Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Luke
    • By MSE Luke 10th Jul 17, 11:01 AM
    • 222Posts
    • 54Thanks
    MSE Luke
    MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take...
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:01 AM
    MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take... 10th Jul 17 at 11:01 AM
    Jane Cowley, a WASPI director, reacts to the Pensions Minister's suggestion that WASPI women become apprentices...
    Read the full story:
    'Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take up apprenticeships'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Page 2
    • haras_nosirrah
    • By haras_nosirrah 11th Jul 17, 12:32 PM
    • 1,135 Posts
    • 1,917 Thanks
    haras_nosirrah
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes
    2017 resolutions.

    Pay £11,500 off the mortgage in overpayments
    Lose 30lb in weight
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 11th Jul 17, 12:47 PM
    • 1,271 Posts
    • 1,468 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes Posted by haras_nosirrah
    Sarah - I'm fully convinced that they did hear about the changes, but chose to ignore them because 'retirement is a long way off' and/or 'this only applies to pensioners, not me'.
    • bmm78
    • By bmm78 11th Jul 17, 12:57 PM
    • 413 Posts
    • 544 Thanks
    bmm78
    Sarah - I'm fully convinced that they did hear about the changes, but chose to ignore them because 'retirement is a long way off' and/or 'this only applies to pensioners, not me'.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    The DWP surveys suggest that most women knew something was changing, although they were a bit foggy on the detail.

    Ultimately it doesn't really matter at this point who knew and who didn't. There was no legal compulsion on the government to send unprompted information about the changes, and the initial plans for 1995 (Budget Statement) and 2011 (Conservative Manifesto) were announced in on very visible platforms.

    Regardless of who knew and who didn't, it is a reasonable expectation that people should have taken personal responsibility and planned their retirement with upto date information.
    I work for a financial services intermediary specialising in the at-retirement market. I am not a financial adviser, and any comments represent my opinion only and should not be construed as advice or a recommendation
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 11th Jul 17, 1:00 PM
    • 6,196 Posts
    • 19,130 Thanks
    Doc N
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes
    Originally posted by haras_nosirrah
    Too right! We were affected but well aware of the changes - we even discussed it at the time with other people also affected.

    The sensible ones took any action necessary, but the rest just ignored it with the usual "I'll worry about that when it happens".

    There's no reason on this earth for taxpayers to bail out people who are just bleating because they took the easy 'ignore' option. Any more than we should bail out people who don't bother to take out insurance.

    There will be fury if WASPI get their selfish way on this!
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 11th Jul 17, 2:01 PM
    • 1,271 Posts
    • 1,468 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension age should have been part of the 1975 Sex Discrimination/Equal Pay acts. That way, the increases could have started from - say - 1990 - and would have been much more gradual.. I can only suppose that Harold Wilson thought that whilst the equalisation of pay would be a ladies vote winner, the re-equalisation of pension ages wouldn't.

    The Women's Lib/Dagenham Ladies etc campaigns for equal rights and equal pay were a little before my time, but I've done a bit of research on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any mention of State pension ages being included in the women's demands for full equality with men........
    • JezR
    • By JezR 11th Jul 17, 2:18 PM
    • 1,492 Posts
    • 1,053 Thanks
    JezR
    In hindsight maybe it should have been dealt with at the same time as the introduction of SERPS (taking full effect 20 years later so the full benefit of SERPS would have been made), combined with a complete ending of reduced rate National Insurance for married women. However, all of these measures may have been painted in the short term as taking more money from women.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 11th Jul 17, 2:43 PM
    • 2,411 Posts
    • 3,353 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Aw, this is getting very DMish. Attack the message - and it needs to be attacked - not the messenger.
    Originally posted by le loup
    But WASPI's one and only card is personal need, which means the messenger is the message. They have no legal or moral reason to demand an earlier State Pension than a man of the same age or a woman born in 1960 - their sole argument is "we really need the money". So "they don't really need the money" is a perfectly legitimate counterargument. You can't moan about ad hominems when your whole argument is the ex hominem "look at my weeping sores".

