Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 17, 2024, 10:12:39 PM
-
... Compensate Waspi Women"
Pretty much
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/they-are-shameless-labour-ministers-accused-of-betrayal-for-refusing-to-compensate-waspi-women_uk_6761eb77e4b0cbd652a2be14
-
... Compensate Waspi Women"
Pretty much
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/they-are-shameless-labour-ministers-accused-of-betrayal-for-refusing-to-compensate-waspi-women_uk_6761eb77e4b0cbd652a2be14
I have no time for the Waspi campaign.
These changes were announced in 1995, some 15-20 years before they actually happened. How much time did these people want to make changes, which, of course, might just mean working for a couple of extra years (like men of the same age already had to and everyone now does).
And let's not forget that the reason for the changes in the first place was to correct a grossly discriminatory policy whereby men and women received their pensions at different ages. Good that the government hasn't caved.
-
I have no time for the Waspi campaign.
These changes were announced in 1995, some 15-20 years before they actually happened. How much time did these people want to make changes, which, of course, might just mean working for a couple of extra years (like men of the same age already had to and everyone now does).
And let's not forget that the reason for the changes in the first place was to correct a grossly discriminatory policy whereby men and women received their pensions at different ages. Good that the government hasn't caved.
So you are happy that they lied when in opposition?
-
So you are happy that they lied when in opposition?
I am pleased they are doing the right thing in government.
And just to check that it isn't you who is lying - please confirm whether Labour committed to compensating the WASPI women in their 2024 manifesto. I've looked I cannot see any such commitment.
-
So you are happy that they lied when in opposition?
So do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect.
I think that people need to take responsibility for their own retirement planning NS.
-
I am pleased they are doing the right thing in government.
And just to check that it isn't you who is lying - please confirm whether Labour committed to compensating the WASPI women in their 2024 manifesto. I've looked I cannot see any such commitment.
But they aren't doing it because they agree with you that they shouldn't be compensated. And that it wasn't in their manifesto doesn't mean that they didn't have their pictures taken showing support for the compensation. So you're now suggesting that they were either incompetent in doing that and leading on the campaigners, or lying. Why do you think that's acceptable for a political party?
-
So do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect.
I think that people need to take responsibility for their own retirement planning NS.
And yet the ombudsman disagreed that they were aware. Are you suggesting the campaigners that the Starmer supported in deed, and still does in word, are stupid?
-
And yet the ombudsman disagreed that they were aware.
But the public ombudsman has no legal powers to compel the government to comply with its recommendations. The government has the right to choose to ignore the ombudsman's ruling as it has in this case, not least because it needs to consider the wider public interest in spending up to £10billion of public money on compensation. The government has decided not to do this, and good on them.
If the WASPI campaigners don't like it that the government has chosen not to comply with a non-legally binding ruling by the ombudsman then they can look to get a legally binding ruling in the courts. Oh, I forgot they have already challenged this in the courts (well I didn't forget, but did note that you failed to mentioned this) ... and they lost. The court ruled that there was no case for compensation and I believe also ruled that the DWP did not have an obligation to write to all potentially impacted people individually.
Oh and something else you have forgotten NS - which is to answer my question - Do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect?
-
But the public ombudsman has no legal powers to compel the government to comply with its recommendations. The government has the right to choose not to ignore the ombudsman's ruling as it has in this case, not least because it needs to consider the wider public interest in spending up to £10billion of public money on compensation. The government has decided not to do this, and good on them.
If the WASPI campaigner don't like it that the government has chosen not to comply with a non-legally binding ruling by the ombudsman then they can look to get a legally binding ruling in the courts. Oh, I forgot they have already challenged this in the courts (well I didn't, but did note that you failed to mentioned this) ... and they lost. The court ruled that there was no case for compensation and I believe also ruled that the DWP did not have an obligation to write to all potentially impacted people individually.
Oh and something else you have forgotten NS - which is to answer my question - Do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect?
Who said the ombudsman had that power?
-
Who said the ombudsman had that power?
The point is that the ombudsman (or rather the public one) doesn't have that power, the courts do. So why did you only mention the non-binding ruling of the ombudsman rather than the far more significant (legally biding) ruling of the courts. Where the campaigners lost the case ... and took it to appeal, and lost again.
Noting again that you've failed to answer my question.
Anticipating more diversionary non-sense from NS as he squirms and squirms to try to avoid answering a clear and direct question.
