Blog Archives

Will legal and political action deliver justice for WASPIs?

In an earlier post it was noted that “Governments are balancing budgets on the backs of the poor” (John Grisham) 2.6 million women born in the 1950s will ‘lose out’ because of changes to pension law: “while corporations and the richest individuals receive tax breaks”.

                                                        Left: hear affected Question Time audience member, no longer well enough to work (17.24 mins) and (right) the prime minister, herself a Waspi woman.

Grahame Morris, MP for Easington, wrote earlier this month:

“Across Britain some 3.8 million women are affected by the increase to the state pension age. Though there is a good deal of sympathy for the aim of equalising the retirement age, what has taken place in practice has been appallingly unjust. Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) agrees with equalisation, but does not agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little or no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans”.

Guy Opperman, work and pensions minister with responsibility for financial exclusion, failed to reassure women in their 60s, hit by changes to their pension, by advising them to get a job or take up “extended apprenticeship opportunities”. 

Morris continues:

“Raising the pension age for women, often with little notice and sometimes failing to notify people of the changes at all, is a recipe for disaster.

“Many Waspi women affected by state pension inequality have been working full time and paying national insurance since the age of 15 or 16. In my constituency of Easington, the government’s changes to the state pension age will harm some 4,542 women.

“The OECD has recently ranked Britain’s pensions system as the worst in the developed world – yet the Tories are attempting to deny Waspi women even a basic state pension” . . .

“Excluded from the winter fuel allowance, from the free bus pass and now from the state pension, this generation of women are now in numerous cases having to sell their homes, take on precarious poverty-wage jobs or rely on foodbanks . . .

“The government’s given reason for failing these 3.8 million women is that to give them their pensions would cost as much as £30bn – for six years of pensions.

“Yet research from Landman Economics suggests the cost of helping Waspi women would likely be a more modest £8bn”. Morris lists the wider context:

  • Refurbishing Westminster will cost the taxpayer some £7bn,
  • Britain’s airstrikes in Syria are estimated to reach a cost of around £10bn.
  • Increased privatisation of the national health service is estimated to cost at least an extra £4.5-£10bn each year.
  • There have been billions of pounds of needless tax cuts to the bank levy.

“In this context finding the money for Waspi women seems a sensible price to pay to give these women justice and stop poverty from rising to ever more tragic levels. We know and we can see that it isn’t equal, it isn’t fair and it isn’t justifiable – it’s driving down the incomes and the quality of life of countless women.

Morris: “The prime minister is herself a Waspi woman but I doubt she ever has or ever will be faced with a choice between heating or eating. Yet this doesn’t mean it is too late for the government to do the right thing”.

“The parliamentary ombudsman is currently investigating the Department for Work and Pensions for maladministration, by failing to notify women of the changes to their state pension age. If the ombudsman finds in favour of the Waspi women the government could have to pay compensation to the tune of billions of pounds”

The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP and 50 Tory MPs support the Waspi campaign.

 

 

 

h

 

Advertisements

Tim Farron – the second disappointment

 In 2008 Mr Farron appeared to be a doughty supporter of food producers who then, as now, are often paid below costs of production, endangering the country’s future food security.

As primary sponsor, he introduced the EDM 1067: Country Living magazine Fair Trade for British Farmers campaign.

Then he became silent and left all to his colleague Andrew George who never faltered in forming and backing the campaign for a Groceries Ombudsman, despite strong opposition from large retailers. The fact that this has proved of little help to farmers is due to the government’s emasculation of the original proposal.

Opportunist youth or principled maturity?

Now, in a politically understandable but ethically reprehensible move, he is not only courting former party members who left during their spell in coalition but making headlines for a delighted establishment media, with unsubstantiated claims that Labour Party members are contacting him – the implication being that they might join the party.

A formerly active Lib Dem member, who has joined the Labour Party under Corbyn, has forwarded Mr Farron’s claims in his e-letter – apparently referring to the Miliband administration:

“Labour shows no intention or desire to understand economic responsibility. They have given up challenging the Government on the economy, and given them the freedom to make punitive decisions against the most vulnerable”. This does not apply to Corbyn’s administration. And ends:

“We cannot let the Government go unchallenged, and it’s why the Liberal Democrats are now the only party of credible opposition. Liberal Democrats represent people in Britain who care about helping those in need, who believe that those with the broadest shoulders must carry the heaviest burden, who care about how free and fair our society is, and who believe we need to spend within our means to achieve it”.

If that sounds like you, I have one big offer to you: join the Liberal Democrats today and become a part of our movement – for only £1 a month.

jeremy corbyn (2)How much more logical and constructive it would have been for Farron to join the new politics being created by the current Labour administration and leaders of parties like NHAP, Plaid, the Greens and Mebyon Kernow. And many have welcomed the words of the SNP’s able Commons leader MP, Angus Robertson at the latest PMQs. In statesmanlike tones, and with an effective reproof after David Cameron’s lapse, he said that his party “looks forward to working with Jeremy Corbyn and against government austerity” adding “particularly on Trident”


Next: Times’ journalists: ignorant of John McDonnell’s work and alliances, economical with the truth, or under orders?

 

 

Liberal Democrats: beware lobbyists!

The new Coalition cabinetJim Pickard, a Financial Times Westminster ‘lobby team’ correspondent yesterday wrote an article: Lobbyists flock to court Lib Dems.

In patronising vein he described the years in which they “toiled on the periphery of British politics, dreaming in vain of exercising power while attending policy committees that were – in the words of their MP Don Foster this week – the very definition of futility”.

Now, he reports that, according to Lord Newby, Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the party’s autumn conference is to be ‘deluged’ with lobbyists, business representatives and journalists.

A Liberal Democrats press officer confirmed that there had been an increase in registration and interest from commercial organisations for autumn conference.

Pickard quotes Peter Bingle, head of public affairs for Bell Pottinger, saying recently that these were “heady and exciting days” for public affairs consultants affiliated to the Liberal Democrat party – again patronisingly:

“After years of being locked away in the cupboard and only being let out for birthdays, weddings, funerals and Southwark council’s planning committee, they are suddenly much in demand,” he wrote on his blog. “In the public affairs market, one good Lib Dem consultant is now worth at least 14 former Labour special advisers.”

PCU urges Liberal Democrat MPs and their advisers to resist the temptation to be tempted into dereliction of duty by opportunist flattery, corporate lunches and offers of future lucrative directorships and to give preference to the views of their constituents, bearing in mind that they have been elected to serve the public interest, not the profit motive.

The public wants a new, clean decision-making process.

COMMENT

Margaret from Cymllynfell: Exactly so! Let’s see how good they are at resisting temptation now…