    In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension age should have been part of the 1975 Sex Discrimination/Equal Pay acts.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    No doubt, but everyone knew at the time that the 1995 Pension Act was long overdue, and that it still didn't go far enough, which is why we got the 2012 Act. And the 2012 Act didn't go far enough either, which is why we will get the 20?? Act within the next decade or so. Every measure by the Government has been a piecemeal effort to buy time rather than a genuine attempt to bring spiralling State Pension costs under control.
    • antrobus
    • By antrobus 11th Jul 17, 3:15 PM
    • 14,917 Posts
    • 21,129 Thanks
    antrobus
    Too right! We were affected but well aware of the changes - we even discussed it at the time with other people also affected....
    Originally posted by Doc N
    What of WASPI’s complaint about a failure to communicate directly with individuals? This is not unproblematic. Firstly, many legislative changes are made which have consequences for individual finances but are not individually communicated. Secondly, neither WASPI nor the Select Committee acknowledge widespread media coverage of the 1995 decision to equalise state pension ages (the Financial Times’ correspondent Josephine Cumbo presented the committee with a list of 600 newspaper articles between 1993 and 2006 on equalisation and its implications for women).


    http://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/women-against-state-pension-inequality-a-distraction-from-deeper-problems

    Presumably you read one or more of those 600 articles.
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 6:53 PM
    • 8,603 Posts
    • 7,222 Thanks
    colsten
    No doubt, but everyone knew at the time that the 1995 Pension Act was long overdue, and that it still didn't go far enough, which is why we got the 2012 Act. And the 2012 Act didn't go far enough either, which is why we will get the 20?? Act within the next decade or so. Every measure by the Government has been a piecemeal effort to buy time rather than a genuine attempt to bring spiralling State Pension costs under control.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Point of order, if I may.....

    There was no 2012 Pensions Act. Only A 2011 one.

    There was also a 2007 Pensions Act, which was partly un-done by the 2011 Act as the rise to 66 was brought by it.

    Then there was a 2014 Pensions Act, which partially brought the increase to 67, first legislated in 2007, forward a bit more.

    The remaining rise to 67, and the rise to 68, remains for the time being as legislated in 2007. A statement from Government on optentially bringing these forward is overdue.


    This table summarised the increases nicely:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 7:00 PM
    • 8,603 Posts
    • 7,222 Thanks
    colsten
    Last Wednesday (5th July), cross-party MPs spent more than an hour describing the financial hardship caused to some 3.5 million women born in the 1950s who have been affected by the changes made to the State Pension Age.
    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    MSE Jason Mills, one of the key issues there is that is a straight-forward lie that some 3.5m women born in the 1950s are in financial hardship. To be honest, I can't recall that any of the MPs in last Wednesday's debate has actually claimed that this is the case.

    There is no evidence for this from elsewhere, either. WASPI themselves have less than 3,500 paid up members, and less than 71,000 'likes' on their Facebook page. Their e-petition, which could also be signed by people not directly affected by the increases, had less than 195,000 signatures after several months of hard lobbying for signatures.

    By whatever measure, there is no evidence whatsoever that would support that the number of affected women in financial hardship is significant, and definitely it isn't anywhere near all the 3.5m women born in the 1950s.

    Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the WASPI campaign have ever put those in financial hardship first. They haven't even seen it fit to officially communicate Guy Opperman's specific offer that he and his team will listen to hardship cases that MPs bring to him. Nor has MSE, unless I have overlooked it. Why is that?
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 7:23 PM
    • 8,603 Posts
    • 7,222 Thanks
    colsten
    First and foremost, MSE is a consumer champion website and given the large number of consumers affected by these changes, it is editorially appropriate that MSE reports and provides its users with WASPI coverage.
    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    I would agree, it is very appropriate that MSE report on the state pension age increases which directly affect every woman born after 5/4/1950, and every man born after 5/12/1953, and indirectly also men born between 6/4/1950 and 6/12/1953 as the Pensions Credit Age rises in line with women's SPA. It is, however, most disconcerting that you do not provide a comprehensive account of the effects of the state pensions age rises legislated in 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014. In particular, I find it distressing that you are not reporting about the millions of tax payers who would have to fund the payments WASPI are demanding for themselves. Why are you excluding those consumers from your WASPI coverage?



