Lies in the phoney "pensions debate". posted by Richard Seymour

Last night, Phil Woolas, a docile New Labour lamb and local government minister, told Channel Four news that the only reason that the attempt was being made to force workers on the LGPS to work longer hours was because of a six-year-old directive on age discrimination. This, the government claimed, made it necessary to 'level up' the retirement age. On the contrary, according to Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU commission's spokeswoman on employment, social affairs and equal opportunities:

"It's an artificial debate and is only going on in Britain. The directive has no influence on pension value or pension age. It is completely up to the member state. If they think it is reasonable for people to retire at 60, under EU law that is perfectly legal."

This claim from the government has been knocking around for three years, if not more. It was first invoked by Patricia Hewitt in 2003 to justify raising all pension ages, possibly to 70. It's plainly, demonstrably, easily a cover for the government's true intention, which is to structurally adjust the economy in the direction of longer working lives to accompany our increasingly long working days.

Woollas was also claiming that this was purely a dispute with the LGA, which the union leaders were also claiming until recently. However, Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister, he is the one who wrote to local government unions saying he would overrule changes last year (before the general election), he could easily do so again. He has the power to overrule Local Government Authorities, so it's just nonsense to say that this is merely an issue between the unions and local government. The whole policy has been driven by the government from day one. To their credit, Unison - the largest union in this dispute and in the country - has recognised this and suspended its support for the government. One hopes members will push for the union to follow the lead of the FBU and disaffiliate.

Other thing is this repeated nonsense about the 'old age support ratio', in which there are too many old people and not enough workers to support them - all of which ministers keep going on about without being challenged by newscasters who all too often find themselves temporarily lodged tongue-first in the minister's rectum. In fact, a

report, prepared by thinktank Tomorrow’s Company, disputes the significance of the 'old age dependency ratio'.

This is the ratio of the number of people over 65 years old to those under 16 years, which is set to rise by 42 percent by 2041.

But just as significant is the total 'economic support ratio', the ration of the number of people not working to those in work. This is set to rise by just 1 percent.

Based on this measure, more generous pensions could be provided without significant tax increases, the report argues.

Furthermore, it says that efforts to address pension shortfalls through savings are largely misguided.

Too many of those who do not save are simply too poor to put money aside.

Phillip Mullin, one of the report’s authors, argues that by concentrating on old age dependency ratios, policymakers ignore the fact that workers are already supporting a wide variety of non-workers—caring for young children, students in college and the disabled, for example.

While the proportions of different groups of non-workers may change over time to include more elderly and fewer children, the overall burden may not be much greater than it is today.

'Despite the fact that it is so often quoted, the old age dependency ratio tells us nothing about the economics of an ageing population,” Mullin says. “It is misleading to the point of being meaningless.'

Some more on the pensions strike here, here and here. And some excellent coverage of the French upheaval here and here.