Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Al.

I like Paul and Jeff, they articulate well and although I don't always agree with them, they present a cogent contra-perspective. I agree that the WASPI petition, and that of the Facebook aspiration, are completely at odds with each other. Winding the click back, unilaterally, to age 60 for anyone born in the 1950s is a campaign that would have got nowhere. There is the faintest whiff of deception and smoke and mirrors about it all, and I'm surprised that so many find themselves drawn in without questioning the facts.

I don't get too involved, but I have seen Frances and other (many, female) highly respected commentators offering robust and objective scrutiny being subject to shocking and vilifying behaviour. The Twitter campaign has degenerated into something akin to marauding packs swooping on anyone who presents an opinion contrary to that of the campaign's, and invariably being subjected to hisses of scathing abuse. One 'contra' commentator was even subject to the threat of losing her job. I received a couple of PMs before and just after Xmas that surprised me in their vicious and myopic nature and I was even accused of being a woman hater. It's (at best) a depressing, chastening and sobering sight to see such obtuse and belligerent behaviour.

I accept completely that some should be afforded help and they need to be identified, and quickly. I tweeted Jeff last night that it's all very well wanting 'pension fairness for all', but shouldn't we also include Millennials and Generation X in that? Finally, I remember being aware of these changes in 1995 and as 'late' as 2004, a DWP report highlighted problems with communicating affairs, but that a sizeable proportion of women were aware. Despite that, it seems this is almost now, a campaign arguing for complete inequality, not transitional equality. There is, for instance, a knife edge for a lady born on 01/01/1960.. something we are told, which made the changes unfair in the first place.

https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/683065475908169730

saver861

Al. wrote: »

I don't get too involved, but I have seen Frances and other (many, female) highly respected commentators offering robust and objective scrutiny being subject to shocking and vilifying behaviour. The Twitter campaign has degenerated into something akin to marauding packs swooping on anyone who presents an opinion contrary to that of the campaign's, and invariably being subjected to hisses of scathing abuse. One 'contra' commentator was even subject to the threat of losing her job. I received a couple of PMs before and just after Xmas that surprised me in their vicious and myopic nature and I was even accused of being a woman hater. It's (at best) a depressing, chastening and sobering sight to see such obtuse and belligerent behaviour.

Unfortunately this is one of the big downsides to the social media era. This is a much bigger problem that needs to be dealt with and is not just something related to this campaign. Frequently we see examples of it from people with opposing views on any subject and some people seem to think it is a licence to behave reprehensibly.

The only point I would make on your comment is that you refer to the abuse as being only generated at those opposing the campaigns views. I think you would be naive to think the abuse does not flow in the other direction also.

Al. wrote: »

Finally, I remember being aware of these changes in 1995 and as 'late' as 2004, a DWP report highlighted problems with communicating affairs, but that a sizeable proportion of women were aware.

From my recollection I think around 72% said they were aware of the pension age was rising. However, I think only around 40% said they were aware of what their new pension age would be.

I don't see that as any form of justification for rolling back the 1995 changes. That is almost an irrelevant point as I don't see any adjustments being made to the 1995 changes.

However, in terms of communication, the current pension changes are causing some deal of confusion. The single tier pension has been discussed for the last three years or so, in this communications era and yet many are still confused. I don't really know the specifics of how things were communicated in 1995, but if the current circumstances are anything to go by then I can well believe many were left confused.

Al.

I have to say, I have seen no abuse at all going back in the other direction. Sure, robust appraisal etc, but no abuse. That's just from my circle though, I'm sure there are lots of other idiots out there as you suggest.

bmm78

MoneyWorry wrote: »

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.

The evidence given by the WASPI founders to the parliamentary committee was very weak in this area. In the majority of cases it would have made little or no difference to their overall financial position if they had been aware of the changes (before even taking into account that the majority were aware that the age was rising).

The main categories affected by the lack of notice are those that made life-changing decisions on the basis that they would have received their state pension at 60. However, before making such dramatic decisions it would surely be prudent to do some basic research into your likely state pension entitlement (amount as well as date payable).

The campaign continually stresses that it is about the lack of notice rather than the changes themselves. It then focuses on the impact of the changes, rather than the impact of the lack of notice. Highly disingenuous.

saver861

Al. wrote: »

I have to say, I have seen no abuse at all going back in the other direction. Sure, robust appraisal etc, but no abuse. That's just from my circle though, I'm sure there are lots of other idiots out there as you suggest.

I don't doubt what you say - however, you don't need to look just at this campaign to see the problems of such abuse both ways.

The added danger is that any side in any campaign referring to such abuse selectively only exasperates the underlying problem.

Goldiegirl

bmm78 wrote: »

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.

I agree with that, but you'd at least hope that these prominent media figures would get the facts right.


I read a Paul Lewis (WASPI supportive) blog, and he incorrectly stated that people with a date of birth up to 5/4/59 were having their SPA increased to 66. This is simply wrong - the date is 5/4/60.


One part of my hopes this was a genuine mistake. But the more cynical part of me thinks that this was an 'accidental on purpose' mistake. If he'd put the correct date, then it would reveal that it's not just 50's women that are affected, but ones born in early 1960 as well, not to mention those born from April 1960 onwards, when the age begins to rise to 67.


Of course, not to mention all the men that this affects!

Al. wrote: »

There is, for instance, a knife edge for a lady born on 01/01/1960.. something we are told, which made the changes unfair in the first place.

As a woman born on March 1960, this is a particular point of interest to me.


If WASPI got their way, you'd have a situation where, using my classmates at school as an example, you'd have one section, born up to 31/12/59, with the SPA returned to 60, the group born 1/1/60 to 5/4/60 would have a SPA of 66, and the remainder would see their SPA begin to climb toward 67.


This would clearly be absolutely bonkers, but I don't lose sleep over it, as it'll never happen.


But what does interest me is WASPI's response to this scenario that they are planning to happen, if they got their way. I've looked high and low on the internet and have found nothing. I'm fact, it appears they won't even allow the question to be asked, as questions like that are deleted from their Facebook page!

Pollycat

RickyB2000 wrote: »

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.

Exactly!
Not whether one woman has sufficient income to deal with the changes.

Not anything to do with child benefit either.

JezR

saver861 wrote: »

From my recollection I think around 72% said they were aware of the pension age was rising. However, I think only around 40% said they were aware of what their new pension age would be.

And in the 2004 survey 1 in 5 thought the women's SPA at the time was already 65.

The government position on the 2011 changes IIRC is that they were debated and democratically arrived at by Parliament.

RickyB2000

Pollycat wrote: »

Exactly!
Not whether one woman has sufficient income to deal with the changes.

Not anything to do with child benefit either.

No, that is the point. The amount of notice should correlate to the time needed for the majority of women to deal with the changes. If one or two can't deal with it, that does not mean we should reverse a policy that will cost tons of money by giving cash to the majority just to help the one or two. So the income question is important in determining the overall notice period required. If the majority of women would just carry on working anyway, then very little notice is needed. If the majority of women retired early under the expectation of a state pension and are now in trouble, then the notice period should be longer to mitigate this.

That doesn't mean those who can't should be left to starve either, but there is probably a cheaper why to help them.

POPPYOSCAR

OP you have achieved your aim.


The 100,000 has been reached.