Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

SnowMan

Al. wrote: »

Frances Coppola blogged on this (on Dec 29th) thoughtfully and concisely. I agree with her points. In respect of redress, there will be some who have a genuine case for assistance. But a unilateral rewinding of the clock is unfair and not, as has been suggested, 'fair'.

http://www.coppolacomment.com/2015/12/here-i-stand-i-can-do-no-other.html

Thanks for posting that up, that's a wonderfully reasonable and articulate summary of the situation.

On a weekly basis I come across people who are genuinely unable to work due to sickness or disability, usually people in their 50s or early 60s who have significant mobility and care needs who have been turned down for help when claiming Employment and Support Allowance or Personal Independence Payment. This can result in these benefits, which may be of the same rough size as state retirement pension stopping with no notice at all (not 10 years notice, not 7 years notice but no notice at all). People can't afford to pay for care, and mobility vehicles that are some people's lifeline are effectively taken away.

We help people independently appeal these decisions with a very high success rate, in many cases changing the award from 'no benefit' to 'enhanced' not just 'standard' rate of benefit; the system itself isn't particularly unreasonable but it is the way that the medical assessment has been made by discredited organisations such as ATOS which causes the issues. However many because of their conditions don't have the fight to appeal and many don't come to us or other organisations who can help and don't appeal.

So it is great to see Frances mention the flawed ATOS testing (and the failure to go back to redo the medical assessments properly or even do them properly now) and then go on to say

And if course if a woman gave up (or lost) her job expecting SP at 60, she is now unemployed and facing the brutal JSA and ESA regimes. These are the angriest and most frightened ladies, and with reason. I have huge sympathy for them. But I've already said, here and elsewhere, that these benefits regimes desperately need adjusting. They are far too harsh, not just for ladies in their 60s but for everyone. So we should adjust them, not compensate these women while neglecting men and younger people. Similarly, women who are carers should claim carer's allowance, another benefit that desperately needs reform - for a 35 hour week it pays £62.10, which is far below the current minimum wage let alone the new Living Wage. The hardships faced by WASPI women are an opportunity to fix the benefits system. I'm really disappointed that WASPI ignores this and chooses instead to pursue an impossible goal.

It is sad to see the lack of high profile people having the courage to point out the significant flaws in the WASPI campaign (like Frances has done). I guess it is difficult for them to say that 'the emperor is wearing no clothes'.

jem16

SnowMan wrote: »

It is sad to see the lack of high profile people having the courage to point out the significant flaws in the WASPI campaign (like Frances has done). I guess it is difficult for them to say that 'the emperor is wearing no clothes'.

Totally agree with this but I wonder why it is.

Frances seems to have looked past the petition which paints a totally different picture to that of their "real" aim. She can see that giving compensation to every 1950s woman regardless of circumstances ( or even whether they actually knew of the 1995 changes ) is neither "fair nor transitional" and is not the answer.

What worries me is why the likes of Martin Lewis, Paul Lewis and Jeff Prestridge cannot see that. Yet we have Frances Coppola and Ros Altmann being harassed on Twitter because they can see the problems with the campaign and WASPI are annoyed with them for not supporting them.

saver861

SnowMan wrote: »

It is sad to see the lack of high profile people having the courage to point out the significant flaws in the WASPI campaign (like Frances has done). I guess it is difficult for them to say that 'the emperor is wearing no clothes'.

Most people agree that the 1995 arrangements should remain as they were, even though WASPI are campaigning to have them changed.

However, it seems an even higher percentage of people also agree that the 2011 changes were badly done and gave people too short notice. The question then is, why were these people not asking that question before WASPI came along? If that had been the case, then the total focus would be on the 2011 changes.

As it was, nobody raised the issue. WASPI came along and raised it along with the 1995 changes. Too many then come out of the woodwork and say no, that's not right, I'm against it.

Rather than it being difficult for them to say 'the emperor is wearing no clothes' they are simply reactionary. As I said before, easier to destroy than create.

patanne

jem16 wrote: »

Totally agree with this but I wonder why it is.

Frances seems to have looked past the petition which paints a totally different picture to that of their "real" aim. She can see that giving compensation to every 1950s woman regardless of circumstances ( or even whether they actually knew of the 1995 changes ) is neither "fair nor transitional" and is not the answer.

What worries me is why the likes of Martin Lewis, Paul Lewis and Jeff Prestridge cannot see that. Yet we have Frances Coppola and Ros Altmann being harassed on Twitter because they can see the problems with the campaign and WASPI are annoyed with them for not supporting them.