-
The point is that the ombudsman (or rather the public one) doesn't have that power, the courts do. So why did you only mention the non-binding ruling of the ombudsman rather than the far more significant (legally biding) ruling of the courts. Where the campaigners lost the case ... and took it to appeal, and lost again.
Noting again that you've failed to answer my question.
Anticipating more diversionary non-sense from NS as he squirms and squirms to try to avoid answering a clear and direct question.
So your strawman that the ombudsman had that power, or anyone claimed they did, you now retract. Good.
-
So your strawman that the ombudsman had that power, or anyone claimed they did, you now retract. Good.
As anticipated (see above) :o
Still waiting NS.
-
As anticipated (see above) :o
Still waiting NS.
Oh look you want to fellate your strawman
-
Oh look you want to fellate your strawman
Yet more diversionary non-sense.
Still waiting NS.
-
Yet more diversionary non-sense.
Still waiting NS.
For what? And why would that excuse your strawman?
-
For what?
For you to answer my question, as you well know. Just in case you've forgotten what it was - here it is again:
Do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect?
-
For you to answer my question, as you well know. Just in case you've forgotten what it was - here it is again:
Do you think the WASPI women should be compensated for their failure to pay attention to pension changes that had been announced 15-20 years before they came into effect?
So I think as the ombudsman did, and I have already covered, is that it wasn't communicated clearly. And Starmer agrees with that, and campaigned on it. So you either think he's lying or is stupid? Which is it? I've asked a lot through this thread but you haven't answered
-
So I think as the ombudsman did, and I have already covered, is that it wasn't communicated clearly. And Starmef agrees with that, and campaigned on it. So you either think he's lying or is stupid? Which is it? I've asked a lot through this thread but you haven't answered
More diversionary non-sense NS.
I asked whether you thought the WASPI women should be compensated - you've still failed to answer the question.
-
More diversionary non-sense NS.
I asked whether you thought the WASPI women should be compensated - you've still failed to answer the question.
Are you incapable of reading? As much as you are incapable of answering, it would appear.
-
Are you incapable of reading?
I am perfectly capable of reading NS - and in reading your comments I note that you have still failed to answer whether the question as to whether you think the WASPI women should be compensated
Just to help you - here is a simple form of words that you might want to use to answer the question one way or the other:
a) Yes, I think that the WASPI women should be compensated.
b) No, I do not think that the WASPI women should be compensated.
-
I am perfectly capable of reading NS - and in reading your comments I note that you have still failed to answer whether the WASPI women should be compensated
Just to help you - here is a simple form of words that you might want to use to answer the question one way or the other:
a) Yes, I think that the WASPI women should be compensated.
b) No, I do not think that the WASPI women should be compensated.
So when the ombudsman talked about being compensated why didn't Labour say it was wrong? And why do you support them either lying on it?
-
Oh come on Prof D. Yu cannot stand holding placards supporting WASPI and then do a volte-face and expect no comeback.
It's tawdry and disingenuous and it is not what I voted for.
Frankly, I am disgusted (but not of Tunbridge Wells).
-
So when the ombudsman talked about being compensated why didn't Labour say it was wrong? And why do you support them either lying on it?
Still not answering the question I see NS.
-
Still not answering the question I see NS.
Still sucking up that straw, Prof
-
Oh come on Prof D. Yu cannot stand holding placards supporting WASPI and then do a volte-face and expect no comeback.
It's tawdry and disingenuous and it is not what I voted for.
Frankly, I am disgusted (but not of Tunbridge Wells).
Oh the Prof can because he loves hypocrisy
-
Oh come on Prof D. Yu cannot stand holding placards supporting WASPI and then do a volte-face and expect no comeback.
It's tawdry and disingenuous and it is not what I voted for.
Frankly, I am disgusted (but not of Tunbridge Wells).
To an extent I would agree if they'd put this in their manifesto but then refused to do it. But they didn't - this wasn't in their manifesto, and actually I'd turn this on its head. If a government wants to spend £10billion of public money on discretionary spending (as the courts had already ruled that there was not case for compensation) then I would argue that it would have to be in their manifesto.
So similar question to the one posed to NS - do you think we should be spending £10billion compensating people for failing to pay attention to changes to pension provision that were announced 15-20 years before they were implemented. And actually the vast, vast majority of these people were completely aware and arranged their retirement planning accordingly. Well, unlike NS - I'm off the fence on this one - I do not think these people should be compensated - this would, frankly, be providing compensation to people on the basis that they failed to take responsibility for their own retirement planning.
