RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

BoxerfanUK

Ripoff wrote: »

They say they are opening it up again.

When or should I say if they do then this issue will be on there!

Call me a cynic, but the LibCons will probably wait until they've got all their changes and legislation imposed with as little vocal opposition as possible BEFORE they put the petitions site up again!

Old_Slaphead

BoxerfanUK wrote: »

If thats true then that's part of the problem! Unions not in union, unilaterally making decisions and agreements without looking at the big picture and consequently playing right into the governments divide & conquer agenda :mad:

The Government quite rightly has decided that the taxpayer doesn't have a bottomless pocket to fund the Beeb.

So it comes down to choices - looking at the big picture - funding spiralling pension costs or jobs for workers ?

The Union has surprisingly seen sense. What does that tell you?

BoxerfanUK

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The Government quite rightly has decided that the taxpayer doesn't have a bottomless pocket to fund the Beeb.

So it comes down to choices - looking at the big picture - funding spiralling pension costs or jobs for workers ?

The Union has surprisingly seen sense. What does that tell you?

I agree that it doesn't have a bottomless pocket. However, you first have to 'cost' something PROPERLY, before you know whether or not you can afford it!!

I also agree that it comes down to choices. The government is 'choosing' what it can and can't afford. i.e. it 'chooses' to 'afford' overseas aid, upping it by 50% to 12 billion quid in favour of paying it's own citizens what it told them they were entitled to.

What does that tell you?

Old_Slaphead

BoxerfanUK wrote: »

What does that tell you?

If the aid gets appropriated properly (and I'll grant you that's a big if) then I think it's the right thing to do. There aren't that many in this country, as far as I'm aware, that are starving to death.

As regards the Beeb funding - I don't think the costings matter. If it, as a publically funded body, can afford to pay an entertainer £6million a year (not to mention what it's paying it's executives) then it's got more money than sense.

BTW MEY - we've gone a bit off topic - sorry

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead", I realise you are being a tad sarky but let me say, there will always be digressions but it's when they just roll and roll that it becomes irritating, distracting and pointless. If of interest, you may be surprised to learn I agree with you on international aid, though I think it is seen more as a prudent "investment" rather than solely a humanitarian effort. Also agree with you to some extent on the BBC (though not necessarily their pension arrangements).
On the EDM front, to get back on topic, I am still awaiting reply from R. Reeves to discover why so few Labour MPs have signed up to it. I live in (forlorn?) hope that I'll get a reply soon

Ripoff_2

The EDM1032 is gathering pace, but we still need more. We now have 84 signatures and these are as follows:

LAB = 67 LD = 4 CON = 0 Oth = 13

Please badger those MP's again and again to sign this EDM, even the conservative MP's who so far have not even given one signature!

Ripoff_2

The EDM1032 is gathering pace, still rising but we still need more. We now have 88 signatures and these are as follows:

LAB = 70 LD = 4 CON = 0 Oth = 14

Please badger those MP's again and again to sign this EDM, even the conservative MP's who so far have not even given one signature!

Goldwing1

MP duly badgered.

I've made the point (again) that the Government's own professional advisors clearly support the EDM and observed that, in this time of financial constraints, there would appear to be little point paying for professional advice, only to ignore it!

Interested_Taxpayer

Thanks Ripoff.

Everyone. You can remind the Conservative MPs of the assurance Philip Hammond, now the Transport Secretary, gave about public sector pension index linking before the General Election. In a letter on 27 April 2010 he confirmed on behalf of the Conservative Party that:

"Indexation of pensions in payment is an established part of pensions legislation. The Conservative Party has no plans to change the current index-linking of public pensions in payment. We agree with the view that the right to indexation of pensions already accrued is part of the accrued pension rights and those rights will be protected."

See www.cspa.co.uk for a draft letter on this and a draft letter if you get waffle in reply.

phileb

Hi _ I have had to replies 1 from my CON MP , and the other from Rod Kent chair of the BT Pension scheme.

the MP - says basically the change to CPI - is the best thing since sliced bread - and also he says quote "You may be surprised to learn that the RPI excludes the spending patterns of the poorest pensioners " - Interesting ---- how can they do that when the own stats people say that its flawed, and not picking up including everything...

He does not say so, but I don't thing he is going to support the Early day motion. !!!!!

Rod Kent - says in his very bog standard letter "Under the scheme rules the Trustee does not have the power unilaterally to change the Rules. Such changes can only be made with the agreement of the Sponsor." He then adds " But given the very large deficit within the Scheme and given the very substantial additional payments (£525 miilion per annum and rising) which BT has agreed to make in order to elimate this defict, it is unlikely that such agreemnt will be reached."

Such things as Pension payments holiday springs to mind !!!.