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

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Are you agreeing that women born in the 1950s should be put back in the same financial position as if they were born before April 1950?

Lets reverse the scenario. Just for a moment, lets assume there is unanimous agreement that the 1995 was not done correctly and those women covered in that agreement were not informed of the change. Just for a moment, consider that is the scenario.

In that event, what then would you consider to be a fair resolution to those 1950's women? Should they be put back to the same financial position as those born before 1950?

Daniel54

saver861 wrote: »

Lets reverse the scenario. Just for a moment, lets assume there is unanimous agreement that the 1995 was not done correctly and those women covered in that agreement were not informed of the change. Just for a moment, consider that is the scenario.

In that event, what then would you consider to be a fair resolution to those 1950's women? Should they be put back to the same financial position as those born before 1950?

If the 1995 act was not " done properly " that would require a failing in due parliamentary process i.e. that the act fails on legal grounds.There is no suggestion that is the case that I have seen.

As can be seen from this thread,there is no unanimous agreement that all women remained uninformed of the provisions of the 1995 act

If some women remained unaware of this law ( or any other law for that matter) this does not entitle them to compensation

A fair resolution to those women affected is either a) nothing or b) additional means tested assistance for those most in need.Both of these options are rejected by WASPI.

As stated by others,there is a much stronger case,particularly for women,regarding the bringing forward of the transitioning from 65 to 66.
By focussing on the 1995 act WASPI are addressing an issue that they are simply not going to win,rather then on the 2011 act where an improvement is both justified and potentially achievable,in my view

For the record,my wife is affected by the 1995 act and we are both affected by the 2011 act

neilvw

Apologies if already posted:

Millions of women had their state pension age delayed - in some cases twice and by up to six years in total - without proper notice.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the details of how they were informed of the changes which has now been obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions. It reveals

- The Government did not write to any woman affected by the rise in pension ages for nearly 14 years after the law was passed in 1995.
- More than one million women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 were told at age 58 or 59 that their pension age was rising from 60, in some cases to 63
- More than half a million women born 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1955 were told between the ages of 57 and nearly 59 that their state pension age would be rising to between 63 and 66.
- Some women were told at just 57½ that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66.
- Women were given five years less notice than men about the rise in pension age to 66
- The Government now says that in future anyone affected by a rise in state pension age must have ten years' notice. None of these women had that much notice nor did the men affected by the change.

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/ (19.11.2015)

saver861

Daniel54 wrote: »

As can be seen from this thread,there is no unanimous agreement that all women remained uninformed of the provisions of the 1995 act

As I said, the scenario was hypothetical to demonstrate that if there is no case, then there will be no compensation. If, hypothetically, MP's agreed there was insufficient communication then clearly there would have to be rectification.

Daniel54 wrote: »

If some women remained unaware of this law ( or any other law for that matter) this does not entitle them to compensation

A fair resolution to those women affected is either a) nothing or b) additional means tested assistance for those most in need.Both of these options are rejected by WASPI.

There wont be a situation where just 'some' women can claim they were uninformed. Its, either all or none. If the consensus is that the majority were sufficiently informed and thus aware, then it stops there. There will be no case where a certain percentage could claim ignorance.

Daniel54 wrote: »

As stated by others,there is a much stronger case,particularly for women,regarding the bringing forward of the transitioning from 65 to 66.
By focussing on the 1995 act WASPI are addressing an issue that they are simply not going to win,rather then on the 2011 act where an improvement is both justified and potentially achievable,in my view

If they don't succeed on the 1995 act that does not mean they won't / can't succeed on the 2011 act. I agree with you that there is justifiable reason to either limit the maximum extension to 12 months, or more likely, to remove any changes for all those with less than 10 yrs to their spa. That would be in compliance with the current position that no changes should occur to anyone within 10 years.

If I were a betting man, that is the outcome I would be on!!

bmm78

mumps wrote: »

I think it will be the petition that has generated the debate, not facebook, so I feel I signed the petition and the facebook issues are separate. I'm not a facebook fan so maybe it is easier for me to ignore it?

When giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the WASPI founders drew a direct link between their stated aims and the number of people who signed the petition. In other words, they presented it as there was (at the time) 57,000 people who had signed to support their cause, rather than there being 57,000 people who may or may not support them but think there should be a debate on it.

These inflated numbers give a misleading impression of the amount of support for the extreme position taken by WASPI, particularly with regards to those not directly affected by the changes.

How big an issue one considers the misrepresentation is down to the individual, but the petition and the aims of WASPI are without doubt inextricably linked.

