Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[weegie01]

I was making the point that affordable housing is nigh on impossible to be had and the private sector taking over a large chuck of municipal housing has played its part in that problem.

I used East Lothian because I live here, you're welcome to do the same comparison between private sector and council rents in any other council area in Scotland

I just did a very quick search in Fife - council houses look to be a bit more than in EL, Gumtree has private rents of between £700 and £3000 per month

Highland was similar for council rents, from ONS "Highland is in the broad rental market area of Highland and Islands. Private rents in Highland and Islands averaged at £681 a month in October 2024. This was an increase from £656 in October 2023, a 3.9% rise."

These figures are not all from the same source, I wish they were, I don't really have the time to spend any more than a quick search during a mug of tea.

This all lovely, but I never made any comment on affordability.

Well, you kind of did when you talked about the cost of the private sector v municipal in East Lothian being an outlier, which it isn't really. Plus this

I said that private landlords have stepped in to fill the gap left by the decline in social renting.

They have not stepped in to fill the gap when the cost for the tenant is so much more - the gap is in affordable housing.

According to the Gov.UK site

In 2022-23, 24% (1.1 million households) of private renters received housing support to help with the payment of their rent

So the taxpayer is helping to pay off a quarter of private rental mortgages too

I never made any comment on affordability in my original post, you brought it in and I responded.

There used to be a certain proportion of the overall housing market that was rented, there still is the roughly the same proportion. Social renting has declined and private renting has filled the gap. How anyone can claim they have not done so when it is axiomatic that without private renting increasing there would be a much bigger shortfall in rented properties is beyond me.

There is clearly a shortfall in less expensive rental properties. That does not alter the overall market situation.

[Biffer]

Social renting declined, private renting increased as that decline had created a market opportunity. You can have any opinions you like of whether this is a good or bad thing, but it does not alter the fact that this what happened.

No one is saying that it's awful being a landlord, and frankly your biases are showing by making that comment. I am pointing out that BTL is no different from any other business. Of course people are in it to make money, some do well, but some do not as it is not the easy route to sure fire success of myth.

Yes what happened is bad. That is the point. Everyone knows that the Tories sold off the council houses, didn't replace them, and that created an "opportunity" for private landlords. The reason we discuss it isn't to discuss the obvious, but to discuss the affects.

Your whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord shows your bias as well. For the last 20 years until inflation it has been easy. Constantly low rates because of the magic money tree, dramatically restrained supply, bobs your uncle. Sure there are some exceptions e.g. buying in Aberdeen before the oil collapse but by and large over20 years interest rates have gone down, money into assets has gone up, houseprices have gone up. So to have got it wrong you're very much in the minority

It's been a great earner for most, tax more and in doing so have people able to buy, invest money into productive assets instead, avoid the population collapse high house prices will cause with the declining birth rates. Not a problem specific to the UK obviously either.

House prices have increased by more than double the rate of earnings since 1997. Property including BTL has been a great investment vehicle for those with cash or who took a risk and borrowed to invest in property. It now looks like the balance is shifting and the tax situation and regulatory frameworks are catching up with the rental markets and as a result folk are disinvesting and looking elsewhere to invest their money. Councils were forced to sell off social housing at a huge discount and refused to reinvest in social housing as it would cost more than they would recover when it was sold off so why bother? Again it looks like the rules will be changing to encourage councils to invest in social housing again without the threat of having to sell off at a loss and that is a good thing! Inevitably with any change in a market those who are trying to get out at the wrong time will cry foul but that's the flip side to the risk they have taken and in all probability profited from already? Hopefully we will see more investment in social housing and a decline in the BTL market.

For a long time it was illegal for councils to reinvest money into building new council houses. Thanks Maggie.

[Tichtheid]

I never made any comment on affordability in my original post, you brought it in and I responded.

There used to be a certain proportion of the overall housing market that was rented, there still is the roughly the same proportion. Social renting has declined and private renting has filled the gap. How anyone can claim they have not done so when it is axiomatic that without private renting increasing there would be a much bigger shortfall in rented properties is beyond me.

