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

Chickereeeee

I think a LOT of people would sign a campaign that gave them the slim possibility of getting more (of other peoples) money, with no downside, as well.

Whether they DID know about the changes early or not....

C

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

In that case, I'm ashamed to be even remotely connected to them by the simple act of signing their petition.

If you're on Facebook try asking a question or making a comment and see how long it lasts.

Pollycat

Chickereeeee wrote: »

I think a LOT of people would sign a campaign that gave them the slim possibility of getting more (of other peoples) money, with no downside, as well.

Whether they DID know about the changes early or not....

C

Speaking for myself, I have more integrity than to do that.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

They're not actually interested in equality and fairness but only interested in achieving compensation for not getting their state pension at 60.

It matters not a jot what they are asking for. The point is they are petitioning for a debate - if there is a debate any outcomes will be decided by the MP's. They can ask for the Moon but its the MP's that will decide if they get the Moon, nothing or anything in between.

"It's something we should all take an interest in, as we need to establish a principle that these types of changes must be done the right way. That's why I support this petition, as a debate would bring proper parliamentary scrutiny of the way this episode has been handled."

These are Martin's own words on the first post in this thread!! And that is what its all about - getting a debate on the subject.

The logic of all of this is somewhat amusing.

An objection is that everyone should have known their pension was changing under the 1995 agreement. Thus no argument as the information was there for all and sundry!

Yet, some are saying the petition is done under somehow false pretences, as the WASPI Facebook states something different. However, the FB page was created 6 months ago, at least 4 months before the petition was created!! The information is there for all and sundry!!

As this is a consumer champion site, and most of the members on here are ordinary folk challenging the big guns etc. one might expect the ethos to carry through. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and judgements - exactly how it should be. However, I find the negative approach somewhat disappointing on such a forum.

Many say they find the 2011 arrangements unfair and that there should be some degree of reversal, either a 12 months maximum extension or the changes abolished for those that did not have 10 years notice. Yet, the whole thread has been dominated by what WASPI are asking for.

If people do not wish to support WASPI or the petition thats fine. But if the same people don't agree with the 2011 changes and the impact on some women, then why not but the efforts into doing something about that? WASPI don't have to come into it. If someone believes the 2011 changes are unfair - then they are unfair. Whatever WASPI is asking for does not somehow remove the unfairness of the 2011 changes.

People can take their own actions or with others to demonstrate their dissatisfaction to the 2011 changes if they don't agree. What WASPI is asking for, regardless of how irrelevant it is, it has no bearing of people taking action or contacting their MP etc regarding their view on the 2011 changes.

Personally, I will make my own judgements on a situation and take any actions accordingly. I'm not unduly influenced by WASPI or any other individual or body as such.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

It matters not a jot what they are asking for. The point is they are petitioning for a debate - if there is a debate any outcomes will be decided by the MP's. They can ask for the Moon but its the MP's that will decide if they get the Moon, nothing or anything in between.

"It's something we should all take an interest in, as we need to establish a principle that these types of changes must be done the right way. That's why I support this petition, as a debate would bring proper parliamentary scrutiny of the way this episode has been handled."

These are Martin's own words on the first post in this thread!! And that is what its all about - getting a debate on the subject.

The logic of all of this is somewhat amusing.

An objection is that everyone should have known their pension was changing under the 1995 agreement. Thus no argument as the information was there for all and sundry!

Yet, some are saying the petition is done under somehow false pretences, as the WASPI Facebook states something different. However, the FB page was created 6 months ago, at least 4 months before the petition was created!! The information is there for all and sundry!!

As this is a consumer champion site, and most of the members on here are ordinary folk challenging the big guns etc. one might expect the ethos to carry through. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and judgements - exactly how it should be. However, I find the negative approach somewhat disappointing on such a forum.

Many say they find the 2011 arrangements unfair and that there should be some degree of reversal, either a 12 months maximum extension or the changes abolished for those that did not have 10 years notice. Yet, the whole thread has been dominated by what WASPI are asking for.

If people do not wish to support WASPI or the petition thats fine. But if the same people don't agree with the 2011 changes and the impact on some women, then why not but the efforts into doing something about that? WASPI don't have to come into it. If someone believes the 2011 changes are unfair - then they are unfair. Whatever WASPI is asking for does not somehow remove the unfairness of the 2011 changes.

