So, here it is in the Guardian, the paper that’s been so critical of the Coalition in general and the Lib Dems in particular, these past two years. The announcement that many of us have wanted to see for as long as we’ve been politically active. That women who take time out of the labour market to care for children or sick relatives will not be penalised in their old age.
This is an example of the Coalition delivering a major benefit to mainly women. And although it’s Iain Duncan Smith who’s quoted in the article, make no mistake, it’s Liberal Democrat Pensions expert Steve Webb who’s put this together.This is the man who found a fault with the way some women’s pensions had been calculated in opposition and got the DWP to sort it, giving many women a pension boost of more than £1000 so he has a lot of previous form in getting justice for women pensioners.
The fact that women are penalised in old age for taking on caring roles that would cost the State a fortune if they didn’t has always been a horrendous injustice. Liberal Democrats have been banging on about changing it for decades. And do you know what? First chance of power we get, we sort it. How good is that?
We need to get out on people’s doorsteps and make sure people know that it’s the Liberal Democrats who are responsible for them paying less tax, for increasing their State Pension by £5.30 a week, for changing a fundamentally unfair Pensions system.
The reason we’re willing to take the pain that this Coalition brings us is so that we can deliver things like this. It’s two years today since we watched Nick Clegg enter Downing Street for the first time as Deputy Prime Minister. I wrote at the time that my emotions were lurching between horror, pride, fear and hope. They still are. This is a good day, though.
* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Sun story about Chris Huhne that was a total invention (and which the other papers happily copied)
11 Liberal Democrat MPs vote for registrars to be exempt from marrying same sex couples
How Liberal Democrat MPs voted on same sex marriage amendments
Same sex Marriage: another Liberal Democrat victory
Opinion: Why Lib Dems should support the Referendum on the EU – and let’s have it before 2015
Opinion: Referendum debate is a sideshow: the countdown to Britain’s real EU vote starts today
The Independent View: An invitation to ORGCon 2013: the UK’s leading digital rights conference
Baroness Judith Jolly writes: new Social Care Bill focuses on people not systems
Opinion polls yadda yadda. OR “Does Nate Silver mean nothing to you? Did he write in vain?”
The Beach Boys Live: The 50th Anniversary Tour
The strange case of Tory homophobia
New Musik to jog to
Scarthin Books, Cromford
After Woolwich attacks UK terror threat remains at 'substantial'
The leaving of Southport Town Hall -and the waste that resulted
The World at One - What I Would Have Said
Paul Pettinger
Martin
A Social Liberal
Eddie Sammon
Alex Harvey
18 Comments
Yeah.
It’s good to have Steve in Pensions, even if I do wish he’d do a bit more to hold back IDS and Grayling from some of their crazier ideas, his work on pensions is always very good.
The one issue with this is that it’ll only help those who retire in 2015.
Would be nice if we could do something for those who have already retired too.
“The announcement that many of us have wanted to see for as long as we’ve been politically active. That women who take time out of the labour market to care for children or sick relatives will not be penalised in their old age.”
I would appreciate Caron or someone else explaining this is more detail. I’d always understood that women were not penalised – there has been “Home Responsibilities Protection” for many years.
To quote the Directgov website http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018691
“Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was a scheme which between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 2010 helped protect your State Pension. Find out about how to make a claim for previous tax years and the new credits for parents and carers.”
As my wife and I had 4 children under four at one stage I had always understood that her state pension was protected via HRP. Is the Guardian article talking about something else?
This is what I’d thought, but apparently the credit you get is at a reduced rate, less than if you had been working and paying NI.
It is a great result. It is a real shame, though, that the Tories are able to steal our clothes when the coalition does good, and force us to the fore when there is bad news.
Problem is that with the rising state pension age many will probably never actually get a pension. What was that recently the government were saying about working into our 80s? This coalition put an extra 1 year on my state retirement age, not giving women in my age group the time to compensate for it or have you conveniently forgotten that?
@Anne
“This coalition put an extra 1 year on my state retirement age, not giving women in my age group the time to compensate for it or have you conveniently forgotten that?”
And the last Labour government put quite a few years on my wife and my own state retirement ages – and yours as well, I guess.
I don’t particularly hold it against them as I regard it as inevitable. I just hope you haven’t “conveniently” forgetten what Labour did.
The people who complain about rising pension ages never complain about rising life expectancy. The fact is that our lifespans rise another year every 5 years, I am quite happy about that. Unfortunately that means the pension age has to keep rising as well.
