Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

Silvertabby
Fortunately for me, the additional 15 months hasn't caused me personally any financial hardship but I know it has done so for some women (not the champagne-swilling, first-class-travelling face of WASPI though) & I too would have supported any financial help for those women in financial need. Even though I would not have benefited myself.

Same here, Polly. I was 39 when when the 1995 increases were published, which was plenty of time to factor the changes into my retirement planning. The 2011 increase of one year was annoying, but still didn't stop me from (comfortably) retiring at 60.

However, I have friends for whom the additional 18 months - at much less notice - is a cause of hardship and it's sad to think that things could have been eased if only GRASPI had just campaigned against the 2011 changes for 1953/1954 ladies. Just amending the minimum notice to 10 years (which I believe is now the case) would have been a huge help.

Mr S gets his State pension early next year - but as he reached pension credit age at 63 and 3 months he gets 2 years of the winter fuel allowance and NI credits from then. If WFA was means tested, then we wouldn't qualify - but it could mean that more money could be directed to those who really need it. In our case we give £100 each to 2 family members who need it more than we do. I bet if GRASPI's husbands get the same they just grab it with both hands.. After all, a crate of Bolly isn't cheap!

jem16

Nual wrote: »

3. Women continue to be the ones who keep the household running and carry the domestic burden in 90%+ of cases

So you’re saying that the man earning money has nothing to do with keeping the household running at all?

4. Women continue to be the main carers for elderly/ disabled family members in 90%+ of cases

Do you have any links that prove either of these assertions or is it just another made up claim like many?

According to this, 42% of careers are male and 58% are female.

https://carers.org/key-facts-about-carers-and-people-they-care

atush

I think signing this petition is a load of codswallop.

My husband and I have both been affected by the changes, me for both changes, and he for the second. But we got on with planning and sucked it up.

I too would have supported the ladies born in 53/54 but Graspi didnt ask for that.

and I too would support means testing of the WFA, even if it meant I wouldnt get any.

Pollycat

atush wrote: »

I think signing this petition is a load of codswallop.

My husband and I have both been affected by the changes, me for both changes, and he for the second. But we got on with planning and sucked it up.

I too would have supported the ladies born in 53/54 but Graspi didnt ask for that.

and I too would support means testing of the WFA, even if it meant I wouldnt get any.

The petition has been closed for ages.
It ran for 6 months, got enough signatures and was debated in Parliament in Feb 2016.
I signed it at the time - and regretted it when someone on here made me aware of the true WASPI 'ask' as posted on Facebook - which was very different to what the petition said.
Duplicitous by WASPI is the kindest thing I can say.

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Thank you for posting the link.

Have signed it for them.

Not sure how you managed that as the petition was closed around 2 years ago.

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

The petition has been closed for ages.
It ran for 6 months, got enough signatures and was debated in Parliament in Feb 2016.

The petition link contained in post #1188 that has resurrected this thread yet again isn't to the original petition - this one has a deadline of March 2018, although it's already been debated in December 2017 (presumably when it reached 100,000 signatures).

POPPYOSCAR

Pollycat wrote: »

The petition has been closed for ages.
It ran for 6 months, got enough signatures and was debated in Parliament in Feb 2016.
I signed it at the time - and regretted it when someone on here made me aware of the true WASPI 'ask' as posted on Facebook - which was very different to what the petition said.
Duplicitous by WASPI is the kindest thing I can say.


Not sure how you managed that as the petition was closed around 2 years ago.

No not this one. It is still open.

Actually you can still sign it as it does not close until
"Deadline
13 March 2018
All petitions run for 6 months
Get petition data (json format)"

It has already reached the 100000 and was debated on 17th december 2017.

Pollycat

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

[/B]

No not this one. It is still open.

Actually you can still sign it as it does not close until
"Deadline
13 March 2018
All petitions run for 6 months
Get petition data (json format)"

It has already reached the 100000 and was debated on 17th december 2017.

It may still be open but it was debated in December 2017.
Is there any point in signing it?

None of these petitions have got WASPI anywhere.
And no amount of petitions and rallies are going to change that.
Whipping the proverbial deceased equine.

POPPYOSCAR

Pollycat wrote: »

It may still be open but it was debated in December 2017.
Is there any point in signing it?

None of these petitions have got WASPI anywhere.
And no amount of petitions and rallies are going to change that.
Whipping the proverbial deceased equine.

You admit you were wrong then and obviously did not read the post and link properly?


I found it ironic that the link was posted by someone anti WASPI in Jan 2018 thereby reviving the whole thread again for no good reason.

Pollycat

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

You admit you were wrong then and obviously did not read the post and link properly?


I found it ironic that the link was posted by someone anti WASPI in Jan 2018 thereby reviving the whole thread again for no good reason.

Yes. I was on my phone. I sometimes find it difficult to follow threads and links.

But at least I didn't sign a petition that had already been debated.
So maybe you were wrong too. :whistle:

redux

I wouldn't sign any government petition from now on, or since a few months ago, after their blunder in emailing respondents to one so they could all see each other's email addresses, which has caused occasional unsolicited spam since then.