UK Politics Thread part II

[Jimbuna]

Taxpayers can't afford Waspi compensation, says PM

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has defended the decision to reject compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age, arguing that the taxpayer "simply can't afford the tens of billions of pounds" in payments.

He added that "90% of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place".

However, during Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the government's decision, with one MP calling for a vote.

The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign group say that 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed of the rise in state pension age to bring them into line with men.

In 1995, the government increased the pension age for women from 60 to 65, phasing in the change between 2010 and 2020.

The coalition government of 2010 opted to speed up the process, bringing forward the qualifying age of 65 to 2018.

Waspi has been pushing for compensation previously suggesting that some women should receive £10,000 each, at a cost of £36bn.

The current government's decision not to award payments comes despite an independent government review in March which recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 for each of those affected.

Rebecca Hilsenrath, head of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which wrote the review, told Times Radio that although the government had accepted that it had delayed writing to 1950s-born women by 28 months, and apologised, it had rejected paying compensation.

"What we don't expect is for an acknowledgement to be made by a public body that it's got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected," she said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy85edy0nxo

[Jimbuna]

Kemi grills Starmer at final PMQs of 2024 about pensioners.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...&ei=34#details

[Jimbuna]

She's nothing but a liar and a fraud.

Reeves misses deadline to answer questions over ‘embellished’ CV

Rachel Reeves appears to have broken her own government’s guidance by ignoring questions about whether she lied on her CV.

The Chancellor has refused to reply to a letter sent by former Conservative chairman, Richard Holden, last month asking her to clarify her previous job at the Bank of Scotland amid accusations she exaggerated her role as an economist.

Mr Holden, MP for Basildon and Billericay, asked Ms Reeves to answer six questions about her “edited CV” and said “anything less than a full explanation would confirm to the country that they cannot trust a word this government says”.

Ms Reeves was accused of breaching the ministerial code last month after it emerged she had edited her online CV following reports she lied about her job prior to becoming an MP.

Rather than working as an economist at the Bank of Scotland between 2006 and 2009, she updated her LinkedIn profile to show that she had instead worked in retail banking at Halifax, the Bank of Scotland’s parent company.

It now appears Ms Reeves could be in further hot water by choosing to ignore Mr Holden’s letter sent on November 18.

Under government guidance, published in September, it states ministers should respond to such correspondence within 20 working days, meaning Ms Reeves should have responded by Monday December 16 at the latest. It is understood there are no direct consequences for an MP who misses the deadline.

Mr Holden accused the Chancellor of attempting to “hide under a rock” by ignoring his questions and said such a strategy would be taking the British public for “fools”.

He said: “I asked Rachel Reeves a series of very simple, but very serious questions about her CV. She has not yet had the courage to answer them, over a month later.

“If the Chancellor thinks that hiding under a rock and hoping this will all go away is the right strategy, she has another thing coming. The British public are no fools.

“This country deserves to know if one of its most senior politicians has deceived them. I will continue to push for the answers that are so sorely needed.”

As well as claims she embellished her role at the Bank of Scotland, Ms Reeves has also been accused of repeatedly exaggerating how long she spent working at the Bank of England.

Speaking to Stylist magazine in 2021, the Chancellor said she had spent a decade working as an economist at the Bank and “loved it”.

But her LinkedIn profile showed she only worked for the Bank for six years, leaving in December 2006 after joining on its graduate scheme in September 2000.

In Mr Holden’s letter, he wrote: “The allegations raised, including that you misrepresented your role at HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland), and then edited your CV after this being discovered, are not trivial matters – and leave serious questions.

“As you know standards in public life are upheld by rigorous accountability and transparency – which is why I write to you seeking clarity.”

Mr Holden then asked the following six questions: “Between what years were you employed by the Bank of England? What was your job title at the Bank of England? Between what years were you employed by HBOS? What was your job title at HBOS? What was the reason you left HBOS? Will you now publish a full, unedited CV?”

