I feel its very much related to the issue I raised above, in that Starmer is trying to assume a reactionary version of anti-systemic politics.
There's a convergence of interests here with Starmer's seemingly natural reactionary politics blending with the DOGE like ideas of the baby Blairites (like Streeting).
Labour have now spent the last week briefing out a message that the Tories ran an experimental 'one nation open borders policy', with Starmer running the 14-words in the blandest most boring way possible: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537
Is he seriously saying that the last government - they of the Hostile Environment, “prison barge”, Rwanda and so on - wanted open borders?
Labour have now spent the last week briefing out a message that the Tories ran an experimental 'one nation open borders policy', with Starmer running the 14-words in the blandest most boring way possible: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537
Is he seriously saying that the last government - they of the Hostile Environment, “prison barge”, Rwanda and so on - wanted open borders?
Does he expect anyone to believe that?
The non-asylum migration figures suggest a certain equanimity to migration, not withstanding the performative cruelty towards some immigrants.
Labour have now spent the last week briefing out a message that the Tories ran an experimental 'one nation open borders policy', with Starmer running the 14-words in the blandest most boring way possible: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537
Is he seriously saying that the last government - they of the Hostile Environment, “prison barge”, Rwanda and so on - wanted open borders?
Does he expect anyone to believe that?
The non-asylum migration figures suggest a certain equanimity to migration, not withstanding the performative cruelty towards some immigrants.
Well, it was in service of pent up demand from an export industry hit by Covid (the higher education sector) and filling gaps in employment (care work), which is very far away from running a 'experiment open borders policy'.
Marvin is right on the general aspect, it's something where Labour struggle to be seen as believable and where Farage and Badenoch can speak with considerably more panache. Even purely electorally it's a stupid move.
Many of the women affected by the change in pension ages knew about the changes, and had changed their retirement and pension plans well in advance. Many didn't know, either they didn't know at all or didn't know that the plans were accelerated under the Cameron government, and sometimes didn't find out they weren't getting a pension until they had retired. There have been a lot of official reports concluding that the government was at fault in not communicating the changes to pension ages sufficiently, conclusions that this government has accepted. The government, both Labour under Brown and the coalition under Cameron, were at fault in failing to communicate the changes adequately and this left many women in poverty without a state pension, digging into savings, or finding whatever job they could to make ends meet when they had been expecting to enjoy retirement. Compensation for those women won't change the hardships they went through, but would be the right thing to do.
As a woman affected by the decision, I also knew changes were being made, and am not sure how anyone could have failed to have known. It would be a bit like saying you’d never heard of Covid.
And who on earth would retire without finding out about their pension?
The thing is, not being very intelligent is not in itself a moral failing that means you should be punished.
I think it's probably best to leave characterisations of the individuals to one side. AFAICT maladministration was found in the failure to inform the affected individuals for around 2 to 3 years, so some compensation would appear to be justified (even if not quite at the levels some campaigners are demanding), to do otherwise would be to effectively ignore the verdict of the ombudsman.
I got confused between the failure to communicate, by various govts, and the shortfall suffered by women. It's impossible to compensate for the second one, and the first one wasn't promised by Labour. Well, it was, by Corbyn! I can see the Tory press are ranting about betrayal, although Badenoch seemed to say they wouldn't pay either. It's politics as usual.
Why have they (the government) ignored the ombudsman?
AFAICT they are under no legal obligation to pay attention to them - it's another toothless regulator.
As well as the various photographs demonstrating support, there's video of the current Chancellor berating one of the previous pension ministers for not doing anything to compensate those affected:
The thing is, not being very intelligent is not in itself a moral failing that means you should be punished.
I think it's probably best to leave characterisations of the individuals to one side. AFAICT maladministration was found in the failure to inform the affected individuals for around 2 to 3 years, so some compensation would appear to be justified (even if not quite at the levels some campaigners are demanding), to do otherwise would be to effectively ignore the verdict of the ombudsman.
I take your point, but I do dislike the suggestion in public discourse that if you lack the skills to protect yourself - through no fault of your own - then you deserve to get shafted.
People are unaware of things for all sorts of reasons, and lack of intelligence isn't the only reason. Awareness campaigns that rely on the media are notoriously bad at reaching everyone - some people don't use the internet, or watch TV news or read a paper; or else pop into the kitchen to put the kettle on when the ads come on. Letters to everyone are better, but even then probably multiple letters to make sure the message is understood. There was probably nothing that could be done to make sure everyone who would be affected knew and understood the changes, but the ombudsman was clear that a lot more could have been done.
