Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

MoneyWorry

bmm78 wrote: »

Isn't a Westminster Hall debate a bit of a backward step?

WASPI think they are going to get another vote with everyone forced to be in attendance! I used to be a bit more up on politics and parliament back in the day and I thought Westminster Hall was where the appropriate Minister was just asked questions. I wasn't aware they took a vote, but I stand to be corrected.

jem16

MoneyWorry wrote: »

WASPI think they are going to get another vote with everyone forced to be in attendance! I used to be a bit more up on politics and parliament back in the day and I thought Westminster Hall was where the appropriate Minister was just asked questions. I wasn't aware they took a vote, but I stand to be corrected.

As far as I'm aware that's exactly what happens.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/westminster-hall-debates/

But yes WASPI think it's a full HOC debate with a vote - or at least their Facebook supporters think it is. I think they might be disappointed.

chris_m

bmm78 wrote: »

Isn't a Westminster Hall debate a bit of a backward step?

Wasn't the first one in Westminster Hall?

jem16

chris_m wrote: »

Wasn't the first one in Westminster Hall?

No it was in the Commons Chamber.

MoneyWorry

Maybe they think George and Dave are going to be there.......

chris_m

jem16 wrote: »

No it was in the Commons Chamber.

Thanks - I knew I'd seen something about a debate in WH, but I'd mixed this one up with the Ban Trump debate.

p00hsticks

audigex wrote: »

At least you know when you're retiring, eh?

The nub of the argument revolves around the fact that women born in 1953-54 thought they knew when they were retiring, but the dates were changed at relatively short notice in 2011....

mgdavid

I disagree; the nub of the argument is the validity of relatively.
Six or seven years is plenty of time to either prepare for working longer, or save more to retire early. Relative to something else is irrelevant IMO.

patanne

mgdavid wrote: »

I disagree; the nub of the argument is the validity of relatively.
Six or seven years is plenty of time to either prepare for working longer, or save more to retire early. Relative to something else is irrelevant IMO.

Really good to hear that you are in the position to save over 25% of your income to fund retirement. Unfortunately, many of the women affected have already had to 'retire' to care for elderly relatives that would have cost the taxpayer a small fortune to fund if they hadn't. But then to bring in the sexist arguement, not many men do this, it does tend to be women, doesn't it? So that's okay then.

p00hsticks

patanne wrote: »

Unfortunately, many of the women affected have already had to 'retire' to care for elderly relatives that would have cost the taxpayer a small fortune to fund if they hadn't.

Are there any figures to out there to substantiate your use of the word "many" here ?. Whilst even 1 would be unfortunate, WASPI would have us believe that pretty much every woman born in the 1950s has given up work prematurely either because they are caring or in poor health, and are on the breadline.

I know a number of FOI requests have been made to DWP as part of this campaign - does anyone know if any indicated how many in the affected age group are claiming Carers allowance and/or sickness or disability benefits such as ESA, DLA or PIP ?

If WASPI are exaggerating the number of women in this position, as I strongly suspect they are, then I think in many ways they are doing them a disservice, as providing some sort of assistance for a small number of women worst affected would stand much more chance of being achieved than the current WASPI demands that are simply too expensive for consideration.