And once again I return to the fundamental reason this was needed - because we had gross inequality in our pension system, whereby when you received state pension was dictated by your sex.
-
Still sucking up that straw, Prof
Still waiting NS.
Wonder if Aruntraveller will beat you to answering the question as to whether he (and you) think the WAPSI women should be compensated. Despite him just having jumped on the conversation in the last few minutes.
-
Still waiting NS.
Wonder if Aruntraveller will beat you to answering the question as to whether he (and you) think the WAPSI women should be compensated. Despite him just having jumped on the conversation in the last few minutes.
So you are again in- fucking-incapable of reading. And again happy to support lying
because you like people doing that.
-
To an extent I would agree if they'd put this in their manifesto but then refused to do it. But they didn't - this wasn't in their manifesto, and actually I'd turn this on its head. If a government wants to spend £10billion of public money on discretionary spending (as the courts had already ruled that there was not case for compensation) then I would argue that it would have to be in their manifesto.
So similar question to the one posed to NS - do you think we should be spending £10billion compensating people for failing to pay attention to changes to pension provision that were announced 15-20 years before they were implemented. And actually the vast, vast majority of these people were completely aware and arranged their retirement planning accordingly. Well, unlike NS - I'm off the fence on this one - I do not think these people should be compensated - this would, frankly, be providing compensation to people on the basis that they failed to take responsibility for their own retirement planning.
And once again I return to the fundamental reason this was needed - because we had gross inequality in our pension system, whereby when you received state pension was dictated by your sex.
All of which the Labour govt both before and after disagree with you on
-
So you are again in- fucking-incapable of reading.
Nope - to prove I can read I'll use your own language back to you - you are again in- fucking-incapable of answering the question as to whether you think the WAPSI women should be compensated.
Just to help you a little further - the clue is in the last three words - you know the bit about compensation, which you have totally failed to provide your view on at any stage in this thread.
So, still waiting.
-
All of which the Labour govt both before and after disagree with you on
If they disagreed with me that the WASPI women shouldn't receive compensation then they would have had a manifesto commitment to provide compensation - they didn't. And they would have decided in government to compensate, which they aren't doing.
It would appear that the government, both in their manifesto and subsequently in government committed not to provide compensation.
Perhaps the WASPI women failed to read the Labour manifesto, as apparently they also failed to take notice of the pension changes over the 15-20 years from the announcement to their implementation.
-
Nope - to prove I can read I'll use your own language back to you - you are again in- fucking-incapable of answering the question as to whether you think the WAPSI women should be compensated.
Just to help you a little further - the clue is in the last three words - you know the bit about compensation, which you have totally failed to provide your view on at any stage in this thread.
So, still waiting.
You're waiting because unless it's been explained why you're framing is wrong. And yet you are happy to lie about the govts position.
-
If they disagreed with me that the WASPI women shouldn't receive compensation then they would have had a manifesto commitment to provide compensation - they didn't. And they would have decided in government to compensate, which they aren't doing.
It would appear that the government, both in their manifesto and subsequently in government committed not to provide compensation.
Perhaps the WASPI women failed to read the Labour manifesto, as apparently they also failed to take notice of the pension changes over the 15-20 years from the announcement to their implementation.
They supported the Waspi Women that's why Starmer got the picture taken. Nice to see you see you saying they lied.
-
They supported the Waspi Women that's why Starmer got the picture taken. Nice to see you see you saying they lied.
And they had made the decision not to provide compensation by the time they wrote their manifesto - and good on them. And also good on the government for resisting spending an eye watering amount (£10billion) on compensating people for failing to pay attention to changes announced 15-20 years before their implementation.
So party decides not to commit to something in their manifesto and then follows through by not doing it in government.
-
And they had made the decision not to provide compensation by the time they wrote their manifesto - and good on them. And also good on the government for resisting spending an eye watering amount (£10billion) on compensating people for failing to pay attention to changes announced 15-20 years before their implementation.
So party decides not to commit to something in their manifesto and then follows through by not doing it in government.
And they campaigned for. So you support lying
-
You're waiting because unless it's been explained why you're framing is wrong. And yet you are happy to lie about the govts position.
NS - it is up to me how I frame a question, but I would have through that in a discussion about whether WASPI women should be compensated then a question which asks you whether you think that WASPI women should be ... err ... compensated would be a perfectly sensibly framed question.