There is clearly a shortfall in less expensive rental properties. That does not alter the overall market situation.

Your oft-repeated line about the private sector filling the gap left by the decline in council housing is superficial at best. The fact is that the private sector did not replace like for like - we could take 10 000 ford fiestas off the road and replace them on the forecourts with 5 series Beemers. There would be the same number of cars available, that would be an equivalent to what has happened in the rental market, albeit a tortured one.
Or it could be said that unemployment is down, whilst people are working several jobs with top ups from universal credit - you can say anything you like with stats if you only look at headline figures and choose your parameters.

In the 60s renters were paying around 6% of their income in rent, now it's around 34%. (ONS figures) London peaks out at 57% - taking that much disposable income out of the economy whilst house prices increase must have a knock on effect.

[weegie01]

Yes what happened is bad. That is the point. Everyone knows that the Tories sold off the council houses, didn't replace them, and that created an "opportunity" for private landlords. The reason we discuss it isn't to discuss the obvious, but to discuss the affects.

Your whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord shows your bias as well. For the last 20 years until inflation it has been easy. Constantly low rates because of the magic money tree, dramatically restrained supply, bobs your uncle. Sure there are some exceptions e.g. buying in Aberdeen before the oil collapse but by and large over20 years interest rates have gone down, money into assets has gone up, houseprices have gone up. So to have got it wrong you're very much in the minority

It's been a great earner for most, tax more and in doing so have people able to buy, invest money into productive assets instead, avoid the population collapse high house prices will cause with the declining birth rates. Not a problem specific to the UK obviously either.

My 'whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord' is an attempt to bring some reality to the simplistic view that you and so many on here seem to have that being a landlord is a case of putting down a tenner as a deposit and watching the money pour in with little or no risk. I have not even touch on the and management revenue sides.

Private landlords exist as there is a demand for the services they offer. Part of that is down to the reduction in social letting, part to the rise in transient populations. They make money from the service they offer otherwise they would not do it. If you want to take private landlords out of the equation then the state needs to come up with an alternative as there will always be a need for rented housing.

It is hard to think of anything that will push enough private landlords out of the market quickly enough to affect prices, putting aside the shortage of rented accommodation that would create. There may be a trickle out, but the pent up demand will absorb that easily. There are plenty of measures that may reduce house prices whilst keeping the supply of rental properties adequate, (build more houses, actually make housebuilders make a decent proportion for social renting instead of just taking about it etc). But that would require joined up thinking so I'm not holding my breath.

[weegie01]

I never made any comment on affordability in my original post, you brought it in and I responded.

There used to be a certain proportion of the overall housing market that was rented, there still is the roughly the same proportion. Social renting has declined and private renting has filled the gap. How anyone can claim they have not done so when it is axiomatic that without private renting increasing there would be a much bigger shortfall in rented properties is beyond me.

There is clearly a shortfall in less expensive rental properties. That does not alter the overall market situation.

Your oft-repeated line about the private sector filling the gap left by the decline in council housing is superficial at best. The fact is that the private sector did not replace like for like - we could take 10 000 ford fiestas off the road and replace them on the forecourts with 5 series Beemers. There would be the same number of cars available, that would be an equivalent to what has happened in the rental market, albeit a tortured one.
Or it could be said that unemployment is down, whilst people are working several jobs with top ups from universal credit - you can say anything you like with stats if you only look at headline figures and choose your parameters.

In the 60s renters were paying around 6% of their income in rent, now it's around 34%. (ONS figures) London peaks out at 57% - taking that much disposable income out of the economy whilst house prices increase must have a knock on effect.

I do not know what dead horse you are flogging.

Social renting decreased, that create a shortage of rental properties that private landlords stepped into. That is the only point I was making with that paragraph. At no point did I suggest it was like for like as only an idiot would think that rentals offered by the profit making private sector would be anything other than higher than the subsidised social sector. But in the absence of supply from the social sector, that is all there is.

[epwc]

Private landlords exist as there is a demand for the services they offer. Part of that is down to the reduction in social letting, part to the rise in transient populations. They make money from the service they offer otherwise they would not do it. If you want to take private landlords out of the equation then the state needs to come up with an alternative as there will always be a need for rented housing.

