Shamless Labour PAAARTTYYYY

Forums New posts
hibbybilly

hibbybilly

Been here too long, thinks he's somebody radge.
Private Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The WASPIs have walked into that one. Not providing compensation could he interpreted as a fair solution, if one’s spin doctors are so inclined.

Tbh I’ve not been close to this, but I’m not sure the complaint. Are these women complaining they only had minimum 15 years notice that they’d get their pensions at the same age as men? Or is there something more to it ?
 
I'm mixed about this. There was clearly a case that some people did not receive information directly, hence to recommended compensation. But much of the campaign seems to be about reversing pension equalisation for this group of women. That can't be right either.

It doesn't help that some of the case studies appear to be where people chose to retire at 55 and didn't do due diligence.

But nobody can claim Labour isn't taking unpopular decisions. But it's legitimate to question whether they are the right ones?
 
Archie said:
I'm mixed about this. There was clearly a case that some people did not receive information directly, hence to recommended compensation. But much of the campaign seems to be about reversing pension equalisation for this group of women. That can't be right either.

It doesn't help that some of the case studies appear to be where people chose to retire at 55 and didn't do due diligence.

But nobody can claim Labour isn't taking unpopular decisions. But it's legitimate to question whether they are the right ones?
Click to expand...
I think Labour are getting unfair stick here. I don’t see how this is different to the pension age going up for men / all. Women will collect more pension on average than men as well. I simply can’t see how they are being wronged.

This was trailed for at least 15 years before introduction as well iirc?

Labour may be guilty of promising stuff in opposition that they are now going back on, but I’m not sure they done anything unreasonable beyond that - and it’s surely established by now that nothing they said in opposition is to be taken at face value. And they’re not the first party to fall foul of that, albeit they’ve made something of an art out of it.
 
egb_hibs said:
Labour may be guilty of promising stuff in opposition that they are now going back on, but I’m not sure they done anything unreasonable beyond that -
Click to expand...
And you think they're getting unfair stick?😂
 
Archie said:
It was in their manifesto in 2019 but not in the 2024 one.
Click to expand...
So when they said there wid be change they didnae say it was change their mind.
Lying cvnts the lot of them.
 
So, if we look past all the spin, what Liebour are actually saying here is that the previous government were right and that they, Liebour, just told the electorate a load of shite to gain power.
If Starmer’s government makes it to a five year term I’ll be astounded.
 
Beagle said:
So, if we look past all the spin, what Liebour are actually saying here is that the previous government were right and that they, Liebour, just told the electorate a load of shite to gain power.
If Starmer’s government makes it to a five year term I’ll be astounded.
Click to expand...
It'll be the Post Office victims tae get nowt nae compensation next.
 
hibbybilly said:
So when they said there wid be change they didnae say it was change their mind.
Lying cvnts the lot of them.
Click to expand...
In 2019 they said they would. They lost. In 2024 they didn't. No lies there. What would you do in this case?
 
Beagle said:
So, if we look past all the spin, what Liebour are actually saying here is that the previous government were right and that they, Liebour, just told the electorate a load of shite to gain power.
If Starmer’s government makes it to a five year term I’ll be astounded.
Click to expand...
Except Starmer didn't.
 
Government is brutal which is why most on the hard left enjoy opposition.

I'm uncomfortable though that despite there obviously not having a pot to piss in this is absolute betrayal of their promises. No wonder Farage has a wider grin by the day.

Politics is ultimately about choices and they could have chosen to rob Peter to pay Paul.
 
Is it not the case that when an independent ombudsman says something should happen it should happen?

"In March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) said the government had failed to adequately inform thousands of women that the state pension age had changed, external. 

It said "too many" didn't understand how the change affected them, and that their complaints "weren't adequately investigated".

As a result the PHSO, which is responsible for investigating complaints about UK government departments, said women should be compensated.

It recommended payments of between £1,000 and £2,950 - less than Waspi had called for.

However, the ombudsman cannot force the government to pay compensation."

In some ways it reminds me of the "bad advice" pension scandal of the 1990s. In this private pension companies had persuaded people to leave their superior company pensions for inferior private pensions.

When the financial ombudsman found in favour of the punters the government of the day forced the outraged private pension companies to reinstate the punters into their company pensions as though they'd never left.

It cost them £13.5bn.

The government of the day didn't say Oh dear, that's an awful lot of money. Only make good your miss-selling if you can afford it.
 