Actually the planned rises arent enough to even keep up. If we wanted to get back to the situation of the 1960s we would have to raise the pension age to 75.
@ Simon Shaw
Why do you typically always reply with some sort of attack on Labour? Why is your argument always that it is alright for us to do bad things because Labour did ? The point is that this coalition added extra years too rapidly on one age group of women in their late 50s. Do not assume that everyone is Labour that disagrees with you and please stop playing playground politics all the time. You obviously for one intend to always ally yourself w ith the Tories in coalition which is what will lose you more votes than anything else in 2015. Might as well vote Tory.
paul barker
Life expectancy great for the south but not so great in parts of the north so the changes are not quite as simple as you make out. Funny when we talk about welfare we never mention this as a potential way to save money. Regional pensions at well as regional pay perhaps
Wonder how much that would save – K&C has a life expectancy 6-7 years more than the average – all in it together!
@Anne
“Why do you typically always reply with some sort of attack on Labour? Why is your argument always that it is alright for us to do bad things because Labour did ? The point is that this coalition added extra years too rapidly on one age group of women in their late 50s. Do not assume that everyone is Labour that disagrees with you and please stop playing playground politics all the time. You obviously for one intend to always ally yourself w ith the Tories in coalition which is what will lose you more votes than anything else in 2015. Might as well vote Tory.”
That’s a rather silly comment – if you had read what I posted I said “I don’t particularly hold it against them (i.e. Labour) as I regard it as inevitable.”
Also that “inevitability” means that I never suggested what the last Labour government nor the present Coalition Government did were “bad things”. That’s solely your wording.
As a matter of interest had you forgatten what Labour did in this area?
@bazzasc
“Life expectancy great for the south but not so great in parts of the north ”
Some of the poorest places in the UK are actually in London, with the corresponding effect on life expectancy. The reasons are the same as for the worst places in the north – their former growth depended on industries now disappeared,which provided a not very affluent living for workers.
To most, even middle class Londoners, Kensington & Chelsea looks impossibly pricey to get a home in.
Well actually, I am a woman, on a pension. I will be 65 in 18 months time and I am going to lose out big time because of the age related tax change. Please do not say well you are a rich pensioner because I certainly am not. They do not get it if they are rich. As for the rise, because of the change from RPI to CPI I have lost big time on this too. The cost of living rise was due to rampant inflation, not due to ‘giving’ anything. So please make sure you have the answers on the doorstep for these items. I might be older, I am still able to count.
@ Simon Shaw
Yet again a question about Labour. I am well aware of ALL the things Labour did but NOW there is a different government to be held to task or should we all just roll over? I am not a Labour supporter, are you a Tory? My point was that the coalition raised the retirement age of a group of women at very short notice making it impossible to fund. We were ready for the increase that had already been put in place. Where all this extra workforce is going to work however has not been addressed as employers do not want anyone let alone old people. There is going to be extreme poverty and deprivation.
@Anne
“Yet again a question about Labour. I am well aware of ALL the things Labour did but NOW there is a different government to be held to task or should we all just roll over?”
I’m not the one criticising Labour – you appeared to be (as well as criticising the present Coalition Government). I can’t help it if you think everyone else is obsessed with Labour.
@patricia roche
“Well actually, I am a woman, on a pension. I will be 65 in 18 months time and I am going to lose out big time because of the age related tax change. Please do not say well you are a rich pensioner because I certainly am not.”
The danger is that “rich” is a relative term.
I read that the proposed change only affects the most affluent 50% of pensioners. Also that the Age Allowance in 2012/13 is actually 39% higher than it was 5 years earlier.
Simon, for some reason political activists do not listen to what voters are saying. If you are going to quote things to me, at least tell us where you get your figures. ‘I read somewhere’ will not wash on the doorstep at the next election.
@patricia roche
“If you are going to quote things to me, at least tell us where you get your figures.”
I’m not sure where I got them from, but a Google search throws up the following from the Daily Mail of all places: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118993/Granny-tax-backlash-Fury-scale-Chancellors-raid-pensioners-emerges.html
A Treasury spokesman said: ‘This is an important simplification. It’s sensible to have a single tax-free personal allowance for everyone.
‘The poorest half of pensioners will still pay no tax in 2013/14 and nobody will pay more tax in cash terms than they do today.
I trust that is helpful toyou.
Thank you Simon, it is. It is also unfortunate that it is the Daily Mail, which, I have found, makes massive and sweeping statements which are often wrong, as in this case, it is.