I think the War Widows Association is closing its campaign for this now, and the briefing note from the RBL and FPS from September referred only to fighting for changes from next April onwards, and not retrospective ones. That doesn't inspire much hope, it looks like it was already a done deal. I have some corporate actuaries looking into the figures offered by the state, and they seem to think, initially at least, the case that the bill is (overall) too expensive doesn't stand much scrutiny.
The likes of Chugalug served and never accrued any pension rights, so the fact that Westminster places more importance on its own patch, than the patch at Warminster (see what I did there?) is particularly galling. I can't plonk pics here, but if you go to my twitter account (RAF_IFA) you'll see some grabs of the Westminster Members Fund bill that Peter Lilley is trying to get through the House at the moment.
The trustees will have less scrutiny and all will be MPs, they want to be able to dish out money on an ongoing, regular and annual basis (that's a pension to you and me) to anyone who may have
once been dependent. And even if they do, the public, which is coughing up for this, doesn't even have the right to know which Member's basta.. love child is benefiting from our largesse.
This bill, once again, is to help anyone who worked as a politician before the MPs pension scheme allowed such measures by right, in other words, retrospective help. But military widows and widowers can't have the same access to retrospective assistance. Dreadful - especially in this day and age. The conceit and arrogance is almost beyond belief.
Eta:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...0091/15091.pdf