Hunter Davies in the Sunday Times

I consider myself comfortable and content with our income - though if DH passes away before me the house will have to be sold. We are far from rich, but the mortgage is paid off and we do not owe to anyone. My OH has a small pension after retiring on health grounds at 42; and mine too is small - I opted out of contributions when the children were small as things were very tight.

We are comfortable, but did not get there without a struggle and I feel we have earned our comfort - but bear in mind we do not have extravagant tastes. OH was made ill by his work and I had to pick up the reins when we had 3 children to support - we had to sell our lovely home and downsize; and I worked very hard to keep us afloat.

I feel not one tiny iota of guilt at this comparative comfort that we now enjoy - it is more than offset by how hard we worked and by our health problems. Leave us in peace is what I say.

So true, BR59, and if we forget our past we face the prospect of having to relearn it. I am sad to see so many aspects of our national progress vanishing these days. The consequences of this for all of us, young and old, are very disturbing.

We all have to live in our time.
When I left school and went to college the idea of a gap year was unheard of.
My parents had their honeymoon in Devon going abroad was impossible.
Their parents went abroad (the men anyway) to fight in one of two wars.
I have a good pension but I worked hard and paid in for forty years to get it.
Remind me wasn't it the mainly young men in the 'city' who bought the world to it's knees.
Every generation has it's pros and cons - you have to make the most of your opportunities and live as best you can in what ever shoebox you find yourself in.

Never mind!

Yes, I'm dim! Crossed posts - just had a lightbulb moment.....doh.

Ana - what does xd posts mean? Am I dim?!

xd posts, NotTooOld!

Yes, I read that too, papaoscar, but I think the idea that he could come back into the fold and oust his brother is just a pipe dream. A woman chancellor would certainly be a good idea, though - that would be a first!

I agree. Labour needs a good leader now and the two Eds just do not cut it. Ana is right, people are turning to UKIP and the like because they feel they better represent the views of the people. I entirely agree that immigration has broadened our minds, expanded our culture and so on, but there comes a time when the country has to display the 'full up' sign and if that means leaving Europe, then so be it - that is not a racist stance. It is interesting that the three main parties are now mostly promoting this view but also worrying that they can so easily change direction for political and not idealistic reasons. Where are the politicians of conviction?

I agree, Ana, but Labour will have to fight the next election with what they've got up their sleeve now. I suspect that UKIP will turn out to be a self-destructing distraction, and it is interesting and amusing to see the Tories taking hits from such a shambolic outfit. By the way, I noticed an alleged statement from David Milliband the other day not ruling out a return to UK politics, so who knows. Perhaps he would bring a new Chancellor with him, a woman perhaps?

Yes it is. But people aren't returning to Labour in their droves, they're turning to UKIP or other parties which they feel represent their views and opinions.

If David Miliband had won the leadership contest I think Labour would be in a really strong position now, but Ed's just uninspiring and Ed Balls is unconvincing as a future chancellor. There's just no charisma in the party at all.

I don't need to put a spin on Margaret Thatcher, rosequartz, she was bad news for the country and in the end was put away by her own side. We were compulsorily dumped by her sycophants into an NDPB, or quango, and progressively stripped of our CS and PCSPS rights in the rush to privatise central government functions. The shambles that resulted lives on in many areas of the old Civil Service and also, in fact, across the national infrastructure. Labour, to their shame, just carried on the process like so many tame poodles but, realistically, these days they are the only remaining hope for the prospects of ordinary folk. I hope they're up to it, because the Tories are determined to seek the destruction of the remaining functions of the state, in favour of free-enterprise, self- or no-regulation and complete freedom to squeeze maximum profits out of a cowed working class. It won't happen because the people will, at some point, rise up against their oppressors as they have done before. It is beginning to happen now.

I thought the PCSPS changed in 2004 after 7 years of Labour Government (that pesky Margaret Thatcher dictating Labour Government policy, well I never!)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding and to make sure that no-one thinks that I am 'spinning' I would like to point out that the two quoted phrases above are separate. The first part ends with 'along' and the second part, which does not follow on, begins with 'My'

It was not typed as it appears, it was typed as two separate quotes from another post.

until Margaret Thatcher came along My civil service pension, which had been non-contributory (hence our low pay), became contributory
When did that happen, papa? And how come Labour didn't reverse it during their 13 years in power?
I worked for the civil service and anyone who was in the original scheme could opt to stay in that scheme, or change to the new one, which was contributory but offered a better ratio of pension to pay.
I suppose you can put a spin on anything to make Margaret Thatcher look bad if you want to.

