RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

All, you may also find this article of interest http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100009842/why-your-standard-of-living-is-falling-by-1-a-day/

and you may also wish to know that legal action is being considered for a judicial review, it does appear Steve Webb and this Tory led Government does have a case to answer.....as if we didn't already know that.

RPI/CPI: legal advisors issue warning of judicial review

Legal advisors acting on behalf of the FDA, Prospect, the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (CSPA) and the Police Federation have written to HM Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions giving warning of a possible claim for judicial review - in relation to the Government's decision to change the indices used for uprating public sector pensions, from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).

The June 2010 Budget set out the Government's intention to change the indices used to determine the uprating of public sector pensions. The Budget statement set out the Government's rationale for this change in the following terms:

"The CPI provides a more appropriate measure of benefit and pension recipients' inflation experiences than RPI, because it excludes the majority of housing costs faced by homeowners (low income households are subsidised separately through Housing Benefit, and the majority of pensioners own their home outright), and differences in calculation mean it may be considered a better representation of the way consumers change their consumption patterns in response to price changes."

The potential challenge to the Government's decision would be that, in choosing the CPI, the secretary of state has not acted strictly in accordance with statute, and has erred in adopting a measure of inflation that is, at least in part, directed towards changes in consumer behaviour rather than changes in prices. The "pre-action protocol letter" sent by our legal advisors makes clear that we consider the RPI to be a more adequate index to meet the secretary of state's statutory obligations in relation to the uprating of public sector pensions, and reserves our rights to make a claim for judicial review.

regards

Ripoff

Thicko2

Dont expect any morality or decency from this coallition on this government on this issue.

Thicko2

James U - i heard the honourable Mr Webb say that in parliament. hmm legal challenge is needed.

Interested_Taxpayer

Ripoff wrote: »

RPI/CPI: legal advisors issue warning of judicial review


Ripoff

Ripoff. Already been posted at #859. Link includes Councel's opinion.

www.fda.org.uk/MembersArea/News/Newsletters/Pensions-update-3-March-2011.aspx

JamesU

That this House considers that the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 827) which was laid before this House on 17 March 2011 should be withdrawn because the Order requires the uprating of public sector pensions using the consumer price index, replacing the retail price index which the Government has indicated will be a permanent change; notes that the Government has refused to heed arguments that a temporary three year change to the index used would represent a fair contribution from benefits and pension recipients, at a time when wage growth generally is suppressed, to reducing the deficit whilst not unfairly impacting on their incomes over the longer term; but regrets that the Government has instead indicated that the change is permanent, leaving public sector workers and the poorest in society disadvantaged permanently, yearafter year, even once the deficit is gone and earnings growth has returned.

Ed Miliband

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1629


JamesU

viridens

EDM 1629

Hip hip flippin' hooray!!

5 signatures so far, I see...

JamesU

StevieJ wrote: »

Do you actually think all that blurb actually trumps this?
The Conservative Party has no plans to change the current index-linking of public sector pensions in payment.

Prospective changes were confirmed and approved by vote. Doubt the bolded parts trump the blurb as SW changed indexing of SERPS which “just happened” to lead to other changes, so no promises broken. The orchestration was a masterpiece in legislative theft.

JamesU

StevieJ

JamesU wrote: »

Prospective changes were confirmed and approved by vote. Doubt the bolded parts trump the blurb as SW changed indexing of SERPS which “just happened” to lead to other changes, so no promises broken. The orchestration was a masterpiece in legislative theft.

JamesU

What does that mean?

Ripoff_2

All, as you can see there is a new EDM 1629 which now needs our support, again it's a matter of getting MP's to sign the EDM and to that end I know you will all have the MP's addresses to hand, get those pens and pencils sharpened again!

If you have missed the Feb inflation figures then you may be in for a shock.......RPI = 5.5% (up from 5.1%) CPI = 4.4% (up from 4%) mainly due to heating Gas/Electric and Clothing / footware plus Transport which has risen by 15.9% in 12 months. I believe these costs all impact pensioners greater than many and make a further nonsense of Steve Webb's assertion that CPI is a "Better measure of pensioner inflation" so... take action NOW and get EDM 1629 signed by your MP

You may also like to view the following especially page 39 as it clearly shows the 0.3% error in clothing costs which is being estimated at present and added to CPI but not it would appear to RPI? http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/inflationreport/ir11feb.pdf

Goldwing1

Sorry but I don't agree. EDM 1629 is a con in that it allows CPI to be used for the next three years.

That gives CPI a credibility it doesn't currently deserve.

Also, I believe the 70mph speed limit and income tax were both "temporary" measures.

What worries me is that EDM 1629 now allows divide and conquer to rule. To me that means that both will fail and allow labour to claim that "they tried".