There's also no way to know who didn't know in advance. So what you end up with is a scheme that assumes anyone who claims to have been misinformed is compensated without any examination of their claim - much as people who had PPI were compensated without first having to prove that they hadn't been given all the information that they should have (and, probably some people got compensation even though their financial advisor had given them all the information they needed and it wasn't mis-sold).
A Labour council (i.e. government) are paying £2,543 a month to put up a poor woman's family in this literal shit hole. In the fourth richest city on Earth.
Letting Agency and Landlord should be refunding many months' rent. And facing serious criminal charges. These housing benefit funded spivs and cowboys are a parasitic plague on society.
A Labour council (i.e. government) are paying £2,543 a month to put up a poor woman's family in this literal shit hole. In the fourth richest city on Earth.
This is downstream of Right to Buy and council housing stock being much reduced, with the result that housing benefit has become a subsidy to landlords.
Men were not in the same circumstances. We already retired later than women.
If you mean would the information be as badly distributed so some men didn’t hear about it. Yes probably. That said men tend to be more active in Unions and such so the info would have gotten to them that way. One reason Unions are useful.
It would be interesting to know how well informed men (especially those currently in their 60s who are most affected) felt they were in regard to the increase in pension age. I'd not long started work when the pension age was raised and it hasn't really affected me, but there would have been some men planning on retiring at 65 who had to amend plans when the pension age was raised to 68.
Though, the impact would probably have been less because men were far more likely to invest in an additional pension scheme, and so were less likely to be entirely dependent upon the state pension and an extra 3y is also less significant than an extra 5 and then 8y.
As a woman affected by the decision, I also knew changes were being made, and am not sure how anyone could have failed to have known. It would be a bit like saying you’d never heard of Covid.
And who on earth would retire without finding out about their pension?
MMM
A friend of mine failed to know. She's academically very strong, but quite other-worldly. I hadn't realised she didn't know, or I would have given her a heads-up.
Being born in 1972 I'm among the youngest with a state pension age of 67. I keep watching anxiously whenever a review is announced. I can't take any more than 15 more years of work.....
I can see the Tory press are ranting about betrayal, although Badenoch seemed to say they wouldn't pay either.
The betrayal is not in relation to the changing of the pension age itself, it's in the fact that while in opposition many of the current Labour front bench explicitly said they supported the WASPIs and called for the (then Conservative) government to compensate them, but now they've won the election they've done a full 180 and told the WASPIs to go screw themselves.
I can see the Tory press are ranting about betrayal, although Badenoch seemed to say they wouldn't pay either.
The betrayal is not in relation to the changing of the pension age itself, it's in the fact that while in opposition many of the current Labour front bench explicitly said they supported the WASPIs and called for the (then Conservative) government to compensate them, but now they've won the election they've done a full 180 and told the WASPIs to go screw themselves.
Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the US. I am not clear what they are shooting for here. If they are thinking that he will cosy up to Trump I don't think that will work. He might try to do so, but I suspect he is just the sort of political character Trump hates!
He's older than the last few Ambassadors to the US at the point they left office. It's evidently a case of a job for someone who is the club - regardless of their past history (multiple resignations for various indiscretions, hobnobbing with oligarchs and so on).
He's older than the last few Ambassadors to the US at the point they left office. It's evidently a case of a job for someone who is the club - regardless of their past history (multiple resignations for various indiscretions, hobnobbing with oligarchs and so on).
Hobnobbing with oligarchs, aside from being a great band name, is what the role of Ambassador to the US now entails.
He's older than the last few Ambassadors to the US at the point they left office. It's evidently a case of a job for someone who is the club - regardless of their past history (multiple resignations for various indiscretions, hobnobbing with oligarchs and so on).
Hobnobbing with oligarchs, aside from being a great band name, is what the role of Ambassador to the US now entails.
Personally I feel the last thing the UK needs is even more dark money flowing into politics, and appointing someone who is forced to resign every few years is an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
It's the direction of travel for Starmer. I notice that the left are warning that his right wing moves embolden Farage, the right wing are saying, stop worrying, the Tories are kaput. Somehow, that doesn't reassure me.
It's the direction of travel for Starmer. I notice that the left are warning that his right wing moves embolden Farage, the right wing are saying, stop worrying, the Tories are kaput.
It's a waste of his talents. Mandelson should be in a big Europe-facing role, perhaps one made up specially for him. They appreciate him there and he'd be good at it. This appointment seems like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen, and maybe not waiting very long.
I hope they meet and that Lord Mandelson introduces himself to LaCivita as 'The absolute moron, shalom', to which LaCivita must reply 'Your excellency'.
