Women’s pensions

That is the state of how pensions changes affect women and men according to government statistics.


It clearly shows that women are adversely affected during the early implementation period.

The court case will come to a conclusion today and I surely hope we’ll win because I was badly affected by the pension change. I did expect my pension age 60 and was totally baffled when I received that letter that I will not get my pension until I am 62 1/2 about 9 months prior to becoming 60. Then suddenly the Work and Pensions department madly pushed me into work quickly.

So watch this space, I shall continue this post later.

See source

So the court has decided against the women, one reason was, “Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”

Women historically were encouraged to be wife and mother and to equalise the assymetry between men and women is not to punish the women for doing what they were encouraged to do.

Pensions blackmail

Previously David Cameron made it quite clear that he plans to force pensioners to ‘voluntarily’ work for their pensions. But now suddenly he promises people the triple lock pensions when pensioners will vote them in for another turn.

Even Miliband promises the same triple lock pensions, meaning pensions rising well above inflation.

Already opposing voices are being broadcast that call this pension unaffordable, implying that pensioners will have to endure cuts to their pensions sooner or later. Questions are asked by news readers, whether pensioners can keep on getting cold weather allowance or their free travel. As the poor young workers will have to pay for this.

I think it is just despicable that pensioners are being put under such pressures. They are told vote for us or lose your pension. When eventually there are already plans in hand to cut pensions and make pensioners do voluntary work.

It is quite ridiculous that rich pensioners get a winter fuel allowance or even any other perks. It is also quite ridiculous that rich workers can live in subsidised council flats. It seems to border on corruption that people are told that as long as they vote for one party they will continue to receive their unreasonable perks when the country is reeling from a continued recession.  This country continues to fail to means test for state subsidies and often uses a blanket approach, which results in poorer recipients losing the same perks as the rich ones. For example taking away free travel for all pensioners hits the poor ones very hard indeed.

I would find it impossible to vote for anybody that tries to get into government under pretences that pensions are only safeguarded if I vote for this or that party. Quite obviously only the House of Lords, the Queen and MP’s have been getting steady increases and now they want to cut the pensioners off to be left behind just like the rest of the country.

At the same time Miliband promises an end to undercutting of wages by foreign cheap labour. Obviously higher wages mean higher taxes and that should pay for pensions, yes Cameron does not want to raise taxes and chooses the Russian option of low taxes for the rich. I am just not going to vote and just watch which way the cookie crumbles.

Pension plan is not going to work

The government is planning to save billions by putting pension entitlement back even further and earlier as originally planned. It is now going to be 69 by 2046, according to the latest Autumn statement of Chancellor Osborne.

What Osborne, or probably better his advisers forget is that only the small minority of elderly stay fit till a late age. For most of us its hip replacements, knee replacements, rheumatism and other ailments. More frequent trips to the doctor and hospital appointments as well as slowing down are also to be expected.

If the current rules for ability for work stay as strict as they are, then most elderly will be getting ESA Employment and Support Allowance before they will be getting their Pension and that will reduce the saving as well as bring up the cost for benefit distribution as each case will get assessed more often.

It is extremely short-sighted and childish to expect that elderly people stay right fit until the age of 69, they grow older but will need more health care and get less available to work regular hours.

Quite amazingly the government has now also announced that routine operations are going to be rationed. That means less hip/knee replacements and cataract operations. That makes it now even more unlikely that the elderly stay fit to work as the government thinks they would. Even free school dinners seems to be under threat from 2015; youngsters already increasingly suffer malnutrition, which leads to more long-term health problems. Somehow this government doesn’t know what they are doing.

Mums and pensioners to keep wages low

It’s all been a trick to destroy the worker’s equilibrium, bring down the wages and put the established unions out of business. The report says it all and is a real eye-opener. As far as I can open my damaged eyes.

I should have gotten my pension this year but got a letter instead, saying I will have to wait another 2 years for the final settlement of any pension claim.

The government says and is advised that bringing in mothers and the old will help the economy. All it helps is business make more profit by helping to keep the wage bill down and by helping to reward those who are excellent at their jobs with less pay.