It is hard to think of anything that will push enough private landlords out of the market quickly enough to affect prices, putting aside the shortage of rented accommodation that would create. There may be a trickle out, but the pent up demand will absorb that easily. There are plenty of measures that may reduce house prices whilst keeping the supply of rental properties adequate, (build more houses, actually make housebuilders make a decent proportion for social renting instead of just taking about it etc). But that would require joined up thinking so I'm not holding my breath.

Agree with all of that, I think there needs to be much more social housing, and fewer but more professional private landlords. On another note private ownership in council owned blocks is completely mental in my opinion, who's responsible for what? Council built blocks should remain entirely in council ownership

[Tichtheid]

I never made any comment on affordability in my original post, you brought it in and I responded.

There used to be a certain proportion of the overall housing market that was rented, there still is the roughly the same proportion. Social renting has declined and private renting has filled the gap. How anyone can claim they have not done so when it is axiomatic that without private renting increasing there would be a much bigger shortfall in rented properties is beyond me.

There is clearly a shortfall in less expensive rental properties. That does not alter the overall market situation.

Your oft-repeated line about the private sector filling the gap left by the decline in council housing is superficial at best. The fact is that the private sector did not replace like for like - we could take 10 000 ford fiestas off the road and replace them on the forecourts with 5 series Beemers. There would be the same number of cars available, that would be an equivalent to what has happened in the rental market, albeit a tortured one.
Or it could be said that unemployment is down, whilst people are working several jobs with top ups from universal credit - you can say anything you like with stats if you only look at headline figures and choose your parameters.

In the 60s renters were paying around 6% of their income in rent, now it's around 34%. (ONS figures) London peaks out at 57% - taking that much disposable income out of the economy whilst house prices increase must have a knock on effect.

I do not know what dead horse you are flogging.

Social renting decreased, that create a shortage of rental properties that private landlords stepped into. That is the only point I was making with that paragraph. At no point did I suggest it was like for like as only an idiot would think that rentals offered by the profit making private sector would be anything other than higher than the subsidised social sector. But in the absence of supply from the social sector, that is all there is.

I suppose it's my bias and grudges showing. I own my own home outright now but I was a tenant for a long time when I was young and it didn't feel like a benign force for good that was pushing up rents when I couldn't get council housing. It didn't feel like someone was saving the rental sector when I was paying my children's' rent in shitey flats in Bristol and Edinburgh where it took an age to get anyone round to fix broken appliances or see to the black mould. (I would not have objected to paying the university for accommodation, but that was not available)

My eldest is finishing a PhD and the stipend plus teaching/marking pay doesn't go very far once the landlord has taken their bite.

The HMO situation in Brighton has led to whole communities and neighbourhoods changing for the worse.

I have no experience where I could genuinely think of private letting as something positive, and the whole "filling the gap" or "providing a service" euphemism doesn't sit comfortably with me.

[Yeeb]

I never made any comment on affordability in my original post, you brought it in and I responded.

There used to be a certain proportion of the overall housing market that was rented, there still is the roughly the same proportion. Social renting has declined and private renting has filled the gap. How anyone can claim they have not done so when it is axiomatic that without private renting increasing there would be a much bigger shortfall in rented properties is beyond me.

There is clearly a shortfall in less expensive rental properties. That does not alter the overall market situation.

Your oft-repeated line about the private sector filling the gap left by the decline in council housing is superficial at best. The fact is that the private sector did not replace like for like - we could take 10 000 ford fiestas off the road and replace them on the forecourts with 5 series Beemers. There would be the same number of cars available, that would be an equivalent to what has happened in the rental market, albeit a tortured one.
Or it could be said that unemployment is down, whilst people are working several jobs with top ups from universal credit - you can say anything you like with stats if you only look at headline figures and choose your parameters.

In the 60s renters were paying around 6% of their income in rent, now it's around 34%. (ONS figures) London peaks out at 57% - taking that much disposable income out of the economy whilst house prices increase must have a knock on effect.