Your choice to refuse to answer NS - but we can all see it for what it is, a refusal to answer a simple question as to whether you think the WASPI women should be compensated.
But you are surpassing yourself with your evasion, diversionary tactics and obfurscation. Vlad would be really proud of you.
-
And they campaigned for. So you support lying
Nope - they campaigned on their manifesto.
-
Nope - they campaigned on their manifesto.
So when people turn up at a photo opportunity like Starmer and holds up a thing about the Waspi campaign it means nothing. And we can just accept it might be a lie. After all you think he was lying.
-
NS - it is up to me how I frame a question, but I would have through that in a discussion about whether WASPI women should be compensated then a question which asks you whether you think that WASPI women should be ... err ... compensated would be a perfectly sensibly framed question.
Your choice to refuse to answer NS - but we can all see it for what it is, a refusal to answer a simple question as to whether you think the WASPI women should be compensated.
But you are surpassing yourself with your evasion, diversionary tactics and obfurscation. Vlad would be really proud of you.
So then having the picture taken agreeing with the WASPI women and saying they eere right was OK because they were lying
-
And they had made the decision not to provide compensation by the time they wrote their manifesto - and good on them. And also good on the government for resisting spending an eye watering amount (£10billion) on compensating people for failing to pay attention to changes announced 15-20 years before their implementation.
So party decides not to commit to something in their manifesto and then follows through by not doing it in government.
had they? Because that wasn't explicit and given all of their campaigning it might be questionable but then you support lying.
-
So then having the picture taken agreeing with the WASPI women and saying they there right was OK because they were lying
No - they changed their mind, which is why a commitment to compensation wasn't in their manifesto. Not sure why they changed their mind - suspect it was a combination of the eye watering cost, recognising that there was no requirement as their legal case had been thrown out, but also being wary that compensating these people would open the flood gates for any old group who could claim that they should be compensated too because they'd failed to pay attention to some other change in policy.
I thought it was a mistake to cosy up to the WASPI women in the first place, but glad they recognised prior to the election that this wasn't something that they should support, and hence chose not to put it in their manifesto.
But time to get back to the question NS - still waiting for you to tell us whether you think the WASPI women should be compensated.
-
had they? Because that wasn't explicit and given all of their campaigning it might be questionable but then you support lying.
Yes - it wasn't in their manifesto. If they'd planned to do it, it would have been in their manifesto. That's how things work NS. Here is a clue - you don't have to put all the things you don't plan to do in your manifesto - but you sure should put in something that requires discretionary spending of £10billion if you are planning to do it.
-
Yes - it wasn't in their manifesto. If they'd planned to do it, it would have been in their manifesto. That's how things work NS. Here is a clue - you don't have to put all the things you don't plan to do in your manifesto - but you sure should put in something that requires discretionary spending of £10billion if you are planning to do it.
Here's a clue, don't get you're picture taken. Particularly when you are claiming they disagree with you.
-
Still waiting NS.
Wonder if Aruntraveller will beat you to answering the question as to whether he (and you) think the WAPSI women should be compensated. Despite him just having jumped on the conversation in the last few minutes.
I didn't realise there was a cut-off point for joining conversations, but I've been out with family all day at a pre-Christmas get-together, so I may have missed the memo.
For me, it's irrelevant whether I think they should get the compensation or not. It's about the fact that Labour on two separate issues, this and the Winter Fuel Allowance, have said and done one thing in opposition to embarrass the Tories (quite rightly) and then completely gone back on the powerful impression they gave that they were in favour of those things. They are destroying any credibility they have left. That's what I care about, because in less than five years time I do not want to see a Tory government back in power, or something even worse.
-
It seems simple to me. We can't afford it. There's no legal requirement to do it. Even if the government had put it in their manifesto, now that they know the state of the country's finances, I would cut them some slack.
I'd like them to be honest about it though.
-
It seems simple to me. We can't afford it. There's no legal requirement to do it. Even if the government had put it in their manifesto, now that they know the state of the country's finances, I would cut them some slack.
I'd like them to be honest about it though.
That's the problem though they aren't being honest, and it's not the first time. Musk doesn't need to give Reform money when Starmer is playing Santa Claus.
As to whether we have enough money, that's still surely a question of priorities? And if the govt didn't know the state of fi ancestors then it was a lie to say the manifesto was fully funded. And it wasn't as if they weren't being told that before the election.
-
As to whether we have enough money, that's still surely a question of priorities?