Yes, Nonnie, its an absolute disgrace, as is the fact that many public service pensions are not separately funded but come straight out of taxation. This all sets worker against worker and pensioner against pensioner, whereas we should all be taking up the cudgels with the politicians who allowed this mess to take place. And I don't remember the armies of actuaries and pension specialists warning us of the consequences of changing demographics and work patterns. They just rubber-stamped the status-quo and walked away with their bags of gold. Now they are demanding more buckets of cash for telling us the b...... obvious!

I read the whole article and it changes significantly towards the end. What he said made a lot of sense to me.

papa those of us who didn't have a public sector pension also had to pay more and get less for it, most of us just didn't have the numbers to make a big issue out of it like the public sector. Many of us now have pensions which are not index linked so know we can only get worse off unless a miracle happens and those of us who have provided for our old age can get a decent return on our savings.

I set out to read Mr Davies words about us pensioners but fell at the first hurdle because I don't subscribe to the Sunday Times and have no intention of doing so. Therefore my comments are not encumbered by having read his article. However, I was a civil servant most of my working life and enjoyed it until Margaret Thatcher came along and ripped the heart and soul out of public employment. From the age of 18 I was required, like millions of others, to pay towards the NHS and my state retirement pension. My civil service pension, which had been non-contributory (hence our low pay), became contributory and almost all of our terms and conditions were ripped up, watered down, or ignored.

This at a time when massive private pension schemes were taking cash back from their schemes or giving themselves enormous contribution holidays. At no time were we led to believe that we were a golden generation, because we weren't and most are still not. We saw property prices soar and fall and soar and fall again with all the consequent social heartbreak. Tory and Labour governments encouraged or allowed these madcap activities to take place, so I certainly don't need rich Times journalists lecturing me about the follies of their own greed-ridden class. All this and I haven't even read his article!

I'm surprised - that's not very much is it. I don't know where the idea of thousands of rich pensioners comes from if that is the average retirement income.

Eloethan I don't know if it matters as the main thing is you are happy with your lot - that has to be good but you may be interested to know that the average retirement income in London is £12,000, in the east of England £11,900 and overall £9,490.

I can't read all of the article but I think he is saying that, yes, we may have houses that have gone up in value and we may be cluttering up the NHS according to some, but that we have had it hard getting there.

Annoying, I got the Times yesterday, did not get one today.

I do like Hunter Davies and think what he writes is readable, thoughtful and interesting (met one of his friends on holiday once - a most interesting fellow, also an author - he, Hunter Davies and Melvyn Bragg were all at school together.)

He does give a balanced view later on . I think he has excellent money sense. I think Gransnet should invite him on for a web chat.

These comments are so generalised.

Some pensioners are living in the lap of luxury, some pensioners are struggling to get by, some help their families, some help charities, some go on cruises, some go to bingo, etc., etc. It's ridiculous to lump everybody together.

Speaking for ourselves, we are better off now than when working because we have paid for our house and we both have pretty good pensions. However, we have given substantial support to our children financially, providing house deposits, holidays, etc. etc., and providing childcare. Additionally, I do a few hours volunteering and we donate on a regular basis to various charities. I believe we are fairly representative of quite a lot of pensioners.

As others have said on GN previously, it's yet another example of setting one group of people off against another - "divide and rule".

Grrr ... I really think this sort of article doesn't help at all. Just like the rest of society very rich pensioners have got much richer, middling pensioners are about the same some actually a bit worse off, and the poor pensioners have got poorer. More us (pensioners) and them (working age) is not going to help.

There was an article by him a couple of weeks ago in the S.T., about their two homes.
He's one of my favourite writers, because he's from the North, and we were at Durham University at the same time (though I never met him.)
Looking forward to reading this tomorrow when hopefully I get the paper, if it turns up!