Category Archives: Uncategorized

#WASPI success at Suffolk County Council

Caroline Page seconding the #WASPI motion, asking for fair transitional state pension arrangements for 50’s born women

As LibDem Green and Independent Spokesperson for Women, I was proud to second the important cross-party motion at Suffolk County Council last week which asked government to support fair transitional pension arrangements for 1950’s born women (the so-called #WASPI* women) See speech on YouTube here:

Women born in the 50s have lived throughout a period when the Equality Act didn’t result in equality of pay, opportunity, or expectation. They have been expected to make career breaks, and work part-time to bring up children and care for dependent relatives with all the subsequent difficulties of returning to equivalent work.

In 2017 a woman’s retirement income is on average 45% less than a man’s.

For years successive governments failed to warn women so they could better plan for their futures. But in the circumstances many women would have needed to have made a lifetime of different choices to make adequate preparation for this pension change.

The perfect storm is that WASPI women are now also 3 times more likely than their younger peers to be divorced and suffer financial pressure.

The motion, proposed by Labour stated: “This Council believes the Government should make fair and transitional state pension arrangements for the 34,000 Suffolk women born in the 1950’s, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age with lack of appropriate notification. This Council requests the Interim Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions calling on the government to reconsider transitional arrangements for women.”  It was passed unanimously by Suffolk County Council with no abstentions. 

  *WASPI = Women Against State Pension Inequality

My speech:         I’m proud to support the efforts of the WASPI campaign, and applaud them on their resilience and determination to make their case heard. As a State Pension Age affected woman  myself born in the 1950s, as LibDem Green and Independent Spokesperson for Women,  and as a full-time carer, I’m all too aware of the problems.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Retirement age changes take place in the name of equality – and everyone should want that!

But the devil’s in the detail. Women born in the 50s have lived throughout a period when the Equality Act didn’t result in equality of pay, opportunity, or expectation. Women have been expected to make career breaks, and work part-time to bring up children and care for dependent relatives with all subsequent difficulties of returning to equivalent work.

And lack of occupational pension, and breaks in state pension contributions has inevitable consequences. No surprise that  in 2017 a woman’s retirement income is on average 45% less than a man’s – the differential £1000 GREATER than it was a year before. Shocking.

For years successive governments failed to warn women  so they could better plan  for their futures.

But -lets be honest – many women would need to have made a lifetime of different choices to make adequate preparation for this

By the time women are my age, 50% are already unpaid family carers: odds men don’t achieve until they are 75. And with life expectancy rising, the numbers needing care have snowballed. You don’t start out in life expecting to be a family carer.  It comes up behind you and blackjacks you and conflicts with your capacity to earn..

So,  change in retirement age impacts particularly on a whole generation of women that state and family have relied on to give up careers and occupational pensions to care unpaid for others.

And you can see how families, women, everyone might decide it better for family finances that the woman gave up work to care because she’d get the earlier state pension.

The perfect storm is that WASPI women are now also more likely than their younger peers to be divorced and suffer financial pressure. One in 3 are divorced – three times as many as those born 25 years later.

Says a 62 year old constituent ,“Make preparations? Many of my lifechoices were out of my hands but I still have to face the consequences “.  Her husband didn’t want her to work after they married, but then left her – with minimal support and young children. She’d lost her place in the job market she trained in and the only work she could do was cleaning. Ill paid, laborious – but she could fit it around childcare. She’s been a cleaner for 17 years now,  and expected to retire 2 years ago.

But she now has another 4 years to go.

She says “I’m worn out. You can’t manage such physical work till you’re 66. I have no choice.”

There are many such women facing years without a fair level of support, purely because the government failed in its duty to keep them fully informed – and failed to consider the constraints which an entire generation’s practices imposed upon so-called “life choices”.

I call upon all councillors of all parties to stand behind these women and support this motion

Woods Lane closure: 1 week in

EADT’s Coverage of the Woods Lane closure 15/11/17

Closure has matched expectations? Now theres a surprise.