Maybe they just read what they expected to read. When I went to read it I expected to read about the 2011 changes. When I actually read it I realised that it wasn't about that at all but the 1995 changes. I wonder how many have signed it thinking they are signing about the 2011 changes. People read 'go and sign this petition' and they have in their minds just what it is that they are going to sign and I am sure a lot of the time they don't actually read the petition itself and just go by what they have been told it is about. I went to sign it - I didn't! I left it feeling 'I almost got conned there'

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Rather than it being difficult for them to say 'the emperor is wearing no clothes' they are simply reactionary. As I said before, easier to destroy than create.

That paints an even worse picture of them if that's the case.

Ros Altmann did do something about the 2011 changes - it was she who got it reduced from 2 years to 18 months for 1953/54 women. She tried to get it further but the government said no more would be done.

Now she is being vilified by WASPI in particular and one or two others who've jumped on the bandwagon.

RickyB2000

Pollycat wrote: »

But it isn't just affecting 'wealthy pensioners'.
It's affecting a certain group of women (who had already - or should have - been aware of the putting back of their state pension age as part of the equilisation process in 1995) who were then told that their SPA was being put back again by as much as 18 months.

That is the topic that is being discussed.

The topic is whether enough notice was given to these people. There is a view that 10 years notice should be given (supported by government recommendation). However, if it goes back for debate, a possible outcome could be that 10 years was actually too much and the recommendation should be altered. To say 5 years or 3 years. I can't see anything that explains why 10 years was chosen (there are some post here that give reasonable sounding explanations). For me, how this policy impacts women financially at this age is a key question in determining if 10 years notice is correct. I don't think saying, oh, I was looking forward to retiring and now I have to work a bit longer is a good justification for compensation.

In terms of fairness related to paying in, everyone should get, on average (due to to some dying old and some young) the same total lifetime state pension / NI year. The system has long been out of kilter on this point.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

That paints an even worse picture of them if that's the case.

Of the people that remained silent prior to WASPI but are now saying they agree the 2011 changes are not fair.

Why did these people not speak before WASPI. If they had done, there would then be a campaign solely on adopting the 2011 changes.

jem16 wrote: »

Ros Altmann did do something about the 2011 changes - it was she who got it reduced from 2 years to 18 months for 1953/54 women. She tried to get it further but the government said no more would be done.

Yes but why then was there no further push from all of the people that still think the 2011 changes are unfair. Just looking at the posts on this forum, it is repeated time and time again by the vast majority that they think the 2011 changes are too rushed for those impacted. That is a representative view.

But nobody raised the issue either those in high office or elsewhere.

patanne

saver861 wrote: »

Of the people that remained silent prior to WASPI but are now saying they agree the 2011 changes are not fair.

Why did these people not speak before WASPI. If they had done, there would then be a campaign solely on adopting the 2011 changes.



Yes but why then was there no further push from all of the people that still think the 2011 changes are unfair. Just looking at the posts on this forum, it is repeated time and time again by the vast majority that they think the 2011 changes are too rushed for those impacted. That is a representative view.

But nobody raised the issue either those in high office or elsewhere.

I would suppose because we are not organised. Even if I had the faintest idea how to start a petition, without a means of getting it OUT THERE there would have been little point as it would never have got the signatures.

bmm78

jem16 wrote: »

What worries me is why the likes of Martin Lewis, Paul Lewis and Jeff Prestridge cannot see that. Yet we have Frances Coppola and Ros Altmann being harassed on Twitter because they can see the problems with the campaign and WASPI are annoyed with them for not supporting them.

I think it's fair to say that people usually have an agenda. Details aren't really important for campaigners and consumer champions, and they can be very selective about what they say they support and avoid any difficult questions. At this point, there isn't really much for any media commentators to gain from exposing WASPI.

Ironically Ros herself was very adept at this in her previous life. She would often come out with some headline-grabbing but highly contentious statements, which the media gleefully gobbled up without questioning.

There appears to be some very unpleasant characters connected to WASPI. Some of the activities on social media go well beyond what is necessary to promote the campaign.

MoneyWorry

The main point we are not getting to with the campaign is what these women would have done with more notice and the answer now appears to be very little. Most are saying they do not have any other pensions/savings etc as they had children, large mortgages. You don't have to be particularly financially savvy to know that one day you will not work, but you still need money. And most of us would agree, you need more than just the state pension.
I have some sympathy for the ones most affected with birth dates between 1953 and 1954, but not with just anybody who happens to be born in the 1950's.
Unfortunately, the campaign has become rather messy with many women now saying they had the 2011 notification, but not the 1995 so they want to be compensated back to age 60.
Bizarrely though, one poster reckoned they left their partner on the proviso of getting their state pension early.....will be interesting to see if the government come up with a solution for that one.