X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Ed Balls is right: it’s time to think again about pensioners

10 June 2013

10:02 AM

10 June 2013

10:02 AM

You can accuse Ed Balls of a great many things (and we do), but he doesn’t do gaffes. His interviews are always worth paying close attention to, because every soundbite is carefully-considered, weighed for its political potency and constantly reused. Anyone who missed his interview with Andrew Neil yesterday should catch it (here) because – like Ben Brogan – I suspect it marks a new direction in UK economic debate: that pensioners’ benefits should be subject to cuts, like everything else.

The curious way that George Osborne conducts his economic policy – as a constant game of chess against a political opponent – confers great power on Ed Balls. What the Shadow Chancellor says about economics matters more than what anyone else in the Cabinet says about economics. Osborne’s fateful decision to ringfence all pensioner benefits, from bus passes to TV licenses, was made in a panicked moment during election time to try to close down one of Balls’s attack lines. This was a massive error, because it’s so expensive. As Balls said yesterday, spending on the over-65s constitutes the majority of welfare spending. Protecting this sector means concentrating pain on working-age benefits and government departments. Morally, there isn’t much of an argument for increasing pensions much faster than the average salary. The ‘triple lock’ on pensions was not in the Tory manifesto, yet now stands as one of the most expensive pieces of government policy.

And we ought not to think of the over-65s as charity cases. Rather, their energy and industry is single-handedly giving Osborne his flattering employment numbers. The other day, I published overall employment numbers. Here it is again.

Screen Shot 2013-06-10 at 09.13.50

[Alt-Text]


But let’s break this down by age group, and it emerges that there are fewer working-age people in employment. The incredible progress is being driven by the over-65s.

Screen Shot 2013-06-10 at 09.00.53

And this fits a trend. Let’s look at their employment rates:-

Screen Shot 2013-06-10 at 09.01.38

According to the Keynesians, the recession is caused by a lack of demand and ought to affect everyone equally. Yet British pensioners don’t seem to have received that memo. Nor do British women aged 50-64, whose workforce participation rate has surged from 60.7 per cent to 64.2 per cent over the last three recession-struck years.

It’s no puzzle, of course, to those of us who believe the dominant factor in recession and recovery is the supply of willing/able workers, rather than demand for their services.

For decades, government policy to pensioners has had – as its premise – the rather patronising idea of oldies staying at home and watching daytime TV and waiting for the next benefit cheque as they mull who to vote for. The reality is that the over-60s are Britain’s fastest-growing national economic resource. They could do with lower taxes, not higher benefits. Ed Balls may well have cracked open this argument. But I’m not sure that Balls has discussed the implications of this with the Shadow Cabinet. Given his cordial contempt for his colleagues, I suspect not.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close