Who honestly wants to work until they’re 81?

I’m not knocking those who love it. There are workers out there who are dedicated to their occupation to such an extent that it's their existence for being.

But there’s a skill in knowing when to pack it in; doing so brings through the next generation of talent. Joe Biden is the most high-profile example. No harm to the man but the longer it went on, the longer it was apparent to all those outwith Pennsylvania Avenue that his remaining in post was some form of low-key elder abuse. Whether quietly tapped on the shoulder or pushed off the plank, the Democrats now have a fighting chance of electing a strong black woman as their next President and stopping Trump from another four years.

But political campaigns that consist of trying to ‘stop the other guy’ rarely end well. Just look at the Tories' most recent effort to stop the Starmer tide.

Read More:

For many reasons, the time for Joe to go was months ago. But he shouldn’t be allowed to leave his post without a reflection on his continuous funding of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. By Presidential standards, he’s had terse and harsh words for Netanyahu. But public rebukes whilst the bombs keep falling and the arms cash keeps rolling is barely something to shout about. 

What we should be shouting about is the wider theme of people working until they can work no longer. Each to their own. But in the UK, we have swathes of older people returning to the world of work, or staying beyond their years, quite simply because they can no longer afford to be retired.

Now, of course, Joe will be sorted. Fifty years in politics will have built up a cushy pension. But we all can’t be Joe. Before the General Election, the commentariat was debating whether the next UK Government could really afford to maintain the triple-lock on the UK state pension. Let’s put to the side, for a moment, that keeping the triple-lock pension was a politicised cherry for voting no in the independence referendum. I don’t want to drag up old arguments – far from it – but any backtrack or dilution of the triple lock will only serve to embolden those who voted for constitutional change. Perhaps with good reason too.

But constitutional change isn’t necessarily the vehicle we ride to guarantee our pensioners will be treated with respect and value as they enter their golden years.  What guarantees them a graceful retirement is having a pension that reflects their years of service to our workforce.

The triple lock, in that sense, whereby the value of our state pension rises in line with inflation, 2.5% or average earnings – whatever is highest – is the bare minimum we should expect. Research has shown that, since the introduction of the triple lock, the state pension has increased by £800 a year higher.



But in a similar attitude to what striking workers have shown over the past two and a half year of industrial struggle: we cannot be content with mere scraps from the table. According to the OECD, the UK state pension remains low by international standards.

There was an old mantra that different occupations – the council, the police, the NHS, teaching – always had “good” pensions. Historically that was true. Whilst they remain comparatively good, we cannot allow a backslide in standards, especially as we retire, that sees our pensions dip in value. Workers’ effort and labour doesn’t dip in value the older we get. If anything, the inverse is true – why then should we negotiate or give ground to those who wish to see occupational pensions drop in value or that the triple-lock is something to be sacrificed on grounds of ‘affordability’. 

We shouldn’t accede to this. The same applies to those with final salary pension schemes. Last year, Tory Ministers were urged to tax those on these schemes and redistribute that wealth to younger workers. This may be the unusual occurrence of a trade union leader arguing against, in this instance, wealth distribution. Those on final salary pension schemes are usually the long-serving teachers, nurses and public servants who have upheld our public services. A more ‘radical’ idea, perhaps, instead of attacking or seeking to remove final salary pension schemes, leaving the next generation of workers and pensioners far worse off, would be to boost income and introduce measures to grow back more high-quality final salary pension schemes, giving younger workers the opportunity to put more into the economy, and increase the value of their pensions.

I disagree profusely therefore with those on the Westminster benches or desk-based think-tank boffins who question the affordability of what we, those who fund our pensions, can expect.

There can be no dilution. Reject the false notion that working people should carry the can for economic decisions made by politicians that impact our pension and retirement rights. Yes, state pensions are expensive - £158 billion worth by 2028/29. Yes, they need to be paid for. But let’s move the discussion to ‘how’ we fund our state services rather than the ‘why’. The answer, from our perspective, is to ensure those higher earners pay their fairer share of tax.

This ‘debate’ comes at a time when men are on track for a retirement income that’s nearly 40% higher than women. Not to mention that women, on average, earn less, are less likely to have a private pension and are less likely to be able to draw on savings to plug the gap.

Pensioners vote and vote in their numbers. I accept that it will take a brave politician to have a conversation about the triple lock and how our pensions will be funded. But I would implore them to do so; the toil of a lifetime cannot be undervalued when workers reach their later years. They’re entitled to work on – as is their right. But pensioners still on the tools or stacking shelves out of financial necessity rather than occupational dedication is a sheer failure of our state.

Everyone is entitled to a decent pension and a decent standard of living as they retire. That shouldn’t be up for discussion. We all benefit from retiring well and with dignity.  Even Presidents.