Biscuitman

My pension paper recommends that ALL the political parties shall sign an agreement that the basic rules of OUR State Pension can only be changed by a National Referendum. The purpose of this is to restore public faith in pensions.

My recommendation in this area was formulated after reading the following comments made by respondents in a paper by the Institute of Actuaries entitled “Public Expectations of Pension Provision”.

This is a lengthy posting but reading it will help you understand the concerns of your electorate and why we as a party have a winning strategy on pensions.

The study uses two main sources of information: a series of questions on trust in state and private provision in the 2002 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey commissioned by the writer as part of an Economic and Social Research Council-financed study (Public Policy: Knowledge, Expectations and Attitudes, ref R000239199, Taylor-Gooby, 2003), and a specially commissioned 2004 focus group study on attitudes, expectations and ideas about pensions in the context of how people plan for the future.

The focus group discussions carried out as part of this study provide contrasts between middle and working class groups and men and women in two locations in southern England. (Socio economic group of the respondent indicated after each comment).

Uncertainty and the Future of Pensions
Across the groups, many of those participating in the discussions expressed vague future expectations, both positive and negative, relatively limited knowledge and uncertainty about where reliable sources of advice could be found for financial planning. Divisions in the responses to future uncertainty between middle class and working class groups were evident.

The former tended to think in terms of approaches, which would enable them to expect some control over savings. The working class discussants were much less likely to envisage the possibility of establishing such control. Many participants felt unable to plan confidently for their income in retirement in the context of the unpredicted shifts they experienced or witnessed during the course of their lives:

‘My whole situation changed, my mum and dad they saved all their life for retirement and then they retire and a year INTO phpbb_retirement….. her husband died, she’s left with all this money, her house deteriorated, she’s never going to spend it before she dies.’
(BC1, Women)

‘And, who knows, in twenty years time that some terrible fatal disease might not overtake more of us than AIDS did. Life is so frigging utterly unpredictable so what is the point in worrying about whether you’re going to have you know, like £500 in your account.’
(BC1, Women)

‘Also I think, well for me anyway in the last few years, everything’s changed so many times that to ask somebody to say what’s going to happen in twenty-five years time which is probably you know where I am, sixty-five, my son and my daughter will be forty, how on earth will they predict changes that are going to happen in their lives you know, whether property’s going to crash or rise you know two or three times, stock markets, war you know, we might run out of oil, who knows, so it’s a very difficult thing to sit down and go: “Right, in twenty-five years time…”.’
(BC1, Men)

‘Life changes your plans, plans you make, financial, by nature you can’t keep to those plans, loads of different things.’
(C2D, Men)

‘Also a lot of times you think of how many people take out pensions when they are single and all of a sudden their circumstances change along the way, jobs change, pay changes, family, everything, other things take priority financially and you can’t maybe afford to pay the particular policy that you were paying for in the first place.’
(C2D, Men)

These concerns were expressed in the context of generalised assumptions about flexibility and uncertainty in the course of working life. Fear of redundancy was mentioned a number of times by the working class participants, who typically had little in the way of financial reserves:

‘And all it needs is for the economy to go to, to change again and then you end up with people losing their jobs you know and all the rest of it, everything all crashes, the housing crashes and everything else, it’s all right when you’re earning money and you haven’t got nothing to pay for, but you suddenly find you’re trying to live the life you were living and still got the same amount of debts and expenses to pay out and you know just because of the economic climate you end up doing a totally different job and things happen, so you don’t know what’s round the corner.’
(C2D, Men)

‘I mean the jobs like now, you don’t know what’s round the corner now do you, I mean jobs you’re working, you don’t know if you’re getting made redundant or you know.’
(C2D, Men)

The generalised uncertainty was reflected in views on pensions. For some working class participants, occupational pensions were seen as fitting an outdated industrial work pattern:

‘I mean years ago when you got a job, I mean my parents, he was at Vauxhall you know and you know, you would guarantee that you would get your job for life but you know you were guaranteed that job for life, you’d pay INTO phpbb_your pension. The thing is nowadays there is no job for life.’
(C2D, Women)