Yes it is. And these people don't have priority in my opinion. The NHS, education and social care are all areas screaming out for more money and they are more important than paying a load of women a couple of grand because a letter was sent out late. That is what this is about, by the way. The ombudsman proposed the compensation just for poor communication, not for any loss of pension.
And if the govt didn't know the state of fi ancestors then it was a lie to say the manifesto was fully funded. And it wasn't as if they weren't being told that before the election.
Well fortunately, this wasn't in the manifesto, so we don't need to argue about that.
-
It seems simple to me. We can't afford it. There's no legal requirement to do it. Even if the government had put it in their manifesto, now that they know the state of the country's finances, I would cut them some slack.
I'd like them to be honest about it though.
Spot on. And I think they are being honest about it - they chose not to put the commitment in their manifesto, which is a pretty clear indication that they weren't going to do it. And in recent days they have been very clearly that we simply cannot afford to make discretionary spending of £10billion on compensation when the courts threw out their claim for compensation.
And this isn't pin money - it is £10billion. Money that would have to be found either through £10billion cuts to public spending on services, through £10billion rise in tax or adding £10billion to borrowing. And just to put it into context £10billion is about the same as the entire budget for the following departments:
Local government
Housing
Foreign office
Science, innovation and technology
Work and pensions (who'd presumably need to foot the bill)
It is twice the entire budget for Dept Environment and about five times the total budget for Culture, Media & Sports.
We can argue about how wise it was to cosy up to the WASPI women in opposition - I think it was a mistake (I've already said this). But the most important thing is that by the time the opposition was putting together its plans for government in its manifesto it had clearly dropped any commitment (not sure there really was any commitment to compensation - a photo op isn't the same as committing to agree to the demands of a campaigning group).
And most importantly as a government it has made the right decision.
-
Yes it is. And these people don't have priority in my opinion. The NHS, education and social care are all areas screaming out for more money and they are more important than paying a load of women a couple of grand because a letter was sent out late. That is what this is about, by the way. The ombudsman proposed the compensation just for poor communication, not for any loss of pension.Well fortunately, this wasn't in the manifesto, so we don't need to argue about that.
And Starmer stood with a sign supporting that compensating. They aren't still aren't saying your position is right so you are saying either theh are qwring or they preying. Stuff like this is just a gift to Reform.
ETA - the remark about the manifesto being fully funded was in additio to this, not about it. The 'black hole' is a sign of incompetence at best. Even though they were warned before the election by other parties that it was the case
-
Yes it is. And these people don't have priority in my opinion. The NHS, education and social care are all areas screaming out for more money and they are more important than paying a load of women a couple of grand because a letter was sent out late. That is what this is about, by the way. Well fortunately, this wasn't in the manifesto, so we don't need to argue about that.
Absolutely it is about priorities. And prioritising people who failed to pay attention to changes announced 15-20 years before they were implemented would be crazy when there are all sorts of really serious calls on the public purse.
And don't forget that the WASPI women suffered no financial loss on the basis of their claimed lack of knowledge of the changes (even the ombudsman accepted this point) even if information wasn't as good as it could be (although the legally binding courts said that the government did everything it needed to do to inform them).
-
Absolutely it is about priorities. And prioritising people who failed to pay attention to changes announced 15-20 years before they were implemented would be crazy when there are all sorts of really serious calls on the public purse.
And don't forget that the WASPI women suffered no financial loss on the basis of their claimed lack of knowledge of the changes (even the ombudsman accepted this point) even if information wasn't as good as it could be (although the legally binding courts said that the government did everything it needed to do to inform them).
So you are suggesting that the Waspi Women are lying and that Labour supported their lies?
-
And Starmer stood with a sign supporting that compensating.
So fucking what? He changed his mind. Is that a concept too alien for you to grasp?
They aren't still aren't saying your position is right so you are saying either theh are qwring or they preying. Stuff like this is just a gift to Reform.
My position is that the ombudsman ruled that some compensation for poor communication was warranted and, in an ideal World, they should get it. However, now at this moment, there are vastly more important priorities.
ETA - the remark about the manifesto being fully funded was in additio to this, not about it. The 'black hole' is a sign of incompetence at best. Even though they were warned before the election by other parties that it was the case
I don't want to get too deep into lying in manifestos on this thread (that's a rabbit hole), which is why I observed that this measure was not in the manifesto and therefore we can stop talking about it.
