State Pension Age

So the state pension age will be raised quicker than was expected, with the State Pension Age in the UK due to change in 2037 to allow anyone under 67 at that time to work until the age of 68. This is probably going to be met with a shrug of acceptance for all of those aged 39 to 47 (us included!) the age group affected by today’s announcement.

Some years ago such a move would have led to protest, some lobbyists might be aghast and try to do something about it. We doubt there will be much of a murmur. It is expected. It is known.

Plus, the State Pension is already a risible amount. No one expects to be able to live on it alone. All need to save, get a pension, or work longer.

How do we reconcile this news with the other news this week that average life expectancy has stalled on that inevitable path upwards? The rate of increase for life expectancy has levelled. That is probably more surprising. Is it indeed already the case that many are working well beyond 65 to facilitate the lack of pension, their children who can’t afford their own property, and the cost of care and housing beyond what was once a “reasonable” age? If so is a longer working life levelling off the advances in medicine, social care and other areas over the last two centuries which have led to the average increases in life expectancy?

Numbers hide the facts. People have been longer-lived for some time but do we have quality into old age? Without quality of life we are not sure we want to be hanging around for a long time. We have an ageing population. The question remains, what adjustments are we making to facilitate this?

This is adequately illustrated within the working environment: for some time we have been able to work beyond 65 unhindered. But what are employers doing to ensure older workers can work beyond 65? To ensure that they are fit to work, and if not, what adjustments to make it easier? What access to advice and promotion of older workers?

And it’s not all on the employers.

What is the government of this country doing to advise, guide and encourage good practice amongst our top companies. Protecting with legislation is the minimum and it is not enough.

Not a political point. I think all parties are guilty.

Let me end by stating that unless behavioural change happens in the highest profile institutions of our land, how are we “mere mortals” supposed to cope? Last week at Prime Minister’s Question Time the Liberal Party were widely ridiculed about the age of the prospective leader of the party, Vince Cable, who is 74.

Disraeli was 75 when he left office as PM. Gladstone was 84. Winston Churchill was 80.

“It’s worse we’re getting” in terms of ageism in politics, not better. The natural assumption would be the more tolerant towards age we become, then the older our politicians must be. The last five PMs:

Cliffs of Moher, they've been around a long time, but no one's questioning their beauty or usefulness

On leaving Number 10, they were;

John Major 54

Tony Blair 54

Gordon Brown 59

David Cameron 49

Theresa May is currently 60

So perhaps Vince Cable is on a hiding to nothing. The average age in the House of Lords is now 69. But then it’s always been higher in the HOL because of hereditary peers.

To rule for the many, not the few, perhaps we need to clamp down on such ageist attitudes in such a forum as PM’s questions. And put more positive measures in place to aid our older workers in the workplace. Whether it be in the House of Commons or at our local B & Q.