• frankPodmore@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    There’s no need to give £10 billion to people who don’t need it just because they say they weren’t told about something that they were in fact told about.

    Even if the government had loads of money available — which they don’t — further enriching the wealthiest age cohort is not something they should do. As things stand, they would need to cut, tax or borrow to fund this. No one should be taken seriously unless they can say which of those things the government should do.

  • HelloThere
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like I’m missing something here. The law was changed in 1995, to come in to effect from 2010 onwards.

    How is 15 years not enough notice?

    • Buckshot@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Theres an extra detail that is often missed, in 2011 the roll out was accelerated by 4 years and there’s some evidence it may have taken in to 2014 to notify everyone affected so it’s possible you may have been expecting to get a pension in 2016 and with just over a year’s notice find it’s been moved to 2020.

      They also increased the age to 66 and now 67 for everyone.

      I have more sympathy for those but that’s a much smaller cohort than the 3M figure being reported.

  • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Women against state pension inequality” getting mad that state pension inequality was removed has to be the funniest thing I’ve seen all day

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Like most people they want it to be equal by them getting more. Not them getting less.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        They were already getting more, the options were either others get more (which results in them getting less as taxes would increase while gdp decreased) or they get less?

        So they get less either way?

        Sure, it could’ve been handled better but that doesn’t change the fact they’ve got a stupid name for what they’re campaign for

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Jeremy Corbyn never seems to quite grasp the minutia of a situation. Sure it’s not great that it happened but you have to judge how bad the situation was when calculating a response. The government have already said that they accept responsibility and that it was bad, and that there isn’t any money, sorry.

    It’s not like they face some major injustice, they were slightly inconvenienced. It’s hardly reformation worthy.

    The best outcome for all of this would be that the DWP could marginally improve to be less shit, but realistically I don’t have my hopes up.

  • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Let’s just abandon retirement and have everyone enjoying the beauty and fulfilment of work until they drop. Bah! Pensions are for the workshy layabouts.