The Labour Government

Churchlawtonblue said:
You forgot this little fact.

And the incoming Labour Government said they were going to pay the compensation. Do you deny this ??
Click to expand...

It wasn't in the Labour manifesto, and prior to the election they very clearly refused to commit to compensation.

They'd already refused to commit to any compensation in interviews following the publication of the Ombudsman's report, and Reeves confirmed this at the election launch:

"...during a press conference before Labour released its manifesto Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “There are lots of things that a Labour government might like to do, but the state of the public finances and the dire need of our public services means that we won’t be able to do everything that we might like to do.”

She went on to say: “We won’t put forward anything that is not fully costed and fully funded, and I haven’t set out any money for this [compensation for WASPI women].”
 
Kompany Car said:
To be honest this seems like an odd way of framing it. What O'Brien seems to be saying is the political parties and the public think all immigration is bad. That is frankly bollocks. Even the most right wing agree that some immigration where they have the skills to make the UK more successful is positive.

It appears to be back to conflating the 3 completely separate groups of Skilled Migrants, Asylum seekers and Unskilled Migrants. Which really isnt helpful for any meaningful debate.
Click to expand...

The immigration figures for the last few years show exactly what the Tories actually think. The performative stuff about a few thousand asylum seekers was nonsense, when they allowed net migration to rise by hundreds of thousands.
 
Bluemanc100 said:
And now totally irrelevant... The Tories got what was coming to them at the ballot box.. It's now up to Starmer and his mob to deal with this.. They say they're not paying if I understand the statements coming out of Whitehall correctly

A fucking poor show when they can magic up £50m at the drop of a hat for Syria... Would Syria give us £50m if the shoe was on the other foot... I know the likely answer
Click to expand...

the WASPI woman compo would cost £10 BILLION + and you are comparing that to £50m?
 
bluenova said:
It wasn't in the Labour manifesto, and prior to the election they very clearly refused to commit to compensation.

They'd already refused to commit to any compensation in interviews following the publication of the Ombudsman's report, and Reeves confirmed this at the election launch:

"...during a press conference before Labour released its manifesto Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “There are lots of things that a Labour government might like to do, but the state of the public finances and the dire need of our public services means that we won’t be able to do everything that we might like to do.”

She went on to say: “We won’t put forward anything that is not fully costed and fully funded, and I haven’t set out any money for this [compensation for WASPI women].”
Click to expand...
Before the election, Starmer did talk about how the Tories could have made a decision but decided to kick it into the long grass. He did say that they’d put it to bed, which they have, but made no reference to actual compensation, just a decision being made.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Same I’m missing the poverty angle. changes to the state retirement age brought out a riot and protest in France it made no difference the changes are still law.
In the UK we accept the change and retirement means young people will have to work 8 years longer.
The State Pension age for both men and women to age 66 between 2024 and 2026, age 67 between 2034 and 2036 and age 68 between 2044 and 2046
We have accepted the change of five years for women with little public protest and another three years for young people to work until they are 68yrs.
“Private pensions”
The angle for me is on health grounds, are women as healthy as men at 65yrs ? and again at 68yrs. plus the government doesn’t want to pay state pension, not everyone has a private retirement pot.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence regarding the government not wanting to pay a pension?
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Same I’m missing the poverty angle. changes to the state retirement age brought out a riot and protest in France it made no difference the changes are still law.
In the UK we accept the change and retirement means young people will have to work 8 years longer.
The State Pension age for both men and women to age 66 between 2024 and 2026, age 67 between 2034 and 2036 and age 68 between 2044 and 2046
We have accepted the change of five years for women with little public protest and another three years for young people to work until they are 68yrs.
“Private pensions”
The angle for me is on health grounds, are women as healthy as men at 65yrs ? and again at 68yrs. plus the government doesn’t want to pay state pension, not everyone has a private retirement pot.
Click to expand...
Maybe there wasn’t much protest because most people aren’t that bothered. My retirement age went from 65 to 67, most of my peers went tomeither 66, or 67. Not come across any of them that are that bothered.
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
This is the world we live in now. Totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...
See my answer above it actually isn’t, I lost £1500 going on strike for their illegal actions, I’ve still not received all my pension over 2 years after finishing, some people have retired over 5 years ago and are owed over £50k in pension they’ve not been able to pay off mortgages etc, it’s a total clusterfuck, all caused by Tory bellends who have now disappeared into the ether not accountable, Penny fucking Mordaunt for one.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
The angle for me is on health grounds, are women as healthy as men at 65yrs ? and again at 68yrs.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but I'd assume that women are healthier than men on average. They certainly live longer, which means they cost more in retirement even before you take into account differences in retirement age. But then they get screwed over when they're actually working, so in theory, it evens out. They are less likely to have a private pension too.
 
bluenova said:
It wasn't in the Labour manifesto, and prior to the election they very clearly refused to commit to compensation.

