
Making pensions popular is tough but vital
So Labour ministers should be commended for launching a Pensions Commission to address some of the biggest, slowest and trickiest issues in public policy. It'll do some good but the people responsible might not be around to get the credit. Though given that Torsten Bell, the annoyingly clever pensions minister, is also an annoyingly youthful 42, maybe he'll prove an exception.
The commission's job is to ensure more money goes into the pension pots that will, eventually, support people in later life. This is a big, bad problem. Depending on how you measure it, more than a third of young workers are already on course for an inadequate retirement income. Women, ethnic minorities and the self-employed are especially at risk.
Behind all this is one of the biggest yet least discussed changes of our age. This is the demise of defined benefit (DB) pensions, which guarantee a retirement income, and the shift to defined contribution (DC) schemes, which don't, because they're just pots of money put away until later. This is a big transfer of risk and responsibility from institutions (employers, mainly) to individuals. For earlier generations, someone else took decisions and responsibility for us in later life. Those of us who retire in the 2030s and beyond are going to be on our own. On our own to ensure we have enough to live on. On our own to decide how to make our savings last.
Our longer lifespans make DB pensions unaffordable to employers. The same logic will inevitably push up the state pension age and, eventually, sweep away the unsustainable triple lock. Financial necessity means we will increasingly rely on private savings to support people in later life.
But that necessity leads to a rewriting of the social contract, a rebalancing of what we owe to one another, and to future generations. As a society we are nowhere near grasping the scale and implications of this shift. The new commission can make a start on that but only if it can avoid the temptation to simply repeat things that have worked before, because the methods of the early 2000s can't be relied on now.
The 2025 panel is a conscious echo of the Turner Commission, which ran for four years from 2002 and became the Platonic ideal of technocratic policymaking. Chaired by Adair Turner, a group of benign sages crafted every Whitehall wonk's favourite policy: auto-enrolment. By setting a new default of workers paying into a DC pension, Turner helped nudge more than ten million people into saving for their own retirement. Millions of people who have never heard of Turner or its work will be happier in later life because of it.
Some people in the pensions sector hope that the new commission can repeat the Turner trick, magicking up a clever policy tweak that lulls workers and employers into putting aside non-trivial slices of cash for future decades. Some think that Australia shows how to boil this frog, with a series of staged increases in contributions from workers and companies scheduled years ahead.
I'm not convinced. UK politics has moved a long way from the days of Turner. A comfortable consensus among experts about doing something in our long-term best interests sounds lovely to me. But also very fragile. What happens if an opposition politician on the make (Hi Nigel! Hello Kemi!) decides to rebrand 'incremental increases in workplace pension contributions' as 'a massive raid on wages and jobs'? Because in the end, the money that goes into pensions today has to come from somewhere.
A small part of the answer is in old-fashioned salesmanship: sell higher pension contributions in populist terms. Without decent savings, you'll spend your later life dependent on others, including an unreliable state. To really Take Back Control of your future, put more in your pension pot.
But the bigger challenge here is to look beyond stealthy tweaks and address the public indifference that makes stealth necessary. To deliver real good, and earn history's plaudits, clever Mr Bell and his clever commission must change the way the country thinks and feels about pensions. We should require employers to disclose and display their pension contribution rates on all job ads, so workers recognise them as part of pay. Automatically open a private pension pot for every child born in Britain and offer tax breaks to parents and relatives paying into pots with a marketable name. ('Happy birthday, darling. I've put £20 in your BritSaver.')
Level with the country about the vast difference in pension provision between the public and private sectors but also within the public sector: there is a big difference in pension provision for doctors and dinner ladies. Make pensions a central and visible part of our lives. Tell people, again and again: your pension is your money, so take it as seriously as you would any other cash. Instead of taking inertia and indifference as constants, start a proper conversation with the country about pension saving.
Many of my fellow pensions nerds think what I'm describing is impossible. They say people can't be persuaded to fully engage with pensions — the subject is too complicated, too distant, too boring. Hence policy must be done by stealth; despite us, not with us. But in an age of populism, that just won't do. Culture isn't just upstream of politics but of policy, too. We don't need new pension policy as much as we need new cultural norms around pensions.
Boring? Pensions are about life and death, about fairness, duty, self-reliance. Pensions are about security, freedom and comfort for millions of people. Good pensions policy is about looking after our children and their children, when they are grown and old. Getting this right will mean that long after we're gone, their lives will be better than they would otherwise have been. If we can't make that story engaging, we deserve the judgment of history that future generations will pass on us in their impoverished later lives.