I continue concerned for  independent Woodbridge retailers whose November/Decembr profits will be damaged by people electing not to drive into Woodbridge to shop, as well as all the residents, pupils and workers affected as they travel to Woodbridge daily.

AND I see that “Bloor Homes apologises for any noise or inconvenience caused”. How very cavalier! Hey, Bloor, how about apologising “for ALL the noise and EVERY inconvenience that you DEFINITELY have caused by these unacceptable and unilaterally-imposed works owing to this inappropriately sited development!”

The ‘Giant Cheese Wedges’ at Melton Hill: Have your say, FAST

The planning application for SCDC’s Melton Hill site  (aka the ©Giant Cheese Wedges) was
officially  deposited and validated a week ago, on Friday 30 June. Seemingly, it then took nearly a week to appear online- although the public has only 20 days from the date of validation to comment. This means you have 13 days from today to write to SCDC and comment on the application. Get your skates on, folks. Link here:

Demolish all of the existing offices and surrounding buildings on the site and replace with a high quality housing development providing 100 residential units (33 affordable) (C3) together with a community building (D1) and a retail unit that may be a coffee shop (A1/2/3) or retail unit. A landscape environment free from cars as they are located in an underground car park. Means of access and other associated works. Open for CommentFormer Council Offices Melton Hill Melton Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 1AURef. No: DC/17/2840/FUL | Received: Fri 30 Jun 2017 | Validated: Fri 30 Jun 2017 | Status: Awaiting decision

You may find it quite time-consuming to make your way through the documents as presented online- but the Town Clerk’s office at Woodbridge Town Council has kindly printed out hard copies –  you can go and examine them down there. I warn you, the site elevation showing what the development will look like from the Thoroughfare/Melton Road – although shown in the architect’s plans – is mysteriously absent. So here it is again:

Melton Hill current plan – Delusions of cityscape: Giant single slope roofed towers – suitable for an urban setting but rather out of place in tiny Woodbridge dwarf the town and overlook all neighbouring housing

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I have advised in my previous post on the subject – http://carolinepage.blog.suffolk.libdems.org/2017/06/25/melton-hill-development-attack-of-the-giant-cheese-wedges/ – your District Councillor, Cllr Mulcahy appears to be the only  one of the Woodbridge District  Councillors you elected who is in a position to help you.  Do ask for her assistance.

However, do ensure you also send in your comments, in person.

The original Melton Hill ‘Community Consensus masterplan’ 2016. Note the trees, frontage and Drummer Boy all in place. 70-odd units. No suggestion anywhere of 6 storey towers.

When commenting, there are many issues:   the impact on historic skylines and views (for example, from Sutton Hoo);  the appropriateness of the current ‘vision’; its huge and unexplained difference from the ‘Community Consensus Masterplan‘ agreed by the people of Woodbridge in autumn 2016, which left the original frontage , trees and Drummer Boy as is (they are all now swept away without explanation, replaced with a concierge block that beggars belief); the introduction of 5 and 6 storey tower blocks; the limited amount of parking planned, which clearly will not serve the number of homes planned and the realistic number of cars and visitors that need catering for; the increase of nearly 50% in the number of properties being proposed (the excess explained by being described as ‘affordable’; the kind of housing being envisioned (‘affordable’ is  defined as 80% of market price. This might mean properties costing up to £700,00-£800,000 at Woodbridge’s current pricing); the impact of this additional housing on the traffic and air quality of an area which already has significant and so far insoluble air quality problems; the propriety of SCDC wanting to monetise this site instead of looking at the legacy benefits of providing for younger, less affluent people, young families, disabled people, and those wanting to downsize within the town they grew up in.

However, amongst these important issues, the most significant issue must be that the sale of the site – by SCDC -can’t go through unless and until planning permission- granted by SCDC – goes through. And if that doesn’t constitute the biggest conflict of interests going- I don’t know what does!