Ms Reeves was approached for comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainm...263e6be8&ei=15

[Jimbuna]

Up to 100 Labour MPs could vote against Waspi payout refusal

Up to 100 Labour MPs could vote against the government’s decision to rule out spending £10bn compensating Waspi women if a vote is held, encapsulating the fury on Keir Starmer’s own benches, the Guardian has been told.

The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, announced on Tuesday there would be no compensation for women born in the 1950s who were not aware of changes to the state pension age, despite a recommendation from the parliamentary ombudsman in March that £1,000 to £2,950 should be paid out to each of the more than 3 million women affected.

The prime minister denied MPs a vote on the issue and told the Commons that taxpayers could not afford the £10.5bn compensation package that had been recommended, as his own MPs accused him of “betrayal” during PMQs on Wednesday.

However, it is understood that the Liberal Democratsintend to press the government to hold a vote. Should that be denied, the party could then consider other means, such as as a backbench debate or opposition day.

One Labour MP called it the party’s “tuition fee moment”, given how many Labour MPs had stood with campaign groups in solidarity with the women hit by the rising state pension age. Many privately feel embarrassed by the move and had thought they were following Labour policy in showing solidarity with the women.

The veteran Labour MP and mother of the house, Diane Abbott, criticised the government during PMQs as she said: “We did promise them that we will give them justice. I understand the issue about the cost, but does the prime minister really understand how let down Waspi women feel today?”

Ian Byrne, who is suspended by Labour and sitting as an independent, told the chamber that the Waspi women were victims of an “injustice done to them at the hands of the state” and asked: “Will the prime minister give members the opportunity to vote on whether they believe Waspi women are owed compensation?”

Starmer did not address the call for a vote, saying instead: “I just set out the factual background and the percentage that knew about the change, and the simple fact of the matter is, in the current economic circumstances, the taxpayer can’t bear the burden of tens of billions of pounds in compensation.”

Downing Street later said it had “no plans” for a vote on the issue, insisting MPs had had “an opportunity to have their say” on Tuesday when the move was formally announced.

Although it was not promised in Labour’s manifesto, Starmer and members of his top team including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and Kendall backed the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign when the party was in opposition.

Reeves told broadcasters early on Wednesday that improving public services was a higher priority than footing an “expensive compensation bill” that could not be justified as most women had said they did know about the pension age changes.

She said: “I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming.

“And as chancellor, I have to account for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent. And given that the vast majority of people did know about these changes, I didn’t judge that it would be the best use of taxpayers’ money to pay an expensive compensation bill for something that most people knew was happening.”

Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, criticised the government’s decision not to offer compensation.

She told Times Radio: “It’s great that the government are saying that our intervention will lead to service improvements and it’s fair to say also that people who come to us, overwhelmingly, are motivated by wanting things to improve for other people.

“But what we don’t expect is for an acknowledgment to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.”

The Conservatives hit out at the “betrayal” of Waspi women, but the shadow business secretary, Andrew Griffith, acknowledged that the Tories might not have offered any compensation either.

A spokesperson for Kemi Badenoch said: “She has not promised to give them compensation but I’m not going to write a budget for four or five years’ time. The key here is about the Labour party and trust and honesty … they told the Waspi women they would get them compensation and then they’ve said no.”

The Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, said the government’s “blanket no-compensation position is the wrong one” and he was “deeply disappointed by that”.

He added: “I think we could have found a way forward that recognised the difficult public finances, that recognised the difficult inheritance.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...13a7ce6b&ei=36

[Jimbuna]

[Catfish]

"Keir Starmer forms 'EU surrender squad' to negotiate reversal of Boris Johnson's Brexit"

Brexit cost UK 27 billion pounds in lost trade in first two years, review finds."

[Jimbuna]

The fact is everybody is laying into Starmer and rightly so but choose to ignore the fact it was Boris and his gang of crooks who continually lied and made claims and promises they could never back up.

[Moonlight]

Just A Few Of The Remainer Lies.