James Kirkup is a fellow of the Social Market Foundation
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour must confront the uncomfortable causes of immigration protests
That sound you hear is the penny finally dropping in Downing Street. Having spent the year since the horrific post-Southport riots blaming unrest over migration and asylum solely on misinformation and far-right groups, Labour appears to be realising the rot runs much deeper. Government officials, reports the Times, have warned the cabinet that Britain is 'fraying at the edges', after more protests outside of asylum hotels in Epping, Diss and now Canary Wharf (of all places). Angela Rayner is said to have told colleagues that immigration was having a 'profound impact on society', insisting the government needed to acknowledge 'real concerns' about rapid social change, twinned with a decaying economy. Indeed, the way Tory and now Labour governments have up to now dealt with the asylum issue would only make sense if it were designed to generate social conflict. The brunt of the small-boats crisis has been borne by some of the most poverty-stricken communities in the UK, purely because the hotel rooms there are cheaper and the glare of the London-based media is miles away. Then, locals' fears about the violent and sexual crimes committed by some of the men who have arrived illegally and unvetted are ignored, up until the point they spark a protest. Or worse. We've seen this time and time again. In Knowsley, in Merseyside, in February 2023; in Epping, now. A migrant is accused, or indeed charged, of sex crimes, leading to a protest, which then descends into mindless violence. In the case of Epping, the Ethiopian asylum seeker – whose arrest triggered last week's protests outside the Bell Hotel – was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He'd racked up these offences after just eight days in the country. The protests in Epping – a leafy, prosperous Essex market town, populated by the old East End working-class-done-good – show this is clearly not just about poverty, either. There is now a deep sense of unease bubbling across society, about an asylum and migration system that has become an affront to common sense and a menace to public safety. And those who haven't imbibed the metropolitan multiculturalist script, which insists we all ignore the evidence of our own eyes, are now increasingly emboldened to voice their opposition. For a year, the government has refused to walk and chew gum at the same time on this issue. There is, of course, nothing that justifies the violence and racism we saw after Southport, or following otherwise peaceful protests since. Those on the right who cannot summon the minerals to condemn this bigotry, even when masked men are trying to push a flaming wheelie bin towards a Holiday Inn which has migrants inside, are engaging in their own form of moral cowardice. But only condemning this racism, or painting it all as some concerted 'far right' insurgency, as the government has, is clearly not enough, either. Whatever else you might say about them, the peaceful protests outside of that hotel in Epping are clearly not mini BNP rallies. Even the mainstream media have begun to concede this, with Sky News noting that Sunday's big demonstration was made up of 'families sat on the grass, multigenerations of them, kids playing in the sunshine'. 'Residents are simply angry about events that have unfolded here in recent weeks.' In voxpops from the demos and the town, residents seem ever-keen to insist they are not 'far right' and condemn the troublemakers who have also, inevitably, shown up looking to clash with police, attack hotel staff and abuse migrants in the street. By ignoring legitimate public anger, and the catastrophic policy failures that have produced it, the government has only created more space for those who want to leap on the asylum issue for their own despicable ends. The Labour government now has a choice. It can double down on decades of failed orthodoxies, while mumbling something about 'reasonable concerns', or it can rip them up those orthodoxies for the good of the country. Locking up rioters and condemning the uglier side of this unrest is the easy bit. Now is the time to end the mix of uncontrolled illegal immigration, govenment-compelled multiculturalism and official neglect of communities that has brought us to this precipice. Tough on riots, tough on the causes of riots.


