'They Are Shameless': Labour Ministers Accused Of 'Betrayal' For Refusing To ...

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

And they campaigned for. So you support lying

Nope - they campaigned on their manifesto.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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 

[ProfessorDavey]

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).