Jon Sopel: What is you reaction to these proposals?
Joan Bakewell: Well I’d like to know quite what they are because confusion has entered right away because they don’t see to have been thought through properly. The statistics that we have been given that they .. mean and women should both be retiring at 66 in 2016 means, if you follow that through, that women would have to jump three years in one particular year, it would have it rise .. the pensionable age would have to rise from 63 to 66. Now David Cameron ahs already said on the morning programme that that is unacceptable so we still aren’t sure how this is going to be resolved and there is going to be a review about it. So it is a bit of a confusion, however it is certainly the case that the age of state pensions will have to rise and I think it is very interesting that they are trying to bring men and women into the same sort of schedule of aging because of course women have a life expectancy much greater than that of men.
JS: Do you think that is a good thing?
JB: I think .. they collide. Yes it seems to me I think only just to men whose life expectancy is much shorter that they should not .. that women should not have an advantage over them, that doesn’t seem just and I think we must always be aiming for the just solution here. And I don’t think we have got that.
JS: The other thing about this is, if you speed up the timetable by which you want to introduce something like this, if you were planning your retirement and your are dependent on being able to draw the state pension at a certain age and suddenly find you can’t well then your plans are thrown into confusion?
JB: Yes well if I was women this very moment expecting to retire in sic years time and it was .. I beg your pardon, in ten years time which is the Labour Party target to 2020 and I was suddenly told that it was in five years, six years time, that would really .. those are the people who are going to be most upset you know .. the people who always seem to get the hard end of the stick however, those are the women who are going to be anxious, the women who are already looking forward to retirement in about .. and getting their pension when they ..erm ..getting their pension soon and it is now going to be extended by the Tories to an earlier date than Labour.
JS: Presumably the other people within that subsection who will be most effected are those that are most highly dependent on the state pension, maybe it is fine if you have got a private occupational pension that you can fall back on or other money but if your livelihood is dependent on receiving the state pension that could also affect you?
JB: Oh the pension is a lifeline for many, many people. You know people you are at the bottom end of the financial scale look forward to getting their pension, it makes a great difference in their lives including modest perks like the fuel allowance and the free bus pass and these all add up to extremely important advantages to people who deserve it and who haven’t got other resources, they may not even own their own house. So I mean of course these kind of changes hit people who perhaps least deserve it.
5 comments ↓
I think the proposals are unjust. When I started work and paid my taxes I entered into an agreement that I would recieve a pension when I was 60 years old. The goal posts have now changed considerably. Any changes in length of service should apply to those just starting work when entering int o the agreement.
To raise money immediately STOP paying a pension to those who have decided to carry on working past retirement. They should decide, work or recieve a pension. If they take their pension it would then make way for the unemployed, if they decide to work it would save the Government money.
I left school, went to college for which my parents paid for and have worked with no break in service to present date, over 36 years, paying taxes. I am now told I am expected to work another 3 years.
UNFAIR
My wife, who was born in 1956, has had her state pension moved from 60 to 65 under Labour. The Tory plan now means she cannot take her pension until she is 66. That is grossly unfair and a sure -fire vote looser!
This is just a “fishing expedition” and the “thin end of the wedge” to see how much they can get away with and what the level of protest will be. Those who have not caused the economic troubles are going to have to pay more .Also doing this at such short notice undermines the whole National Insurance ethos. Seven or eight years (away from retirement at 65) is not long enough to be a reasonable period of notice : it amounts to retrospective change as people in this age group have already paid the agreed amount for a majority of the “qualifying period” : it is similar to a breach of contract and is certainly a serious breach of faith.
I am due to reach 60 in 4 years time – so I am being made to wait a further 3 years before I can obtain a state pension at 63 as it is.
As I already have paid enough to get a full pension – making me wait a further 3 years is very unjust. Perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to prevent the number of qualifying years being reduced for both men and women to only 30 each. We cannot afford to pay out on this scale.
I have voted Conservative all my life but not if this goes through. A very serious vote loser. Myhusband is also 58 and will be made to wait until he is 66. How can anyone made plans for retirement when the goalposts keep chaning so close to retirement. I feel robbed as it is, as most of my friends can get a pension at 60. Very unjust to bring this is and the money raised by penalising this small bracket of people is just a drop in the ocean for the money it will raise.
We have had the spending review this week and predictably women of my age have been hardest hit. I was born in March 1954. My State Pension Age (SPA) was due to be March 2016 under the already draconian transition arrangements but my pension has now been delayed by two years with less than 7.5 years notice. I will have to wait 6 years longer than some of my near contemporaries who retired at 60 this year and 3 years longer than women just a year older than me who retire at 63 in 2016. It is grossly unjust and all we get from the Coalition is the mantra that the Spending Review is fair. In the male dominated press there is almost no coverage of this injustice.
Leave a Comment