MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

One also has to consider why the changes were not received by their intended audience - was it because a large majority of the intended audience weren't interested enough or was it because there the message wasn't put across properly?

Now I know it was widely reported in newspapers, TV and radio at the time so all that is missing are personal letters.

However if those same people missed the TV, newspapers and radio because they weren't interested enough then there is a very high chance that they weren't interested enough to take notice of any personal letter that was telling them something 20 years in the future.



.

Agreed, but saver861 doesn't want to hear this point, for some reason - he feels it's not relevant.


I feel it's very relevant - you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.


If the message of 1995 had been hammered home with a yearly letter, some people would still have been saying today that they weren't aware of the changes. It's just the way some people are - they forget financial things, because it's too far ahead or they feel its too complicated, or doesn't affect them. You can't force people to know things if they won't listen and learn

patanne

But we don't get sick pay. Or only do if our employers make the mistake of paying it! Many do seem to.

missbiggles1

patanne wrote: »

But we don't get sick pay. Or only do if our employers make the mistake of paying it! Many do seem to.

Employers pay sick pay, that isn't relevant to NI anyway. (Mind you this is all OT, which is my fault.:o)

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

One also has to consider why the changes were not received by their intended audience - was it because a large majority of the intended audience weren't interested enough or was it because there the message wasn't put across properly?

Rather than saying 'not interested enough' I would put it as 'not educated enough'. Each adult has a choice to make their own decisions. However, part of a democracy is to inform and educate so that people make informed decisions. I do not believe two thirds of the adult population are disinterested in their own futures.

jem16 wrote: »

However if those same people missed the TV, newspapers and radio because they weren't interested enough then there is a very high chance that they weren't interested enough to take notice of any personal letter that was telling them something 20 years in the future.

Again, I think your assertion of being 'interested' enough is misaligned. Was there a sufficient campaign by the government to inform. 1995 is just twenty years ago. As I said earlier, the further you go back historically, the less advantages women had. Women were less likely to be decision makers, less likely to have gone to University, less likely to be full time workers etc. Even today, there are places where women can't drive a car! Circumstances were less equal in 1995 than they are today, less equal still in 1985 than today, etc etc.

Therefore, to cover all of this with a blanket of disinterest would be too simplistic at best, possibly disingenuous to many groups of women.

jem16 wrote: »

Yes but then you will get many men who can argue that the equalisation from 60 to 65 should have been done much sooner or quicker. Then the rise from 65 to 66 may not have caused the issue that it has done with some women having an 18 months rise as opposed to a 12 months rise. After all men paid into the same scheme with the same rules too.

Well the pension age for women has been 60 for many many years. If men had a problem with that then they should have raised their objections many years earlier. However, now that equalisation is happening, there cannot be a situation where rules are brought in that does not allow sufficient time to prepare or that makes such changes unfair or disadvantageous to some.

If it was the other way round - my exact same argument would apply.

I'm not by any means a spokesman for women - neither am I a spokesman against them!

missbiggles1

Anybody who's ever been a teacher would tell you that that there's a vast gap between what people (students) say they remember and what they've actually been taught. Unfortunately, enormous numbers of people just don't take things in, whether the people providing them with the information are the government, the media or their teachers.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Agreed, but saver861 doesn't want to hear this point, for some reason - he feels it's not relevant.

Oh but I have addressed these very points. Perhaps you have missed some of my posts. Its all relevant. I remember John Kennedy's assassination on the TV - not the newspapers cos I could not read at that time. I remember men walking on the moon all over TV and newspapers. I remember where I was and what I was doing then the news came over that Elvis had snuffed it.

I remember some discussion about pension changes in the 90's - I can't say I remember much about it or any detail particularly. But then it would not have been a world wide event. It did not affect me directly. Was there updates, reminders about the changes and the consequences? Perhaps you can remind me, I seem to have forgotten.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I feel it's very relevant - you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.

Goldie ... you ain't having much luck with them there horses. I have led many horses to water and usually they all drank. Maybe you need to change the water and clean out the water bucket. Horses are majestic animals .....

