Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Figgerty

bmm78 wrote: »

The notion that the only references to the changes were in the broadsheets has been completely refuted.



The approach has clearly backfired. The negotiation principle only makes sense if the demands are in any way realistic, and that negotiations are actually taking place. They are not in a position where they are playing offer/counter-off with the government. It's either extremely naive of the founders, or complete incompetence from the guy that's supposed to be helping them run the campaign.

It has given the government an easy out, as shown when Altmann gave evidence to the W&P Committee. Making unreasonable and unrealistic demands leaves them open to being dismissed on that basis.

Much of the anti-WASPI sentiment is due to people taking exception to their demands, and their evasive approach to any criticism of them. It leaves them open to easy attack and detracts from what should be the main focus of the campaign.

Even Martin Lewis told them in no uncertain terms that they should scale down their demands as they were unachievable.

Perhaps they were wrong but asking for little gets even less. Our PM has the opportunity of visiting all EU leaders and discussing what he wants & then writing to Tusk spelling out his demands. I suppose the Select Committee hearing is the #WASPI way of seeing how their campaign is viewed by Parliament,

NB. I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

POPPYOSCAR

Figgerty wrote: »

Perhaps they were wrong but asking for little gets even less. Our PM has the opportunity of visiting all EU leaders and discussing what he wants & then writing to Tusk spelling out his demands. I suppose the Select Committee hearing is the #WASPI way of seeing how their campaign is viewed by Parliament,

NB. I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

I agree.


When entering into negotiations you would be a fool to ask for the minimum leaving no room for compromise.

saver861

Figgerty wrote: »

NB. I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

Same here.

Apparently a lot of others on here do too ..... some of those seem less intent on that but prefer to expend their efforts towards all the regurgitation of negativity.

Some attempt to create ... some can only demolish.

bmm78

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I agree.


When entering into negotiations you would be a fool to ask for the minimum leaving no room for compromise.

I'm really struggling to see the correlation between asking for the minimum/leaving no room for compromise, and not asking for £100bn.

There is a rather large middle-ground covering everything in between. They could have just asked for £50bn or so, and still had some wiggle room to work their way down to their minimum offer.


All of this does miss the point that neither WASPI nor the government are entering negotiations. The government's fixed starting point is that they are doing nothing - this has been repeated many times.

Figgerty

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.

I was aware of the equalisation from early on but the change was a long time away and the change was supposed to be phased in gradually. It was only when my health deteriorated that I made enquiries and discovered I would have to wait 3¾ years longer until 63¾. I was peeved but accepted it as my contribution to equality. The 2011 Act was not supposed to adversely effect the women caught by the 2011 Act so I did not pay too much attention to it as my brother was diagnosed with Leukaemia in 2011 and died in 2012. A few months after that my sister was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer and her health has been precarious since then. Basically, the 2011 Act changes went almost unnoticed by me until 2015.

saver861 wrote: »

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.

I disbelieved the £144 one/single tier new state pension when it was widely reported and made enquiries about this. If you went by the media reports you would be certain of that amount from it's introduction. Despite the inaccuracy, the Government did nothing to correct and clarify the situation. All in all the DWP/Government just can't get their communications right. And many of you doubt the fact that a lot of women were unaware of the 1995 Act changes. That was a time where you did not have access to the Internet or Google or the DWP websites as we almost all have today, provided we have and can use the technology.

colsten

Figgerty wrote: »

I didn't read serious newspapers, I watched the soaps every night and discussed TV, soap stars, pop songs, holidays etc. with the like minded woman I worked with.

I can only assume this is meant to be a light hearted comment.

Figgerty wrote: »

I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

This is light years more reasonable than the WASPI demands. Although it is worth remembering something quite similar was discussed in Parliament in 2011 and has led to a compromise that is anchored in the 2011 Pensions Act.

POPPYOSCAR

colsten wrote: »

I can only assume this is meant to be a light hearted comment.

This is light years more reasonable than the WASPI demands. Although it is worth remembering something quite similar was discussed in Parliament in 2011 and has led to a compromise that is anchored in the 2011 Pensions Act.

Why?


That is how some lead their lives. Each to their own.

Figgerty

colsten wrote: »

I can only assume this is meant to be a light hearted comment.

It shows how little we thought about serious topics at that time.

colsten wrote: »

I This is light years more reasonable than the WASPI demands. Although it is worth remembering something quite similar was discussed in Parliament in 2011 and has led to a compromise that is anchored in the 2011 Pensions Act.

This was one result of the compromise in the 2011 Act

DOB 13.12.1952 already receiving state pension from 06 Sept 2015

DOB 15.12.1953 future state pension date 06 March 2019

12 months difference in age results in 42 months additional wait for the state pension. This is one example of the inequality created by the 2011 Act.

Please check the timetable below to verify the above details.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf

missbiggles1

Figgerty wrote: »

I am one of these women and realised we were many when I heard some of the #Waspi womens stories.

I didn't read serious newspapers, I watched the soaps every night and discussed TV, soap stars, pop songs, holidays etc. with the like minded woman I worked with. We were not in highly skilled jobs nor had gold plated occupational pensions.

When you were in your 40s?

Anyway, as was mentioned earlier, the 1993 budget was covered thoroughly on TV and radio news (it always is) so the information was hard to miss, even for Daily Mail readers.

missbiggles1

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I agree.


When entering into negotiations you would be a fool to ask for the minimum leaving no room for compromise.

Except that you lose a lot of credibility by asking for something that's never going to happen and which large numbers of people don't support, like reversing the 1995 changes.