... [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862the benefit in question being the pension.[/url

Was just going to post similar: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354 ... e-pensions A short step to the workhouse.

Was just going to post similar: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354 ... e-pensions A short step to the workhouse.

As I have been saying for some years, the general trend with governments, and an accelerating one at that, is to understand that however outrageous the proposition, and however unfair the result, they can in fact pretty much get away with anything, and so at an accelerating rate, they do, and will.

I have long believed that as years roll by, people would have less and less chance of ever actual reaching pension age and if they did, of ever actually receiving anything like a liveable pension, and this is just more of the same, even if despicably greatly more.

Someone retiring at 68 might well have spent 50 years "contributing" to the state and it is absolutely unforgivable to unambiguously claim that anyone of pension age who is not working is "a burden on the state". He should be shot for even coming out with that.

Nevertheless it is part of the package that people over 65 are, [ide facto[/i seen as a burden on the state at many and increasing turns. For example, a hospital is a very dangerous place to be, with great risk of not being resuscitated etc if you are seen as "elderly". And of course if you are not hospitalised but have to be in what is often risibly described as a "care" home then the government has long hankered after selling off all your wordly goods to "pay for" what is increasingly likely to be an abysmal level of "care", and may even in very many cases be a form of abuse.

Quite how Bichard has the sheer effrontery to talk about this is what I find most amazing. Bichard retired from the civil service aged 53 on an index-linked pension in excess of £120,000. Burden on the state? [url=http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/peer-who-wants-the-retired-to-work-for-their-pensions-is-a-sir-humphrey-retired-on-120k-a-year/He should fscking know[/url.

Is this the guy who spent all his career scrounging off the state in so called "public service" Does he get a hefty publicy funded pension? If so, let's hope he donates that back to the community and then lives off the state pension whilst sweeping up. If he doesn't he's just another hypoctical windbag in my opinion.

He's back-peddling today, unsurprisingly, has refused to be interviewed in live media and is now re-wording his previous statements to include words like "encouraged to do voluntary work".

Its fairly obvious that this is how government works these days and I agree with the FA (above) in that they are continuously "trying it on", wheeling out otherwise unknown faces to publish the next phase of outrageous policy to see what the public reaction is - if its muted then do it, if the reaction is outrage then drop it like a hot stone.

The ePetition thing was probably the biggest mistake that any government ever made, putting control firmly into the hands of the plebs rather than the faceless bureaucrats with severe politically influenced opinions, Sir Humphrey would never have approved.

Agree with everyone above.

What's step 2 of this? You don't have to do the work if you agree not to claim your state pension?

Its an utterly ridiculous proposal. 70 year olds caring for 90 olds. What happens when the 70 year old doesn't turn up for "work"? Do they get their state pension sanctioned like JSA claimants?
I'm surprised at the Tories targeting pensioners though. Think they've messed up with this and changes in the budget. Pensioners, police and armed forces were Tory heartland areas previously. They're doing a pretty good job of enraging all of them.

Note that they've not actually done anything here, it's just someone suggesting ideas. With an ageing population the cost of supporting pensionsers from 65 through to death is unsustainable. People are living longer and the average person will live to 82 now. That is 17 years of free state handouts if they don't have their own pensions. Where do you people expect that money to come from?

The idea of people working for benefits is mocked on here and I really don't understand why. If you are on benefits you should contribute to society to earn that handout. Community service for those on benefits is absolutely valid and needs to be brought in.

I'm sure Labour's ideas would be better. How about they just top up benefits to keep those out of work happy and pensioners liquid and we'll stick it all on the tab eh?

A better idea would be to bring in a proper tax system that is simple and closes all the current loopholes. The most profitable companies trading in the UK pay precious little tax, the highest earners in the UK pay very little tax and business owners also escape. Close all those loopholes and the country would be in a better position.

Because what we need are real jobs.

If it is doing a job that needs doing – then it is a job that needs doing and it should be treated like that, providing an opportunity for someone to actually get a job, thus helping to lift them [iout[/i of benefits.

Not, as Workfare showed, an opportunity for already profitable companies to make yet more off the back of the taxpayer.



Totally agree (I may have said as much just a few days ago

). But there is nobody suggesting that – just floating ideas about making pensioners work for their pensions.

I seem to remember Blair doing the same.

Is it really?

Nobody from any political party has said that. Where are the statistics and the research that have demonstrated the truth of this startling claim?

Or did you just make it up?

He makes lots of things up does Saddened.

Wonder if they include those who have reached 65 and never done a days graft in their lives, a couple near to my mam spring to mind, it would certainly save the state money as he would collapse with shock if he was asked to contribute.