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

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

So a lot of the campaigning (all?) by Labour on this was before anybody knew the extent of the losses incurred.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.