When young people can't access affordable housing and children increasingly grow up in poverty then resolving the WASPI wrangle should not be Labour's priority
An injustice is an injustice. Put it right. There are always plenty of excuses to duck and dive from responsibllity-and responsibility and accountability are pillars which, if not accepted, continue the demise of politics and politicians in many peoples' eyes. Will we apply the same excuses to payouts to Post Office people. Were they too wealthy? If that money comes to those who deserve it-far too late, of course-where will it go? It will be spent on housing for grandchildren.
"They have long claimed they were unfairly penalised when the state pension age for women was raised to match that of men" -- being treated the same as everyone else and no longer being given preferential treatment is not the same as being penalised.
The title of your article is at best misleading and at worst a lie. By no means all WASPI women are wealthy. Indeed women historically are more likely to have been in low paid jobs without occupational pensions than men. Subsisting on just over £200 per week State Pension (at the current level) is by no means wealthy, especially given that their energy costs are no longer additionally subsidised. You do clarify in the body of the article that property-ownership is the main issue, however here again it’s not women over 65 that form the majority, but men!
As somebody else has intimated, it’s difficult to see where should the line be drawn in deciding which injustices are not really too bad after all. Will the government be right to assume that all sub-post office people should have by now got themselves jobs as tv stars so they shouldn’t need the money?
An injustice is an injustice. Put it right. There are always plenty of excuses to duck and dive from responsibllity-and responsibility and accountability are pillars which, if not accepted, continue the demise of politics and politicians in many peoples' eyes. Will we apply the same excuses to payouts to Post Office people. Were they too wealthy? If that money comes to those who deserve it-far too late, of course-where will it go? It will be spent on housing for grandchildren.
"They have long claimed they were unfairly penalised when the state pension age for women was raised to match that of men" -- being treated the same as everyone else and no longer being given preferential treatment is not the same as being penalised.
The title of your article is at best misleading and at worst a lie. By no means all WASPI women are wealthy. Indeed women historically are more likely to have been in low paid jobs without occupational pensions than men. Subsisting on just over £200 per week State Pension (at the current level) is by no means wealthy, especially given that their energy costs are no longer additionally subsidised. You do clarify in the body of the article that property-ownership is the main issue, however here again it’s not women over 65 that form the majority, but men!
As somebody else has intimated, it’s difficult to see where should the line be drawn in deciding which injustices are not really too bad after all. Will the government be right to assume that all sub-post office people should have by now got themselves jobs as tv stars so they shouldn’t need the money?