Pension age ‘could rise to 70’, say the Tories. But what do we get in return for the delay?

A knife in the back: This is the Conservative offer to pensioners. Labour is proposing a higher quality of life in our twilight years. Which would you prefer?

Look at the state of the Conservatives.

Having been slammed after Iain Duncan Smith suggested raising the pension age to 75 – past life expectancy for people in several parts of the UK – they are now trying to get us to accept a rise to 70.

Don’t they understand how badly they upset people with the ham-handed way they handled the increase to 67 for everyone?

The Labour Party manifesto has it right: “Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age  changed without fair notification.

“This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.”

Labour says it will legislate to prevent accrued rights to the state
pension from being changed.

There’s no such promise from the Tories, who are simply pointing to a study by the Office for National Statistics that says life expectancy is increasing. They say this means the pension age could be pushed back to 70.

But this is based on a belief that men can expect to live to 85 and women to 87 – and this is disputed.

The Independent published a report within the last fortnight saying life expectancy for women in the least deprived areas of the UK is now 86 years and two months – but this is more than seven years more than women in the most deprived areas.

Average expectancy is 83 years – not 87 – and is among the lowest in comparable countries.

Men in deprived areas suffer a similar deficit – with some likely to live only to 74 – not 85.

So claims that increased life expectancy supports raising the pension age are bunkum – they would be an excuse to steal our twilight years away from us.

Going back to the ONS report, it says, “More older people means increased demand for health and adult social services, and increased public spending on state pensions.”

But the report adds, “It might mean the opportunity to spend more time with family and friends and to pursue personal interests with more time for leisure activities.

“The key to shifting the balance from challenge towards opportunity… is for older people to be able to live healthy lives for as long as possible.”

It seems clear that such claims are based on very shaky ground.

Under the Conservatives, health care has been increasingly hard to find, with people of all ages struggling to make appointments with their GPs and hospital waiting lists skyrocketing.

What are the opportunities available for older people to enjoy their lives, post-retirement? Under the Conservatives, they have been increasingly restricted.

And of course, any Tory-run plan to increase the pension age means people in the targeted age range will automatically lose thousands of pounds in pension entitlement with no right to recompense.

And they will probably be informed about the change in a completely inadequate manner, meaning they will have no opportunity to make alternative plans.

It is a trapdoor leading to poverty.

Labour’s manifesto offers a much more reasonable view: “The Conservatives have repeatedly raised the state pension age despite overseeing a decline in life expectancy.

“Labour will abandon the Tories’ plans to raise the State Pension Age, leaving it at 66. We will review retirement ages for physically arduous and stressful occupations, including shift workers, in the public and private sectors.”

This reflects the different aims of the Labour and Conservative parties.

While the Tories want to save money (presumably so they can give it to fat cats who already have too much), Labour’s offer is to improve the quality of life for everyone.

Doesn’t that seem better all around?

Source: Pension age ‘could rise to 70’, new government figures suggest | London Evening Standard

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



  1. trev November 24, 2019 at 6:35 pm - Reply

    A doctor told me that I might live to 74 if I’m lucky, but that I might be likely to only live to 68. Many people I have known have already died in their 50s.

  2. John Smith-Warren November 24, 2019 at 7:02 pm - Reply

    The first job I had was in dyeing cloth and because of some of the toxic chemicals used the operatives were able to retire from age 60 instead of 65. But all the staff that left early went on to enjoy a much longer retirement than the ones staying on to 65. Seems that early retirement leads to a longer retirement so the idea of increasing the working age will have a positive effect on the state pension investment as it will be paid for a much shorter time – another Conservative party idea to reduce the burden on the state?

    • Mike Sivier November 24, 2019 at 8:39 pm - Reply

      To give more money to rich people, more like.

  3. wildswimmerpete November 24, 2019 at 7:46 pm - Reply

    Tories expect you to work until you drop. They can’t tolerate the notion that someone retires and then enjoys their well-earned leisure. Never forget the despicable Owen Patterson mooted that pensioners should be put to work picking crops in the fields in return for their meagre pensions. Tories all are for work as long as someone else is being forced to do it.

Leave A Comment