Some middle class participants expressed confidence that they would be in a position to reduce uncertainties by enforcing what they saw as their pension rights. For such group-members, control of savings was seen as important, whereas the working class group tended to have very little in the way of savings and limited expectations of control:

‘I’m happy that the company’s large enough and it’s got enough, well investment, it’s got enough so I can sue the arms off of it if they don’t pay me so because it’s mandatory and it’s in my contract that you will get this amount of money, then I know I can sue them for it if they don’t pay me.
(BC1, Men)

‘It’s control really, I mean personally if I’m not in control then it’s very difficult to trust, I got a phone call from the American guys and the Spanish people telling me to invest in the Euro and they were getting so much and opened a Swiss Bank account. I said, “OK how do I?”, they said, “You come through us”, and I said, “Then it’s not my account then, is it?”.’
(BC1, Men)

‘It’s really track record isn’t it, I mean if the track record of all these companies had been good and sound then we would be investing in it, we’d be taking our pensions out but because of all the hiccups along the way through our lifetime we’re saying hey, that’s not such a good idea basically, I go on track record and I suppose I have to feel confident and my confidence is not there.’
(BC1, Men)

Some of the working class participants were conscious that they had very little
knowledge or understanding about pensions, and had clearly given such matters little, if any, thought.

‘I don’t know anything about this to be honest, I don’t know how much, you see I don’t know how much you get, I don’t know how much you have to pay out.’
(C2D, Women)

Few participants felt that there was any outside person or organisation on whom they would rely for advice concerning pensions and investment. Middle class members of the groups tended to feel that they were able to manage the problem of gaining adequate information and could rely on such sources as the financial press:

‘I trust my instincts, that’s what I trust.’
(BC1, Women)

‘Yes if you read a lot of papers and you read a lot and you just pick something, you can get a thread can’t you.’
(BC1, Women)

‘I’m at that stage where I want to learn more, I want to do something and I don’t know where to go, I don’t know who to trust.’
(C2D, Women)

‘I did tend to read the cash pages in the Sunday papers just to keep my eye on what’s going on so yes but I probably couldn’t lecture anybody else about it, but I know basically.’
(C2D, Women)

A few had used a financial adviser they trusted because a friend or family member had provided a personal recommendation, but in general most people had no idea how to find a reliable adviser. There was strong awareness that advice might be vitiated by a conflict of interest:.

‘Well again probably somebody, somebody personal because like you were just saying if you look to a financial advisor or somebody who works for a company you are concerned that they’re trying to sell you something and it might not actually be really what’s best for you, it’s just that they have a particular commission they need to make and they need to push you in that direction.’
(BC1, Women)

Thus, future prospects were generally seen as uncertain, with middle class participants particularly concerned to find ways to establish control over their savings.

State and Private Pensions: Trust, Adequacy and Security
There was little confidence that state pensions would provide adequate standards of living in the future. None of the middle class participants felt that the state pension would provide them with sufficient to live on at an acceptable level, and that they therefore needed to make alternative investments:

‘Well I always regard the state pension as I’d use for the future but I’ve always thought of it as not effective in sustaining a level of living, just as sort of extra money, you couldn’t possibly deem to live on it.’
(BC1, Men)

‘Well I think in my case I was living abroad for so many years and I’m finding it quite a struggle in England and also I have to rely on the state pension and I’m worrying because the state pension’s not going to be much.’
(BC1, Women)

While the view that state pensions would be inadequate was widespread, most respondents believed that the government would provide very basic support. This view was stressed most strongly by working class discussants and was an important element in the assumptions about planning for the future:

‘I can’t see that they can all of a sudden just remove income support and that safety, they can’t because there are so many, I mean when people are old and vulnerable they can’t all of a sudden say right, we’re not going to pay income support any more, you’re not going to get it, because they’d all be dying wouldn’t they you know, people would be dying of starvation and hypothermia so there’s no way they can just go right, that’s it, there’s no more state.’
(BC1, Women)

‘At the end of the day they’re now saying the government, the state pension is only supposed to be a safety net for those that are most in need. That wasn’t what it was supposed to be was it.’
(C2D, Women)