-
And Starmer stood with a sign supporting that compensating. They aren't still aren't saying your position is right so you are saying either theh are qwring or they preying. Stuff like this is just a gift to Reform.
Heaven help us if a politician posing for a photo op with a campaign group in opposition obliges a government to accede to the demands of that group in government. So an opposition MP who has a photo-op in front of a school which needs to be refurbished must fund that in government, or a photo-op with a nurse (must fund more nurses etc etc. That isn't how it works.
A government sets out its plans in their manifesto and at that point they will have needed to filter through the demands of groups left, right and centre that they might have met (and had photo ops with) at some point in opposition to determine which ones are to be prioritised for spending in government.
Sometimes a government has to say "thanks for your time, we've heard your concerns and your 'asks', but the answer is 'no'" That's what governments (or rather grown up governments) have to do.
-
So you are suggesting that the Waspi Women are lying and that Labour supported their lies?
What financial loss did they incur through a failure to communicate effectively the changes (as their claim is based on). Not on the basis of the changes themselves.
They didn't suffer a financial loss on that basis - the ombudsman accepted this, the courts accepted this. Regardless of their knowledge of the changes those new rules would have been brought in so the pension position of someone who recognised the changes were coming down the track in 1995 and someone who stuck their head in the sand for 15 years was identical.
-
So fucking what? He changed his mind. Is that a concept too alien for you to grasp?
My position is that the ombudsman ruled that some compensation for poor communication was warranted and, in an ideal World, they should get it. However, now at this moment, there are vastly more important priorities.I don't want to get too deep into lying in manifestos on this thread (that's a rabbit hole), which is why I observed that this measure was not in the manifesto and therefore we can stop talking about it.
And again my point on the manifesto isn't about this. It's about the claim that it was fully funded being another example of lying or incompetence - take your pick.
And as to changing his mind, he hasn't in the sense that in theory he still supports it. I get that he can change his mind but this is about what this looks like. That in opposition you make promises that in govt you break. It is as already covered another gift to Reform.
-
What financial loss did they incur through a failure to communicate effectively the changes (as their claim is based on). Not on the basis of the changes themselves.
They didn't suffer a financial loss on that basis - the ombudsman accepted this, the courts accepted this. Regardless of their knowledge of the changes those new rules would have been brought in so the pension position of someone who recognised the changes were coming down the track in 1995 and someone who stuck their head in the sand for 15 years was identical.
Is that a yes?
-
Heaven help us if a politician posing for a photo op with a campaign group in opposition obliges a government to accede to the demands of that group in government. So an opposition MP who has a photo-op in front of a school which needs to be refurbished must fund that in government, or a photo-op with a nurse (must fund more nurses etc etc. That isn't how it works.
A government sets out its plans in their manifesto and at that point they will have needed to filter through the demands of groups left, right and centre that they might have met (and had photo ops with) at some point in opposition to determine which ones are to be prioritised for spending in government.
Sometimes a government has to say "thanks for your time, we've heard your concerns and your 'asks', but the answer is 'no'" That's what governments (or rather grown up governments) have to do.
And being grown up idn't just randomly posing with a sign.
-
Is that a yes?
To what.
It is simply a statement of the facts - the pension payments to WASPI women who recognised the changes in 1995 was identical to those who took their heads out of the sands 15 years later and realised they weren't getting their pensions until they were, say 62. Any failure to communicate (remember the legally binding courts found the government did everything it needed to do to inform them) had no effect on their pensions. Which is why both ombudsman and the courts accepted that there was no financial loss directly associated with a failure (if there was one) to communicate.
-
And again my point on the manifesto isn't about this. It's about the claim that it was fully funded being another example of lying or incompetence - take your pick.
Yes, I fully understand what your claim is about the manifesto, but that is not what this thread is about. It would be a derail. So I'm not discussing it further here.
And as to changing his mind, he hasn't in the sense that in theory he still supports it.
But in practice, we can't do it now. That seems a perfectly reasonable position to take. In fact, it is the same as my own.
I get that he can change his mind but this is about what this looks like. That in opposition you make promises that in govt you break. It is as already covered another gift to Reform.
That's what the spin doctors are for. The government are not handling it well.
-
To what.
It is simply a statement of the facts - the pension payments to WASPI women who recognised the changes in 1995 was identical to those who took their heads out of the sands 15 years later and realised they weren't getting their pensions until they were, say 62. Any failure to communicate (remember the legally binding courts found the government did everything it needed to do to inform them) had no effect on their pensions. Which is why both ombudsman and the courts accepted that there was no financial loss directly associated with a failure (if there was one) to communicate.
