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

t0rt0ise

Goldiegirl wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread, if these WASPI's got their way, it'd just lead to another group of people feeling wronged!

It shouldn't. The whole problem was the lack of notice of the changes and the next lot of people have had more notice.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

In my view, a good outcome from the campaign would be that those most impacted by an 18 month extension to their SPA would be reduced to 12 months.

I don't see anything that calls for a restoration for a spa of 60 for all those women born in the 50's and then going to 66 for those born in 1960. Clearly that won't happen.

As in any negotiation, you would not but your best bid in first.

If you or others want to establish what the intentions/meanings of the campaign then there is no better way than to contact them and get it from the horses mouth. The rest is just speculation.

The wording I quoted is exactly as it reads on the WASPI facebook page. This isn't "speculation" - it is their declared aim.

The wording on the petition is not consistent with the intentions as declared on their facebook page. This is potentially misleading to people signing the petition.

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

The wording I quoted is exactly as it reads on the WASPI facebook page. This isn't "speculation" - it is their declared aim.

Yes - the wording you quoted is from the WASPI page - you then applied your interpretation to that wording as in:

bmm78 wrote: »

This is effectively calling for the restoration of SPA to 60 for all women born before 1960.

Thus my point - it is your interpretation of that wording that all women born in the 50's decade have their pension accessible at 60.
Those then born from 1.1.60 would immediately jump to 66.

I'm suggesting you contact WASPI to get the correct clarification - not apply your own interpretation which is speculation.

Pollycat

bmm78 wrote: »

Unfortunately the petition appears to misrepresent the WASPI aim of putting "all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) affected by the changes to the State Pension Age in exactly the same position of they would have been in if they had been born on or before 5 April 1950".

Is this really what it says on their FB page?

If it is, it seems (at least to me) to contradict the wording in the petition.
They mention 'fair transitional arrangements' in the petition.

The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with a lack of appropriate notification

The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA to 65, the same as men’s. Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), agree with equalisation, but don’t agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little/no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.

Saying they agree with equalisation doesn't seem to support the statement that they want to put "all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) affected by the changes to the State Pension Age in exactly the same position of they would have been in if they had been born on or before 5 April 1950".

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

Is this really what it says on their FB page?

Yes it is exactly what it says on Facebook.

Reading the comments it seems they are asking for compensation for women born in the 1950s whose state pension age is higher than 60 - in other words they want paid for the "missing" years.

Many comments are also not just about the extra 18 months that some women are facing with short notice but about the total extra years that the 1995 changes dealt with as they "didn't know".

If it is, it seems (at least to me) to contradict the wording in the petition.
They mention 'fair transitional arrangements' in the petition.

Saying they agree with equalisation doesn't seem to support the statement that they want to put "all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) affected by the changes to the State Pension Age in exactly the same position of they would have been in if they had been born on or before 5 April 1950".

Yes it does contradict what the petition appears to be saying.

They're also astonished about the "negative" comments by many of us on here, especially those of us in the same position. I'm all for supporting fairness especially for the 1953/54 group of women but I'm appalled at some of the comments in respect of the 1995 changes and the call for compensation.

Perhaps Martin and MSE should take another look at their backing of this campaign.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

Is this really what it says on their FB page?

If it is, it seems (at least to me) to contradict the wording in the petition.
They mention 'fair transitional arrangements' in the petition.

Saying they agree with equalisation doesn't seem to support the statement that they want to put "all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) affected by the changes to the State Pension Age in exactly the same position of they would have been in if they had been born on or before 5 April 1950".

They are agreeing to the equalisation - I think everyone agrees that. They are campaigning against the 'transitional arrangements' and they way some women are impacted greater than others. The intention is that those women will have a fairer outcome than is currently the case.

The debate is based around a few different scenarios:
- Were women fully and sufficiently informed in 1995 of the new changes? Were they fully aware of their new spa? Was it clear and unambiguous enough? Saying that it was covered in the newspapers at the time is not necessarily sufficient information. Current case in point, the new pension arrangements have caused considerable confusion to many and a number of attempts have been made to make it clearer and they are still failing. Was this the case in 1995?

The current rule is that any changes to spa should be more than 10 years. The 2011 changes did not allow 10 years for many women. Is that fair? If 10 years is deemed fair, then why should the 1950's women not have had the same?

These are my interpretations of the campaign.

Goldiegirl

t0rt0ise wrote: »

It shouldn't. The whole problem was the lack of notice of the changes and the next lot of people have had more notice.

If the WASPI's got their way, and restored the pension age to 60 for one group of women, and then then the pension age jumped immediately to 66 for a woman born just a day after the cut off day..... I'd imagine there'd be at least a few people who would feel aggrieved.

Daniel54

In an interview on Moneybox ,Anne Keen,spokeswoman for WASPI, states their aim is for all affected women to be put in the same financial position as if the pension had been paid ( roughly 3.30 in)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069c143

I will not sign the WASPI petition for this reason,but would support Ms Keen's original petition which she drafted and proposed in self confessed ignorance of the 1995 act

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/revert-to-the-governments-promise-regarding-no-increase-in-the-state-pension-age-until-2016-2012

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

They are agreeing to the equalisation - I think everyone agrees that. They are campaigning against the 'transitional arrangements' and they way some women are impacted greater than others. The intention is that those women will have a fairer outcome than is currently the case.

Have you been on the Facebook page and read the comments?

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

Yes - the wording you quoted is from the WASPI page - you then applied your interpretation to that wording as in:



Thus my point - it is your interpretation of that wording that all women born in the 50's decade have their pension accessible at 60.
Those then born from 1.1.60 would immediately jump to 66.

I'm suggesting you contact WASPI to get the correct clarification - not apply your own interpretation which is speculation.

Talking of interpretation, all the dates seem to hinge on the tax year.

Therefore I interpret the 'change date' as 5th April 1960.

As already said, I was born in March 1960...... And I STILL find my self unable to sign this pension. How are your instincts today?!?