This led to an ambivalence in trust. A number of the working class discussants, particularly women, felt that they would have trust in the state to provide for them in the future, if only because they could see no other form of provision and believed they would not be allowed to starve. Trust in this sense is linked to lack of alternatives, and is analogous to Hirschman’s conception of ‘loyalty’ (1970);

Facilitator: You do have confidence in the government to carry on providing?
Participant: I don’t think they’ll have any choice.
F: Right.
P: I don’t think they’ll want to, but I don’t think they’ll have any choice, there will always be an old age pension of some form in this country.
F: And do you think it will be adequate to live on?
P: Mind you the cost of living rises far quicker than any pension increases.
P: I don’t think it will be.

This conception existed alongside widespread mistrust of the state. A number of those in the working class groups felt that they would need to keep working indefinitely, as they did not believe the state pension would allow them a tolerable standard of living:

‘Government pensions are rubbish.’
(C2D, Women)

‘My dad is seventy-two and he has worked all his life, I mean he has worked all his life, he’s still working now because he can’t live on his pension. I think now, now it’s becoming more of a problem I mean you know ten years ago the pension system wasn’t as bad, people are living longer I mean you know when the pension was first sort of designed, people didn’t live that long but now people are living longer so it is, it has hit the problems that we’ve got now.’
(C2D, Women)

‘For our generation I don’t think we can rely on, I think by the time we get there it will be mean- tested’
(C2D, Women)

There was a widespread feeling across all the groups that the government’s record on keeping its pension promises was such that they would not trust anything the government said about pension provision in the future. The present Labour government was particularly poorly valued, especially by the middle class participants, but it seemed likely that similar comments would apply to any party of government:

‘I don’t think you can rely on the government, the government track record is: “Let’s take money from you”, and, “Oh sorry, you’re high and dry”, certainly that’s the way my parents feel being pensioners at the moment, there is no reason to assume that past performance isn’t going to continue and the only person I can think of to rely on about my future is me.’
(BC1, Men)

‘But I think there’s been so much happen with the government in the last couple of years you can’t trust them as far as you can throw them.’
(C2D, Women)

‘But the government are so corrupt they tell you what they want you to know.’
(BC1, Women)

Despite the lack of trust in the government as a pension provider, there was even less trust on the whole in private pension providers, especially among the working class groups. Insurance companies were viewed as the obvious private pension providers, but there was little faith in them.

‘All the insurance companies, they’re corrupt.’
(BC1, Women)

‘I mean the government ain’t in it for the money as much as the private pension is.’
(C2D, Women)

‘They’re all commission based and they’re all attached to products, they’re going to promise you anything to sign that piece of paper.’
(C2D, Women)

‘I think it depends who it is, if you’re talking about a private pension you’re buying from an insurance company then it probably wouldn’t be great, I wouldn’t have much faith in it but I think if it was through a big employer that you’re working for, I would, I would have faith in them.’
(C2D, Women)

‘At the end of the day they’re just insurance companies and any insurance company that insures your car and insures your house and insures your life and insures your pension and insures you know, virtually everything you can think of, buy a bit of jewellery and you’ve got to, they want you to have insurance on that, I mean insurance companies make money out of people big time.’
(C2D, Men)

‘I suppose the Maxwell thing kind of got me thinking you know, you get some tycoon who could quite easy run off with all your pension savings or what have you, it’s a possibility, it’s at the back of my mind sometimes but whether that will happen to me I don’t know.’
(C2D, Men)

Some middle-class group members pointed out that private pension providers also faced the same problems of financial instability that made planning difficult for individuals and corporate bodies:

‘They don’t have control of the markets, do they, and I think that’s what everybody realises, it’s not so much their glossy product turns up on your desk and it’s nicely laid out and you can really trust, the man on the front’s smiling and holding his hand out to shake your hand, it doesn’t matter you know, the American economy goes tits up because the Arabs put up the price of oil per barrel, that’s it, bang goes any pension and I think people are very, very aware of that, they’re far more educated about this sort of thing than they were say in the ‘80s when I first came across things like endowments and pensions’
(BC1, Men)