Do we really want this?

From the perspective of the working mums, I have been against putting mothers of young children under pressure to get a job, it is not practicable to tear mothers away from their children and employ child minders instead, at a heavy price, to look after their off-spring.

The dream of the fit old pensions is contradicted by the ever increasing demand of older people to get more health treatment.

Since I turned 60 I was put on a waiting list for 2 operations; so it is a complete joke that DWP makes me apply for jobs when they know perfectly well that I will need to take time off once those day-stay operations have commenced. But for DWP it is just a useful tool to make me go to interviews so the workers in the jobs feel frightened for their livelihood.

TUC says that pay in the UK has shrunk by about 10%. Boris Johnson will help this even further when he replaces train drivers with robots.

To put worker into a permanent fright about their wages is then the real reason why Cameron wants to force pensioners to “volunteer” for their pension, so that employers can tell their workers: “Don’t know why you are asking for more money, we got people doing your job for free”.

People should do anything they can to avoid volunteering.

Yet I have been assured by a Royal London Hospital eye doctor that I cannot claim Support Allowance as it is not considered a formal disability.

Queen praises army of volunteers

and especially those volunteers who took part in the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations. There seems to be a little disarray between the Department of Works and Pensions and the Queen because currently I am still due a hearing before the DWP tribunal hearing whereby the DWP wants to deny me one pensions credit and Unemployment benefit because I organised a Queen’s Jubilee party as I reported earlier on.

Merry Christmas everyone

Dinosaurs put to work by Cameron

I feel completely astonished to read that David Cameron made an ageist remark to ridicule an elder opposition member and compared him to a Dinosaur. I am particularly disappointed that on one hand, he wants people to be young enough to lose their pension, to be young enough to work longer but then they are too old for the House of Commons?

That just shows how immature our young Prime Minister is; him and is equally immature young side-kick Osborne are running this country into the ground and they think they can do so because they are young?

By immature I purely mean political experience because this prime minister must be the most inexperienced person ever to run an entire country or Empire in this case.

It is gob-smacking ridiculous to steal people’s pension and then laugh about their elder status and comparing them to Dinosaurs.

Is there anybody left in this country who actually can support this government. He can hardly expect somebody who just lost out on their pension, like I did,  to go and support him.

But this ageist attitude that Cameron showed, during Prime Minister’s Question Time today, is exactly the attitude many employers show towards me, they must interview me but deep down inside, they think I am much too old for the job and they ask questions they are not even allowed to ask.  Very recently Cameron upset half the nation by ridiculing people with disabilities. He now more and more often makes strange comparisons, which he thinks they are funny, they are often well-known cheesy slogans, I reckon the pressure is too much for him and he has to stand down.

I reckon if we go on at this rate, Miliband won’t even have to strain himself to impress people because Cameron is ridiculing himself so much, that he makes Miliband look good.

New pension age a racist plot?

I am again wondering whether its worth spending all this money on governments that simply haven’t got a clue and do not work efficiently to save us money and make our lives better.

Why else would we now hear that the new changes in pension age, do not save us any money at all but merely cost the same? Is it an attempt to keep the increasingly majority white ageing population in power longer by increasing the pension age?

I am wondering why again and again, repeatedly, we get new policies to find that upon scrutiny the new policies are no-hoping useless. Why is it not possible to scrutinise new policies prior to implementation. Looking at how much these pension changes rocked the nation, caused strikes and upset very many people, including myself, as I lost my pension entitlement and most likely will not get my free bus pass either.

Of course it is nice to be recognised as elderly but not old but in the end, its the young people who lose out on job opportunities when the oldies sit on all the desks.

They don’t care about the kids

Just as I had a little conversation about the teacher strike the other day with a lady who does not reside in Tower Hamlets, I learned that in other boroughs some school teacher would always keep the school open come rain or shine. Even in worst conditions the head teacher sees her first duty to the children.