They'd already refused to commit to any compensation in interviews following the publication of the Ombudsman's report, and Reeves confirmed this at the election launch:

"...during a press conference before Labour released its manifesto Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “There are lots of things that a Labour government might like to do, but the state of the public finances and the dire need of our public services means that we won’t be able to do everything that we might like to do.”

She went on to say: “We won’t put forward anything that is not fully costed and fully funded, and I haven’t set out any money for this [compensation for WASPI women].”
Click to expand...
It's been widely reported that they were committed to paying , Rayner, Starmer and Reeves in the run up to the GE.

The reason I posted this is two fold. It's easy to criticise when not in power but when in power choices need to be made. Labour may be right to not pay it. Similarly the Conservatives may have been right to not have paid the pay awards last year. They were criticised by Labour at the time. Labour came to power and promptly paid the pay awards and then declared that this payment was part of the 22 billion black hole? Just assume that if the conservatives came into power next year they could then declare the pension compensation was part of a so called budget black hole.

This is not necessarily about pay awards or pension compensation, its about choices that all Governments have to make and cross party point scoring.
 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
It's been widely reported that they were committed to paying , Rayner, Starmer and Reeves in the run up to the GE.

The reason I posted this is two fold. It's easy to criticise when not in power but when in power choices need to be made. Labour may be right to not pay it. Similarly the Conservatives may have been right to not have paid the pay awards last year. They were criticised by Labour at the time. Labour came to power and promptly paid the pay awards and then declared that this payment was part of the 22 billion black hole? Just assume that if the conservatives came into power next year they could then declare the pension compensation was part of a so called budget black hole.

This is not necessarily about pay awards or pension compensation, its about choices that all Governments have to make and cross party point scoring.
Click to expand...

Where was it widely reported? I googled it, and in the interviews following the Onbudsman's report they were very clear not to commit to it. It wasn't in the manifesto, and that's Reeves directly addressing it, during the election campaign.

They also addresses previous support by saying that the finances were in a different state now, which let's face it, everyone agrees on (even if they disagree on which issues had the biggest effect).
 
bluenova said:
Where was it widely reported? I googled it, and in the interviews following the Onbudsman's report they were very clear not to commit to it. It wasn't in the manifesto, and that's Reeves directly addressing it, during the election campaign.

They also addresses previous support by saying that the finances were in a different state now, which let's face it, everyone agrees on (even if they disagree on which issues had the biggest effect).
Click to expand...
It was all over the Good Morning this morning. Anyway your missing the point, this is political point scoring from the main parties. This sort of thing has been going on ever since weve had GEs. One side criticises the other then does the same when in power. You and the usual others on here would have been all over this of it was the other way round.
 
bluenova said:
Where was it widely reported? I googled it, and in the interviews following the Onbudsman's report they were very clear not to commit to it. It wasn't in the manifesto, and that's Reeves directly addressing it, during the election campaign.

They also addresses previous support by saying that the finances were in a different state now, which let's face it, everyone agrees on (even if they disagree on which issues had the biggest effect).
Click to expand...
The Labour people have said they can’t afford to pay the Pensioners and Wasp Women. How about the Post Office postmasters can they pay them? Mybe not now as Train managers could we be on strike? And as we all know we must send Billions abroad to dodgy badly run countries!!!
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
It was all over the Good Morning this morning. Anyway your missing the point, this is political point scoring from the main parties. This sort of thing has been going on ever since weve had GEs. One side criticises the other then does the same when in power. You and the usual others on here would have been all over this of it was the other way round.
Click to expand...

I posted yesterday that I've never really understood the WASPI claims at all, and had no real opinions about the Tories or Labour not compensating them. I can't fathom how people genuinely didn't know it was happening until the day they retired, which is what many are suggesting.

I'm not missing your point - you said something was 'fact' and I just clarified that it wasn't. Trying to make a broader point doesn't change what I replied to :)

The point I address was that you told someone it was a "fact" that the "incoming Labour Government said they were going to pay the compensation". What you might have seen on tv this morning is clips of Labour MPs from the last few years, but it doesn't take 5 minutes to check out what the actual policy they went into the election was.