Even those with occupational pensions did not entirely trust the providers. The strongest confidence was in large public companies which were seen to have an interest in maintaining their reputation, or in public sector employers:

‘I have a company pension, I don’t have an awful lot of faith in it, I don’t know why I’ve still got it really but I just thought it was a good idea when I thought I should be doing something.’
(BC1, Women)

‘I mean big companies like Marks and Spencer I’m sure they you know, they’ve got people that know what they’re talking about but I worked for a private firm, a company, it was only a small one and they didn’t even offer a pension.’
(BC1, Women)

‘I worked for the NHS and the NHS have a really good pension fund so when I left the NHS that’s all frozen so I’ve got a little lump sum, don’t know what I’m going to do with it.’
(C2D, Women)

‘But my parents are both teachers as well and they’ve done quite well by all accounts but I was always told that the teacher pension was good and I never really questioned that too much and then sitting here listening it seems, well as I say I’ve been told it’s a good one.’
(BC1, Men)

Many participants, particularly working class participants, simply did not know who they could trust for pension provision. So many things had happened in recent years that even their faith in large organisations had been eroded.

‘I suppose the larger the organisation, you would hope that you would get the backup at the end of the day of whatever they say, because it’s a large organisation they could financially support themselves but as you’ve seen over the years with banks and other bits and pieces, things happen and the big ones do fall, so…’
(C2D, Men)

In general, trust in most forms of pension provision was low.

Social Divisions in Managing Mistrust
The evidence of the focus groups and the analysis of the BSA data agree in indicating widespread mistrust of state and private pension providers and concern about the future.

The focus group discussions also indicated some divisions in the way different social groups responded to a common lack of confidence in pension institutions.

Working class people tended to arrive at a position of trust in the state, simply because they lacked a viable alternative. For middle-class people, the issue was more of how to plan and manage savings in such a way as to provide an adequate retirement income, given that current forms of pension provision were seen as unsatisfactory.

Here, the question of how far they felt able to control investments was important. A shared perception of limited confidence led to rather different responses in different social groups, and to concentration on rather different time horizons.

Many of the working class participants, and particularly women, felt that the everyday demands, particularly from children, consumed all disposable income.

Given what they saw as low incomes, their concern was with feeding and clothing their families and they simply had no available money to invest in a pension or anything else for the longer term:

‘As long as there’s enough money in my purse to go shopping with, that’s all I worry about, I don’t worry about tomorrow, if it’s going to go, spend it first.’
(C2D, Women)

‘No, when I was married obviously we had pensions but obviously he went and so did the pensions and you bring up kids on your own and they’re growing, you just don’t worry about things like that.’
(C2D, Women)

‘I’m not going to write myself off, I wouldn’t do that but it’s the fact is that, you know, I know I’ve got ten years more with children you know, supporting children. You know, quite honestly that’s more important, I’d rather support my children than me old age.’
(C2D, Women)

‘It’ll be all right if I earned like forty grand so I’ve got to re-educate, I’m going to be going down the same lines as you, re-educate myself eventually when my kids are a bit older, and then I’ll start thinking about pensions’
(C2D, Women)

‘My situation is I have a big family and I have to, it’s pension or food on the table.’
(C2D, Men)

This was particularly evident among women. The working class women pointed out that women tended to have a number of changes in jobs and careers because they tend to stop work or work part-time when they have families (see Daly, 2001, for European data on the impact of child-care on women’s patterns of paid working, and the particularly high rate of part-time employment among mothers in the UK). This means that it is more difficult for them to accrue any satisfactory sort of pension.