In my child’s school, they are only too eager to close the school for the strike on Wednesday. Then the teacher has the cheek to write in a home reading homework book that I did not read with my child one evening, when she takes the whole day off to strike. At least I missed reading one day for a good reason but the strike is not a good enough reason to abandon children for a day.

The point on pensions could be made without making children suffer for the day. Because it is the children who suffer and no one else from this strike. Those teachers who strike on Wednesday, care more about themselves then the kids they are teaching.

The unions could exempt school teachers from striking but no they don’t. Shame on them.

Even though I am not convinced that the new retirement age of 68 for teachers is acceptable especially not as so many young people are unemployed. We just heard that people do not get their pensions when they turn 60 next year but whilst this government forces the older generation to look for jobs, they now come up with a new initiative to pay firms for employing youngsters for 6 month and pay the firms over £2500 to do it. So why should a company employ somebody who is elderly and pay for them when they can get a subsidised young person. It does not make much sense to me what this government is doing but closing schools over it, is definitely not the answer. I will refuse to give any teacher a Christmas present this year, any teacher who strikes on Wednesday.

Unison must have too much money. They drove up and down Whitechapel this morning, asking people to support the strike on Wednesday. I will do no such thing. In fact I suggest that the Unions do their bit to support the workers by lowering their membership fees. As to relieve the hardship. That they lower the wages of their leaders, so that workers save some money.

I think the Unions have to show that they are willing to share the burden and do not make the same mistake that this government is making. They want to budge out of housing responsibility by making people buy their homes in the knowledge that many will become totally worthless in the foreseeable future due to weather conditions and earth warming.

Coming back to the issue in hand, which is can we make children suffer over government policy, the answer must always be no. After all parents don’t just abandon their children for a day in Parliament Square because they don’t like something.

This political situation feels like the big abandoning of responsibilities all around. The government wants to abandon the responsibility for housing by dressing the fact up and spurning people into buying gradually more and more worthless homes. Teachers abandon their students and pupils by saying they want more pension. But by the time these pupils now grow up, they will be paying towards the pension of those very same teachers when they are old and in pension age. So the better they teach them, the more they can earn and the better they can look after the retired teachers.

What we have not yet seen is parents who drop their kids off in Parliament Square because they abandoned them, just as it happens in China frequently.  The government’s advice is for parents to take kids to work but that is a very bad idea because it pushes the responsibility for education onto the parent’s employers, which is not what it says on the tin. But the way we go, we could soon see ourselves living in tin shacks, because the government just stopped building council homes.

Democracy isn’t working

Renewable energy, made from wind and marine power has become a serious alternative to nuclear power. I am very pleased about that. The cost of transporting such natural energy from Scotland has sunk by 80% under new proposals. That now contradicts Mr Osborne’s warnings, that the proposed referendum on Scottish independence would put business stability at risk. I think the stability is more at risk for England in any case. Scotland is perfectly capable of running their own business affairs without England.

I suppose Mr Osborne just doesn’t want to admit that he needs Scotland more than they need us. Scotland has many irons in the fire, they plan Golf courses and have the option of becoming Britain’s biggest energy producer with natural energy that can be transported south for easy use.

That would free up 17 billion pounds,that were planned for nuclear investment to other possible projects. I never liked the sudden U-turn of David Cameron after the election towards nuclear energy.

It is the case, in my view, that this government doesn’t understand the connection between business dynamics and natural sourcing. In the case of publishing the government still has not understood that they want to give business the freedom to chose what they publish, not taking into consideration that a free publishing market is dynamic, needing constantly new material to attract readers in order to protect jobs.

Where do publishers get the news from if not from sources which are not strictly ethical. Business dynamics and ethics do not always mix well. It is therefore often more viable to steer and government fund many projects to obtain a solution that is safe to finance and maintain. We see it in the Tower Hamlets weekly news sheet East End Life. It does very well, yet is government (local) funded. It supplies households with safe news, which are directly sourced from official material and in line with the Data Protection Act. The papers are free to households and supported by commercial advertising.