Here's a Google search of Labour WASPI from the date of the Ombudsman decision to the election: https://www.google.com/search?q=lab...0&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:3/20/2024,cd_max:7/10/2024

As you can see it's full of articles suggesting Labour won't pay.
 
bluenova said:
I posted yesterday that I've never really understood the WASPI claims at all, and had no real opinions about the Tories or Labour not compensating them. I can't fathom how people genuinely didn't know it was happening until the day they retired, which is what many are suggesting.

I'm not missing your point - you said something was 'fact' and I just clarified that it wasn't. Trying to make a broader point doesn't change what I replied to :)

The point I address was that you told someone it was a "fact" that the "incoming Labour Government said they were going to pay the compensation". What you might have seen on tv this morning is clips of Labour MPs from the last few years, but it doesn't take 5 minutes to check out what the actual policy they went into the election was.

Here's a Google search of Labour WASPI from the date of the Omabudsman decision to the election: https://www.google.com/search?q=labour+waspi&sca_esv=cc3bedc69ac23800&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:3/20/2024,cd_max:7/10/2024

As you can see it's full of articles suggesting Labour won't pay.
Click to expand...
Mate with all due respect you are not listening! I saw and heard it with my own eyes this morning. I don't really care what they said in other places, when asked several times they publicly said they would pay. If they also said they wouldn't at different times then they are even more duplicitous. The WASPI ladies said they had been betrayed by Starmer. You and some of the other sheep on here would do well to understand that politicians of all parties are often very similar. We can only hope that this lot is better than the last shambolic bunch. God I seriously hope they are, but they are going to make mistakes and they are going to lie. That's just the way politicians are I'm.affraid.
 
Last edited:
bluenova said:
I posted yesterday that I've never really understood the WASPI claims at all, and had no real opinions about the Tories or Labour not compensating them. I can't fathom how people genuinely didn't know it was happening until the day they retired, which is what many are suggesting.

I'm not missing your point - you said something was 'fact' and I just clarified that it wasn't. Trying to make a broader point doesn't change what I replied to :)

The point I address was that you told someone it was a "fact" that the "incoming Labour Government said they were going to pay the compensation". What you might have seen on tv this morning is clips of Labour MPs from the last few years, but it doesn't take 5 minutes to check out what the actual policy they went into the election was.

Here's a Google search of Labour WASPI from the date of the Ombudsman decision to the election: https://www.google.com/search?q=labour+waspi&sca_esv=cc3bedc69ac23800&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:3/20/2024,cd_max:7/10/2024

As you can see it's full of articles suggesting Labour won't pay.
Click to expand...
Me too - irrespective of whether an ombudsman decision made positive or negative statement - this was indeed a result of women wanting parity with men (which is fine) and then all of a sudden a few missed the fact it was actually going to happen (they got what they wanted) and were disadvantaged by not preparing properly - much like brexit, there will be a few losers as well as winners but generally it is/was a positive for the majority of women - so I feel the whole WASPI claim was opportunistic (probably driven by money grabbing lawyers looking for another ill-deserved claim windfall), the vast majority have not lost anything at all - which is the Govts position I believe. Sorry if others believe believe something else, but don't bother to do the "someones wrong on the internet thing and I have to disagree" challenge my view, because there's no point!
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Mate with all due respect you are not listening! I saw and heard it with my own eyes this morning. I don't really care what they said in other places, when asked several times they publicly said they would pay. If they also said they wouldn't at different times then they are even more duplicitous.
Click to expand...

Google hasn't cherry picked results for me. I put in Labour WASPI, not anything more complicated which would filter out the results I didn't want.

Those results are for between the report coming out and the election. At no time after the report coming out, did Reeves say that she was going to pay compensation. The quote I gave you above, is about as clear an indication as you can get that she said she wasn't.

I appreciate your point about opposition and Government, and don't want to appear as rude. I was really just pointing out that they didn't go into the election promising compensation.

Edited to be more conciliatory ;)
 
Last edited:
bluethrunthru said:
the WASPI woman compo would cost £10 BILLION + and you are comparing that to £50m?
Click to expand...
So the photos of most of the current govt front bench with placards with words to the effect of "we'll fix this if you" were bare faced lies... Seeing their faces in Parliament today squirming in their seats said it all...

The only scant consolation I have is that I didn't vote for these fuckers to be in charge of the country... It was a shit sandwich of a vote.. God knows how people that did vote for them are feeling

We manage to find money when needed for every other person who "needs" it like the tens of thousands of economic migrants coming here annually and any other good cause that suits Starmer's agenda so why not these women who the independent commission said were "not sufficiently informed" before the changes to the retirement age... Starmer just point blank ignored the findings and says "they did know"..

How does the c*** sleep at night?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top