‘And also we swap our jobs, I think as women we tend to swap jobs. I had a good pension back at the airport when I was working there but that was before I had the kids and then it all gets put on hold and then and I remember opting out of SERPS, but to be honest I can’t even remember the ins and outs of that.’
(C2D, Women)

These perceptions led to what might be seen as ‘Hobson’s choice’ loyalty or ‘hopeful trust’ in the state. This came out most strongly in the discussion of the group of working-class women, where there was a clear ambivalence between an assumption that government would ultimately provide, and concern about the adequacy of provision:

Facilitator: What I really wanted to ask about was going back to trust, I mean do you trust government in terms of pensions?
Participant: Yes.
P: I do.
P: Yes.
P: I don’t trust the government at all.
P: I’m at that stage where I want to learn more, I want to do something and I don’t know where to go, I don’t know who to trust.
Facilitator: Right.
P: I would trust the government more than anybody else.
P: Hmm mmm, yeah but it’s also like you can go to an independent financial advisor, it’s everything, I just think well I suppose it’s me, I feel I’ve been wronged anyway and I want to make sure I do the right thing and I’m, but I’m just like, oh I can’t be bothered thinking about it now.
Facilitator: So who doesn’t trust the government because a lot of you said yes.
P: It’s hope, we hope and rely on the government, it’s not a case we actually trust the government
P: But at the end of the day there’ll always be a government won’t there.
P: There will always be a government so you’ll always have someone

Among middle class groups the state pension was seen as relatively unimportant and confidence in private pensions was relatively low. This led to a diversified approach to investment for old age, in which property played an important role, together with the establishing of small businesses:

‘I think it’s very difficult to plan at all because everybody thought endowments were safe (hurrah I’ve got one of those as well), then property was fine and then that crashed and it’s so difficult to know what you’re going to do… my plans have spread to so many things and so many different pies, investment’s going to go down, and property’s going to do something soon, it’s got to especially down here, it’s ridiculous actually.’
(BC1, Men)

A few middle class participants had invested in ISAs, but these were clearly not an important part of their investment portfolio. Again, control was important as indicated earlier in the section on uncertainty:

‘I think I’d be happy investing in companies rather than the stock market as a whole so then at least you’re in control, you can go “Right, I’m pretty sure that that company’s going to do well”, and it’s not going with a stock broker, not going with them because then you’ve got your control back and if it goes wrong it’s your fault, but I think at the moment there is very little gain compared to the risk of putting in.’
(BC1, Men)

Home-ownership was regarded as an important source of security, particularly among the middle class participants:

‘But surely today I mean the majority of people own their own houses now, that’s sort of happened more as I say we have more finances around us, more comfort compared perhaps to our grandparents day you know or whatever, … If things go wrong we can sell the house and do whatever, we can rent for the rest of our lives if we have a lump sum behind us you know so there is that comfort, we do have something behind.’
(BC1, Men)

‘Maybe I’m a bit frivolous I mean I’m tending to enjoy myself now and think about my retirement when it happens, which may be foolish or whatever but I’m still relying very heavily on my property, you know, so it’s that scenario.’
(BC1, Men)

Property ownership was also important in relation to a minority of the working class participants:

‘I own half a house and I hope that when I retire, if I’ve got nothing else, at least I’ve got the benefit of knowing that I’ve got income in the house which is called equity in the house.’
(C2D, Men)

Confidence in property as a suitable area of investment to help deal with an uncertain future was also strong among the middle class group:

‘Well I mean I, there’s been so much bad press about pensions and I personally am thinking I’m going to buy another property instead and rent it out. At the moment I’m seeing a financial advisor about that, I’m going to probably buy another property, rent it out and keep it and then when I’m older sell it.’
(BC1, Women)

‘So I bought it [a flat] five years ago, I’ve been renting it so I’ve been renting it out, already it’s doubled, well over doubled in value.’
(BC1, Women)

‘I don’t have a pension because I’ve gone in for the more investment property thing, we’re thinking about buying more property abroad because it seems the way forward, pensions never really appeal to me, especially after the collapses now.’
(BC1, Men)

In general, the clearest division to emerge lies between those (mainly middle-class people) who feel able to manage their savings in ways that would give them a measure of control, those, mainly from the working class, and especially women, who were only able to manage their uncertainty through a kind of hopeful but limited trust that government would provide for their basic needs.

Both quantitative and qualitative studies indicate widespread mistrust of state and private pensions, based on perceptions of broken promises by government and scandals in the private sector.

However, the response of different groups differs. Essentially, working class groups are more likely to end up feeling a sort of dull, compulsory trust for state provision, because they see no alternative, while middle class groups are more likely to pursue alternative savings and investments in order to meet their needs.

