Mystery of the missing UKIP pensions policies

You might not be aware of the exact detail of Labour, the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties’ policies on pensions – but at least you know they each have them.

Not so the case with UKIP.

According to Ipsos Mori, 55 per cent of UKIP supporters are aged 55 plus – the highest of any major party. And yet with just over four months to go until the general election, UKIP has yet to articulate a crucial policy for their core supporters.

They have a policy on medals for people who have served in the armed forces but not on pensions.

“We currently haven’t announced one,” UKIP’s Jack Duffin told the Daily Mirror (January 7). “We’ll be announcing it at the party conference in Margate in February.”

“No party has released their election manifesto yet,” he added.

No – but at least we are aware of where the other parties stand on pensions. Its 2014 manifesto, released ahead of the European Parliamentary Election, also fails to include any pensions details.

Does UKIP – the party with the oldest voter base – have any policies on pensions? And if so why leave the details of this crucial voter issue to the last few weeks before an election?

When Prospect magazine asked Tim Aker, UKIP head of policy and MEP for for the East of England, in August about public sector pensions – if the party had considered this and what it was planning to do with them, he said, “I have, and then got very scared and ran away.”

He added, “We haven’t looked into it.”

Well not recently anyway. Its last pensions proposal was published in 2010 – five years ago – by a pensions policy group of members no longer prominent in the party.

The proposals do not look too enticing. To summarise:

• UKIP would roll all existing state pensions, pensions credit, the winter fuel allowance into a flat-rate non-means tested, non-contributory and non-taxable “citizen’s pension” of ÂŁ130 per week for all pensioners aged 65 and over

• UKIP would scrap the statutory pension protection fund and the national pensions savings scheme because “they are costly and counter-productive”

• UKIP would also reduce the annual limit for tax relievable pension contributions to ÂŁ10,000 gross and reinstate the dividend tax credit at 20 per cent.

At least ÂŁ18 a week worse off

So if these proposals were still to stand, £130 a week would leave everyone considerably worse off, with no fuel allowance and £18.40 a week less than the New Pension.

There are other problematic points. For example, the pension protection fund protects pensioners in case those who provide their private pension go bust. It’s a key protection that would need to be replaced in some form if UKIP still intends to scrap it.

UKIP clearly is not in a position to offer itself to the British voting public as a credible political party.

Unite political director, Jennie Formby, said, “The UK pensions system has undergone radical change over the last five years and UKIP cannot seriously expect to get away with silence on such a crucial issue for voters – or to use proposals that are impractical, outdated and would make life even harder for vulnerable pensioners.

“If UKIP cannot even come up with any realistic and credible policies on the issue that concerns the majority of their voters, how can they be considered as a serious political party, responsible for the welfare and future of Britain?” she asked.