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

JezR

Daniel54 wrote: »

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

You can hear their evidence to the Works and Pensions Committee at http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/a0161a78-05ee-45b6-be30-ee12d4114c56 - this should be available as a transcript shortly.

I make no comment apart from the fact that they are clearly asking for the same financial position etc as above.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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.

If there is a case to answer - there is a case to answer. If people have not been correctly informed then, while it might appear a technicality to some, then that has to be compensated for.

The question becomes, one of how were people informed and was it clear enough for the majority at the time.

If that claim is so way out it won't go anywhere! However they do seem to be building a case about this and they are doing so on advice and research.

jem16 wrote: »

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

But that is the point .... I think this campaign has drawn in many people in high offices etc. to support it. If it was so way out then these people would not be getting involved. They have not got where they are by being stupid!

The end result may provide no change to where we are now or it may reduce the 18 months to 12 months. It may remove the 2011 arrangements for those within 10 years of their spa at the time.

If may even compensate some women from the 1995 arrangement.

If these options were nigh on impossible, or appalling requests, then they would not have got this far.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

But that is the point .... I think this campaign has drawn in many people in high offices etc. to support it. If it was so way out then these people would not be getting involved. They have not got where they are by being stupid!

So what has got them involved then?

1. The petition which states;

"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)."

OR

2. The Facebook campaign which states their aim is 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."

Two very different scenarios.

Do you support paying compensation up to £36k for women born in the 1950s?

The end result may provide no change to where we are now or it may reduce the 18 months to 12 months. It may remove the 2011 arrangements for those within 10 years of their spa at the time.

Those changes could be considered fair.

If may even compensate some women from the 1995 arrangement.

Absolutely appalling and where would it stop?

If these options were nigh on impossible, or appalling requests, then they would not have got this far.

They have got this far with disingenuous information in my opinion.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

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.

Drawing the only logical conclusion from their stated aims is not speculation. If their aims are anything other than this, the statement is poorly worded, and the problem is with how WASPI have set out these aims rather than any inference drawn from them.

The evidence given by WASPI to the Work and Pensions Committee again clearly stated that their aims were for all women born in the 50s to be put in "exactly the same position as if they were born before 5th April 1950". They highlighted that their main issue was with the 1995 changes, and rather than the 2011 transitional arrangements.

WASPI (via their twitter feed) have been quizzed repeatedly about whether they support SPA at 60. This is a straightforward "yes" or "no" matter. For some reason they find it very difficult to give a straight answer to this question, and have stated that both the petition and the facebook page are clear (despite saying different things), and that everyone who signed the petition knows what the aims are (even though people signing the petition are unlikely to have read the facebook page).

"We at #WASPI will continue to campaign for ALL our "lost decade" - doesn't seem that they are focusing on the 2011 changes at all.

They have retweeted "Put all women born in the 1950's ... exactly the same financial position .. 5 April 1950”. Sounds like SP@60 2Me " - why retweet this if it was not their position?

"The number of characters (in the petition) remains restricted. Our supporters and MPs consider it clear" - seems to be acknowledging the difference between the facebook page and the petition and bizarrely attributing this to the lack of characters in the petition.



These are only statements directly from the WASPI feed. If you factor in the statements of their prominent supporters, it is clear that they are pushing for effective unwinding of 1995 and 2011 changes. This is doomed to failure, and is completely unreasonable. This seriously undermines a campaign supposedly based on "fairness".

bmm78

mumps wrote: »

I also agree with you about negotiation, its like house prices most people ask for a bit more than they think they will get, then the buyer offers a bit less than they are prepared to pay and then they settle somewhere in the middle. I know it doesn't always work like that but I think it is not uncommon.

Negotiation works if both parties are bringing something to the table. This is a campaign supposedly based on fairness, and using an unreasonable starting point completely undermines that.

That is before even considering that negotiations need to start with a somewhat realistic offer, which SPA at 60 patently isn't.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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?!?

I used the 1.1.60 merely as an example - it would be the tax date that would be effective for change.

As for my instincts today ..... exactly the same as they were yesterday!!!

Goldiegirl

I've looked on the Facebook page. Even if I'd been leaning towards signing the petition, I'd have backed off quickly after reading some of those comments.


If I'd signed the petition based solely on the wording on the parliamentary petition page, and had then found out their true agenda after reading the Facebook page, I'd be pretty angry about it.


Is it possible to delete your signature from the petition? That's what I would want to do.

JezR

jem16 wrote: »

So what has got them involved then?

1. The petition which states;

"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)."

OR

2. The Facebook campaign which states their aim is 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."

Two very different scenarios.

They are the same only if you consider the 'increase in state pension age' to mean from 60 to 66, which does seem to be their position consistently. For those who consider that the 1995 Pension Act changes were made so long ago as to set in stone and be the baseline they aren't the same.

Having had a chance to listen to the evidence I linked to above, they are at least at the moment taking a very fixed line. They want the money for everyone irrespective of their financial position - for example they were dismissive of any kind of additional support being means tested.

Their experience of the labour market being nearly non existent at 60+ (maybe earlier) for even averagely paid full time employment though is sadly similar to the arguments made in the 1990s against a pension age of 65 and it is a shame that things haven't moved on in 20 years with employers to make proper use of people of that age. I think the employment figure for 60-65 currently is only 50%, although those not employed will include those who have funded their own retirement as well as those no longer able to work.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

So what has got them involved then?

Well, if you are asking why have politicians got involved - for the most part that's what politicians do. If it is something that can make them look good they will get involved. Some will be doing from the heart ... many from the head.

If you are referring to Martin and MSE etc, they will be more likely to be doing it from the heart. Champions of the people become so for that reason.

jem16 wrote: »

1. The petition which states;

"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)."

OR

2. The Facebook campaign which states their aim is 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."


Two very different scenarios.

Nope - they are referring to the same thing.

The outcomes are yet to be determined. The petition refers to the 1995 and 2011 acts. It does not preclude the 1995 act.

jem16 wrote: »

Do you support paying compensation up to £36k for women born in the 1950s?

The question would be has the government done enough to ensure this situation would not arise? It is their duty to ensure they have informed those affected fully and fairly. For instance, has the government of the day put out the proposals in a manner that does not stir up resistance rather than fully informing and educating people on the consequences.

Was there a sustained policy of review and reminder to those being affected? It would seem from DWP's own survey in 2004 that, while most people were aware there was changes, far fewer were aware of their new actual retirement date.

jem16 wrote: »

They have got this far with disingenuous information in my opinion.

That would be your opinion - but that same opinion might be considered disingenuous to those that have signed and supported the campaign thus far!!!

OldBeanz

saver861 wrote: »

... For instance, has the government of the day put out the proposals in a manner that does not stir up resistance rather than fully informing and educating people on the consequences...

So what you are saying is that because there is resistance to this change the government must not proceed. That does not sound like democracy.

The government cannot explain the full consequences to everyone as they do not know everyone's financial position or their desire to retire.