Issues of control are important here, and one aspect is the extent to which those who can afford to do so feel confident that they have greater control over investments like buy-to-rent flats, compared with pension funds. Whether the middle class people interviewed will in practice secure adequate provision in old age through such means is unclear.

This review of attitudes and responses to pensions leads to a number of points. At the theoretical level, the interpretations of declining trust reviewed earlier that suggested differences between social groups are supported. Social group differences seem to extend beyond the experience of trust to ways of managing the uncertainties that result from declining trust.

To put it crudely, middle class, better-educated, more confident people tend to pursue alternative investment strategies, while working class people pursue a reluctant loyalty to the state, because they believe that no alternative is
available to them.

Women are particularly affected by the impact of family responsibilities on the continuity of their working lives. Pension expectations are socially divided. This points to continuing and different roles for government policy in relation to pension provision for different social groups.
At the practical policy level, the study supports three points:

_ Trust in social institutions has declined and trust in pensions is particularly low. The BSA findings show that trust in both state and private pensions is lower than in other areas where there are substantial state and non-state alternatives, such as medical care and education.

The focus group interviews show how trust has been damaged by the poor public image of some companies, the widespread coverage of incidents such as the Maxwell scandal and ‘mis-selling’ in the early 1990s, and perceptions of weak regulation. Trust in pensions also suffers as a result of the high levels of uncertainty about the medium and long-term future and the current buoyancy of alternatives such as buy-to-let.
Implications for Policy and for the
Current developments in regulation for non-state pensions and the introduction of new SSPs and PCs in the state sector to improve trust in pensions have not yet improved the level of trust and are likely to take some time to do so.

_ In the context of declining trust, different approaches are relevant to the expectations of different groups. Middle class people in general wish to feel a high degree of control over investments, and to be confident that they understand why and how the investment is secure and offers good returns. This suggests that more flexible and transparent pension contracts may be more attractive. Tax regime, the availability of employer’s contributions and evidence that regulation is effective are also relevant. Trust in pensions is low. A higher degree of flexibility and individual control over the investment may improve the confidence of middle class people in private pensions; state
pensions are likely to play a continuing significant role for those on lower incomes, unless this group can be convinced that pension investment is affordable and worthwhile for people under their circumstances.

Paul Birch

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. We don't really have any basic rules. There's no direct link between the NI "fund" and the payment of the state pension (that's the big fraud). There's a practice of index-linking the amount year by year, with further increases whenever the government of the day wants to buy a few more votes, but I don't know that that really qualifies as a basic rule. It's not clear to me what the terms of any referendum could be (eg, a question "should the over eighties receive an additional £10 a week" would be inappropriate unless it also decreed where the extra money would come from, which in turn would seem to give the National Referendum arbitrary legislating power). Please clarify.

Biscuitman

By "we" I don't mean us as a nation I refer to UKIPs pension policy.

It seems you haven't read my research paper on which the policy is based.

http://pensionsmeltdown.blogspot.com/

If you scroll down to near the end you will find:-

In essence; £115 a week for single pensioners, £172.50 for married couple, indexed at 25% of NAE, payable at age 65 with residential qualification. These rules, such as they are, can only be changed by referendum.

"Residential Qualification" means that instead of being based on NI contributions, which penalises working wives, it is based on having lived in the country for 20 years, 5 of which must be in the last 10.

Full costings for our pensions policy are included in the paper and you will fnd the answers to any other questions you have.

Hope that clarifies matters.

__________________
IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

Paul Birch

Not entirely. It's not the policy stuff I'm unclear on, it's the referendum business. I can see that UKIP could have a policy to set up some basic conditions for the state pension, which it would then promise subsequently only to change by referendum. However, I don't see why other parties should bind themselves to accepting UKIP's position this way. Or do you mean you think they ought to have their own sets of policies, which they would also promise not to change except by referendum? Or are you saying there should be a referendum to change the current system?

I also repeat my query concerning the scope of any referendum. Do you want any referendum on the pension system to constitute legal authority in itself? Or do you want parties to commit themselves to put any pensions legislation to a binding plebiscite for approval? If the latter, I suppose that could work, so long as the legislation were itself well-formed. In effect, you would be giving the electorate a veto on major changes (but not the power to force them). I could go along with that.