People can take their own actions or with others to demonstrate their dissatisfaction to the 2011 changes if they don't agree. What WASPI is asking for, regardless of how irrelevant it is, it has no bearing of people taking action or contacting their MP etc regarding their view on the 2011 changes.

Personally, I will make my own judgements on a situation and take any actions accordingly. I'm not unduly influenced by WASPI or any other individual or body as such.

Maybe for 'all and sundry' who are on Facebook - but not for those people who aren't.

I was not aware of the petition until I saw this thread.

I was not aware of the existence of anything on Facebook until quite a way into this thread.

Paul_Herring

saver861 wrote: »

However, the FB page was created 6 months ago, at least 4 months before the petition was created!! The information is there for all and sundry!!

A tad ironic, given the subject (or at least parts of it) under consideration... (You should have known to go to this page about pensions/the petition* you weren't personally told about, and has been around for ages - stop complaining because it wasn't spoon fed to you...)

*Delete as appropriate.

asaver

JezR wrote: »

The other changes made to state pensions over this period makes the issue of 'fairness' overall not so straightforward. For example those before the 2009 Act started to take force would have needed 39 years for a full basic SP whereas afterwards they would only need 30. Women in general tend to have a spottier NI contribution record than men and would have gained more out of the reduction - indeed it was aimed at this...
QUOTE]


It's worth mentioning here that to get the full amount of the new, supposedly more generous, state pension, you will need 35 years NI and also not have been contracted out at any time during your working life.

This affects many of us who have had our state pension age increased twice.

So my friend, slightly younger than me, who has worked hard as a carer for many years and may not be physically able to work right up to her new pension age, may end up with too few NI years.

While I, made redundant and unable to continue my career up to retirement age, will have the 35 NI years but will lose out by having been contracted out of state second pension.

saver861

Paul_Herring wrote: »

A tad ironic, given the subject (or at least parts of it) under consideration... (You should have known to go to this page about pensions/the petition* you weren't personally told about, and has been around for ages - stop complaining because it wasn't spoon fed to you...)

*Delete as appropriate.

As I said, the logic of it is lost on some!!!!!!

I think the conversation on WASPI has near exhausted itself at this stage. If people want to do something in reference to what they think is unfair they can. If they don't they don't have to.

Personally I don't think there is any mileage in getting something changed from the 1995 policy. I do think there is justification for having a reversal of the 2011 policy. WASPI's requests, FB, or any other comments have not swayed me from that.

What I did not expect was those who agree that there is unfairness in the 2011 policy do nothing other than repetitive disagreement of the WASPI thing. Do people refrain from voting if they do not agree with everything a party stands for?

Martin Lewis has supported WASPI and their intention to get a debate. That's his choice. However, that's also the nature of his business. He knows more about this kind of thing than I ever will as I, and most others on here, are laypeople in terms of specialist knowledge.

Martin also has an image to protect. His image is one of the thrusts of his business. He won't be likely to get behind anything that would tarnish that image.

As I say, the thread has gone beyond a debate on the validity or otherwise of WASPI. They are consumers as we all are. This site is about promoting the voice of the consumer and the nature of such campaigning.

Unfortunately, some prefer not to support the concept of that ethos.

jem16

asaver wrote: »

It's worth mentioning here that to get the full amount of the new, supposedly more generous, state pension, you will need 35 years NI and also not have been contracted out at any time during your working life.

It's also worth mentioning that anyone with 30 years and never contracted out will get more under the current regulations than they will with 35 years and not contracted out under the new regulations.

So my friend, slightly younger than me, who has worked hard as a carer for many years and may not be physically able to work right up to her new pension age, may end up with too few NI years.

How many years does she have and has she applied for a forecast to see what she would get?

While I, made redundant and unable to continue my career up to retirement age, will have the 35 NI years but will lose out by having been contracted out of state second pension.

You won't get any less than you would have got under current regulations. Have you got a forecast?

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

I do think there is justification for having a reversal of the 2011 policy.

Then do whatever you want to do to get it reversed, as the rest of us will do or not do as we feel appropriate.

I'm beginning to think your wife has a connection with WASPI the way you keep going on about it.

At least here we are allowed to make negative comments on their campaign if we so wish unlike on Facebook where such comments are deleted.