Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair
Options
Comments
-
I think you kid yourself if you think the campaign has any serious traction.
Well it depends on what you term as serious traction. Initially the government might have intended to dismiss this issue with the wave of a hand. I make the premise that it has gone past that stage. There may be no concessions at the end of it but equally, its not as easily dismissed as it might have been.
The one thing all governments know is that pensioners and those in or around that age are the most likely voters. All governments try hard not to upset them! Thus, this thing has gained much more ground than they would like.
Equally, pensions are the topic of the moment and will be for some time. There may be no concessions on this particularly issue, but equally they know if they don't provide something that looks like a concession, it will leave a lingering taste in the mouths of some. Pensions issues other than this are very much on the agenda and they know its a slippery item in terms of voter good will. The topic of pensions is likely to be on the agenda for the duration of this parliament in some form, thus this issue may keep popping its head up.
I think you might kid yourself if you don't think this is a thorn in the side for them now, as opposed to something they could have dismissed easily.
In addition, the SNP are conducting a very clever marketing campaign for their party and this is one of the vehicles they are using for that purpose. As it stands, they are not going to let a marketing opportunity slide away so easily.You might want to start by looking up John Ralfe's page
I had already read John Ralfes piece and he says that some concessions should be made rather than the government trying to tough it out - thus that it had gained sufficient traction to need to do something to appease those protesting. His view is that the those from 1953 to 1956 should have their 18 months extension removed. I'm agreeing with him so I'm not entirely sure of your point.to see the responses to the article I linked to,and also to Ros Altmann's,who encouraged by the WASPI leaders, is subject to a constant stream of vilification and ill informed criticism.I find it pretty shocking ,tbh.
If you are referring to Twitter abuse, I have said before, that is a much bigger problem than this pension issue. Online abuse is unacceptable and has the potential to lead to much greater problems. That is not something specific to this campaign - it is occurring daily on a whole host of issues.
If you think it comes from just one side then you are mistaken. Its equally abhorrent whichever side it comes from. Those that believe it comes only from their opposing side are, unfortunately, blind. If you are saying that the WASPI leaders are encouraging such abuse then I'm assuming you have valid evidence of that. If so, and you want support for a complaint then I will support you.0 -
p00hsticks wrote: »That's (IMO) a reasonable view to take.
However, it's not what WASPI is campaigning for or what their petition is asking for.
I suggest that if you hold that opinion then you do what I have - write to your MP pointing out that the 2011 changes gave some women less than ten years notice of changes but also that you oppose WASPI's demands that the 1995 and 2011 changes are 'unwound' for all '50's women.
you can e-mail your MP here;
https://www.writetothem.com/
I have written to my MP twice on this subject. Once before the Select Committee and again about a week later,.
I have pointed out how the 2011 Act changes effect me and also the fact that someone exactly one year older is getting her SP 3½ years before I become eligible for mine. I also stated that I accepted the changes in the 1995 Act where my SPA was 63¾ and did not want that reversed or changed. The only response I had was an email from an assistant asking for my full name and address. My MP is a Minister of State so she may not wish to go against the DWP position. It is much easier for an opposition MP to rebel.Some Burke bloke quote: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing. :silenced:0 -
Why should all 1953 to 1956 women have their 18 months extension removed? Many of them are still active in working life / own their own companies / do not consider the additional 18 months an issue.His view is that the those from 1953 to 1956 should have their 18 months extension removed. I'm agreeing with him so I'm not entirely sure of your point.
But leaving those questions aside: how much would this cost? who would be paying for it?0 -
p00hsticks wrote: »That's (IMO) a reasonable view to take.
However, it's not what WASPI is campaigning for or what their petition is asking for.
But all the threads on here are predominantly about what WASPI are doing badly. Many of the same people are saying there should be changes to the 2011 policy etc. Yet all that is coming out of the threads is what WASPI are doing.
Why not expend efforts on getting something done about the 2011 changes rather than constant regurgitation of the negative.p00hsticks wrote: »I suggest that if you hold that opinion then you do what I have - write to your MP pointing out that the 2011 changes gave some women less than ten years notice of changes but also that you oppose WASPI's demands that the 1995 and 2011 changes are 'unwound' for all '50's women.
Perfectly sensible. Lets get all those of the same mind doing the same.Thank you for your permission.
Don't mention it ... be my guest.Err..campaign on that basis. Not on something completely different. Not disingenuously trying the widen the target for the petition to get more support from those with a vested interest.
Instead appeal to peoples' sense of justice, use arguments like "if the govt get away with raising the SPA of this group with under 10 years notice, they could do it to you". Not call the campaign the ridiculous name of Waspi when it's campaigning for extending inequality, and when the 10 years notice issue applies to men as well.
Excellent - then that would be proactive and positive. It does not have to have anything to do with WASPI - people can attempt to effect change if they so wish - those that persistently offer nothing other than what WASPI are doing wrong is beyond farcical now.
Equally there are some on here who have said there should be no changes to any policy either 1995 or 2011. I would fully respect that point of view. Those people have merit in their convictions regardless of whether I agree or not.0 -
When your demands are unreasonable you are easily dismissed.Well it depends on what you term as serious traction. Initially the government might have intended to dismiss this issue with the wave of a hand. I make the premise that it has gone past that stage. There may be no concessions at the end of it but equally, its not as easily dismissed as it might have been.