Comments
There's a convergence of interests here with Starmer's seemingly natural reactionary politics blending with the DOGE like ideas of the baby Blairites (like Streeting).
Is he seriously saying that the last government - they of the Hostile Environment, “prison barge”, Rwanda and so on - wanted open borders?
Does he expect anyone to believe that?
The non-asylum migration figures suggest a certain equanimity to migration, not withstanding the performative cruelty towards some immigrants.
Well, it was in service of pent up demand from an export industry hit by Covid (the higher education sector) and filling gaps in employment (care work), which is very far away from running a 'experiment open borders policy'.
Marvin is right on the general aspect, it's something where Labour struggle to be seen as believable and where Farage and Badenoch can speak with considerably more panache. Even purely electorally it's a stupid move.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/dec/17/anger-greets-uk-government-decision-not-to-compensate-waspi-women
And who on earth would retire without finding out about their pension?
MMM
I think it's probably best to leave characterisations of the individuals to one side. AFAICT maladministration was found in the failure to inform the affected individuals for around 2 to 3 years, so some compensation would appear to be justified (even if not quite at the levels some campaigners are demanding), to do otherwise would be to effectively ignore the verdict of the ombudsman.
Why have they (the government) ignored the ombudsman?
AFAICT they are under no legal obligation to pay attention to them - it's another toothless regulator.
As well as the various photographs demonstrating support, there's video of the current Chancellor berating one of the previous pension ministers for not doing anything to compensate those affected:
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1869423516384395643
I take your point, but I do dislike the suggestion in public discourse that if you lack the skills to protect yourself - through no fault of your own - then you deserve to get shafted.
There's also no way to know who didn't know in advance. So what you end up with is a scheme that assumes anyone who claims to have been misinformed is compensated without any examination of their claim - much as people who had PPI were compensated without first having to prove that they hadn't been given all the information that they should have (and, probably some people got compensation even though their financial advisor had given them all the information they needed and it wasn't mis-sold).
This is downstream of Right to Buy and council housing stock being much reduced, with the result that housing benefit has become a subsidy to landlords.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3zqen209go.amp
Men were not in the same circumstances. We already retired later than women.
If you mean would the information be as badly distributed so some men didn’t hear about it. Yes probably. That said men tend to be more active in Unions and such so the info would have gotten to them that way. One reason Unions are useful.
Though, the impact would probably have been less because men were far more likely to invest in an additional pension scheme, and so were less likely to be entirely dependent upon the state pension and an extra 3y is also less significant than an extra 5 and then 8y.
A friend of mine failed to know. She's academically very strong, but quite other-worldly. I hadn't realised she didn't know, or I would have given her a heads-up.
The betrayal is not in relation to the changing of the pension age itself, it's in the fact that while in opposition many of the current Labour front bench explicitly said they supported the WASPIs and called for the (then Conservative) government to compensate them, but now they've won the election they've done a full 180 and told the WASPIs to go screw themselves.
Very well put. They are total hypocrites.
In government the Tories said "we won't pay out compensation". In opposition they say "we'd pay out compensation if in government".
In opposition Labour said "we'd pay out compensation if in government". In government they say "we won't pay out compensation".
In a "hypocrisy contest" I'd call that a dead heat.
...suggesting that he has one to change, which is not a charge that could be levelled at some of his recent predecessors...
At some point it's just dishonesty, and even friendly access journalists are noticing it. https://www.itv.com/watch/news/talking-politics-is-starmers-honesty-problem-unforced-error-or-long-term-strategy/h5gvl4x
He's older than the last few Ambassadors to the US at the point they left office. It's evidently a case of a job for someone who is the club - regardless of their past history (multiple resignations for various indiscretions, hobnobbing with oligarchs and so on).
Hobnobbing with oligarchs, aside from being a great band name, is what the role of Ambassador to the US now entails.
I’d have a narrow preference for Oligarching With Hobnobs.
I see them as being somewhere between Big Big Train and Public Service Broadcasting.
I’ve said elsewhere (back on topic) on these boards that I think Mandelson for this job (and I’m not a fan of his) is a fairly sensible choice tbh.
It's worth reminding ourselves of what this involved previously: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7690459.stm
Personally I feel the last thing the UK needs is even more dark money flowing into politics, and appointing someone who is forced to resign every few years is an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
ITYM the right wing are quite openly briefing against him https://x.com/itvnews/status/1870039690075648427
In this case they made the job easier by appointing a dishonest man in the first place.
I'm not sure what his talents amount to, apart from being very good at inside party manoeuvring.