Paying 6% only on rent ?
That sounds unrealistically low tbf, don’t suppose you have any links or proof or source ? Lowest I can find quickly is in the north east of uk in 1992 at around 18%

[Tichtheid]

On another note private ownership in council owned blocks is completely mental in my opinion, who's responsible for what? Council built blocks should remain entirely in council ownership

My youngest rented a place like that around Whitechapel - though she suspected they were unofficially subletting.

[I like neeps]

Yes what happened is bad. That is the point. Everyone knows that the Tories sold off the council houses, didn't replace them, and that created an "opportunity" for private landlords. The reason we discuss it isn't to discuss the obvious, but to discuss the affects.

Your whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord shows your bias as well. For the last 20 years until inflation it has been easy. Constantly low rates because of the magic money tree, dramatically restrained supply, bobs your uncle. Sure there are some exceptions e.g. buying in Aberdeen before the oil collapse but by and large over20 years interest rates have gone down, money into assets has gone up, houseprices have gone up. So to have got it wrong you're very much in the minority

It's been a great earner for most, tax more and in doing so have people able to buy, invest money into productive assets instead, avoid the population collapse high house prices will cause with the declining birth rates. Not a problem specific to the UK obviously either.

My 'whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord' is an attempt to bring some reality to the simplistic view that you and so many on here seem to have that being a landlord is a case of putting down a tenner as a deposit and watching the money pour in with little or no risk. I have not even touch on the and management revenue sides.

Private landlords exist as there is a demand for the services they offer. Part of that is down to the reduction in social letting, part to the rise in transient populations. They make money from the service they offer otherwise they would not do it. If you want to take private landlords out of the equation then the state needs to come up with an alternative as there will always be a need for rented housing.

It is hard to think of anything that will push enough private landlords out of the market quickly enough to affect prices, putting aside the shortage of rented accommodation that would create. There may be a trickle out, but the pent up demand will absorb that easily. There are plenty of measures that may reduce house prices whilst keeping the supply of rental properties adequate, (build more houses, actually make housebuilders make a decent proportion for social renting instead of just taking about it etc). But that would require joined up thinking so I'm not holding my breath.

And mostly, of course, the number of people renting is because of the unaffordability of house prices. One (and I repeat one) of the causes of that is BTLs.

It's a money maker, it's bad for society. They aren't mutually exclusive and that is my point. There has been however you look at it a huge influx of magic money into assets from the BoE and that should be taxed. No society is build on the back of asset owners having an easy ride and QE backing where workers are hammered.

[Paddington Bear]

Supply is the whole ballgame here - Zones 2-5 in London are staggering in terms of their lack of density. Build up in zoned areas and once demand better matches supply the cowboys will be finished.

[Yeeb]

Yes what happened is bad. That is the point. Everyone knows that the Tories sold off the council houses, didn't replace them, and that created an "opportunity" for private landlords. The reason we discuss it isn't to discuss the obvious, but to discuss the affects.

Your whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord shows your bias as well. For the last 20 years until inflation it has been easy. Constantly low rates because of the magic money tree, dramatically restrained supply, bobs your uncle. Sure there are some exceptions e.g. buying in Aberdeen before the oil collapse but by and large over20 years interest rates have gone down, money into assets has gone up, houseprices have gone up. So to have got it wrong you're very much in the minority

It's been a great earner for most, tax more and in doing so have people able to buy, invest money into productive assets instead, avoid the population collapse high house prices will cause with the declining birth rates. Not a problem specific to the UK obviously either.

My 'whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord' is an attempt to bring some reality to the simplistic view that you and so many on here seem to have that being a landlord is a case of putting down a tenner as a deposit and watching the money pour in with little or no risk. I have not even touch on the and management revenue sides.

Private landlords exist as there is a demand for the services they offer. Part of that is down to the reduction in social letting, part to the rise in transient populations. They make money from the service they offer otherwise they would not do it. If you want to take private landlords out of the equation then the state needs to come up with an alternative as there will always be a need for rented housing.

