RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

mystic_trev wrote: »

From another Forum - thought it might be of interest here.

Thanks for this but this thread is not about public sector pensions and their funding its about the change from RPI to CPI that has impacted very badly on many PRIVATE sector pensioners such as BT, BA, BAE and many more... all of which have nothing to do with the public sector and are funded by pravate companies such as BA. What the Gvmt has done is use a big club to curb public sector costs that has hit many private sector pensioners, its wrong and immoral to do this, its theft. For both the public and private sector it is wrong to fiddle the inflation rate as a cost cutting exercise and it steals our proper inflation proofing for ever.

Ripoff_2

http://m.citywire.co.uk/money/government-wins-over-unions-with-pension-concession/a554347?utm_source=bulkemail_money_daily&utm_medium=bulkemail_money_daily&utm_campaign=bulkemail_money_daily

You all may like to review this link as it sort of explains why the e-petition was slower to take off than most of us envisaged, have the unions sold us ex members down the river with RPI to CPI, I really hope not because the Gvmt certainly have. See the last criteria. I do not know how accurate the details are from city wire. But it would explain a few things, also proves we need to fight harder in the New Year.

viridens

....ATL believes, however, that the offer represents a real achievement in improving on the scheme George Osborne was set to impose in October 2010 and limiting the worst aspects of what the government intended for your pension....

---

My response to my union emailshot:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Re: ATL email: LATEST NEWS ON YOUR PENSION 20/12/11[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Dear ATL

There is no mention here of the switch from RPI to CPI index linking of pensions which was imposed without consultation last year. Independent experts agree that this will progressively erode the spending power of pensions by a substantial amount.

This change to the lesser CPI will affect all members still in service and those already retired, and thus the government statement that the accrued pension rights of those within 10 years of retirement will be protected is an outright lie.

I do not understand why this lie is not challenged, or why the RPI/CPI switch has not featured prominently in these negotiations. I would be grateful if you would explain.

Yours fraternally

xxxxx yyyyyyyy Member No: Axxxxxx[/FONT]

Mr_Moonraker

Zelazny wrote: »

In the long run, earnings rise by more than RPI, so the triple lock is actually likely to be better than just RPI over a reasonable term.

Does the Triple Guarantee wages link include bonus payments ? As we all know companies are moving towards bonus payments rather than pay increases, this is already eroding pensions.

viridens

I believed that this thread concerned the effect of the switch from RPI to CPI on private and public sector pensions, EDM 1032, and latterly the e-petition. Although I realise that the triple lock guarantee is helping to hide the RPI/CPI switch in the state pension, I don't understand the relevance of this guarantee to the thread.
Am I missing something?

Andy_L

viridens wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no mention here of the switch from RPI to CPI index linking of pensions which was imposed without consultation last year. Independent experts agree that this will progressively erode the spending power of pensions by a substantial amount.

This change to the lesser CPI will affect all members still in service and those already retired, and thus the government statement that the accrued pension rights of those within 10 years of retirement will be protected is an outright lie.

I do not understand why this lie is not challenged, or why the RPI/CPI switch has not featured prominently in these negotiations. I would be grateful if you would explain[/FONT]

The RPI/CPI change is being challenged through the courts. It is an irrelevance to negotiations for proposed changes for a replacment scheme that only affects accruals going forward, except as a cautionary tale to make sure that any indexation is explicitly mention in the new schemes rules. That would be why they are not mentioning it in this context

teacher_retired

mystic_trev wrote: »

I can only assume you were not a Maths Teacher!

Fair comment - I must have had too many mince pies!!!!!!!!!!
I did of course mean it was not unanimous which thus opens the door for the appeals which I understand are now going ahead.
Merry Christmas everyone. Wonder what our New Years wish will be?

Ripoff_2

The e-petition has hit over 105k today and that is great but I would like people to keep signing. WE need to get as many people as possible to sign so that we stand a better chance of the Gvmt listening and doing something about this injustice.

The appeal is going ahead I understand and the outcome of that will focus minds. As one judge did agree that there was a case to answer we can only hope that on appeal it goes in our favour but don't lets rely on that alone. We need to get the message out there how this effects people and get them to sign the e-petition to focus MP's minds.

There is an oppertunity over Christmas and the New Year as you meet friends and relatives to mention this issue, not the easiest thing to bring up I grant you but we need people to understand what all this actually means and the only way is to discuss the issue. You have the facts from here, perhaps just give them this URL and let them see and read for themselves?

I would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and when we start 2012 lets hope that the news for us is much better.


Regards Ripoff.

Interested_Taxpayer

At long last appeals are in!!

The following has been copied from the CSPA website

RPI/CPI: APPEAL AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW

Our Executive Council has agreed to proceed to appeal against the first two points of the High Court judgement. We are doing so in conjunction with FDA, GMB, Prospect and NUT. NFOP will be making a financial contribution towards our costs.

The legal arguments are complex but, in essence, we will be arguing that the Secretary of State was not entitled to use the CPI index for uprating because it does not protect the purchasing power of pensions and that the Secretary of State was not entitled to have regard to the financial savings to be made from changing from RPI to CPI.

Our appeal was lodged on 12 January 2012 and we expect it to be heard fairly quickly.

The other group of unions who sought judicial review at the same time as us have decided to appeal only on the second point. As before, we will be liaising with them to ensure that we do not tread on each-others’ toes and so that we can keep costs to a minimum.

We will continue to keep you posted as things develop.

cvd

Economist Kate Barker joins calls for swift open review of CPI:

http://www.rssenews.org.uk/articles/20120111_2