We don’t want our children to grow up in a stultified, caste society where the only way to wealth and opportunity is to inherit it from parents.
The campaign simply asks for fair compensation for the Department for Work and Pensions’ failure to inform them of this massive change to their state pension arrangements.
There are many things that can be done to resist the tide. The first would be for ministers to make the philosophical case for where state responsibility ends, and personal responsibility starts.
My argument is simply one of affordability (including, by the way, by dropping the triple lock) if our public finances are going to be sustainable.
Tax incentives are all well and good, but the Government also needs to tackle the discrimination faced by too many older people in the workplace.
A hypothetical, perfectly average 58-year-old could have increased their wealth by 40 per cent between 2017 and 2022, and paid very little tax, all by following the rules.
The old, simplistic idea of ‘learn, work, retire’ is badly out-of-date – but 20th-century thinking is preventing the UK from moving on.
We can avoid getting into an argument about whether or not the Government’s plan is an industrial strategy. The Conservative Party has got rather hung up on that term.
“I think what you’ll see overall is a broad approach that recognises that, where we can, we need to prioritise people on the lowest incomes.”
The measures would signal that we are a national community, membership of which brings particular rights and also obligations. It sounds pretty Conservative to me.
There is a limit to what can fairly and sensibly be achieved by raising other taxes and cutting public spending – especially when it comes to pay.
It is right that younger generations pay the soaring costs of unfunded commitments to older citizens, that is how it has always been.
Our manifesto couldn’t reasonably be expected to predict the freak consequences of Covid in terms of rapid wage growth.