I hope that George Osborne will finally introduce some policies to help savers

Autumn Statement wishlist.

I hope that George Osborne will finally introduce some policies to help savers.  It is vital that the Government stops punishing those who want to take responsibility for themselves and their future, rather than spending everything immediately and then falling back on benefits.  Savers have had such a rough deal in recent years.  It is understandable that some emergency economic help had to be introduced, but enough's enough.  Savers need some help now, in order to ensure that future generations are not put off taking responsibility for their own financial future.

Whether it's young people saving for a house deposit, or older generations trying to prepare for retirement, savings have been damaged by recent policies.  Ultra low interest rates have decimated savings income, high inflation has reduced savers' capital spending power and the policy of Quantitative Easing which has bought huge swathes of the government bond market, has resulted in much lower pensions all round.

There are some major policies that I would love to see in this Autumn Statement.

1.  Help all savers by relaxing the restrictions on ISAs (tax free Individual Savings Accounts) so the savers can choose to use their full annual limit either to save in cash or in stocks and shares.  Currently, only half the annual allowance can be saved in cash.  But young people saving for a house deposit or retirees living on their savings cannot afford to gamble on the stock market.  They should be allowed to shelter the full annual allowance from tax.  This would have the same effect for them as a rise in interest rates, as they would get more savings income.

2.  Pensioners who do not want to buy annuities with their pension fund have had their incomes cut by Government policy when they are in an Income Drawdown pension.  I am calling on the Chancellor to allow people to take more money out of their own pension savings, rather than cutting their pensions in line with the plunge in market annuity rates.  The changes the Chancellor made last year have caused serious hardship for many pensioners, and reversing them would allow people to maintain their pension income, they would have more money to spend and pay more tax, so actually it would benefit the Exchequer.  If they have been responsible enough to save large sums for their retirement, they should be trusted more to spend it appropriately.

3.  I would like to see the Chancellor introduce policies to encourage people to save for later life care needs - at the moment, savings policy is focussing far too much on just pensions, without addressing the looming crisis in social care funding that is coming down the track.  A separate ISA allowance for care savings, which would only be tax-free if the money is used for care - either for oneself or a member of ones family - would start to signal to people that later life saving is about more than just pensions.

4.  I would like to see a more creative approach to encouraging pension funds to invest in local construction or infrastructure projects, or even lending to local businesses.  Perhaps issuing some local bonds specifically for pension funds, with a minimum return underpin that would allow local authority pension schemes to help boost their local economies, or to invest more broadly to benefit the UK economy. 

5.  I would like to see some temporary tax breaks for capital spending projects, perhaps a 12 or 24 month special incentive that would encourage firms to undertake expansion investments quickly.  Large firms have plenty of cash, but currently they are not feeling confident enough to use it. Giving them an incentive to do so, when we know they do have the money, could help kick-start growth and would pay for itself in reduced benefit spending.  Pension funds also have billions of pounds of investments, but they are currently using their money to buy gilts to try to reduce their risks.  This is a counterproductive strategy and the economy would benefit much more if they invested in projects that would provide a benefit to growth directly.

Ros Altmann is a UK pensions expert and campaigner

Savers have had a rough deal. Photograph: Getty Images

Ros Altmann is director general of Saga Group

Getty.
Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.