government to fix, let alone address, so there's no worries on that score.

Just feels a little like part of their demonising of the younger generation. "We know they won't vote, so fuck 'em. Pensioners, on the other hand....."

It didn't suit the last government to fix it either, or they would have done.

I'm not a huge fan of the government, but I don't think it's fair to say that this is something to do with them demonising the young. The government can't be held responsibility for the personal choices of individuals.

Responsible!

YNBU OP.

Every single senior I know votes. They may vote swing toward Tory, who knows.

But how is it different to NewLabour courting the young vote during its Cool Britannia cringe-fest?

YANBU.

They promised DLA was safe, it was one of the first things to go.

They make me want to vomit, honestly. But if you read the DM comments, the OAPs say they deserve it because they paid in, but they forget everything they have taken out!

YANBU OP,

We need to switch to the Australian system, where voting in general elections is compulsory.

Unless and until we do this, the older generation will continue to dominate the political agenda.

If we scrapped the Winter Fuel Allowance, we could also scrap university tuition fees in their entirety and the effect to the treasury would be cost neutral.

If it's vote-buying, then Labour are offering exactly the same transaction:

Ed Miliband on Labour's absolute commitment to triple lock

They are doing it because the oaps vote.
Younger people, and increasingly the squeezed middle, don't.
It's going to be an interesting few months as the Tories play their real hand (tax cuts for rich, less money for education and the NHS) and the lib dems go down the plughole.

I don't really see why preserving pensions for future generations involves gold plating pensions now. Surely there is more chance of pensions for the next generation of the elderly if everyone shares equally in the austerity measures now?

Maybe they are doing it because pensioners vote, but then as labour are promising the same thing, it might not be worth much.

There is a small chance that they are doing it because they believe that a state pension is a fair and reasonable thing to expect after an entire working lifetime paying into the system, and because many pensioners do actually need the money.

There is a small chance that they are doing it because they believe that a state pension is a fair and reasonable thing to expect after an entire working lifetime paying into the system, and because many pensioners do actually need the money

The generation who are paying for this though i.e. us, will most likely not get a pension of our own, despite having also paid into the system for a lifetime.

Do you not see how unfair this is? We are paying for the current generation of pensioners to have something that we will never be able to have ourselves (or indeed our children).

Thanks everyone, I feel slightly clearer on the subject now. I still think it's unbalanced in favour of pensioners, but I totally take on board the point that protecting pensions today also protects them tomorrow (even if I'm slightly cynical about how long tomorrow extends for...)

Yes but that is working on the assumption that we definitely won't get a state pension when we retire, when there is no guarantee of that.

If we want any chance of getting a state pension, then we have to do everything we can to preserve it now, and that means supporting pensions for current pensioners.

Over 26, 000 over 75s died of cold last winter. Maybe you'll get lucky, OP, and temperatures will drop, that should cull a few more that are draining the public purse.

Old people vote, the younger people get the more they say their vote doesn't count for anything and make sure that is true by not voting! Any politician party has to stay in power to do the things they want to do, so they have to look after their voters.
To Those who say "no-one represents my views" or "the parties are too similar", "that's why I don't vote" - It is not anyone else's responsibility to set up a party to represent your minority views except yours. The reason the parties are so similar are because the majority if people think the country should be run broadly as it is now. Those who try to stand on radical agendas don't get support because they don't represent what most people want.

I think the problem here is that 'when you retire' is proving to be a rather more elastic concept than previously thought.

There may well be a (conceptual) state pension when our DCs and GDCs reach the age of 60 or 70, my fear is that by that point the age at which one becomes eligible for a state pension will be 80/90ish, hence many people will not live long enough to claim it.

nonmifairidere I made the point about Winter fuel allowance, not OP.

I stand by my point though, a shocking number of people can't afford to heat their homes, old or otherwise. I don't see any non-means tested benefits being given to non-pensioners who are struggling to heat their homes - in fact even more money is being taken from them to give to pensioners.

When the state pension was started people only lived something like three years after retirement on average, now it is often more than 20 years. The number of older people is increasing in relation to the number of young people. By the time my parents and PILs were my age (early 50s) all of their parents had died; DH and I have three left (one of whom has dementia, which is a whole other big problem brewing).

This shift in the demographic of the population is going to go on causing big problems for us all. If people cannot retire then they need to go on working, which will put still more pressure on jobs. This problem is even worse in Germany I believe.