Yet the government wants to get rid of such safe publications, which are very popular because they do not allow private publishers to make money to pay their taxes. Yet for a private publisher the local news would be completely different in result. A private publishers would find it much more difficult to get the same stories, as they would get them via third party sources and they would need to run stories, which guarantee purchasing by people, which is something they do not have to do with a council paper. In TV publishing this dilemma is resolved with a licensing fee. We have the BBC v. ITV and others. BBC funded by licenses and ITV needing to get advertising to finance programs.

The BBC is praised for setting the trend in program quality. The East End Life paper is of very high quality and ethically well balanced. It is paid for by local government monies. The paper is very popular and needed because it served a densely populated area full of people who mostly do not have computers and who are too poor to constantly purchase papers. Maybe it would be an idea to levy a type of license fee for the paper to run and people can opt into it.

I think to keep things environmentally friendly and high quality services and publications have to be either very cheap to run or supported by extra funding. I think it is worth keeping the local newspaper, even though I am never in it. East End Life is a success story, whether government likes it or not. The Conservative Councillors are just jealous because they are not in the majority and if they were I bet they would love the paper to go to each household each week, with their photos in, instead of those of their opponents.

This government always wants to put all responsibility on private companies, from health to publishing but does not understand that responsible services cannot be profit driven if the subscribers or customers pay flat rates or purchase unpredictable amounts each day. In the case of publishing they have to be stimulated to buy with stories they find attractive. In the case of energy, customers use predictable amounts but the energy itself must not destroy the environment. In the case of health customers or patients, pay a flat rate but can become ill constantly and use much more service as they pay. There it is unpredictable how many patients will need excessive amounts of services, for which they are not liable to pay.

This government wants to measure each business with the same ruler and that shows, they have not got a clue and should not waste our taxes on their wages. Get rid of bad politicians, re-define democracy. It is democracy itself that has caused the current recession because it is unable to come to a viable formula that keeps business progressive and positive. Democracy has proven to be an unworkable political model.

Even though I defend people’s right to be part of a decision making process and vote for representatives, those representatives should be directly elected as service provider representatives and not political representatives because politics is a mere extension of business ethics. Democracy isn’t working.

We get constantly thrown about like dust in the wind to blow with the tide of political storms without apparent direction other than for a political party to remain in the driving seat. Education was disrupted, the health service has been dismantled and everybody’s pensions and benefits cut without much notice. For people who claim to be in charge of our future, this was all very short notice, when they should have been in a position to predict this all coming because finance can always be calculated well in advance. Unless the players act illegally, which is easily happening in business. Yet the politicians have not yet been in a position to build in controls to make business more accountable and responsible, the opposite is the case business keeps on getting more responsibility for which they have no security in funding.

Elderly neglect rife in Britain

The elderly abuse that is highlighted in this BBC page, is not just relevant to elderly in health care. The dismissive attitude towards elderly people is quite apparent in the treatment of those quasi pensioners who are made to look for work longer.

Employers do not want them and treat them like rubbish about to be put into the bin. Though elderly discrimination is officially against the law, the elderly are being seen as a burden rather than beneficial to employers. Only the Japanese are worst who want to put the elderly to use by letting them do deadly work on nuclear reactors that radiate dangerous emissions and it is considered too dangerous for youngsters to do that work.

Talking of putting people on the scrap-heap, the whole talk of living longer, healthier lives becomes a farce when one sees that the government only talks of fit and healthy to live longer for the fact that they want to save on early pensions. I want to see how David Cameron and his Cabinet employ some elderly persons to show how useful they are.

I was told by employers that they rather have young and fresh looking persons in the office in case somebody comes in. Meaning, that it puts customers off to see somebody elderly working there. As if this improves the quality of the actual work.

I am just wondering why younger people do not realise that they themselves are going to be elder one day and whether they can put themselves into the shoe of elderly people. Maybe they should imagine it was them sitting there or being elderly and look at the situation in a light, that they should not treat others in a way, that they themselves do not want to be treated.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,049 hits
%d bloggers like this: