Who will lose out through the one limb chopped off the triple lock?
The kids who are coming along, your 40, 50 year olds. The state pension will have slipped behind thanks to their wonderful leftie Labour government who they love to love because they aren't Conservatives and who they, and you, loved to vote for.
So there you are. You made your bed, you can lie in it.
(The triple lock means that the state pension rises by inflation, or 2.5% or in line with average earnings. By lopping off the average earnings limb your kids will lose out on the pension because it will not have grown as we have had it grow). So there you go, vote Labour and this is what you get over and over again. They'll hit you. This time it is going to be the kids who'll find the pension has lagged well and truly by the time they are eligible for it and the average earnings growth factor will have let it go.
The triple lock has helped the British state pension and it is now a lot more respectable than it was although it still lags behind many European countries.
How Burnham expects the state pension to hold its value relative to earnings (the bit that is being taken away) is hard to say because he didn't explain how. Because as we all know, it won't. Your kids are going to suffer.
It's also funny because it is easy to con the voter by telling them that all this is going to help welfare and social care for the elderly and going into homes will be on a more level playingfield. I note from a few comments that already the gullible fools believe that a place in a care home will become forever free under Labour. Read the small print babes. Even Burnham admits that this will not and cannot be the case. But people just don't read, listen or (fail to) assimilate what they hear.
And do you really want the Britain of Andy Burnham's father, weep, weep, pass the bowl I need to vomit, no, the Labour Britain of the 1970s was a very bleak time.
When the labour took properties after the war, they gave the tennants the idea that if they complained to the labour councils that there properties needed improvement, that the council would put it right, but didnt realize that the council would take away the properties and pay the landlords just a small amount. Of course when the council put the rents up, without making any improvements and then kept the tennants in the same properties for a number of years, they were not happy.
ReplyDeleteIt was a time when there was no NHS or pensions for the elderly. My grand father had bought a few properties ,so that my grandmother would have some money to live on. When my father tried to reason with the labour council about it, they just said , Well she will just have to go on welfare. It was indicated to my father that if he 'helped with the expenses' of the counciller, that a different resolution would be possible .!!
The soldier coming back from the war, believed all the promises that labour made, thats how they got into power.
Things dont change much, do they.
The Rate payers association was one of the local parties and they I gather were of some help.
Kathy xx
I went to a talk on this subject on the houses of Norwich after WW1 when many soldiers who died believed that their wives would be supported by rents on properties the soldiers left in situ for them in case of their death in the war. Mostly some rents of 1/- per week - this was not the land of the prosperous landlord. . The compulsory purchase of the properties only covered the land the property stood on, not the property itself. The wives were left in a situation that had not been foreseen by their husbands who fought in the Great War. The archives of Norwich contain the cases of the hardship and the solicitors who acted for the widows and who were given no hearings. It makes very hard reading and lessons to be learned.
DeleteThanks for commenting Kathy. xx
As someone who first became aware of and interested in politics when Wilson ousted Douglas-Hume in the 1960s I have always had a visceral loathing of all Labour administrations and their destructive actions towards the economy. I was trying to get started in work during the Wilson/Callaghan 1970s, and we'll remember just how dire that time was. Of course, Burnham is too young to have any real idea of just how bad it was, he just wants to destroy the country by taking us back there, and likely to an IMF bail-out as well.
ReplyDeleteAs I have written here many times before, I have dreadful memories of the Wilson government and what it did to Britain. Being a family with a small business and a death to cope with and the devastating inheritance tax then in place for farmers under the Wilson government. Then came the oil crisis and being a road haulier on top of all that I have some of the worst memories imaginable of that time. The only good Wilson did was keep us out of Vietnam.
DeleteOver here, our government has chosen to emulate the UK in recent years with the triple lock but it is obviously not sustainable here in the longer term. Many years ago (25 or more) I realised that it would not be wise for me to rely on just the state pension in my retirement so I had always invested a large percentage of my salary each month into various occupational pension schemes - always the maximum allowed - to ensure some sort of decent income on retirement. Although it meant far less of my salary to spend on luxuries during my working life, it now means that I can live reasonably well in my retirement, without having to rely on the state pension.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this may not be an option for many people who did not, or do not have, access to similar schemes so I consider myself fortunate.
I know many who have only their state pension and some who also through no fault of their own have only the state pension because they were robbed of occupational pension savings through false practices of business owners, both large and small, well known and not so well known. The lopping of the third arm of the triple lock will in the longer term harm the state pension sustaining itself to keep up with a decent income. We have had a decent few years of growth although still nowhere near other European countries.
Delete