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Anybody who's ever been a teacher would tell you that that there's a vast gap between what people (students) say they remember and what they've actually been taught. Unfortunately, enormous numbers of people just don't take things in, whether the people providing them with the information are the government, the media or their teachers.

But ... isn't that why they have revision, exam preparation, continuing professional development, training, etc etc.

ManofLeisure_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unfortunately, enormous numbers of people just don't take things in, whether the people providing them with the information are the government, the media or their teachers.

Depends on the 'clarity' of the information presented as to whether it will be assimilated or not.

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

Again, I think your assertion of being 'interested' enough is misaligned. Was there a sufficient campaign by the government to inform. 1995 is just twenty years ago. As I said earlier, the further you go back historically, the less advantages women had. Women were less likely to be decision makers, less likely to have gone to University, less likely to be full time workers etc. Even today, there are places where women can't drive a car! Circumstances were less equal in 1995 than they are today, less equal still in 1985 than today, etc etc.

Therefore, to cover all of this with a blanket of disinterest would be too simplistic at best, possibly disingenuous to many groups of women.

I think you are mistaking 1995 and 1985 with 1895 and 1885.


I find it incredible that you think women were so downtrodden, with no power over their lives or able to make any decisions 20 to 30 years ago. I don't know where you were living in the 80's and 90's, but it bears no similarity with my life whatsoever. In my entire life, I can't remember feeling unequal compared to a man, whether at work or at home.


You didn't need a University education, a full time job or to be a decision maker to have taken note of the 1995 changes and to work out whether you'd be affected None of it was rocket science - just joining up the dots really. But, after 40 years working in banks and building societies, I know that, sadly, there are people out there who, for whatever reason are either uninterested or unable to cope with anything to do with finances. However hard the government tried to get the message across, there would be some who were not able to take it on board. Note I said 'people'. Men, just as well as women can be like this


PS - I don't think the status of women in places like Saudi Arabia affects this particular debate - we are talking about the UK

saver861 wrote: »

Oh but I have addressed these very points. Perhaps you have missed some of my posts. Its all relevant. I remember John Kennedy's assassination on the TV - not the newspapers cos I could not read at that time. I remember men walking on the moon all over TV and newspapers. I remember where I was and what I was doing then the news came over that Elvis had snuffed it.

I remember some discussion about pension changes in the 90's - I can't say I remember much about it or any detail particularly. But then it would not have been a world wide event. It did not affect me directly. Was there updates, reminders about the changes and the consequences? Perhaps you can remind me, I seem to have forgotten.

I seem to remember periodic articles in the financial pages of newspapers over the years - but then again, the 1995 changes did affect me, so perhaps I took more notice of it than you, which is only to be expected. in 1995 everyone who would be affected would have had access to media coverage. If you were affected by the changes, surely it is responsible to seek out more information when it's available over the years such as checking the relevant parts of newspapers.


I know we've got to a point where it seems as if people need to be spoon fed everything.... and as I've already said, this approach doesn't work either, with some people

You say this matter didn't affect you directly, but if you were married at the time, I assume you wife is of an age to be affected by these changes, so you may be indirectly affected - I'd have thought you'd have been looking for information in the same way that I did, if that's the case

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

I remember some discussion about pension changes in the 90's - I can't say I remember much about it or any detail particularly. But then it would not have been a world wide event. It did not affect me directly. Was there updates, reminders about the changes and the consequences? Perhaps you can remind me, I seem to have forgotten.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/283806/response/693705/attach/2/FoI%203231.pdf

An extract from the above link;

The pensions’ education campaign ran in waves from January 2001 until February 2004. The objectives were to make people aware of the importance of planning for their retirement and to inform them of the information available to help them plan their options. The campaign used TV and press advertising, and direct marketing. One of the press adverts was specifically about the equalisation of State Pension age and was featured in women’s magazines and national newspaper supplements.

Other awareness raising activity included advertorials in women’s and TV listings magazines in March 2000. Information was also available on The Pension Service website, including a State Pension age calculator.

In addition, the Department wrote to individuals affected by State Pension age changes. Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013 and covered all women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1960, along with men born between 6th December 1953 and 5th April 1960.