The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
How social media is helping the far-right spread fear and hate
At around 5.30pm on 7 July, Essex Police officers were called to the High Street in Epping after receiving reports that a man was behaving inappropriately towards a teenage girl. Hadush Kebatu, 38, an asylum seeker from Ethiopia, allegedly tried to kiss a schoolgirl as she ate pizza and he has since been charged with three counts of sexual assault. But news that he had only arrived in the UK eight days earlier via a small boat quickly took hold on social media, sparking a series of protests that turned violent and thrusting the historic Essex town into the heart of an anti-immigration row. What started as a group of locals voicing their grievances outside the Bell Hotel, which is believed to house asylum seekers, has now escalated into what has been described as a 'powder keg situation', with fears it could prompt a wave of riots across the country, similar to those seen last summer. In the past two weeks, prominent leaders in neo-Nazi groups and far-right organisations have been accused of exploiting the situation by pivoting demonstrations towards violence, with some demanding a 'national call for action'. Their weapon of choice? Social media, which the far-right have long been known to harness as a tool to spread fear and hate. Several right-wing activists have rebranded themselves as citizen journalists or political commentators, helping them accrue millions of followers in the UK and across the globe. Joe Mulhall, of the charity Hope Not Hate, said that is dangerous at a time when misinformation online spreads quickly and can whip up tensions. 'It's deeply concerning that a rumour or allegation can spread so quickly and take hold. Last year in Southport, misinformation from influencers like Andrew Tate spread like wildfire about the ethnicity and nationality of the perpetrator of the awful murders. 'When misinformation spreads, it can legitimise existing biases and as a rumour or allegation takes hold, things can quickly move offline.' Among those who have set up the private Facebook page Epping Says No, which advertises the protests, are three members of the group Homeland. Founded in 2023 after splitting from neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative, it has been described as the largest fascist group in the UK. This week, one of its prominent members has shared several videos of the protests on social media, and has called for future action, urging: 'If you live in an area that has a hotel occupied by asylum seekers, start organising.' Members of other groups, including former neo-Nazi terror group Combat 18, the British National Party and the Patriots of Britain, have also been spotted at the demonstrations. Mr Mullhall warned that with over-worked and over-stretched police forces, racist and anti-immigration rhetoric online can often fall under the radar. He said the UK 'needs to be ahead of the curve' to clamp down on this activity. 'Tracking these comments and the individuals responsible is tricky,' he said. 'The far-right are no longer divided into neat groupings but are instead thousands of people posting videos outside migrant accommodation, posting rumours and making comments online. 'Gone are the days when the police or social media companies can simply deplatform a particular group to resolve this issue.' Since Elon Musk 's takeover of X, formerly known as Twitter, the platform has changed significantly, with the Tesla founder reportedly tweaking its algorithms and removing its fact-checking mechanisms. This included turning the platform into a pro-Maga Trump echo chamber in the run-up to last year's US presidential elections, and reinstating previously banned figures such as Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkinson. For Hope Not Hate, it has become a visible and concerning trend to see US figures commenting on UK politics and societal issues, boosting far-right voices, such as those of anti-Islam activist Robinson, who has hinted he will be in attendance at an Epping protest on Sunday. Mr Mullhall said: "The far right has changed dramatically and ironically, knows no borders. What we're seeing now is key figures emerging online. We're no longer looking at organisations but key people who emerge during a time of crisis. 'The far right is international, they move around and they move in pacts and trying to find any weakness. They have no formal leader; there's no single leader, it's like they're a group of fish that move around the internet exploiting situations. 'It is no surprise that we've seen a rise in far-right activity in the UK, US and Europe – these groups and ideas are interconnected.' Dr Karen Middleton, from the University of Portsmouth, who has been an expert witness in the UK government's inquiry into social media, misinformation, and harmful algorithms, said the recent protests in Epping were 'in many ways, a continuation of the riots from last year'. She said: 'Sensationalist and polarising content gathers more clicks, gathers more engagement, so there is a systemic incentive for spreading misinformation online.' She urged large social media platforms to go much further in addressing the spread of misinformation, but warned this was not about limiting free speech. 'This is about taking responsibility for published information that is online that goes to a large number of people, and is very often spread by people with high profiles,' she said. A spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPSCC) said communities had a part to play in halting the spread of misinformation and urged people to 'carefully consider' what they read, share, and trust online to avoid stoking tensions. 'We would encourage the public to access formal authorities for accurate information. The spread of disinformation and misinformation by individuals or groups can significantly contribute to community tensions and has real-world implications. We all have a responsibility in this respect, and relevant criminal law applies to online actions,' they added. They also called on social media companies to be vigilant to the spread of false information and to 'ensure harmful content is detected, challenged and removed in a timely manner'.


The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jeremy Corbyn ‘getting 500 people a minute' wanting to join his new political party
Jeremy Corbyn said he is 'getting 500 people a minute' wanting to join his new political party. The former Labour leader launched a new outfit with Zarah Sultana that does not yet have a name, on Thursday (24 July), calling for a 'mass redistribution of wealth and power'. Asked what the new name of his party would be, Mr Corbyn said: 'We're going to decide when we've had all the responses, and so far the response rate has been massive. 'They've been coming in at 500 a minute wanting to support and join the new party.' He also said that he and Coventry South MP Ms Sultana are 'working very well together'.