The Upstairs-Downstairs society is not a relic of the past or an historical drama. A person's place of birth and their position in our class system still affects most people throughout their lives.
This has been brought home to me in trying to understand the politics of ageing which is becoming a hot political potato.
It starts with a great gain which is that people are living longer than before. A girl born today will live, on average, until 82 and a boy will reach 77. Ten million people now alive will celebrate their 100th birthday.
Our rapidly ageing society has prompted successive governments to embrace equal retirement ages for men and women and to increase their retirement age. The aim is to make sure that enough people are creating wealth and paying taxes to support children and pensioners who cannot do so. We redistribute resources between the generations.
Pensions began just over a century ago when working people finally began to outlive their working lives. Nowadays the old pensions model is under strain because many people live two or three decades past retirement while many young people don't start work until their early twenties.
Men and women who reach 65 live an average of 17.8 and 20.4 years after retirement although the figures for the North East are slightly lower.
However, average figures conceal an eternal truth which is that the least privileged, many of whom have had tough lives in the workplace, live less long and sadly some never see their pension.
The richest borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for instance, has the highest life expectancy but there is also a difference of eight years between the most and least deprived wards.
Professional men reaching 65 have a life expectancy of 18 years but unskilled men have 14 years as pensioners. For women at 65, the respective figures are 22 and 17.7 years.
Furthermore, many approaching retirement began their working lives earlier than others. I myself started work at 15.
But many better off people, thanks to university education, which was then more restricted, did not start their careers until the age of 21 or later.
Is it right that those who have worked longer receive the state pension at the same age as those who have worked fewer years?
My Labour colleague Malcolm Wicks argues that that we should consider an early pension entitlement for those who started work early and have therefore contributed towards their pension for longer.
Another practical issue with advancing the retirement age is whether there will be enough work to go round.
About one in eight people already continue to work past state pension age but, more leave the labour market before formal retirement. Almost a quarter of men aged 50-64 and over a quarter of women aged 50-59 were classed as 'economically inactive'.
This becomes more acute for many people in their early 60s with, for example, just over half of 64 year old men not in work.
This means that many people are currently left in a benefit twilight zone. They cannot draw their pension but probably cannot get a job and need benefits which are designed for other purposes but which fill the gap.
Dealing with these issues is very difficult for any government but they cannot be ignored and need public debate.
But I agree with Age UK and other representative groups that the government is moving too far and too fast to lift the retirement age.
I will do my utmost to highlight social justice and the impact of class in what should be a search for consensus on a policy that affects us all now and in generations to come.
Some individuals can change their circumstances but we are all better off with an active government plus institutions of mutual solidarity and steady economic growth to enable everyone to reach their full potential, whatever their age.
Newcastle Chronicle and Journal
| Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT |