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

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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.

That's how I feel. :mad:

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

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.

:huh:

The first scenario states "fair transitional arrangements".

The second states an effective unwinding of the 1995 and 2011 acts as if they hadn't happened. That is not "transitional" and certainly not "fair".

The desired outcomes are set out in the petition and on their facebook page. However, they are not the same. That is the issue.

They have been given the opportunity to clarify and explain this discrepancy. They have been unable or unwilling to do this.

saver861

OldBeanz wrote: »

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.

No not at all what I am saying. Raising the spa for women from 60 to 65 will not have been good news. Government of the day would be aware of that and would wish to keep the matter as low key as possible therefore.

The point is, whether they have sufficiently informed those impacted or not. Those who are campaigning are making a case that they did not inform of the implications sufficiently. If they can make that case and the government do not agree, then its likely it will be decided in a court of law, if a case is brought.

OldBeanz wrote: »

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

It's not a case of informing each individual on their personal circumstances. Rather to inform and educate all impacted individuals to ensure they are aware of the implications and to take necessary steps to accommodate the changes to meet their personal intentions.

In respect to the 2011 changes, the Pension review states that any changes to spa has to be more than 10 years from the individuals spa. A minimum of 10 years being deemed sufficient to make alternative arrangements.

Many of the 1950's women did not have 10 years and would have been as few as 6 years in some cases. Therefore, the government will have to justify why these women should not be allowed the 10 years that everyone else had, and will have in the future.

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

The first scenario states "fair transitional arrangements".

The second states an effective unwinding of the 1995 and 2011 acts as if they hadn't happened. That is not "transitional" and certainly not "fair".

I have missed where is says unwinding the acts. I don't see it on either the petition or the facebook page.

If the case that the communication has been insufficient then there would be a call to compensate those who have been impacted as a result of the lack of communication. If it is proved that the communication was sufficient then there will be no changes to the 1995 scenario.

bmm78 wrote: »

The desired outcomes are set out in the petition and on their facebook page. However, they are not the same. That is the issue.

The facebook pages contains a link to the petition - thus those who go to the facebook page will be able to read the comments etc before going to the petition to sign. Thus the option to sign is there for those that want it and those that don't agree obviously won't sign.

The petition states 'with little or no notice to both the 1995 and 2011 acts'. Thus the campaign/petition/movement is about both acts.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

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

.

It could be more than £36k for some women if we went back to age 60. Take me as one example. I retire at 64 years and 9 months so 4.75 years extra pension and my current forecast is £150 and some pence, this is the old pension plus S2P I get less on the new system as I was contracted out for some years so I get the higher of the two. My rough calculation is that I would get an extra £37k or thereabouts, some women would have more S2P than me and some would have more than an extra 4.75 years. It would be a very expensive exercise.

I still think the transition should be a bit fairer but don't think there could be enough money to go back to the pre 1995 figures.

bigadaj

OldBeanz wrote: »

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

Though it seems to have worked for tax credits, whether you believe the money has magically appeared to pay for it or not.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

I have missed where is says unwinding the acts. I don't see it on either the petition or the facebook page.

"Effective" unwinding. That is what their aims would achieve, at least in relation to 1950s women.

saver861 wrote: »

The facebook pages contains a link to the petition - thus those who go to the facebook page will be able to read the comments etc before going to the petition to sign. Thus the option to sign is there for those that want it and those that don't agree obviously won't sign.

The petition states 'with little or no notice to both the 1995 and 2011 acts'. Thus the campaign/petition/movement is about both acts.

So, those who signed based on the wording of the petition without knowing the true aims of WASPI, have only themselves to blame really because they should have checked out the facebook page in detail beforehand?

Rather ironic bearing in mind that the campaign is based on the people not pro-actively doing their own research and instead relying only on information provided to them in person.

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that.



More importantly, the questions still remain:

Why does the petition not clearly state that they want SPA 60 for all 1950s women?

Why are they talking about "fair transitional arrangements" and stating that they are not against equalisation of ages, when the campaign is clearly for complete reversal of State Pension Age equalisation to a group of women regardless of need or circumstance?

Why do they claim to be campaigning against inequality, when their stated aims would result in a 6 year increase for women born in 1960?

Neither WASPI nor any of their supporters have given any satisfactory or credible answers to these questions. This does not mean that none of those affected have a case that should be heard, but it does highlight a significant gap between the public perception of the campaign and what it is in reality. This is likely to lead to a public backlash when this becomes common knowledge, and alienation of those sympathetic to the cause.

This may not matter much in the long-run anyway, as the government are highly unlikely to do anything about it regardless of the number of people who sign the petition, and any redress would need to be secured through legal means.

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

"Effective" unwinding. That is what their aims would achieve, at least in relation to 1950s women.

If the case that 10 years is the minimum fair period between changes and spa age then the changes should be removed. Why would that not be correct?

bmm78 wrote: »

So, those who signed based on the wording of the petition without knowing the true aims of WASPI, have only themselves to blame really because they should have checked out the facebook page in detail beforehand?

Well you seem unduly concerned about people signing petitions etc. Maybe you should not be troubling yourself so much. Chill bro. You don't need to carry the burden. Personally I'm not so concerned. If people want to sign something they should do their research behind the petition if they are concerned. Many times it has been repeated the petition includes the 1995 and 2011 acts.

bmm78 wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that.

I'm not necessarily trying to make any point or convince you of anything. I'm merely a forum member stating my opinions.

bmm78 wrote: »

More importantly, the questions still remain:

Why does the petition not clearly state that they want SPA 60 for all 1950s women?

Why are they talking about "fair transitional arrangements" and stating that they are not against equalisation of ages, when the campaign is clearly for complete reversal of State Pension Age equalisation to a group of women regardless of need or circumstance?

Why do they claim to be campaigning against inequality, when their stated aims would result in a 6 year increase for women born in 1960?

As we are on questions - heres one. Why not ask the above questions to WASPI?

bmm78 wrote: »

This may not matter much in the long-run anyway, as the government are highly unlikely to do anything about it regardless of the number of people who sign the petition, and any redress would need to be secured through legal means.

There you go then, solved your own dilemma!! As I said before, no worries. Don't burden yourself and chill.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

As we are on questions - heres one. Why not ask the above questions to WASPI?

They've been asked. They avoid giving straight answers.

saver861 wrote: »

Chill bro.

Oh dear....

mumps

I'm not that bothered about the facebook and petition being worded differently. I am sure the people who are debating it can throw out the more extreme demands and at least it gets it debated.