Fifty Plus? Then it's the Benefits Bus.

A Telegraph report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8728179/100000-older-workers-forced-to-retire-early.html) suggests that if you are 50+ and lose your job, you are likely never to work again and be forced into early retirement, with a consequently lower pension- and perhaps dependence on state benefits?

That's bad enough, but what about the manual workers who cannot get their pension until they reach whatever arbitrary age the government decides on?

I though this government was all about reducing public spending, in particular the benefits bill to improve the countries finance? Surely this will place a greater burden on the public purse. Or maybe their plan to slash benefits, irrespective of the human and economic cost means this will have little overall impact?

And I have to ask the Telegraph, why have you said "…the Institute of Public Policy Research, which has links to the Labour Party"? What relevance does having links to the New Labour Party (correct title, if you please) have? Either the report is a reasonable assessment from a reputable body, or it isn't and if it isn't, explain why they are wrong; don't try smear tactics by associating them and the report with New Labour.

I am of the opinion there is too much emphasis on getting the young into work. There should be no emphasis on helping any group back to work. The government must ensure the jobs are there, that they are secure and that anybody receiving benefits takes any reasonable job offer. This will only be done with the rebuilding of British manufacturing, at tax payers' expense (initially) if necessary. But if there must be an emphasis, it should be with the older worker with a proven track record who, as the report suggests may find themselves unemployable.

NURSES, POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN TO HAVE PENSIONS CUT

I see the BBC is using its usual 'unbiased' reporting to manipulate public opinion once again. This morning's BBC Breakfast show headlines that civil servants and public sector workers to have their final salary pensions replaced with average earnings pensions; they should retire later and contribute more.

Immediately, 99.9% of non-civil servants will say it is right, based mainly on the premise of 'I don't get it; why should they?' Coup number one; they have successfully introduced the 'divide and conquer' scenario. Why aren't we supporting them and saying leave them alone; we want the same?

I suspect the same 99.9% of non public servants will envisage public sector workers and civil servants as the well-paid, pin-striped, bowler hatted old boys club, the popular conception of the civil servant.

In fact we are talking about nurses, hospital porters, doctor's receptionists, policemen and firemen. Coup number two; journalists are well aware that what you headline tends to form the opinion of the reader/viewer. In this instance, they will be well aware that headlining 'nurses, policemen and firemen' would possibly, even probably elicit a different response; one of support for our front-line services. (By the way we were promised these would not be affected by the cuts. Remember?)

This of course leads us into the May elections. What can we do that will boost our public perception? Hit the civil servants, but not too much detail or there might be a backlash if they realise it's the civil servants the most vulnerable rely on that we will hit the hardest… again.

Of course, this is still at the report stage. I suspect, however that the biased reporting is to ready us for the almost inevitable implementation of most of Lord Hutton's recommendations.

WORK UNTIL YOU DROP

According to a news report on BBC's Breakfast program, the pension age rise to 66 will mean that although you will lose one year's pension your pension at 66 will be 10% higher.

So, a pension of x at 65 will be a pension of x + 10% at age 66. This means living to 76 years the new retirement age will have no overall effect on the pension bill. Yes, that means no savings. 10 years of claiming pension from age 66 costs just the same as retiring at 65.

According to The Office for National Statistics, men will live to 76.4 years.

'Google' life expectancy UK and you will see other institutions give similar results.

Of course, this will mean fewer jobs for younger people. And if you are too ill to work until 66, it is likely the current incapacity/sickness benefits will be slashed so if you are lucky enough to be able to claim them, they won't be much.

The conclusions are several if men are to live until 76+, claiming their pension + 10% at age 66 with no overall reduction in costs-

• That we are being deliberately mislead, once again politicians fooling us into believing they are 'doing something'.

• That the problem will not be the current administrations problem.

• That as the pensionable age is forced up we will be worked to death before we claim a pension.

• That more draconian measures are planned.

It seems that old age, poverty, incapacity, inability and sickness is to be penalised so the banks can stay rich.

The 16 or so billion pound deficit is a drop in the ocean for the banks that caused the problems. Why are they not being made to pay?

Tens, if not hundreds of millions of pounds (http://www.moneyhospital.co.uk/blog/post/the-50-billion-british-bank-bail-out) of taxpayers money was used to bail out the banks, much more than the deficit. Make the banks repay the money and there will be no need for these draconian measures AND LOTS TO SPARE!

The problem is these measures are not about the deficit. They are about the traditional Tory values of making the poor pay for the luxuries and wealth of the rich.

Watching question time last night, Peter Hitchens, a noted traditionalist conservative said as much-

"it's all very well to say tax the rich, fine by me,  tax the rich but there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference. If you have the kind of economy we have…  you have to tax the poor, there isn't any other way you're going to afford it."

This is typical Tory policy. This is typical of Tory half-truths. Because while it may be arguable "there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference" the fact is that the dearth of rich people is more than compensated by the fact that currently 1% of the population hold 70% of the wealth.. I would argue that while there may not be enough rich people, they certainly hold enough of the wealth.