Beagle said:
Aye. Let’s just see what you could have won
Click to expand...
Where do you live?
13/2 Fala Court Edinburgh.
Super, great, smashing, you've won this lovely 5 piece set of garden furniture.
 
Beagle said:
He’s got mair faces than the town clock. He doesn’t know half of what he’s promised only to do a 180 as soon as he got in the door
Click to expand...
But he didn't commit to do this, no matter how much you want to believe it.
 
Not to miss out and hanging on the governors coat tails the branch manager gets in on the act!

How long before the brass neck Sarwar demands the Scottish Government compensates the Scottish women that have missed out?
Screenshot_20241217_200737_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Jack said:
Is it not the case that when an independent ombudsman says something should happen it should happen?

"In March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) said the government had failed to adequately inform thousands of women that the state pension age had changed, external. 

It said "too many" didn't understand how the change affected them, and that their complaints "weren't adequately investigated".

As a result the PHSO, which is responsible for investigating complaints about UK government departments, said women should be compensated.

It recommended payments of between £1,000 and £2,950 - less than Waspi had called for.

However, the ombudsman cannot force the government to pay compensation."

In some ways it reminds me of the "bad advice" pension scandal of the 1990s. In this private pension companies had persuaded people to leave their superior company pensions for inferior private pensions.

When the financial ombudsman found in favour of the punters the government of the day forced the outraged private pension companies to reinstate the punters into their company pensions as though they'd never left.

It cost them £13.5bn.

The government of the day didn't say Oh dear, that's an awful lot of money. Only make good your miss-selling if you can afford it.
Click to expand...
Re the comparison with mis-selling. You might know the answer to this. One of the criticisms of the Ombudsman decision was that was compensation for all women in the group, even though a small minority appear to have been affected. I assume the case you cites was only people who had been missold rather than all customers?
 
Jack said:
In case you can't make out the photo above.

It says "I support fair and fast compensation for 1950s women.”

And he signed it.
Click to expand...
But not in the 2024 manifesto. I know it's seen as impolite here to bring up the SNP, but in the 2007 manifesto they 'promised to end the hated Council Tax'. And yet I'm still paying it. The thing is, it's a fair criticism of the 2007 administration, but it was dropped from subsequent manifestos, so it's not fair to criticise subsequent SNP administrations on that.

If it was in the manifesto it's fair game.
 
Archie said:
But not in the 2024 manifesto. I know it's seen as impolite here to bring up the SNP, but in the 2007 manifesto they 'promised to end the hated Council Tax'. And yet I'm still paying it. The thing is, it's a fair criticism of the 2007 administration, but it was dropped from subsequent manifestos, so it's not fair to criticise subsequent SNP administrations on that.

If it was in the manifesto it's fair game.
Click to expand...
So are we to trust someone who reneges on a commitment he made 5 years ago because he can’t be arsed now that he’s The Man?
 
Archie said:
Re the comparison with mis-selling. You might know the answer to this. One of the criticisms of the Ombudsman decision was that was compensation for all women in the group, even though a small minority appear to have been affected. I assume the case you cites was only people who had been missold rather than all customers?
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be fair for me to comment on that having not read the ombudsman's report.

However in similar cases, such as the current car loan scandal, not informing customers so that they are in a position to make an informed decision is as bad as misleading them. On that basis I'd disagree it would only be a small minority.

Basically I think the pension companies had to review every customer, only those who were worse off were fully reinstated into their company scheme. There was no compensation to the punter as such.

If the government could do the same I'd suggest it would have a good case for only those affected to be compensated.
 
blue toon hibby said:
So are we to trust someone who reneges on a commitment he made 5 years ago because he can’t be arsed now that he’s The Man?
Click to expand...

Well if anything it's a lesson in photo ops with campaign groups can come back and bite you. Are you referring to the 2019 manifesto?
 
Jack said:
I don't think it would be fair for me to comment on that having not read the ombudsman's report.

However in similar cases, such as the current car loan scandal, not informing customers so that they are in a position to make an informed decision is as bad as misleading them. On that basis I'd disagree it would only be a small minority.

Basically I think the pension companies had to review every customer, only those who were worse off were fully reinstated into their company scheme. There was no compensation to the punter as such.

If the government could do the same I'd suggest it would have a good case for only those affected to be compensated.
Click to expand...
Thanks .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom