Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
You will
notice that, since New Labour came to power, not a single
leading Cabinet member or party 'heavy hitter' has appeared
on the programme (BBC's Question Time). Spin, not face-to-face
confrontations with the voters, is the Government's chosen
method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
Tony
Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps
they're the jokers. Letter
to the Daily Mail, Brian Green, Daventry, Northants Feb.
22, 2005
|
Tories
put £1.7bn in pension pot - April
18, 2005
Is this our reward for a life of work? We have every right to be
furious at this bid to curtail our richest years
Commentary
by Alex Brummer, City Editor, Daily Mail June 24, 2004
The
prospect of the mandatory retirement age being raised to 70 will
be greeted by millions of hard-working people with absolute horror.
British workers,, despite all the music hall jokes about tea breaks,
are the hardest working and most enterprising in Europe. Large
numbers have scrimped and saved, paid their taxes and National
Insurance, and rightly expect to spend the golden years of retirement
doing what they want
to do, not what the Government tells them.
Many
will be dreaming of travelling the world, spending more time with
their grandchildren and making a different kind of contribution
to society through charitable and voluntary work. Now, they are
being told by the Pensions Commission - set up by Labour, which
has shamefully neglected the funding crisis in both state and
private pensions - that the compulsory retirement age may have
to be set significantly higher than 65. The reasons why the nation's
provision for retirement looks to be woefully short are perfectly
clear.
When
the old age pension was introduced early in the last century,
people lived for an average three years after retirement. Now,
advances in welfare, health care and nutrition mean that a person
retiring at 65 might expect to live into their late seventies
or early eighties - and women even longer. That means they will
expect to collect a pension for at least 15 years.
Such
facts are churned out by the Department for Work and Pensions
as if it had discovered the secret of life. Its most recent Green
Paper on pensions begins with the immortal words: "People
are living longer than ever before." But what this analysis
fails to take note of is that, since 1902, living standards have
risen 250 times (or four-fold after adjustment for inflation).
Over the last 30 years alone, average weekly income (after tax)
of households has climbed from £269 to £453.
These
changes have created a huge pool of national wealth which should
have been adequate to fund a comfortable and fruitful retirement
for an ageing population. Indeed, employers have established a
network of 91,000 private pension funds to capture and conserve
savings for future generations of retirees. Over the decades,
the British system of private pension provision became the envy
of Europe, covering the needs of 80% of the working population.
But
tax changes, made in the first days after Labour came to power
in 1997, opened up a chasm in the private pensions system. The
Government removed the tax relief granted to company pension funds
on dividend income from their investments (worth £5billion/year).
As a result, defined benefit schemes, under which employees receive
a pension worth up to two-thirds of their salary, have been discarded
on a wide scale.
Meanwhile,
the state pension - the nation's safety net for the elderly which
is paid for over a lifetime of work through National Insurance
- has been decimated. First, the Thatcher government dismantled
the earnings rule under which state pensions were adjusted each
year in line with earnings (a change which
Michael Howard is promising to reverse).
Then,
as the state pension has become less and less valuable, Labour
introduced a complex system of 'pensions credits' - means-tested
benefits, designed to improve the quality of life for pensioners.
This system, like much of Labour's tinkering with tax and welfare,
was poorly designed. Cumbersome application forms and red tape
make the pension credits difficult to claim and administer. It
is also a financially illiterate creation.
Firstly,
it has attracted three million claimants, hugely adding to Government's
bill for social protection - that is welfare payments plus pensions
- which has now reached £138billion against £102billion
in 2000.
Secondly,
it encourages people earning less than £30,000 a year (before
tax) to become dependent on the State rather than save for their
own retirement. The Government's most innovative savings product,
the stakeholder pension - a tax break designed to enable individuals
to create their own low-cost flexible retirement pot - has been
a huge flop. Financial advisers are obliged to point out to potential
savers that they would be better off claiming the Government's
pensions credit. Instead of assisting low to middle-income households,
the stakeholder pension has ironically become a 'tax shelter'
for the spouses and children of upper income families.
Of
course, the same Government experts who want us to work longer
and more flexibly to secure our retirement have made sure that
they are well protected. By and large, pensions and superannuation
schemes designed for public sector employees, the number of which
have jumped by 500,000 over the last 5 years), are computed on
a final salary basis and inflation proofed. Not surprisingly the
government bill for this is spiralling. Indeed, figures buried
in Gordon Brown's March Budget show that the public finances are
being hit by larger than expected deficits in final-salary pensions
for government workers.
The
date shows that the black hole will be £5.6billion this
year and £3.3billion in each of the following two years,
making a gap of £12.2billion by 2007. City economist, Douglas
McWilliams, of the Centre for Economic and Business Research,
observes: "If a private company had failed to disclose pension
liabilities on this scale, then the directors could expect to
face government investigation."
Let
it never be forgotten that anyone naive enough to believe that
our National Insurance contributions were being placed in a special
fund has been sadly mistaken. The truth is that our contributions
have been sucked into general government finances to be spent
as ministers choose. The cash wasn't ring-fenced, nor was it invested
for the retirement of future generations. Instead, as a result
of a mixture of mismanagement and muddled thinking, the government
has added to the costs of retirement for future taxpayers by its
ill-conceived pensions credit system and its rampant expansion
of the public sector. Now ordinary, hard-working individuals may
be asked to pick up the bill by working on until they drop.
Above
all, the nation will be the loser if it is to be deprived of the
wonderful contribution that the elderly can make to society because
they are to be kept chained to their desks, and factory benches.
The
politicians have a great deal to answer for.
Bold
Thinking
Daily
Mail Comment - July 6, 2004
In
apolcalyptic terms, Tory frontbencher David
Willetts warns of pensions crisis 'as serious a terrorism
or global warming' that will reduce millions to penury.
He
hardly exaggerates. In 1997, Britain had the best-funded system
of private pensions in Europe. Today, stealth taxes and falls
in share prices have reduced the sytem to tatters, as many in
retirement know to their cost. And with the population ageing,
there is worse to come.
But
his lecture last night was far from a mere cry of despair. This
was an attempt to come up with some radical answers. Mr Willetts
argues for the restoration of the link between the state pension
and earnings, which would leave a pensioner couple £11 a
week better off and reduce reliance on means-tested benefits.
He wants to encourage savings, slash pensions red tape and end
compulsory annuities. And he had some intriguing ideas on how
it can all be funded.
Too
often politicians think only a few years ahead -- if that. David
Wiletts is proposing reforms that could shape our pensions system
for generations. This is precisely the imaginative, well-argued
approach the Tories need.
Blair's defiance
of the will of the majority of we, the people of the UK, must be
exposed by voters as a matter or urgency, and not just in the two
by-elections we have had this July and the European elections in
June 2004. But how can this be done.
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
Here's
a letter which will force Tony Blair to resign:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons
of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair has admitted, that
the threat was non-existent. For that critical error of judgement
and for his gross incompetence in handling this very important
issue, I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony
Blair does the honourable thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and help
mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in Mr Blair
which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave the PM
with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety
of issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy
and increasing voters' interest and participation in politics.
Download a printable copy of the above letter here.
If
you have suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include
in the pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
