'But the bigger question is the triple lock. Is the triple lock really affordable?'
Pensions are something we need to talk about because there's a story that's been reported that has been hiding in plain sight.
The OBR has been assuming that the pension age will go up to 68 in 2037, when the nominal position of the Government that it will be in 2044 to 46.
Now, why is this hiding in plain sight? Well, the OBR only makes its forecast on what is Government policy.
It doesn't make forecasts on things it thinks may happen, or things it would like to happen, or even things that it thinks definitely won't happen.
So for years, it's been assuming there's going to be a rise in petrol duty, because that's been Government policy, even though it never happens.
So when the Government says, oh, don't take any notice, it doesn't matter. It's not true, it does matter. And it's very, very sensible.
If you go back to the point at which the male pension age was 65, life expectancy from birth for a man was 68. It's not quite as simple as to say, three years in retirement, because life expectancy from 65 was higher and is higher than from birth.
Nonetheless, it gives you a scale of the time people would likely be pensioners for compared to now when men live to be about 80.
And this has become an extraordinary cost and I know pensioners pay in, but it is in fact getting back much more than they paid in because of their longevity. That's why the pension age has risen so far. But it needs to rise again.
We also need to put it up because we need the good workforce and people are living not just longer, they're living longer in good health. So they are capable in many cases of working.
So this story is a reality, and the Government should get a grip on it and tell people now, because the only validity of the Waspi women who I think deserve no extra money at all is that they didn't know early enough.
It's not true in my view, but the earlier you tell people, the better.
But there is a bigger question, incidentally, that saves £6billion if we do it a little bit earlier.
But the bigger question is the triple lock. Is the triple lock really affordable?
Now, I know, having stood for election a number of times, that many voters for the Conservatives are pensioners, it is a big voting bloc and therefore there is a strong electoral interest in keeping them happy.
But I've always found that pensioners are extraordinarily sensible about what the Government, what the taxpayer can afford. And they're beginning to say to themselves that this can't carry on.
That the effect of compound interest, if you always take the highest of 2.5 per cent inflation or wages, means that pensions rise disproportionately to other prices within the economy, they take a bigger share of GDP and that ceases to be affordable.
But for electoral purposes, everyone is shying away from it. I've noticed that Jeremy Hunt has said it needs to be looked at.
Reform used to want to look at it, but I think the reality is that Andy Burnham may have to examine the triple lock sooner rather than later.
