Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

I do care about those who have ended up in serious financial difficulties over these changes and I do hope that something can be done to help them. However I do not agree that this help should be given to EVERY 1950s woman regardless of financial circumstances.

The 2011 Act is a different thing and left some women and men with less notice than should have happened. This really only applies to 1953 to 1956 born though.

Excellent. We agree.

Now, what have you done that might help effect some changes to the 2011 Act? What do you think others should do that are in agreement with you?

jem16 wrote: »

For those born 1953 to 1956 again I'd like to see some help but again not everyone in that age group needs it.

As above, what should people do to help bring this about?

You can't be saying that help should go to those that need it but, if it means going to some less needy also, then you would deprive the needy just so as the less needy don't get anything? Surely not?

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

You can't be saying that help should go to those that need it but, if it means going to some less needy also, then you would deprive the needy just so as the less needy don't get anything? Surely not?

Quite the opposite in fact, as well you know. I want those that need it to get the help they need. If others get help too then that's a bonus but one that doesn't look very likely.

The Waspi view is that everyone should get and they have ruled out means testing as a possible outcome. They have also ruled out every option so far suggested as it does not meet their "demands".

So if anyone is endangering the help for the needy, it's Waspi.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The Waspi view is that everyone should get and they have ruled out means testing as a possible outcome. They have also ruled out every option so far suggested as it does not meet their "demands".

So if anyone is endangering the help for the needy, it's Waspi.

But you see, the Government do not give into 'demands' from any group - not should they, if they did there would anarchy.

So WASPI can demand all they like but as in any disagreement, they may not get it all, some or any of what they are asking.

So, it is then down to the Government to make concessions if they feel there is a case for the needy. As many seem to agree there is a case for the needy and those impacted most negatively by the 2011 Act, then what are people doing about that to help sway the government? Going back to the WASPI thing all the time is just a cop out.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

But you see, the Government do not give into 'demands' from any group - not should they, if they did there would anarchy.

So WASPI can demand all they like but as in any disagreement, they may not get it all, some or any of what they are asking.

So, it is then down to the Government to make concessions if they feel there is a case for the needy. As many seem to agree there is a case for the needy and those impacted most negatively by the 2011 Act, then what are people doing about that to help sway the government? Going back to the WASPI thing all the time is just a cop out.

Well, as the most active and visible campaign group, perhaps Waspi should hold up its hands and say "Sorry guys, we got it wrong about the 1995 changes but now let's all unite in support of those most adversely affected by the 2011 legisation" instead of shooting down anybody who takes the latter position?

However, that isn't going to happen because -
a. They aren't going to accept that they're wrong.
b. That wouldn't give the leaders a nice little windfall.
c. None of the comfortably off supporters would get anything.

If anybody were to try and set up a campaign on behalf of those suffering hardship because of the 2011 changes, they'd not only be fighting the government but Waspi itself.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

As many seem to agree there is a case for the needy and those impacted most negatively by the 2011 Act, then what are people doing about that to help sway the government?

Well if the government doesn't need to give in to the demands of any group, what would be the point?

Going back to the WASPI thing all the time is just a cop out.

So if you disagree with how WASPI is conducting its campaign, it's a cop out.

atush

So, born early in the academic year you get to take your O levels or GCSEs when you're a few months off turning 17. A girl born in July has to do them before she's even 16.
Not sure I recognise the world you live in - I am a late summer born and so is one of my sons. I was the youngest in my class all through school. I did not feel disadvantaged, nor did my son.

Girls always historically out performed boys at the 11 plus so that numbers had to be 'adjusted' to equalise those qualifying for grammar school places.

Still, good to hear you are so HAPPY for women to wait till 65 (or almost 66 for me) so I'll 'suck it up' and at least I've lived longer than my mother, who died at 52.

You dont recognize my world? I surely dont recognize yours. I read newspapers, watch TV news, read books. Never read hello (well may have seen it in the hairdressers when they didnt have anything else lol).

Yes, I am proud to say, as a woman born in the 60s, raised to be whatever I wanted to be and that i was equal to a man- to be equal in retirement to men. Sure, not happy that I have to wait til over 66 for my state pension (nearly 67). Not happy my husband has to either. But happy to outlive my parents and collect my pensions for longer.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

However, that isn't going to happen because -
a. They aren't going to accept that they're wrong.
b. That wouldn't give the leaders a nice little windfall.
c. None of the comfortably off supporters would get anything.