It is hard to think of anything that will push enough private landlords out of the market quickly enough to affect prices, putting aside the shortage of rented accommodation that would create. There may be a trickle out, but the pent up demand will absorb that easily. There are plenty of measures that may reduce house prices whilst keeping the supply of rental properties adequate, (build more houses, actually make housebuilders make a decent proportion for social renting instead of just taking about it etc). But that would require joined up thinking so I'm not holding my breath.

And mostly, of course, the number of people renting is because of the unaffordability of house prices. One (and I repeat one) of the causes of that is BTLs.

It's a money maker, it's bad for society. They aren't mutually exclusive and that is my point. There has been however you look at it a huge influx of magic money into assets from the BoE and that should be taxed. No society is build on the back of asset owners having an easy ride and QE backing where workers are hammered.

No society eh ?
Read almost any Money / success / life coach book like Rich dad poor dad , and the crux of that is pretty much passive income from an asset you own , possibly funded from an easy loan from someplace , and paid for by workers. 90% of them seem to be some form of buy to let arrangement.
As for the taxed bit, well it’s now the only business that is taxed on revenue not profit , so it’s now rather heavily taxed versus some economic enterprises.

Also worth noting that locations of B2L properties are extremely unevenly spread across the country, both geographically and urban/ rural. It is good you note there are other factors affecting affordability.

[I like neeps]

My 'whole spiel talking about the difficulties of being a Landlord' is an attempt to bring some reality to the simplistic view that you and so many on here seem to have that being a landlord is a case of putting down a tenner as a deposit and watching the money pour in with little or no risk. I have not even touch on the and management revenue sides.

Private landlords exist as there is a demand for the services they offer. Part of that is down to the reduction in social letting, part to the rise in transient populations. They make money from the service they offer otherwise they would not do it. If you want to take private landlords out of the equation then the state needs to come up with an alternative as there will always be a need for rented housing.

It is hard to think of anything that will push enough private landlords out of the market quickly enough to affect prices, putting aside the shortage of rented accommodation that would create. There may be a trickle out, but the pent up demand will absorb that easily. There are plenty of measures that may reduce house prices whilst keeping the supply of rental properties adequate, (build more houses, actually make housebuilders make a decent proportion for social renting instead of just taking about it etc). But that would require joined up thinking so I'm not holding my breath.

And mostly, of course, the number of people renting is because of the unaffordability of house prices. One (and I repeat one) of the causes of that is BTLs.

It's a money maker, it's bad for society. They aren't mutually exclusive and that is my point. There has been however you look at it a huge influx of magic money into assets from the BoE and that should be taxed. No society is build on the back of asset owners having an easy ride and QE backing where workers are hammered.

No society eh ?
Read almost any Money / success / life coach book like Rich dad poor dad , and the crux of that is pretty much passive income from an asset you own , possibly funded from an easy loan from someplace , and paid for by workers. 90% of them seem to be some form of buy to let arrangement.
As for the taxed bit, well it’s now the only business that is taxed on revenue not profit , so it’s now rather heavily taxed versus some economic enterprises.

Also worth noting that locations of B2L properties are extremely unevenly spread across the country, both geographically and urban/ rural. It is good you note there are other factors affecting affordability.

What's good for the individual is different to what's good to society.

It would be great for every individual to be a landlord and have yields of what 4-10%.
It's better for society to have people being able to afford a house, use said house to raise their 2.1 kids, and those kids then grow up into productive ecominic units. In fact that's what society has been built on. And now it's not happening.

So society is in trouble, high immigration, low birth rate, low spending power, unproductive economy. Oh no.

(Again stock being bought as an investment rather than a place to live restricting supply and boosting prices is one of many factors for that, but definitely a factor)

[Biffer]

It would be great for every individual to be a landlord and have yields of what 4-10%.

Not really. Completely unproductive society with nothing being produced.

[Hal Jordan]

It would be great for every individual to be a landlord and have yields of what 4-10%.

Not really. Completely unproductive society with nothing being produced.

Which is why rental properties and companies whose main source of income (50.01% or more) is from rents have never qualified for Business Property Relief from Inheritance Tax. which was designed for business that do something rather than just harvest rents. Same for companies whose main source of income is from investments.

