The more substantial challenge in policy terms is to provide a lifetime income for people in the new economy.

The universal pension was one of the most eye-catching recommendations of the second report of the Pension Commission in 2005. Crucially it was restricted to the over 75s, accompanied by a tough residence test – to prevent pension tourism – and linked to a steady increase in the retirement age. Lord Turner argued for a retirement age of 70.

It had also been debated among a group of Labour women MPs making the case for better pension provision for women. At that stage 84 per cent of working women did not qualify for a full state pension, because they lacked the NI contribution record, and few had occupational pensions, the backbone of UK pensions.

So it’s not a new idea. One of its biggest problems is that it breaks the link between what a person puts into society during their working life and what they get out during retirement. Not an easy argument, but people tend to think that if you work hard – either in paid employment or by caring for children or sick or elderly relatives – and contribute to society then your effort should be rewarded. To adjust for women’s lives, the Labour government cut the number of years needed to qualify for a pension and made it easier for women to buy back lost years and get their years of caring covered.

The universal pension does not allow for the pensioners’ widely diverging needs. People on the pension credit can get carers and disability premiums. Targeting – which the Liberal Democrats are wrong to dismiss as means testing – is the only way to match money to need.

Most of all, things have moved on. Seventy per cent of women now reaching retirement age are entitled to the full basic state pension, due to a combination of Labour’s pension changes, and women’s employment in the labour market. From 2025 that will rise to 90 percent of men and women.

Meanwhile there are new challenges coming from the recession. Research into the impact of the recession on families in my former Northampton constituency found profound changes in household working patterns, with women describing themselves as their family’s breadwinner and men’s hours being cut to part-time. Pensions policy needs to catch up with this, perhaps by allowing pooling of pension rights within households, similar to the arrangements for tax credits.

And for men and women working till 66 or beyond the challenge for the state will be to enable them to achieve a lifetime income that smoothes out peaks and troughs in earning power and maintains their quality of life.

One thing is certain: these are swing voters in the swing seats. They were hit hard by the abolition of the 10p tax rate, and punished us accordingly. We need to have policies that resonate with them for next time round – and that are more sustainable than a £140 flat rate pension. 

Photo: Richard Riley