With regards to the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee, I was struck by how much the WASPI founders focused on their own respective position. One of them said (paraphrasing) "I'm temping and have a partner (who supports me), but it doesn't mean that I'm less disadvantaged than someone...on benefits". While strictly speaking this is true from a monetary perspective, I think they would benefit more from focusing on the desperate cases who urgently need help.

It was also interesting how they had little answer to the question of what they would have done differently if they had been aware of the changes. If the changes are lawful and they agree with them in principle, and they wouldn't have done anything differently had they actually been aware, why is there a need for redress?

bmm78

jem16 wrote: »

Except for the fact that WASPI feel that what the petition says and what their stated aim on Facebook says is one and the same thing

Interestingly on Twitter the original suggestion was that the lack of characters on the petition was the issue :think:

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Lets reverse the scenario. Just for a moment, lets assume there is unanimous agreement that the 1995 was not done correctly

There's no doubt it was done correctly as it was a proper act of parliament.

and those women covered in that agreement were not informed of the change.

We know the information is there though. I have a letter dated 2004 which clearly show my retirement age is not 60. I also have a booklet dated 2009 from the Pensions Agency clearly outlining the increases and who was affected. I'm quite sure they didn't produce a booklet just for me.

Just for a moment, consider that is the scenario.

Ok - so we're now at age 60 retiral for women and the need for 39 years NI contributions just like those born before April 51 needed.

In that event, what then would you consider to be a fair resolution to those 1950's women? Should they be put back to the same financial position as those born before 1950?

Firstly they would need to show why they weren't in a position to know about the changes back in 1995 - what stopped them from learning?

Secondly they would have to show what they would have done differently had they known? Would they have saved more? Would they have started or increased contributions to a private/occupational pension?

Thirdly they would have to show that not having their state pension at age 60 has genuinely caused hardship rather than just a blanket "all in the 1950s should get compensation of up to 6 years state pension amount".

However this is not WASPI's aim at all unfortunately. Their meeting with the Work and Pensions committee directed the committee to read their Facebook page and especially the comments on the Personal Stories section. There are many posts in that section that have literally got the wrong end of the stick - some who think the number of years NI contributions are less because they were contracted out and many who think they will need 35 years under the new state pension so are complaining as they have less. Plus of course some who thought they were going to get the £155 "single tier" pension after April 2016 and are annoyed that they aren't going to get it.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

Except they aren't separate - in fact their WASPI campaign is all about what is on Facebook.



Are you agreeing that women born in the 1950s should be put back in the same financial position as if they were born before April 1950?

If I sign a petition I don't think I have to go and read facebook, in fact I never go and read facebook. If I sign a petition it is because of what is written on the petition, I might agree with some of it, or all of it or I might just think I don't know but it warrants a debate. In my case I don't think we should go back to the 1995 changes, I am affected by them, but I do think the 2011 changes should be looked at. The notice was too short particularly as women were already dealing with the first changes. In my case my original SRA was 60, it changed to 63 and I was making financial provision so that I could still retire at 60 in 2013 and I was then faced with a 2 year period to make up for a further 18 months pension delay when I was already saving to make up for a 3 year pension delay. In my case it was somewhat complicated by the fact that my youngest child didn't graduate until a few weeks after my 61st birthday so I had other financial demands at the same time.

Now I know that it was my choice to have a last child when I was getting on a bit but the two pension changes were not within my control. When they were announced two of my four children were still pre school so I think I did the best I could to make up for the first change. In fact I did enough because if it hadn't been for the second change I would have retired at 60.

I know the country is short of money, I don't expect to go back to pre 1995, I can even accept the second change but I don't think an increase in the SPA of 12 months should have resulted in anyone's SPA increasing by 18 months with little time to adapt. That strikes me as unfair and frankly bizarre.
I hope that clarifies my position.

jem16

mumps wrote: »

I know the country is short of money, I don't expect to go back to pre 1995, I can even accept the second change but I don't think an increase in the SPA of 12 months should have resulted in anyone's SPA increasing by 18 months with little time to adapt. That strikes me as unfair and frankly bizarre.
I hope that clarifies my position.

Pretty much like my own position ( although with different circumstances ) and my reason for not signing the petition as it wants to put the 1995 changes into the mix when I feel it should concentrate on the unfair 2011 changes.

Having now read the Facebook page though, I am glad that I chose not to sign the petition and listening to the founders' interview with the work and pensions committee has convinced me that they appear rather self serving rather than really looking to be "fair".

patanne

I have not been effected by either change as my SPA was several years earlier. I did not sign the petition for the simple reason that it included the 1995 changes, which I feel were applied reasonably. I would have signed if it was just about the 2011 changes, which I feel were applied unreasonably.