Accidentally becoming a company whose main business is rents with your original business being now a smaller part of the whole enterprise is a risk for a lot of farming companies if they rent out barns, buildings etc, as it starts to outweigh the income from farming activities.

[Yeeb]

And mostly, of course, the number of people renting is because of the unaffordability of house prices. One (and I repeat one) of the causes of that is BTLs.

It's a money maker, it's bad for society. They aren't mutually exclusive and that is my point. There has been however you look at it a huge influx of magic money into assets from the BoE and that should be taxed. No society is build on the back of asset owners having an easy ride and QE backing where workers are hammered.

No society eh ?
Read almost any Money / success / life coach book like Rich dad poor dad , and the crux of that is pretty much passive income from an asset you own , possibly funded from an easy loan from someplace , and paid for by workers. 90% of them seem to be some form of buy to let arrangement.
As for the taxed bit, well it’s now the only business that is taxed on revenue not profit , so it’s now rather heavily taxed versus some economic enterprises.

Also worth noting that locations of B2L properties are extremely unevenly spread across the country, both geographically and urban/ rural. It is good you note there are other factors affecting affordability.

What's good for the individual is different to what's good to society.

It would be great for every individual to be a landlord and have yields of what 4-10%.
It's better for society to have people being able to afford a house, use said house to raise their 2.1 kids, and those kids then grow up into productive ecominic units. In fact that's what society has been built on. And now it's not happening.

So society is in trouble, high immigration, low birth rate, low spending power, unproductive economy. Oh no.

(Again stock being bought as an investment rather than a place to live restricting supply and boosting prices is one of many factors for that, but definitely a factor)

Think you grossly overestimate how many properties landlords actually own and restrict supply to society as you say, especially ones who got into it somewhat accidentally V those who got in speculatively). It’s about 15% of all uk homes, and nearly half of them own just one.
Even if all of those were made available overnight to buyers , it would still leave them unaffordable to many. Without having any elasticities to hand, could say what the actual effect on home prices would be, would be very uneven across the areas though.

[sockwithaticket]

Badenoch is proper shit at this PMQs lark.

[Hal Jordan]

Both sides shouting nom-stop about immigrants at PMQS benefits only one person, and his name isn't Keir or Kemi.

[Yeeb]

Both sides shouting nom-stop about immigrants at PMQS benefits only one person, and his name isn't Keir or Kemi.

Bookies don’t want to get stung again like they did with a Trump v1

https://www.oddschecker.com/insight/pol ... ins-reform

[SaintK]

This is going down like a horseshit sandwich in the Labour party.
Obviously the Tory party are also piling in forgetting the fact that the report was published originally when they were in power and they didn't set aside or budget for any compensation
Starmer's rating will be down another 5% at least?

Campaigners have reacted with fury to what it calls the government's "unjustified" rejection of compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age.
They say 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.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall apologised for a 28-month delay in sending letters, but has rejected any kind of financial payouts.
Nine months ago, a parliamentary ombudsman recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 to each of those affected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

[Biffer]

I don't have much sympathy for these women. The decision was made about thirty years ago and well publicised. These idiots who get into the media saying 'I planned for my retirement and...' no you fucking didn't, you didn't even check when your pension was fucking due. If you didn't do that, how did you check how much it was going to be? If you didn't know how much it was going to be, how did you plan in any way? Fuck the fuck off.

[sturginho]

This is going down like a horseshit sandwich in the Labour party.
Obviously the Tory party are also piling in forgetting the fact that the report was published originally when they were in power and they didn't set aside or budget for any compensation
Starmer's rating will be down another 5% at least?

Campaigners have reacted with fury to what it calls the government's "unjustified" rejection of compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age.
They say 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.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall apologised for a 28-month delay in sending letters, but has rejected any kind of financial payouts.
Nine months ago, a parliamentary ombudsman recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 to each of those affected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

When Corbyn promised compensation in 2019 he got slaughtered in the press

[Biffer]

Did they want John Major to come round to each of their homes and sit down for a cuppa to tell them? FFS.

