When is a u-turn not a u-turn?
The Treasury Minister popped up to Douglas Head this morning to tell listeners that the government kicking its plans for pension into the long grass of public consultation was not a u-turn.
He added that this wasn’t about scrapping the triple lock but about securing the long-term future of the NI fund.
The problem is, to most people it’s walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.
Ultimately, the government made a total hash of its communications about this, assumed people who aren’t contractually obliged or politically obsessed had heard the November debate and oh yeah, a minister told the world it was scrapping the triple lock!
Fans of The Thick of It can no doubt imagine what Malcolm Tucker would have made of this week, but this is a family show and I can’t publish them without putting £25 into the swear jar.
An Ni Problem
If Dr Allinson finds himself sat looking around trying to work out how this became a war on the triple lock, which was unusually and expertly exploited by backbench MHKs, he needs to look no further than around the Council of Ministers table.
It was little under a week ago when a piece, written by Education Minister Daphne Caine appeared in the i paper and online.
No matter what you think of Mrs Caine, an MHK I have always held in high regard for sticking to her guns, this was set up to backfire almost as quickly as Liverpool fans singing “we won the league at Goodison Park”.
I understand that she wasn’t best pleased with the headline her opinion piece was given, but the issue is, Mrs Caine did put out a tweet that read “completely stand by my comments” and added: “We should replace triple lock with Manx pension guarantee.”
I honestly don’t understand what the government thought this would achieve or why anyone thought it was a good idea to do this before it was done.
The debate in Keys this week, the celebratory tone amongst social media posters and the fact that this led to such an outpour from the Manx public shows just how badly the government played its hand, not for the first time.
However
Of course there was going to be a however, because this doesn’t change the fact that we probably need to do something.
I say probably here because there are voices who say that this doomsday clock for the fund is exaggerated, so I would welcome an independent financial whizz have a go at this, it is well beyond my powers and C grade maths GCSE.
IF the fund’s expiration is correct, then the changes the government wants to do seem fairly sensible, albeit some people, including my dear mother, will once again feel like they have been shafted by yet another administration.
For those who retired before 2019, they don’t really have to worry themselves, this won’t affect them.
Those who have or are due to retire, I totally get it, they feel done over.
Equally, the murmurings from MHKs about the plundering of the fund to “invest” into the local economy does paint a picture of the government robbing Peter to pay for Peter’s new high school.
But here’s the thing, the government’s geese stopped laying golden eggs a while ago now and we need to do something to protect the future of state pensions.
Fairness
The government has, rather sensibly, focussed today’s announcement on the next generation and intergenerational fairness.
In part this is playing off the sentiment of what ‘West Wing’ president Josiah Barlett, played by Martin Sheen, called the “unwritten commandment” that we give to our children better than what we ourselves received.
That isn’t going to happen here, pensions aren’t going to be as good as they have been, but the continuation of the safety net of the Manx State Pension relies on reform, not just following the UK and certainly not at anyone looking nervously over the horizon at September 2026.
At best these reforms, which look set for public consultation, will try to level the playing field a little bit while hopefully encouraging more people to join workplace or private pensions.
Essentially the attempt to push this through and the way it was communicated was a mess, but the principles behind what was intended, to secure its long-term future, are still as valid as they were.
I know the comments section on this will label me an idiot and various other things my previously mentioned mother won’t find amusing and a good number of you will dismiss this as being a government apologist etc.
But if there is one thing I want people, particularly those under say 40 to take from this, engage with whatever consultation happens later this year, otherwise in 10, 20 or 30 years time, you may wish you had.
2 Comments