Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

Malthusian wrote: »

No, you cannot be responsible for something that you have no control over.

So, the government puts out a message and the media misinterprets that message, so government is powerless to do anything? Thats worrying.

Malthusian wrote: »

They have no way to ensure that every person has "got the message" without sending DWP agents to talk to every single one of them face to face (disproportionately expensive).

That's nonsensical.

If the greater majority has interpreted the message then is sufficient. If the greater majority does not, then the communication has been insufficient. Advertisers etc work to find out if their message is getting across. This is nothing new.

Malthusian wrote: »

The government's responsibility is to issue correct information, which they did.

When? I missed that.

They are trying to correct it now as per Ross Altman statement in November 2015.
.

Malthusian wrote: »

What you and WASPI are effectively demanding

Nope. Not sure if you read any of my posts but that would be incorrect. I'm not demanding anything.

Malthusian wrote: »

is that if the government announces that the personal allowance increases by 2%, and the illiterate hacks in all the major newspapers report an increase of 20%, the government is obliged to increase the personal allowance by 20% because that's what everyone thought they were going to get.

Nope incorrect again. My position has been put in many posts in a number of threads. I don't think there should be any change to the CO pension. I am getting what I knew I would get all along. The government led me to believe I would get the full state pension of £155 currently, for 35 years. I learned later that would not be the case. My pension is correct with my CO years. I am not asking that it should be more - you have got that totally wrong - yet you refer to the individual's responsibility to ascertain the facts!

I don't say anywhere that we should then get the full £155 just because the gov led me to believe this. I do blame the government for misleading and thus it erodes trust.

saver861

JezR wrote: »

Whether this emphasis was deliberate or not, it seems clear that it is now thought of as a mistake by the current government.

It's not the fault of this government - they have only been in since May. Its the fault of the sitting government of the day.

It terms of being deliberate, you will find it difficult to convince most people that governments don't have a strategy of getting news out, good or bad.

You need only refer back to Jo Moore and the 9/11 disaster 'good day to bury bad news' to see the thinking of those charged with the responsibility of getting news out.

greenglide

The personal pension estimate statements produced by the DWP added to the confusion. The starting amount was originally known as the foundation amount. The whole starting/foundation amount thing then got scrapped. Are we putting that as the fault of the media?

The "Foundation Amount" as it was initially known was renamed as the "Starting Amount" in 2014 and I believe this pre-dated the issue of any estimates of this by the Pensions Service. I wasnt aware of "The whole starting/foundation amount thing then got scrapped" - they are still issuing them now, albeit with minimal detail on them.

I find the whole matter farcical and am not at all impressed with MSE jumping on the bandwaggon - they are amongst the organisations that should have been banging on about this years ago, all of this was clearly known about in this forum but MSE seem not to realise this?

Maybe more concentration on matters other than PPI would not have gone amiss.......

JezR

saver861 wrote: »

It's not the fault of this government - they have only been in since May. Its the fault of the sitting government of the day.

That is actually what my meaning was! Shows how even simple things can be misunderstood or read a different way than was intended.

There was a period where the message was phrased in a way that everyone gets the single tier but those with a contracted out pension would have it delivered in part by their contracted out pension. It didn't last long, but may have added to rather than reduced confusion.

greenglide

There was a period where the message was phrased in a way that everyone gets the single tier but those with a contracted out pension would have it delivered in part by their contracted out pension.

These sorts of statements never work. People dont listen to the whole statement and the complicated bits tend to be lost by both sides. How many people know that their DB pension has the GMP inflation proofed in whole or in part by the State and that this ends with nSP?

JezR

The problem is that everything about pensions in the UK are complicated bits. There are arguably about 4 layers of changes playing themselves out at present with interacting positive and negative aspects to differing groups of people by age and gender and contribution amount / type.

saver861

greenglide wrote: »

I wasnt aware of "The whole starting/foundation amount thing then got scrapped" - they are still issuing them now, albeit with minimal detail on them.

Scrapped is probably not the right word. They are indeed issuing a reference to being contracted out but there is no mention of starting amounts etc. There is just the one figure.

greenglide wrote: »

I find the whole matter farcical and am not at all impressed with MSE jumping on the bandwaggon - they are amongst the organisations that should have been banging on about this years ago, all of this was clearly known about in this forum but MSE seem not to realise this?

Yes I would agree with this. Many are late to the party on this one. Whether you would now call it jumping on the bandwagon or giving support, albeit late, is open to opinion. I think the point that does seem to be overlooked by many is that had Waspi not started this ball rolling, there would be no discussion or debate, regardless of being in agreement or not.

The option was there to bang the drum about all of this long before Waspi came about but nobody took the lead.

greenglide wrote: »

Maybe more concentration on matters other than PPI would not have gone amiss.......

Certainly an opportunity missed.

saver861

JezR wrote: »

That is actually what my meaning was! Shows how even simple things can be misunderstood or read a different way than was intended.

Ironically I did understand your intended meaning and I was agreeing with you in your suggestion that it was deemed to be the fault of the current government. I was pointing out it was the fault of the sitting government of the day.

The written word will always be ambiguous and thus the greater emphasis on the need for clarity. Introduce figures and numbers into it and the message can get even messier!

greenglide wrote: »

These sorts of statements never work. People dont listen to the whole statement and the complicated bits tend to be lost by both sides. How many people know that their DB pension has the GMP inflation proofed in whole or in part by the State and that this ends with nSP?

This is true. Messages have to be readily interpreted by the general majority of the target audience, if not, it fails in its objective.

greenglide

Scrapped is probably not the right word. They are indeed issuing a reference to being contracted out but there is no mention of starting amounts etc. There is just the one figure.

But the one figure is the amount you start with - it is the Starting Amount (ignoring any S2P entitlement earned in the current year for people who are not contracted out).

saver861

greenglide wrote: »

But the one figure is the amount you start with - it is the Starting Amount (ignoring any S2P entitlement earned in the current year for people who are not contracted out).

Yes that is correct but the statements do not refer to it as the 'starting amount' any more.

My last statement is from November 2015 and it says We estimate your state pension will be [ ]. In my case £120.81.

There is an explanation about on the back page about the contracted out deductions.

The statements may have changed since again though!!