So folks, please, please, sit down and write to SCDC fast. If you want guidance on how best to comment, SCDC provides it (click here)

There will be a meeting of Woodbridge Town Council’s planning Committee on Tuesday 18th July. You can attend (please do). You can speak your mind (if you book a space with the clerk first). But don’t mistake this for action. Woodbridge Town Council is merely a statutory  consultee. Telling them will do little but make you feel better. To have any impact you HAVE to contact Suffolk Coastal and give them reasoned arguments as to why this scheme should not go ahead . “I don’t like the look of it” will not cut the mustard. #justsaying

  • A final point. Having invented it, I really really regret I didn’t copyright   the term “Giant Cheese Wedges“.  If I had, I could have become rich. RICH, I say!  And then I could have bought the site  myself, and transformed it into fair rent and truly affordable housing for truly local young families, disabled people and older people wanting to downsize without penalty – which is what Woodbridge really needs and deserves!

The situation of carers in Suffolk

EADT’s coverage of the problems faced by Carers

Brilliant to see the EADT taking the issues faced by unpaid carers – particularly working-age women – so seriously.

Their coverage  today:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/carers-don-t-want-cake-they-want-realistic-support-says-campaigning-councillor-1-5074532

highlights many of  the problems and inequities faced by women carers  in Suffolk: longterm stress,  poverty, loss of career, pension, loneliness, the often infantile and wholly inadequate nature of the ‘support’ on offer.

And as the LibDem Green and Independent Group’s spokesperson for Women I suggest the problems experienced by carers would be less hidden if Suffolk County Council made themselves more aware of the challenges facing women in the county!

Suffolk Coastal & the General Election June 2017

After a very long day’s telling (left) the agents,  polling agents and candidates for the Suffolk Coastal constituency went straight to the count – held in Martlesham  police headquarters – as usual.

Suffolk Coastal is considered a ‘safe’ Tory seat, but events on  the national stage clearly took away some of the sparkle from the occasion for the Conservatives who were present.  Indeed it is hard to imagine a more gloom-ridden victory. After half the night was through, the television room was left to  Labour LibDems and Greens, as if the prevailing feeling was that no news might be good news. One Conservative – whose name I will not mention -was reduced to getting his kicks by sniping at the Greens about lost deposits. Seems to me there were worse things that were lost that night – and not by the Greens.

The count assistants did their usual deft imperturbable job, watched hawklike  by  agents of each political party  who wanted to check that not a single vote went to the wrong destination. Though the way the voting figures went, one vote more or less wasn’t going to make a difference.

The results were as follows: Therese Coffey (Con) 33,713; Cameron Matthews (Lab) 17,701, James Sandbach (LD) 4,048, Eamonn O’Nolan (Gn) 1,802, Philip Young (Ind) 810. There  were 210 spoiled papers.

The turnout, at 73% was 5%  higher than  the overall Suffolk turnout.

I think it is fair to say therefore, that this result fairly repesented the  current views of Suffolk Coastal.

However if you look at the national picture things are not so clearcut.

If we examine each party’s electoral share of the nationall vote: Theresa May is relying on the support of 10 uber-right DUP MPs who – laughably only needed 29,000 votes per seat won to get elected. In contrast the one Green MP in parliament is the sole representative of over 500,000 votes; and each of the 12 LibDem MPs elected represent nearly 200,000 votes. Call this democracy?  The two big beneficiaries – the Conservative and Labour parties – who both voted to retain fptp for ‘the people’ make damn sure that their own internal leaderships are decided by a different system. (Surprise surprise).

If they don’t trust FPTP  for themselves, why do they inflict it on us? End our inequitable First Past The Post system now!

Number of votes required to win a seat by party in GE 2017
1. SNP      28,000
2. DUP      29,000
3. Sinn Fein      34,200
4. Plaid Cymru      40,000
5. Conservative      42,920
6. Labour      58,945
7. LibDem      196,666
8. Green      520,000