Under 0.2% of the population bothered signing a petition? They won't be too worried.The one thing all governments know is that pensioners and those in or around that age are the most likely voters. All governments try hard not to upset them! Thus, this thing has gained much more ground than they would like.
Yeah because the Tories will be really worried about that. All those Scottish seats they might lose :rotfl:Equally, pensions are the topic of the moment and will be for some time. There may be no concessions on this particularly issue, but equally they know if they don't provide something that looks like a concession, it will leave a lingering taste in the mouths of some. Pensions issues other than this are very much on the agenda and they know its a slippery item in terms of voter good will. The topic of pensions is likely to be on the agenda for the duration of this parliament in some form, thus this issue may keep popping its head up.
I think you might kid yourself if you don't think this is a thorn in the side for them now, as opposed to something they could have dismissed easily.
In addition, the SNP are conducting a very clever marketing campaign for their party and this is one of the vehicles they are using for that purpose. As it stands, they are not going to let a marketing opportunity slide away so easily.
The SNP are widely credited with the Tory election win. People in "middle England" were scared of a Labour/SNP coalition. The SNP doing well in Scotland is to the Tories advantage, as it makes Labour weaker and it makes "middle England" scared.0 -
This is a discussion group. If people think WASPI are doing wrong they'll say so. Just as they will if they think the govt are doing wrong.Excellent - then that would be proactive and positive. It does not have to have anything to do with WASPI - people can attempt to effect change if they so wish - those that persistently offer nothing other than what WASPI are doing wrong is beyond farcical now.
The implication that you shouldn't criticise WASPI just because you haven't started your own campaign group is as ridiculous as saying you shouldn't criticise the govt unless you've started your own political party :rotfl:0 -
Why should all 1953 to 1956 women have their 18 months extension removed? Many of them are still active in working life / own their own companies / do not consider the additional 18 months an issue.
But leaving those questions aside: how much would this cost? who would be paying for it?
You should start your own campaign. I'm sure there are many who think like you.Some Burke bloke quote: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing. :silenced:0 -
Why should all 1953 to 1956 women have their 18 months extension removed? Many of them are still active in working life / own their own companies / do not consider the additional 18 months an issue.
The point is I think that those who had less than 10 years notice would have those changes reversed. Thus 'everyone' gets 10 years notice.
Many might be company owners - I think you will find many are not too!! As always, nobody has to take their pension if they don't want to. Redirect it wherever they like. Just because company directors don't see it as an issue does not mean its not an issue for the less affluent.0 -
I had already read John Ralfes piece and he says that some concessions should be made rather than the government trying to tough it out - thus that it had gained sufficient traction to need to do something to appease those protesting. His view is that the those from 1953 to 1956 should have their 18 months extension removed. I'm agreeing with him so I'm not entirely sure of your point.
I was asking that you read the response on Twitter to this piece and regarding Ros Altmann.Clearly you have not done so.
I am not going to quote Twitter responses here but the majority are not positive - it would only help 500,000 of the women affected,nothing for those past the the cut off date.All for one and one for all etc
Likewise,of course there is no active encouragement of online abuse.But a default position that Altmann should support the petition ( and does not because she has changed her colours ) does encourage a view that she is a turncoat and consequent responses
Do read ,it is illuminating
To address your more generic point .and this has been discussed to death,there is the contradiction at the heart of what WASPI are saying between the petition wording and the campaign aims.
Stand alone,the petition is an anodyne expression of dissatisfaction at communication of the SPA changes.This is not illegitimate and submissions to Frank Field's committee could be regarded as a service to how to better communicate in the future
However the WASPI campaign is asking Government ( =taxpayers) to take in excess £100 bn of expenditure and donate it to a specific group of women regardless of need .
As Waspi refuse to divorce the petition from the campaign "ask" ,then it is is incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with that level of expenditure ,for that reason,to withstand it.Disagree ?
To echo others, at these levels of treasury cost it is not negotiation and I am bemused why you think it might be.
If there is some loosening of the purse strings ,then let it be to those who ( men and women ) who are most in need in their sixties.Such a view is diagonally opposite to the Waspi campaign and I believe this needs to be said.
You appear to be impaled upon your high horse.From that height you get a great view,but it might be time to come off it ?0 -
Under 0.2% of the population bothered signing a petition?
Yeah ... garbage number really ... 0.2% ..... I mean .... and of course don't forget 0.19999999999999 % signed it under false pretences apparently ...... which really means there was only 0.000000001% who knew what they were doing.
This means only 4.75 people made valid signatures. Not even a round 5.They won't be too worried. Yeah because the Tories will be really worried about that. All those Scottish seats they might lose :rotfl:
The SNP wont be worrying - they have their own agenda.This is a discussion group. If people think WASPI are doing wrong they'll say so.
Yes that is true. There is a difference between voicing an opinion and having a mature discussion and repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......The implication that you shouldn't criticise WASPI just because you haven't started your own campaign group is as ridiculous as saying you shouldn't criticise the govt unless you've started your own political party :rotfl:
As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above As above as above as above as above as above as above as above as above0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards