RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

viridens

MEY wrote: »

Re my post on this page: I have had a response from Rachel Reeves saying that Gregg McClymont MP is now Shadow Minister for Pensions, he taking over from her in October.

Thanks for that. The Labour party's own website here: http://www.labour.org.uk/shadow-cabinet is showing Liam Byrne as the shadow.

Gordon Bennett. Is it just me, or are there cans of worms at every step?

MEY_3

Wikipedia (not always accurate but usually up to date on these sorts of things) re our Gregg -

"In early 2011, he moved on to the Labour front bench as an assistant whip,[5] before becoming the Shadow Pensions Minister for the Department of Work and Pensions in October 2011.[6]"

So unless the merry-go-round has gone around again I think it must be his baby.

And yes; I do think we are an irritation to them all, as it seems
they may not be able to face uncomfortable truths.

Ripoff_2

Just to let you know that the appeal is due to be heard on the 20th and 21st of Feb. I believe there are in fact two appeals by two different groups of unions and pension groups, the arguments are similar but complex and differ on a couple of complex points but aim to achieve the same result.
I do not know if the two will eventually be linked as that would be up to the courts and the groups involved. As things stand this gives a double bite at the cherry , so to speak and hopefully a successful outcome. What ever the result WE must keep applying the pressure on this Gvmt until this dreadful robbery and theft is reversed or corrected to make it right because no doubt if the appeal goes in our favour the Gvmt will appeal to the supreme court like they have just done having lost the two appeals on the solar energy tariff cut. They seem to find it acceptable to pay lawyers and fight obvious bad policy decisions wasting tax payer money no matter the cost it would appear, instead of thinking again and making good policy that is fair and just but they seem incapable of doing that. Simply a very bad Gvmt making many mistakes and bad policy.

Put the dates in your diary.

Ripoff_2

Perhaps we should be writing to the following union sponsored MP's

BT union CWU MPs are Geraldine Smith and Michael Connarty

Unison: Jonathan Shaw

Let's ask them why they are not responding to the e-petition that has now gone over 107k.

More of us that do they might just get the message.

Interested_Taxpayer

Well according to this news item, PCS are lobbying MPs and are also getting their Parliamentary Group of MPs to make representations for a debate in the House next week. Good news indeed.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs_comment_archive.cfm/id/6AF85647-C755-4247-95B17210AB778790

This of course does not stop us from writing to our MPs and to those MPs/Ministers mentioned in recent posts. In addition, keep getting everybody you know and in turn everyone they know to sign the petition. It all helps.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535

viridens

More reservations:
To quote again from the direct.gov e-petition FAQs:
"However a debate may not be possible:

• if the subject of the e-petition is currently going through legal proceedings, it may be inappropriate for a debate to be held;"

I'm not sure that our cause will be best advanced by MPs maybe pressed into service and going through the motions to pacify their PCS sponsors. But since there are still apparently no volunteers stepping forward to champion the cause maybe we need to make do. But I hope it won't be a wasted opportunity.

I can understand that MPs may see this cause as a 'poisoned chalice', particularly given the govt.-sponsored spin against ps pensioners etc, but MPs should also remember that this cause is a massive potential vote winner at the next election.

MEY_3

Today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16790168

"The report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) refers to the most recent pension negotiations.
However, it points out that an earlier decision to change the inflation link for pension increases has substantially reduced costs and expectations."

Further evidence that the idea is purely about saving money rather than CPI being a better measure of personal inflation. Also a recognition that CPI will consistently deliver a saving - i.e. will be lower than RPI. So, current pensioners are being sacrificed on the altar of little change to public secor pensions, if this report is to be believed.

hugheskevi

So, current pensioners are being sacrificed on the altar of little change to public secor pensions, if this report is to be believed.

Whilst current pensioners are badly affected in terms of them not having any ability to adjust to the change I think it should also be acknowledged how much more other groups have lost.

The worst affected are those with deferred pensions of a decent size, typically someone who might be about 40 having built up quite a lot of service a reasonable salary before leaving their employer, but still having many years for the pension to be eroded by the change before it comes into payment.

Such a person can easily have seen more than a third of the value of their pension removed by the change, whereas a pensioner member is probably only about 10% down (which is a lot, but nowhere near as much as more than a third), depending on their age.

MEY_3

I agree, Hugheskevi. I wasn't meaning to imply others aren't also suffering. However, changes to pensions not in payment seem to be inevitable whether justifiable or not. If a deal is to be brokered with the government over public sector pay it will have to be a compromise. The cry over the CPI move from unions though, seems to have gone very cold. As the article emphasises, the effects of this are greater than other likely savings. So, former union members in receipt of pensions, and even those on deferred pensions, have been thrown to the wolves. And though I accept your point wholeheartedly I think using the phrase "only about 10%" is a bit glib, especially as you acknowledge retired pensioners have less opportunity to make up the difference. 10% per cent may be less than the 30% you you mention but it is still a very large ratio, on a group who have no great input into their future, unlike employed union members.

Ripoff_2

Hugheskevi and Mey are both right in what they are saying. The 10% loss quoted by Hugheskevi does not however take into account Early Leaves and thus for these people the loss could well be in excess of 30% depending on their age, but it gets worse. If the Appeal fails there would be nothing to stop this or any future Gvmt from removing indexing all together, especially for future retires. Some question legally if existing pensioners would also lose their indexing but do you TRUST this Gvmt?

The IFS report has hit this issue clearly on the head. This Gvmt has used fiddling the inflation measure by using CPI, knowing it to be under stating the true cost of living to reduce public sector costs, nothing what so ever to do with CPI being a better measure of pensioners inflation as Steve Webb would have you believe. Using such a blunt and disgraceful method of reducing costs that has hit many thousands of peoples Public and Private pensions in this way is the biggest betrayal by any Gvmt in living memory. The IFS has now spelt out what this robbery is really all about, it has always been Wrong to use inflation in this manner and it should be reversed or put RIGHT immediately.

For all those on this forum that doubted the true nature of this discraceful contrick and believed what the Gvmt was saying "that CPI is a better measure of pensioners inflation" and that is why the ConDems changed it hopefully will now see in light of what the IFS have said, that this change was always a deceitful act and theft on a grand scale. We are all being cheated and robbed by CPI and we should all protest as loudly as we can. Even the doubters must now question the Gvmt on this.

Keep making a noise about this, we need to get this message of betrayal out there.