She's 100% right. It's obvious.
Pension age needs to rise and it should be tied to average lifespan. And the whole system needs to change, it can't keep running as a ponzi scheme.
But it won't, because politicians only care what happens in the next 5 years.
Exclusive: A Conservative shadow minister has privately called for the pension triple lock to be replaced by an âentirely newâ system.
Katie Lam, the shadow communities secretary, said there needed to be a âradicalâ shake-up of the coalition-era policy that Andy Burnham has committed to reforming.
A leaked recording obtained by The Times from June (when she held a different front-bench role) reveals her response to a question at a Tory association event about the triple lock policy.
âUltimately I think what we will need in the end is an entirely new pension system,â she said.
âI mean, a baby that is born today has a 20 per cent chance of living to be 100 and I donât think we can fund one in five people half of their lives, you know, for the first 20 and the last 30 years. But obviously if you are 90 you probably canât go out and get a job right, so I think you have to be realistic about how you would taper that and bring that in across the population.â
She added: âI just think the whole system as it stands canât stand for very much longer.â
The comments appear to break from Badenochâs position, which is that pensions should continue to rise in line with the triple lock, by 2.5 per cent, average earnings or inflation, whichever is highest.
Lam said that âultimatelyâ the pensions system would be more likely to have to rely on private schemes.
She said: âSome of the coalition changes around private pension contribution rates are like directionally the right ones. I think ultimately we will just need to have individual pots that people have for themselves, private sector pensions, Sipps [self-invested personal pension], all of that kind of thing.
âMaybe some sort of annuity product thatâs, like, guaranteed by the government or something like that, I donât know. But itâs hard to imagine like, the triple lock for me is a bit like in the immigration system, like changing the conditions of a specific visa or, I think we need something more radical and less incremental than that.â
Public spending had risen dramatically as a percentage of GDP since 2010, according to Lam, who told attendees: âWe have to have honesty and humility about the fact that that happened under a Conservative leadership.â
She added: âThe state is just going to have to do dramatically less, which I suppose comes onto the pensions point.â
Her comments reflect the private view of some senior Tories. Tom Tugendhat, the shadow foreign secretary, said when he was a backbencher last November that the triple lock was âsimply not affordableâ.
After Burnhamâs announcement that he would remove an annual earnings link in the next parliament, the Conservatives launched an appeal to âhelp us fight himâ.
A petition launched by the party this week said: âPensioners built this country. They worked hard, paid in and did the right thing. They live on fixed incomes. Most cannot work,. That is why the Conservatives invented the triple lock. Because we recognise contribution.â
Approached today about the comments, Lam said: âOur commitment to the triple lock is clear and unwavering. It is farcical that the prime minister wants to take away money from pensioners while billions are being spent on foreign nationals who have never paid into the system, and on people who choose not to work.
âAndy Burnham needs to focus on slashing the welfare bill, not on ideological attacks on pensioners. As I said in my full answer to the question, if youâre going to change the pension system for people who did actually pay in all of their lives, youâve got to start by not giving benefits to people who arenât Brits, and getting people back to work.â