But the general consensus is that WASPI will not get any changes to the 1995 Act. That would be my reading too.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If anybody were to try and set up a campaign on behalf of those suffering hardship because of the 2011 changes, they'd not only be fighting the government but Waspi itself.

Nope - we are in a democracy. That means any group can set up and make a campaign. The opposite to that is an authoritarian state where you would be persecuted for doing the same. Which would you prefer.

You are fighting for what you think should change i.e. 2011 Act not other bodies or parties. As it stands, the only chance of anything going to the most needy and those impacted by the 2011 changes will be down to WASPI, if indeed anything at all is given.

jem16 wrote: »

Well if the government doesn't need to give in to the demands of any group, what would be the point?

The Government has the final say. That's why we elect them. They are servants. If a case is made they make a decision on the merits of that, considering many wider aspects, such as public opinion and the impact on their own standing etc.

If you start a campaign to remove Monday's from the working week, you can do. It's unlikely to have success as it will not have public opinion nor will it impact remotely on the Government if they completely ignore it.

jem16 wrote: »

So if you disagree with how WASPI is conducting its campaign, it's a cop out.

To continually refer negatively to the WASPI campaign, yet state that there should be some changes to help the needy and to those impacted most by the 2011 Act, without showing any positive action to effect those changes, is a cop out.

In other words, continually decrying WASPI but saying that there are many who are deserving of help, but yet not doing anything to bring that help about is forked tongue speak.

slightlymiffed

atush wrote: »

You dont recognize my world? I surely dont recognize yours. I read newspapers, watch TV news, read books. Never read hello (well may have seen it in the hairdressers when they didnt have anything else lol).

Yes, I am proud to say, as a woman born in the 60s, raised to be whatever I wanted to be and that i was equal to a man- to be equal in retirement to men. Sure, not happy that I have to wait til over 66 for my state pension (nearly 67). Not happy my husband has to either. But happy to outlive my parents and collect my pensions for longer.

Maybe you missed my post which explained that I worked in the media in the 1990's (media is TV, radio and print btw). The reference to Hello mag was irony - completely lost I fear in this particular thread. Actually, I too have never read Hello mag but I thought it fitted my perceived persona. Incidentally, among the 'hundreds' of articles and information in newspapers and magazines about changes to state pension age in the 1990's, some apparently were in TV listings magazines. Maybe any future changes to women's state pension age may very well be in highbrow mags like Hello mag! (irony).

I am 'proud to say', as a woman born in the 50's, raised to try to forge a career but having to settle, in the 1970's, to get a 'job' because there was no real equality in the workplace, no equal pay, poor promotion prospects, generally no pension provision for women, no statutory maternity pay, no childcare provision and women, whatever their educational achievements were all too often perceived as little more than office totty.

You are very lucky tush, yours and my life experiences are clearly very different so it is quite sad that you are happy for me and other 1950's women to 'suck it up' in the name of equality.

And before I am accused of not believing in equality; I do but it has to be achieved gradually and not by dumping the biggest burden on a particular cohort of women who have not experienced equality themselves for a good part of their lives and who, with little or no notice, are also those least able to make alternative plans.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Nope - we are in a democracy. That means any group can set up and make a campaign. The opposite to that is an authoritarian state where you would be persecuted for doing the same. Which would you prefer.

You are fighting for what you think should change i.e. 2011 Act not other bodies or parties. As it stands, the only chance of anything going to the most needy and those impacted by the 2011 changes will be down to WASPI, if indeed anything at all is given.

For the umpteenth ( and quite frankly last as far as you're concerned ) time there is already a group fighting against the 2011 changes. It has been around since 2010 and took a back seat when Waspi came along so that it wouldn't harm that campaign.

After how that group has been treated recently by Waspi co-founders, they are not sitting back any longer.

If anything does happen, it will be down to the more sensible 2011 group and not Waspi. If you wish to believe differently then that is your prerogative just as it is mine to think the Waspi campaign has not been run well.

slightlymiffed

saver861 wrote: »

Just out of interest - who is the 'us'??????????

Do explain ...

I thought exactly the same! Is there some sort of cabal at work here? - to which you clearly don't belong as you have an open mind.