EDM1629: Public Sector Pensions - switch from CPI back to RPI

JamesU

EDM1629: Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011 - should be withdrawn
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Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 827) which was laid before this House on 17 March 2011 should be withdrawn because the Order requires the uprating of public sector pensions using the consumer price index, replacing the retail price index which the Government has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


The following EDMs are discussed and campaigned on MSE here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2881124

EDM1625: Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011 - should be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011(S.I., 2011, No. 827), dated 16 March 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 March, be annulled. (John McDonnell)
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1625

EDM1032: Indexation of pensions and benefits - should be postponed
That this House notes the Government's proposal to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) for the price indexation of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions; further notes that the CPI is consistently lower than the RPI; expresses concern over the impact that this will have on the incomes of pensioners and other vulnerable groups; recognises the concerns held by the Royal Statistical Society and the UK Statistics Authority that CPI excludes many housing costs which are borne by the majority of pensioner households; and calls on the Government to take these concerns into account and postpone the change from RPI to CPI until the appropriateness of CPI as a measure of price increases borne by pensioner households can be fully evaluated. (John Robertson)
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1032
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1032#1032A1

Interested_Taxpayer

JamesU wrote: »

EDM1629: Pensions Increase (Review) Order 2011 - should be withdrawn

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


Let the battle begin.....

JamesU

Thanks JamesU. Letter to MP asking her to sign up in the post.

Might not be what we are after but a useful backstop if all else fails I feel.

What do you think?

chris_m

I thought the explanation given that no Labour shadow ministers had signed EDM1032 was that ministers and their shadows weren't allowed to sign EDMs - funny how the first five signatories to this one, and the primary sponsor, are ALL in the shadow cabinet.

Loughton_Monkey

New EDM

"This house considers that Red Minibrand and his bunch of marxist colleagues should resign herewith from opposition and forever shut whichever orifice this garbage comes from. This country is a democracy, and so he should simply vote against the changes, but if they get through, then tough!"

Goldwing1

Hmmm.
Political cop out I think. It sounds like they are supporting us and it reduces the outcry but, in effect, does nothing.

There may be other examples and I stand to be corrected but wasn't income tax and the 70MPH speed limit introduced as "temporary" measures? :mad:

JamesU

If EDM 1629 was the only one put forward, a political cop out quite possibly, but EDM1625 was put forward to annul the uprating order first, then EDM1629 on pensions more specifically, so could just be the way they added the EDMs. But in any case I personally do not agree with Labour's approach on EDM1629 or the reasoning put forward in the motion. Will explain in more detail when I have time to post properly. But no intention to actively support this motion, feel EDM 1032 and EDM 1625 are more appropriate.

JamesU

viridens

Clarification please.

Is EDM 1032 dead in the water? Are we to consider it so, and stop soliciting support for it?

Ripoff_2

What really matters is putting this Wrong, Right and I see this as another way other than the legal road. It's not about party politics but about getting the change reversed anyway we can irrespective of any political views.

With the latest inflation figures it's more urgent than it ever was. The difference between the 3.1% CPI awarded in the uprating and the latest RPI at 5.5%, some 2.4% makes this a really big issue and when you look at the places where the inflation has occured it hits pensioners very hard indeed.

RichandJ

Ripoff wrote: »

My apologies, I thought that with you starting the thread and putting "let the battle begin" you were very much in favour of this fight.

What really matters is putting this Wrong, Right and I see this as another way other than the legal road. It's not about party politics but about getting the change reversed anyway we can irrespective of any political views.

With the latest inflation figures it's more urgent than it ever was. The difference between the 3.1% CPI awarded in the uprating and the latest RPI at 5.5%, some 2.4% makes this a really big issue and when you look at the places where the inflation has occured it hits pensioners very hard indeed.

As I have said this trancends party politics, it's too big an issue for that, I would hope that you support the reversal in any case and still want to see that happen.

Perhaps others will take up the job of policing the thread on your behalf James.

Disingenuous, Ripoff. February 2011 RPI was 5.5%, February 2011 CPI was 4.4%. The 3.1% you quote was the September 2010 CPI figure.

Goldwing1

We need to stick with EDM1032.

This EDM gives CPI a credibility that it doesn't (In it's current form) deserve.

Ripoff_2

RichandJ wrote: »

Disingenuous, Ripoff. February 2011 RPI was 5.5%, February 2011 CPI was 4.4%. The 3.1% you quote was the September 2010 CPI figure.

The 3.1% was used for the uprating of pensions at CPI in September but with an inflation rate of 5.5% RPI now, the uprating should have been 4.6% RPI in September.

The variance would not have been so great, Steve Webb & Co used 3.1% CPI, so the variance is 2.4% not the 0.9% it would have been if RPI had been used for the uprating. (5.5%-4.6%=0.9%) Thus it really does go to show how drastic this change to CPI is, it's cost in real terms to date is 1.5% less and that will rise next month when inflation is even higher, so it's not that disingenuous.