    On reading the transcript of the debate, there’s no doubt that Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman MP put forward apprenticeships as one of the key solutions to those women affected by the changes state pension age:

    “Thirdly, we have also extended apprenticeship opportunities—one of the best routes into skilled employment—for people of all ages and gender. For example, in England in 2014 to 2015, 12% of those starting apprenticeships were aged over 45.”

    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    This remark was very clearly in the context of Guy Opperman explaining "that the Government have done a massive amount on a progressive basis to get people back into employment or retraining in their pre-pension years". He never said apprenticeships were "a key solution" for WASPI.

    As an important aside, MSE should be aware that WASPI are making a misrepresentation when claiming that they represent 3.5m women born in the 1950s. They do not have permission from most of those women to speak for them, nor have they ever sought such permission from most of them.
  • jamesd
    There will be fury if WASPI get their selfish way on this!
    Originally posted by Doc N
    Here's one of the secrets to persuading MPs: write a letter on real paper to your own MP at their constituency office. It's significantly more effective than electronic communication. Better to try to stop something happening than deal with it afterwards.

    Just in case they haven't read the debate you might consider quoting the minister's offer to help as well. They and their staff might appreciate the help in dealing with some of the tough cases of constituents who really are often in significant financial need before they contact their MP. While it won't be a number remotely close to all women in the age range there are some and they deserve all of the help with finding work or claiming benefits that is available to them.
    Last edited by jamesd; 12-07-2017 at 12:50 PM.
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 12th Jul 17, 12:54 PM
    • 6,196 Posts
    • 19,130 Thanks
    Doc N
    I would agree, it is very appropriate that MSE report on the state pension age increases which directly affect every woman born after 5/4/1950, and every man born after 5/12/1953, and indirectly also men born between 6/4/1950 and 6/12/1953 as the Pensions Credit Age rises in line with women's SPA. It is, however, most disconcerting that you do not provide a comprehensive account of the effects of the state pensions age rises legislated in 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014. In particular, I find it distressing that you are not reporting about the millions of tax payers who would have to fund the payments WASPI are demanding for themselves. Why are you excluding those consumers from your WASPI coverage?


    This remark was very clearly in the context of Guy Opperman explaining "that the Government have done a massive amount on a progressive basis to get people back into employment or retraining in their pre-pension years". He never said apprenticeships were "a key solution" for WASPI.

    As an important aside, MSE should be aware that WASPI are making a misrepresentation when claiming that they represent 3.5m women born in the 1950s. They do not have permission from most of those women to speak for them, nor have they ever sought such permission from most of them.
    Originally posted by colsten
    Very much agree. This money doesn't come from nowhere - it comes from additional tax/NIC which will have to be levied on others.

    And although my wife is one of those affected, she was fully aware of the situation well in advance and reluctantly accepted the delayed pension which resulted from it. She is livid at the WASPI approach - and certainly does not consider herself to be represented by them. Her view (and mine) is that this is an additional burden that should not be placed on the younger people who would have to pay for it.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 12th Jul 17, 1:08 PM
    • 6,127 Posts
    • 2,805 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    Here's one of the secrets to persuading MPs: write a letter on real paper to your own MP at their constituency office. It's significantly more effective than electronic communication. .
    Originally posted by jamesd
    I've tried that in the past with other issues (revolving around personal choice and responsibility - I'm for it, he isn't.)

    My MP apparently considers me to be an idiot and now refuses to listen to me on anything else.

    The feeling is mutual.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    o I am humble
    o You are attention seeking
    o She is Nadine Dorries
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 24th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    • 377 Posts
    • 837 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    This made me laugh!
    https://twitter.com/graspi4/status/889480365118828545
    Remoaners. Embrace your inner Brexit and become a 're-leaver'
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

194Posts Today

1,285Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin