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

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

Yes but they are not mutually exclusive in the overall context. The 1995 was about raising the spa for women to 65. The debate on that is whether the communication was effective enough for those impacted. That may come down to a matter of judgement if it cannot be agreed. It is an easy assumption to make that it was 20 years ago so 'everyone' should have known. If it can be proven reasonably to the contrary then the government will have to answer.

That's really not any different to any other policy regardless of what it is about.

That's right. Just like any other change in the law. People are expected to know about changes to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse if you get arrested for something that wasn't against the law 20 years ago but is now (there are various computer related laws that have changed in the last 20 years), so why should ignorance of the law be an issue in this case?

In the same way an employee might fully expect an employer to fully inform their employees of an employment policy change. If it can be shown that it was done fully, fairly and correctly then there is no case to answer.

Rubbish, talk about apples and pears :rotfl: If an employer changes employment terms, it doesn't tend to be on the TV news, in the papers etc as the change in the SPA was!

In the same way, if the government can demonstrate they engaged all impacted women on the changes in 1995 fully, fairly and correctly then there is no case to answer.

The govt doesn't need to demonstrate anything of the sort. They don't for other law changes. How many people do you think were engaged in the change to the new state pension in April next year, which will impact every single person who isn't already a pensioner?

missbiggles1

jem16 wrote: »

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".



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.

Presumably they expect that to be balanced out by all the people (men and women) who will have fewer that 39/45 years' NICS and who are receiving a full state pension because of the reduction to 30 years?

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

Your posts are getting increasingly bizarre.

Well if anything in my posts is unclear, I am happy to try to explain it further ....... equally, you can easily ignore my posts.

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

The govt doesn't need to demonstrate anything of the sort.

Then you would not be referring to a democracy.

zagfles wrote: »

They don't for other law changes. How many people do you think were engaged in the change to the new state pension in April next year, which will impact every single person who isn't already a pensioner?

If the government changes policy they have a duty to inform. To what extent that should be is the subjective part.

As for the new pension, they are still trying to explain that to people, and many remain confused. Who's fault so many are confused?

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

If the government changes policy they have a duty to inform. To what extent that should be is the subjective part.

They did inform. Otherwise no-one would know about it. It's not their fault if some people didn't listen.

As for the new pension, they are still trying to explain that to people, and many remain confused. Who's fault so many are confused?

The education system's. Too many people can't do basic maths, so when you start quoting figures and formulas at them they get confused.

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

They did inform. Otherwise no-one would know about it. It's not their fault if some people didn't listen.

In which case that won't be a problem for the government.

zagfles wrote: »

The education system's. Too many people can't do basic maths, so when you start quoting figures and formulas at them they get confused.

That may be true.

However, it still remains the responsibility of the government to inform sufficiently at the academic level of the majority of the people to absorb it. They are clearly failing in that quest with the new pensions or they way over estimated the mathematical skills of the majority!!

Paul_Herring

saver861 wrote: »

You really do need to get past this bro. A petition is simply that, a petition to get the MP's to debate it. Even, if a petition reaches the 100,000 it does not automatically mean it will be debated.

You can't misrepresent it. It is merely a petition to get the MP's to agree to debate it.

The petition can misrepresent the views of the people raising it.

If the petition gets to debate stage, the people who raised it can then (or will be asked to) put forward the thinking behind the petition. Which in this case the views are significantly different.

I can start a petition to abolish Monday's. If it gets to 100,000 then it will be considered for debate. They may even agree to debate it. Even if they do debate it, we may still have Monday's long after the debate has concluded.

Closer analogy:

If you have a group of you who want to abolish weekdays, and put forward a rather popular petition to start that by abolishing Mondays (and lie by omission by not mentioning Tues-Fri,) and it gets sufficient votes to get debated, you will then get your chance to point out that you also want to abolish a few other days ending in Y.

While you may get your wish to abolish Mondays being debated, attempting to abolish the other days at that point will be seen as the subversive move it indeed was originally, and will get your initial request likely thrown out, despite any other positive qualities the point the petition had.

zagfles wrote: »

Too many people can't do basic maths, so when you start quoting figures and formulas at them they get confused.

Hence this particular meme running round Facebook at the moment.



(Apologies for the size of that....)

monkeyspanner

-The NI Fund used to run a surplus each year.

-The main expenditure from the fund is State Pensions.

-Since 2008 the surplus has been decreasing primarily due to increases in wages not matching increases in the benefits paid by the NI fund.

-The last Government actuarial report predicted that:
1. The fund would reach the minimum safety balance equivalent to 2 months pension and other benefit payments sometime during 2016. This means that a Treasury grant will be necessary to top up the fund in order to meet expenditure.
2. That the effect of the 2014 Pensions Act will return the fund to surplus in 2017/18 reaching a peak surplus balance in around 2028 of about £100Billion.
3. Despite futher increases in pension age to 68 in 2028 the fund surplus will then start to decline and by 2035 be completely depleted.

If the actuarial predictions are correct we can expect a similar crash measure to be introduced which will affect those born in the 1960s.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

If the government changes policy they have a duty to inform. To what extent that should be is the subjective part.

Are the government's duties in this regard explicitly defined anywhere?

saver861

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Closer analogy:

If you have a group of you who want to abolish weekdays, and put forward a rather popular petition to start that by abolishing Mondays (and lie by omission by not mentioning Tues-Fri,) and it gets sufficient votes to get debated, you will then get your chance to point out that you also want to abolish a few other days ending in Y.

While you may get your wish to abolish Mondays being debated, attempting to abolish the other days at that point will be seen as the subversive move it indeed was originally, and will get your initial request likely thrown out, despite any other positive qualities the point the petition had.

Fully agree. If the petition asks to get rid of Mondays, having reached the 100,000, and is considered for debate, I then add the request to get rid of Tues, Weds, Thurs, Fri to that petition it will get chucked there and then. It won't get debated full stop. I would expect to be told at that point to toddle off and do another petition to include all of the days.

But, if I remain as per the original request and stick with getting shut of Mondays then they will decide to debate, or not. Hence, if it is successful getting to debate, only the original petition can be debated.