A reader writes in response to an editorial written by our colleague Val Cipriani of Investors' Chronicle, featured in FT Adviser as part of our general election coverage.
Dear editor,
Re the article 'What a Labour government would mean for your money', which you linked to as part of your wider piece: General election announcements - as they happen.
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, suggested planned state pension age increases could come into focus for the next administration, even though “neither party is likely to talk about it in their manifesto”.
He said: “The current state pension age is 66, with plans to raise this to 67 by 2028 and 68 by 2046. However, there have been calls from various quarters to accelerate that timetable to save the Treasury money."
Can FT Adviser, please, tell the pension industry to stop being disingenuous about pension ages during a general election?
The actual pension age is 67 for many, many women. The 1960s ladies have been turning 60 since 2020 and are only half way through losing pension payment from 60 to 67. You should not be printing that incorrect information.
The 1970s-born have had pension age 67 since Labour’s 2007 Pension Act. Born from 1980, women have had a pension age of 68 since Labour’s 2007 pension act.
Accelerating pension age rises just makes the fraud of the young paying into workplace pensions all the worse.
As now we know the working class women (half of the 80 per cent of the population) will not live beyond 60 without a pension in high number.
Agreed, Labour were not in government when women’s pension age rose, but the Lib Dems Pension Minister (2010-15) could have repealed the one Conservative and four Labour pension age rise laws, in works and state pension payment ages.
The Greens in their 2010 manifesto also made no mention of women’s pension age rises.
Reform just 'talks Tory' against the state pension, just the same, in their policy pledges online for this general election.
George Galloway’s Worker’s Party has pension age 60 but no detail, and no mention of compensation to the 1950s ladies.
Nor about granting pensions going forwards to the 1960 to 1964 born ladies, with years yet before reaching 67.
Christine Williams