To the question you replied to
-
To the question you replied to
I'll answer the question. If they know that the compensation was merely for delayed communications, then, yes, some are lying. It really isn't about them having lost out financially with respect to their pensions, but some seem to be spinning it that way.
Here's a question caused by my lack of clarity on the timeline: when Starmer did this infamous photo-op, was this before, or after the ombudsman ruling?
-
I'll answer the question. If they know that the compensation was merely for delayed communications, then, yes, some are lying. It really isn't about them having lost out financially with respect to their pensions, but some seem to be spinning it that way.
Here's a question caused by my lack of clarity on the timeline: when Starmer did this infamous photo-op, was this before, or after the ombudsman ruling?
Before. 2022 I think.
-
Before. 2022 I think.
Thank you. In fact, I could have worked it out from the live feed, if I had looked.
We have the situation that a lot of Labour MPS, some now ministers were campaigning for the WASPI women. Then, in March this year, the ombudsman made their report which said "compensation for miscommunication but there was no real financial loss". The official response by both the government and opposition at the time was pretty non-committal (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyx4ej5pvvt?post=asset%3A7f6137d1-7bd1-4ea8-9f50-eec3f8a3d2b4#post).
So a lot of the campaigning (all?) by Labour on this was before anybody knew the extent of the losses incurred.
-
Thank you. In fact, I could have worked it out from the live feed, if I had looked.
We have the situation that a lot of Labour MPS, some now ministers were campaigning for the WASPI women. Then, in March this year, the ombudsman made their report which said "compensation for miscommunication but there was no real financial loss". The official response by both the government and opposition at the time was pretty non-committal (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyx4ej5pvvt?post=asset%3A7f6137d1-7bd1-4ea8-9f50-eec3f8a3d2b4#post).
So a lot of the campaigning (all?) by Labour on this was before anybody knew the extent of the losses incurred.
Not all, indeed there are still some Labour MPs campaigning on this, and at the time of that photo opportunity the costs could have been much greater.
-
Not all, indeed there are still some Labour MPs campaigning on this
But it wasn't the official party position as far as I can tell (I may be wrong on that).
, and at the time of that photo opportunity the costs could have been much greater.
But only if serious injustice had been done and the WASPI women had incurred serious losses. We now know they didn't.
-
But it wasn't the official party position as far as I can tell (I may be wrong on that).But only if serious injustice had been done and the WASPI women had incurred serious losses. We now know they didn't.
It was in the 2019 manifesto but not 2024. But still Starmer turned up supporting them, and still in theory does. At the time of the photo he was supporting it being looked at by the ombudsman, and the outcome was supported when it was announced. Given that it could have lead to a much bigger cost, then the support was for that possibility.
-
It was in the 2019 manifesto but not 2024. But still Starmer turned up supporting them, and still in theory does. At the time of the photo he was supporting it being looked at by the ombudsman,
So before the extent of any losses were known.
and the outcome was supported when it was announced.
I'm not sure it was. The BBC article I linked seemed to show that neither the Tory government nor the Labour opposition made any commitment to following through on the recommendations.
Given that it could have lead to a much bigger cost, then the support was for that possibility.
It wasn't bigger. It turned out that there was no real financial loss. Can you see how knowing that might change a government's mind?
-
So before the extent of any losses were known.
I'm not sure it was. The BBC article I linked seemed to show that neither the Tory government nor the Labour opposition made any commitment to following through on the recommendations.
It wasn't bigger. It turned out that there was no real financial loss. Can you see how knowing that might change a government's mind?
But they haven't said they changed their mind because of that. In theory they still support the payment.
-
In theory they still support the payment.
Do they - what evidence is there of this. The evidence that they no longer support compensation payment is:
1. That they didn't put this in their 2024 manifesto.
2. That they have confirmed in government that they won't pay compensation.
And regardless - theory is irrelevant. The key is whether they support this in practice - and they don't and they had decided not to before the election and therefore did not commit to compensation in their manifesto.
-
Do they - what evidence is there of this. The evidence that they no longer support compensation payment is:
1. That they didn't put this in their 2024 manifesto.
2. That they have confirmed in government that they won't pay compensation.
And regardless - theory is irrelevant. The key is whether they support this in practice - and they don't and they had decided not to before the election and therefore did not commit to compensation in their manifesto.