[SaintK]

This is going down like a horseshit sandwich in the Labour party.
Obviously the Tory party are also piling in forgetting the fact that the report was published originally when they were in power and they didn't set aside or budget for any compensation
Starmer's rating will be down another 5% at least?

Campaigners have reacted with fury to what it calls the government's "unjustified" rejection of compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age.
They say 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.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall apologised for a 28-month delay in sending letters, but has rejected any kind of financial payouts.
Nine months ago, a parliamentary ombudsman recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 to each of those affected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

When Corbyn promised compensation in 2019 he got slaughtered in the press

Forgot about that!!!

[Paddington Bear]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

[Blackmac]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Totally agree. I saw one woman who claimed she knew nothing about it until she tried to claim her pension 6 years ago. Please compensate her for being dumb as a rock.

No one has personally explained to me that my pension age has increased from 65 to 67.

[sockwithaticket]

Most fellow millenials I know aren't expecting to retire, and certainly not by 67, so it is a bit difficult to muster sympathy around this issue.

The government can't be held responsible for individuals' lack of agency.

[Biffer]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Three fucking decades.

[Biffer]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Totally agree. I saw one woman who claimed she knew nothing about it until she tried to claim her pension 6 years ago. Please compensate her for being dumb as a rock.

No one has personally explained to me that my pension age has increased from 65 to 67.

Did she claim she had planned for her retirement?

[tc27]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Absolutely agree with this.

Kendall paying the price for pandering to this group when she was in opposition. She was quite likely to be in government when this nonsense had to be nipped in the bud.

[Blackmac]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Totally agree. I saw one woman who claimed she knew nothing about it until she tried to claim her pension 6 years ago. Please compensate her for being dumb as a rock.

No one has personally explained to me that my pension age has increased from 65 to 67.

Did she claim she had planned for her retirement?

To bloody right she did. As you say, couldn't have been possible without realising the age change.

[Raggs]

Most fellow millenials I know aren't expecting to retire, and certainly not by 67, so it is a bit difficult to muster sympathy around this issue.

The government can't be held responsible for individuals' lack of agency.

The only way I can see myself retiring is from inheritance, and that's unlikely to be enough to completely retire on I'd have thought. And by the time it comes, I'm hoping to be past retirement age anyway! That's assuming there even is any, and it hasn't been spent on care (which I have very little issue with).

[dpedin]

I am sure the Labour now in power as the Gov have been advised that any settlement would set a very nasty precedent going forward. I can just image all sorts of claims being made that folk didnt know about changes to pensions, tax, etc. Everyone, apart from a few exceptions, is personally responsible for their own financial affairs such as paying taxes based on legislation, rules, regulations that apply at the time. To let one group of folk seek financial compensation for their own ignorance about changes in the pensions arrangements opens a barn door to all sorts of other dubious claimants about their own pension, tax, etc affairs.

At least the Gov are dealing with the legacy they inherited ie Post Office, Infected Blood, etc and doing it in their first year in power. Best time to take unpopular decisions!

[SaintK]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Absolutely agree with this.

Kendall paying the price for pandering to this group when she was in opposition. She was quite likely to be in government when this nonsense had to be nipped in the bud.

To a certain extent, yes. Though it was when Corbyn was Labour leader that they promised to support the women, it was never in their recent manifesto.
The confected rage by the Tories (and their press cronies) is pathetic as they kicked this issue way into the long grass along with the Post Office and infected blood scandal outcomes probably knowing that they wouldn't be in government to have to deal with the issues

[I like neeps]

Water bills going up 30% big increase but not big enough to save the companies. What a fudge.

Water bills up, unemployment up, growth down, tax on businesses up polling well down. Good start for Starmer, almost as if a plan for government would've helped.

[Paddington Bear]

The WASPI women are the most pathetic and least sympathetic campaign group I’ve ever seen. Boo hoo I only had the best part of a decade to change my financial plans for a very short period of time, please give us £10bn at a time when anyone working is having the life squeezed out of them

Absolutely agree with this.

