Author Archives: Neil Casey

A short-sighted attack on pension saving — and why Young Liberals should care

In the flurry of briefings ahead of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget, one rumoured measure risks doing more long-term damage than most people realise: a cap or cut to the salary-sacrifice pension scheme.

For those not steeped in the jargon, this is the mechanism that allows workers and employers to make pension contributions free of National Insurance. It’s one of the few genuinely effective incentives for people to save for retirement — particularly for those who don’t yet earn enough to make personal tax relief a meaningful motivator.

Yet according to multiple reports, the Treasury is considering capping the amount that can be contributed through salary sacrifice, potentially at just £2,000 a year. Beyond that, both employee and employer would pay full National Insurance. The Government hopes to raise around £2 billion annually from the change — a tiny sum in fiscal terms, but one that could hit younger and mid-career workers hardest.

As Claer Barrett, the Financial Times Consumer Editor, put it recently, the idea is “nuts” — especially given that the same Treasury is currently running a review aimed at encouraging higher pension contributions. Becky O’Connor from PensionBee warned that the move “will do untold damage to the savings system and hit younger workers hardest.” And Tom Selby of AJ Bell said it would “deter good employers from contributing more” — the exact opposite of what the country needs as we face rising longevity and care costs.

While it might seem politically expedient to “go after” higher earners, many of those affected — myself included — are people who started earning later because of university and postgraduate training. We missed the key early years of pension saving, and we’re unlikely to qualify for any other forms of state assistance in retirement. Weakening private pensions now doesn’t punish the rich — it punishes the responsible.

Why this matters for younger Liberals

Younger Liberals should care deeply about this. Many of today’s under-30s face a future where the state pension may not even exist in its current form. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that by the 2050s, there will be barely two working adults for every pensioner. If we undermine private saving now, we are setting up an intergenerational time bomb — one that today’s youth will be forced to defuse.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 8 Comments

We get the Royals we can’t vote for

So, Prince Andrew is to be “stripped of his titles.” How satisfying. How symbolic. How utterly pointless.

We can all share a brief moment of catharsis — the monarchy wagging a disapproving finger at one of its own. A round of headlines, a flurry of official statements, a sense of something being done. And yet, what has actually changed? Andrew remains, by sheer accident of birth, a prince. We can shuffle around the titles, hide him from the balcony, pretend he’s no longer “His Royal Highness”. And beneath it all lies the more uncomfortable truth: these gestures exist to fill the space where justice should have been. There’s been no prosecution, no accountability — only the pageantry of consequence.

The truth is as embarrassing as it is simple: we get the royals we can’t vote for. Every time we let the institution roll on, unquestioned, we endorse it. Every time we accept that someone’s birth entitles them to constitutional privilege, we sign off on the next scandal, the next “slimming down” that changes absolutely nothing.

As Liberals, we should have no truck with inherited power. It’s indefensible that a 21st-century democracy still clings to a family business masquerading as a constitutional necessity. If we genuinely believe in equality, accountability, and merit, then the monarchy isn’t an eccentric quirk — it’s an insult.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 22 Comments

Drilling for illusions: Why more North Sea oil won’t cut your energy bills

Oil markets are on edge again. With the price of Brent crude fluctuating amid the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict, you’d think drilling more in the North Sea would be the obvious fix for UK households drowning in energy costs. You’ve probably heard the claim: if the UK just drilled more oil and gas from the North Sea, we could reduce our reliance on imports and bring down energy prices. It’s a line repeated by politicians and industry figures alike. But even in a storm of geopolitical shocks, more domestic extraction won’t shield us from global price swings or cut what we pay at the pump or on our heating bills.

North Sea oil is not reserved for domestic use. It’s extracted by private companies who then sell it on the global market to the highest bidder. It doesn’t stay in the UK, and it’s not priced for UK customers. That means that even if it’s drilled off the coast of Aberdeen or Shetland, it could end up in China or the USA – whoever pays the best price. The UK then buys back refined oil products, particularly diesel and jet fuel, at global prices, just like everyone else. And even though the UK is a net exporter of petrol, the price you pay at the pump is still determined by the global market.

Posted in News | Tagged and | 8 Comments

Ideology over Industry: the SNP’s Defence blind spot

Over the weekend, the SNP Government’s decision to withhold a £2.5 million Scottish Enterprise grant for a Clyde-based submarine welding centre laid bare its flawed approach to defence and industrial policy. Rolls-Royce had already pledged £11 million in specialist equipment for the facility, intended to deliver advanced welding techniques, reduce carbon emissions, and create hundreds of high-value jobs. Yet Holyrood classified the project as “munitions”-related, despite Rolls-Royce clarifying that its nuclear propulsion systems are not used for delivering warheads. UK Defence Secretary John Healey condemned the move as “student-politics” that will undermine vital skills development and cost generations of Scottish workers hundreds of decent jobs. In effect, by grouping any submarine-adjacent work under a blanket anti-munitions policy, the SNP has chosen ideological purity over Scotland’s economic and security interests.

The question for Scotland is whether our engineers, welders, and high-tech firms will benefit from the surge in UK defence spending, or be shut out by Holyrood’s self-indulgent obstruction.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ David, You're suggesting that Trump wanted rid of rid of Mandelson so made sure that the right Epstein related documents were disclosed? An interesting th...
  • David Raw
    @ Peter Martin. A further thought. Mandelson may have been appointed because his knowledge of Trump’s varied activities gave him a special hold over said Pres...
  • paul barker
    Is The UK Ungovernable ? No, its hysterical bollox & plays into the hands of The Far-Right....
  • paul barker
    There have been 27 Councillors elected since May 7th - 3 of them are Reform, that's 1 in 9 or 11%. Another striking feature is the number of Reform losses, s...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    Peter Martin, when you reply to me about Transport house I don't think you've read the foregoing comments from me and David Raw. Anyway, back to the future....