That it was announced as something that couldn't be afforded. Not something that they disagreed with.
-
That it was announced as something that couldn't be afforded. Not something that they disagreed with.
No it wasn't - have you even bothered to read the actual statement (I suspect not). Well here it is:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-12-17/debates/26789BEE-3FC6-49B9-8E3F-EC53EE47F2E6/details
Nandy clearly rejects the claims primarily on principle. In fact the cost is barely mentioned.
-
No it wasn't - have you even bothered to read the actual statement (I suspect not). Well here it is:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-12-17/debates/26789BEE-3FC6-49B9-8E3F-EC53EE47F2E6/details
Nandy clearly rejects the claims primarily on principle. In fact the cost is barely mentioned.
No, I hadn't read it. Thanks for providing it. I agree you are correct, and I was wrong.
-
No, I hadn't read it. Thanks for providing it. I agree you are correct, and I was wrong.
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong, but it does mean that your argument seems to rest on a couple of photo-ops years ago (and even then I'm not sure the then opposition actually committed to compensation). But by the time the election was looming they chose not to put this in their manifesto and have followed through on this (lack of) commitment in government. And their reasons for rejecting the claims for compensation were on principle (very well argued in the statement) as well as the obvious point that we can't afford it.
So good on the government - I didn't think that the WAPSI women should be compensated, so I'm pleased that the government has rejected their demands.
Oh, and you still seem to be avoiding answering my pretty simple question, so I'll ask it once again:
NS, do you think that the WAPSI women should be compensated?
-
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong, but it does mean that your argument seems to rest on a couple of photo-ops years ago (and even then I'm not sure the then opposition actually committed to compensation). But by the time the election was looming they chose not to put this in their manifesto and have followed through on this (lack of) commitment in government. And their reasons for rejecting the claims for compensation were on principle (very well argued in the statement) as well as the obvious point that we can't afford it.
So good on the government - I didn't think that the WAPSI women should be compensated, so I'm pleased that the government has rejected their demands.
Oh, and you still seem to be avoiding answering my pretty simple question, so I'll ask it once again:
NS, do you think that the WAPSI women should be compensated?
My reading is that they still think that the ombudsman recommendations are correct but they don't think it's feasible to compensate the women specifically covered so I don't think it's quite as simple as your post portrays. I think that the ombudsman position makes sens, and that compensation should be paid to those that were affected by the lack of communication , but accept the govts argument that this isn't feasible.
I do think that posing for the photo ops was playing politics, and has caused the problems.
-
My reading is that they still think that the ombudsman recommendations are correct but they don't think it's feasible to compensate the women specifically covered so I don't think it's quite as simple as your post portrays.
No they don't - again have you bothered to read the statement - e.g. this bit.
"However, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy, and I want to spell out why."
So effectively the government do not agree that there was injustice nor that there should be remedy.
The stuff about feasibility is hypothetical - effectively they are say that hypothetically were there injustice (the government doesn't think there was, and nor did the courts) there would be no feasible and fair means to compensate. Specifically that you'd either have to accept a claim of lack of knowledge (with no means to verify this) or you'd have to compensate millions of people who suffered no detriment whatsoever, and never claimed to have done.
-
I think that the ombudsman position makes sens, and that compensation should be paid to those that were affected by the lack of communication ...
So that finally seems like an answer to the question. But of course none of the people did suffer direct financial loss due to the communication (a point of complete agreement between government, ombudsman and courts) so on what basis would you compensate them, as compensation is to remedy a loss. And, of course the legally binding ruling in the courts was that the government did everything it needed to do to inform them.
So you'd effectively be compensating people for failure to take responsibility for their own financial planning, despite not suffering any financial loss. Out of tax payers' money. No, just no.
-
I do think that posing for the photo ops was playing politics, and has caused the problems.
I've already said that I think cosying up to the WASPI women was a mistake, but glad that the government has made the right call in the end.
Actually I'm not convinced that these photo ops had much profile anyhow - I don't remember this being a cause that the opposition had been seen to have nailed their colours to in any significant manner. Certainly a time-limited google search for "Labour" and "WASPI" for 2021-2023 brings up very little, and actually much of it is about a lack of commitment by the labour leadership to compensation.
And actually if you time limit to 1st Jan 2020 - June 30th 2024 (in other words pretty well the entire length of the last parliament) all the top hits are about Labour refusing to commit to compensation.