I appreciate your concern and interest.
I guess it's easier to play the man and not the ball when your team are playing like Jurgen Locadia.
I think it's too early to play a government version of Top Trumps, but the last government were dreadful and it's hard to imagine any subsequent government being worse than that.
I'm not sure why that should be any kind of measure though. I would hope Starmer et al are aiming for a future epitaph that is better than "Not quite as bad as those Tory fuckwits".
But, yes, I do find myself feeling far more politically-interested than I have for quite some time. I do try to avoid these threads though, because, as I've said before, I fear I'll end up sounding like the same kind of utter wanker as many of those who live and breathe these threads.
That's not to say any of us are actually utter wankers, just these discussions tends to have us acting like one.
They are two different points, but let's put the compensation aside.I know WHAT they found. But I don't really know WHY they found it. And I've no inclination to read it and pick holes in it so I can write about it on a football forum.
The point remains that the money simply isn't there, something the ombudsman doesn't have to consider.
In 2022 Sir Keir stated that they had suffered an ‘historic injustice’ and deserved ‘fair and fast’ compensation. Accompanied by a photo of SKS posing with WASPI campaignersAnd where in the Labour manifesto was a promise to compensate Waspie women? And can you tell me where he promised it in the election debates?
Exactly where I am, except my opinion is to praise him for seeing sense, coming round to our point of view and making the correct decision, not attack him for his previous position.In 2022 Sir Keir stated that they had suffered an ‘historic injustice’ and deserved ‘fair and fast’ compensation. Accompanied by a photo of SKS posing with WASPI campaigners
I have actually seen on these pages someone desperately trying to defend this by focusing on the word fair and saying now SKS has had a chance to look into it he’s decided it’s fair they don’t get anything
To be clear I am absolutely not in favour of waspi getting anything, it’s a ridiculous campaign and it’s astonishing that it is being classed by some as a case of inequality when in actual fact retirement ages are now equal.
Really?? I’m not buying that. How long did it take him to come to the conclusion that they didn’t merit compensation.Exactly where I am, except my opinion is to praise him for seeing sense, coming round to our point of view and making the correct decision, not attack him for his previous position.
Was increasing employers national insurance in their manifesto? Was abolishing the winter fuel allowance in their manifesto? I can’t recallThey did. It wasn’t in their manifesto. It wasn’t in the election debate. It wasn’t in the budget.
“coming round to our point of view” ….clearly he hasn’t come round to quite a few people’s point of viewExactly where I am, except my opinion is to praise him for seeing sense, coming round to our point of view and making the correct decision, not attack him for his previous position.
If means testing the WFA made sense why do you think a previous Labour chancellor who introduced the allowance in the first place didn’t?I didn't follow this WASPI stuff at all before, but the whole case baffles me. Loads of women asking for 5 years of pension to be paid on the basis that they 'didn't know' that the pension age was going up. What? Can i refuse to pay a tax increase on the grounds that I never got a letter about it?
Starmer shouldn't be attacked for not paying it. He should certainly be criticised for even considering doing so.
I suppose their problem is all the stuff they opportunistically said in opposition coming back to bite them on the arse, a mishmash of empty promises and silly commitments. Because the actual policies make sense. Effectively means testing winter fuel payments. Closing the loophole where large farms can be sold off with no inheritance tax paid. This. They even worked out that Sue Gray was rubbish early on and binned her.
This could be the rare case where a party is much better at governing than being in opposition. Obviously their comms needs some work though.
If means testing the WFA made sense why do you think a previous Labour chancellor who introduced the allowance in the first place didn’t?
closing loophole where large farms etc……hmm seems to have affected a lot of farmers who wouldn’t be considered as the people who the electorate would like targeted
We have a lot of people struggling to make ends meet in our country now, big waiting lists for the NHS, so I'm sorry I'm not going to lose sleep over well-off pensioners like my folks not getting a £200 handout of taxpapers money, nor for landowners who have inherited over a million pounds worth of land and buildings having to pay some tax over that threshold.If means testing the WFA made sense why do you think a previous Labour chancellor who introduced the allowance in the first place didn’t?
closing loophole where large farms etc……hmm seems to have affected a lot of farmers who wouldn’t be considered as the people who the electorate would like targeted
Except the true multi millionaires who Reeves wants to target can afford expensive accounts & ways to avoid it. This has been done to death but she could & should have made the cut off higher.Multi millionaires exploiting Tax loopholes to avoid paying a fair share is exactly the type of people this elector wanted targeted.
And the simple fact is that even after this, these multi millionaires will still only pay half of what I (and anyone else) will have to pay, with three times the tax free allowance I (and anyone else) will get, and 10 years to pay it (when anyone else will have to pay immediately), but it seems a little fairer to me
And, for completeness, I don't agree with compensation on Waspi and I agree with means testing WFA, but believe the level of cut off has been set too low. The need to invest to rebuild our crumbling country in all areas, requires people to step up and pay their fair share and that includes everyone.
So give a f*** about people who get £1 over the pensions credit limit...... Good for you.We have a lot of people struggling to make ends meet in our country now, big waiting lists for the NHS, so I'm sorry I'm not going to lose sleep over well-off pensioners like my folks not getting a £200 handout of taxpapers money, nor for landowners who have inherited over a million pounds worth of land and buildings having to pay some tax over that threshold.
Nor is anyone, and noone has suggested we should.We have a lot of people struggling to make ends meet in our country now, big waiting lists for the NHS, so I'm sorry I'm not going to lose sleep over well-off pensioners like my folks not getting a £200 handout of taxpapers money
Except the true multi millionaires who Reeves wants to target can afford expensive accounts & ways to avoid it. This has been done to death but she could & should have made the cut off higher.
It rises to 57 in 4 years time.They are two different points, but let's put the compensation aside.
A group of intelligent people have spent a long time (I think it's actually years, not months) working through all the detail of this matter, taking evidence from here, there and everywhere. And they say the DWP were at fault.
You have done no work, no reading and have no knowledge, and you've said they are wrong and the WASPI women should have known.
That's just a really bizarre take.
I'm 53 and I've only just found out I can take some of my pension in two years' time. What a f***ing idiot I am. (I actually am)