DEMOCRACY REQUIRES THE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAIN

This is really a confidence trick based on the assumption that apathy and fed-upness at being buggered about will reduce the Brexit vote to allow some of the people to reverse the vote of more of them. It can’t be a vote on Mrs May’s solution because Parliament won’t pass it and the politicians can’t agree on any alternative. So the ballot will be “Stay in? Yes or Yes”. The EU will reject any alternative, as it did with Greece’s referendum.

BRITAIN BELONGS AT THE HEART OF EUROPE

Although it’s already relegated to the periphery. Unless it accepts the euro, Schengen, the EU army and the dominance of Germany, it must stay there and unlike most members we won’t get any aid. Only our own money back with their costs taken out.

THE EU IS OUR BEST MARKET

In fact it’s a protective bloc set up to protect French agriculture and German manufacturing. Its share of world trade is declining, the euro wont work and has led to deflation and unemployment. We run a £95 billion deficit which means the export of jobs, money and demand. Membership is a drain not a boost.

LEAVING WOULD BE TO CRASH OVER THE CLIFF EDGE INTO DISASTER

Oddly the rest of the world trades with the EU on WTO terms more successfully than we do as members. They can hardly punish us without damaging themselves and the scare stories of the Treasury and the Bank of England both assume that Brexit would mean deflation. In fact it would compel a Keynesian expansion, the opening of new markets and cheaper food.

WE’D BE ALONE AND IGNORED

Yet small nations are the most successful; independent nations are growing faster because they can manage their economies to suit their own purposes. Outside a bloc designed to suit France and Germany, so can we.

BREXIT WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR BUSINESS

Small business doesn’t trade with the EU. The assumption is that British business has no guts, no resilience, can’t compete in other markets and is totally dependent on trade agreements negotiated by the EU in its interest not ours. British complacency might benefit from a shock, as Australia and New Zealand did when Britain betrayed them to join the EU. There is however one element of truth – though it’s one they don’t tell. Our leaders love the EU because it gives them a bigger stage to strut on, an excuse for their failures and the illusion that they’re still important – the only satisfaction left to them, after screwing up Britain.

There's two sides to a coin you know, and there's a lot more Bollocks like the above that I haven't posted.

[Jimbuna]

Tory donations exceed Labour’s as Starmer’s popularity plummets

Conservative donations pulled ahead of Labour’s as confidence collapsed in the Government only a few months after it was elected.

The latest figures show the Tories raised hundreds of thousands of pounds more than Labour in the three months following the general election.

During that time, the Government was dogged by a freebies scandal, the sacking of Sue Gray as chief of staff, and a backlash against the cut to winter fuel payments.

In the run-up to the general election, Labour raised more than all other political parties combined. But, since then, donor confidence has apparently slumped.

Labour raised more than the Tories for several months before it was elected. In the second quarter of this year, donors gave the party more than £28 million.

But in the third quarter of 2024 – July to September – Labour reported total donations of £2,616,816 while the Tories pulled ahead with donations worth £3,162,665, according to the Electoral Commission.

It is a sign that the Government’s honeymoon period was as short-lived with donors as it was with voters at large. The Labour Party’s poll rating has collapsed since July, as has the Prime Minister’s personal popularity.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...d8ecd03c&ei=11

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"Keir Starmer forms 'EU surrender squad' to negotiate reversal of Boris Johnson's Brexit"

Brexit cost UK 27 billion pounds in lost trade in first two years, review finds."

The question I have- CAN the UK rejoin the EU?

As I recall, it was a bit of a sweetheart deal back in the day.

[mapuc]

^ I guess it would be under EU's term and condition if UK wants to rejoin EU. Don't think UK can put up to many demands.

A little majority of the people in UK voted for an exit. Shouldn't there be an another referendum if the Government want UK to rejoin ?

I would think so.

Markus

[Dargo]

Everybody can (re)join the EU like any new member. Please no referendum we are so bad at them, better leave that to the Swiss.