Biscuitman

If you read the eight recommendations at the end of my paper.

All parties will be asked to sign an agreement that the basics of the state pension, as detailed in my earlier reply, can only be changed by referendum.

Failure by any party to to this would be electoral suicide.

We are just talking about the basic five points of our pensions.

We HAVE to restore confidence that the State will provide an absolute guarantee against absolute poverty and drum INTO phpbb_the public that that is ALL the State Pension will be.

We then have to encourage personal provision of retirement income.

__________________
IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

Paul Birch

So far as I can see, they don't answer my questions at all.

I don't see why it would be in their interest to sign up to your paricular proposal at all. Why wouldn't they prefer their own policies? Why would it be in their interest to agree to use referenda, if they already have a Parliamentary mandate? As a rule, governments only agree to a referendum when there is a vociferous demand for one (something I see no sign of re pension rules).

You're still not explaining what you mean by "changed by referendum". Do you mean legislation ratified or vetoed by plebiscite? Or what?

Biscuitman

I'll try again...

1)-for any party to say to the electorate we wont sign a pledge to guarantee your basic pensions would be political suicide... if you cant see that then there is no point me trying to edify you any further.

2) I cannot put this any plainer than I already have... the five basics of the pension...

The starting amount; the indexation; the age at which it is received at; the qualification for entitlement; change only by referendum cannot be tampered with by ANY future government unless the population by menas of a referendum agree to them doing so.... I am assuming that the public would not agree to any change unless it was benificial... i.e no future government could, as Thatcher did, reduce pensions by linking them to the RPI index rather than NAE(National Average Earnings).

If you read my original posting at the head of this thread the WHOLE point is that people do not trust the government to provide pensions in the future.

We are proposing to guarantee that no future givernment can change, for the worse, the state basic pension.

__________________
IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

Paul Birch

You seem to be asking them to sign a pledge not to guarantee the basic pension but to agree that the rules governing pensions will be decided by referendum. That is a completely different thing.

Please try to answer my questions, which are on your proposed use of referenda. I am not here debating the content of what you call "the five basics of the pension", or whether they are good or bad, but asking what you mean by "the basic rules of OUR State Pension can only be changed by a National Referendum".

Do you envisage this functioning through a commitment to binding plebiscites to ratify or veto legislation passed by Parliament? Or through referenda called by popular petition and having the force of law? Or what? Do you understand the distinction?

Are you trying to suggest a constitutional reform, whereby Parliament cannot pass an Act unless ratified through a plebiscite? If so, why restrict it to pensions - and how would you word such a restriction anyhow? If not, that is, in the absence of a Constitutional Reform Act that cannot be impliedly repealed (it remains disputable whether any Acts can take precedence in that fashion), any government would remain at liberty to change pension law without a referendum in any way it saw fit (and could get through Parliament). The long-standing principle of British politics is that no government can bind its successor.

A huge assumption. The public can often be mistaken or deceived, or short-sighted or greedy. Referenda are no guarantee of wisdom.

B.A.Ware

I think what is being said here could apply to some major issues, you could have a referendum on pensions that could only be overturned by another referendum if a new government wins power and wants to change such a law then it is their job to call another referendum and persuade the public to vote the way they want them to. This is exactly what Tony Blair is doing on the EU constitution.

Paul Birch

It might do. But what exactly is being said? I can't get Biscuitman to say what he means. There are various possibilities, which would be very different in application.

Not really. Blair is offering (or promising to offer) a referendum on one particular question. But even if the people voted NO the government (or, more accurately, Parliament) would still have the constitutional power to ratify the EU Constitution anyway. No British government has to offer referenda, or to consider itself bound by the results of them; and even where it does, the next government can reverse it all. No mere agreement between political parties can alter that. It would require a sea-change in British Constitutional Law, a radical proposal going far, far, beyond the subject of pensions. It may be that such radical reforms are overdue or would be beneficial; but if this is what one is proposing one should be fully aware of the earth-shattering implications.