Kendall paying the price for pandering to this group when she was in opposition. She was quite likely to be in government when this nonsense had to be nipped in the bud.

To a certain extent, yes. Though it was when Corbyn was Labour leader that they promised to support the women, it was never in their recent manifesto.
The confected rage by the Tories (and their press cronies) is pathetic as they kicked this issue way into the long grass along with the Post Office and infected blood scandal outcomes probably knowing that they wouldn't be in government to have to deal with the issues

It’s no doubt confected but that’s the nature of opposition- you get to play these games. Of course they can bite you on the arse when you’re in government, as Starmer and Kendall are finding. They should never have pandered to a joke of a campaign in the first place

[Tichtheid]

Absolutely agree with this.

Kendall paying the price for pandering to this group when she was in opposition. She was quite likely to be in government when this nonsense had to be nipped in the bud.

To a certain extent, yes. Though it was when Corbyn was Labour leader that they promised to support the women, it was never in their recent manifesto.
The confected rage by the Tories (and their press cronies) is pathetic as they kicked this issue way into the long grass along with the Post Office and infected blood scandal outcomes probably knowing that they wouldn't be in government to have to deal with the issues

It’s no doubt confected but that’s the nature of opposition- you get to play these games. Of course they can bite you on the arse when you’re in government, as Starmer and Kendall are finding. They should never have pandered to a joke of a campaign in the first place

Do you think the scale of the outcry is the same when it's Labour in opposition and it's the Guardian calling out the government, as opposed to the print media that back the Tories?

[Yeeb]

Totally agree. I saw one woman who claimed she knew nothing about it until she tried to claim her pension 6 years ago. Please compensate her for being dumb as a rock.

No one has personally explained to me that my pension age has increased from 65 to 67.

Did she claim she had planned for her retirement?

To bloody right she did. As you say, couldn't have been possible without realising the age change.

Those who would claim ignorance of such financial matters and expect the state to pay , are perhaps likely to have not made private provision for retirement possibly earlier than mandatory age, aka the pigshit thick in shit jobs / no jobs.

At some stage , that state either needs to properly finance pensions and enforce a superannuation payment to fund it during people’s working lives , or just abolish state pension and leave it up to people themselves to fund their old age. We’ve had generations of can-kicking now and it’s a huge financial millstone for government.

[Paddington Bear]

To a certain extent, yes. Though it was when Corbyn was Labour leader that they promised to support the women, it was never in their recent manifesto.
The confected rage by the Tories (and their press cronies) is pathetic as they kicked this issue way into the long grass along with the Post Office and infected blood scandal outcomes probably knowing that they wouldn't be in government to have to deal with the issues

It’s no doubt confected but that’s the nature of opposition- you get to play these games. Of course they can bite you on the arse when you’re in government, as Starmer and Kendall are finding. They should never have pandered to a joke of a campaign in the first place

Do you think the scale of the outcry is the same when it's Labour in opposition and it's the Guardian calling out the government, as opposed to the print media that back the Tories?

To take a not totally dissimilar issue, when the Tories hiked tuition fees it provoked mass demonstrations and dominated the news for weeks, possibly months.

What you’re alluding to only really works if you consider that the newspapers have the power they did 30/40 years ago, with the exception of the FT they’re dying on their arse, circulations are a shadow of their former selves.

[Slick]

It’s no doubt confected but that’s the nature of opposition- you get to play these games. Of course they can bite you on the arse when you’re in government, as Starmer and Kendall are finding. They should never have pandered to a joke of a campaign in the first place

Do you think the scale of the outcry is the same when it's Labour in opposition and it's the Guardian calling out the government, as opposed to the print media that back the Tories?

To take a not totally dissimilar issue, when the Tories hiked tuition fees it provoked mass demonstrations and dominated the news for weeks, possibly months.

What you’re alluding to only really works if you consider that the newspapers have the power they did 30/40 years ago, with the exception of the FT they’re dying on their arse, circulations are a shadow of their former selves.

Completely off topic... are you going to the club on Saturday for the Christmas lunch? I'll be down and making an appearance.