There was even a song about the phenomenon - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_T.... Although I was always unimpressed at the small number of actual examples.

Possibly; it’s still providing members’ benefits. DC would be straightforward. But in DB schemes it could be based on the notional contributions using the existing HMRC formula for the AA, net of member contributions. I hope I’m not giving anyone ideas.

The only certain way to make it work in practice is to charge employer’s NI contributions on employer’s pension contributions.

Could be done. But depends in practice how much the earner trusts their employer and whether they can accept the hit to anything that depends on their nominal earnings; e.g. redundancy pay, their pension and mortgage entitlement.

Most of the electorate are members of affiliated organisations, mainly trade unions who pay the political levy. I don’t know if detailed figures have been published but it is understood that the turnout among members who are individual members of constituency Labour parties was relatively high.

Maybe the real issue is the low level of working age benefits and it’s these that should be better. And the idea that pension age benefits from the State are generous is for the birds.

If only people lived nice tidy lives.

Tax the rich, not the old. Not all old people are rich; all rich people are rich.

fwiw, I used to live next door, on the left.

A good chart. But note that the ILC report is about how ageing “brings economic opportunities which are currently being neglected, including the growing spending, working and earning potential of people at older ages”. So don’t assume it’s a negative picture or one age group versus another.

Maybe they have the wrong mayor when people talk about a challenge to Starmer’s leadership.

… as well as Diane.

… and Burns & Allen; Jack Benny; I Married Joan; and Amos ‘n Andy Show for goodness sake. Huckleberry Hound was pretty influential as well. “I’m with you Boo-boo.”

The rules aren’t clear whether other candidates can then stand but they do say, in effect, that the current holder is automatically a candidate.

Chapter 4, Clause II, Paragraph 1. B. ii says “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP.” So 80 MP’s can force a leadership election.

Yes, it should continue until the New State pension reaches the right higher level. While it is random, we’ve got it and it works in terms of increasing the NSP in real terms. In theory it could be replaced by something more systematic, but that isn’t going to happen.

The whole point of pensions policy over the last 20 years has been to increase pensioners’ income compared to those of the working population. Hence the triple lock, which is particularly important for pensioners on low incomes. The graph represents a success, not a problem.

But this begs a question. What is the correct level for the new State pension to provide future retirees with adequate incomes in retirement?