Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

bmm78

Malthusian wrote: »

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/women-seeking-pension-justice/

This was raised for legal advice last year. They informed crowdfunders that they would not be pursuing legal action while parliamentary action was ongoing, but did not rule it out as a possibility down the line.

I'm not aware of them requesting or accepting any monies outside of that. I seem to recall one of the founders actually rejecting the offer of a donation.

I imagine that they would want to avoid any suggestion that they were handling money, and would only crowdfund for defined purposes such as legal proceedings.

Malthusian

I am a committee member of a small sports club. We have quarterly meetings to decide various important issues like 'where should we hold the Christmas party', 'can we spare £150 to buy some gazebos to shelter us at events', earth-shatteringly important decisions like that. It usually takes us five minutes to get the meeting started while everyone sits down, and the meetings will last at least an hour (on a good day), with the usual turnout being 15-20. Even though the meetings are almost never acrimonious and end in universal agreement, it still takes a certain degree of time for everyone to feel they've had their say.

For a meeting at which 120 attended which concerned the proposed spending of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to be over in 15 minutes is really bloody impressive. There are some people who seem to think this indicates a certain lack of sincerity on the part of the MPs, I just can't feel that way, all I can think about is how they even managed to get all 120 of them to sit down and sign the attendance in 15 minutes.

Incidentally, when I looked up WASPI's Facebook page I noticed that the people who comment on it now have this odd habit of signing all their posts with the month and year of their birth. It's a bit unsettling - whereas most of us would sign off with our name, our statement of our individuality, they've reduced their entire identity to just their birthdate, and sign off with a statement of their supposed right to a State Pension at 60.

McKneff

KimC wrote: »

It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?

Search womans pension rise unfair on this page and click on the link and sign the petition for it debated in the House of Parliment.

Its been unfair on men for donkeys years when women got their state pension at 60 and men had to wait till 65

Whose idea was that then

antrobus

McKneff wrote: »

Its been unfair on men for donkeys years when women got their state pension at 60 and men had to wait till 65

Whose idea was that then

As far as I can see, it was the Old Age and Widows’ Pension Act 1940 that first reduced the woman's state pension age to 60, an idea that was followed when the more comprehensive universal contributory state pension was introduced by the National Insurance Act 1946.

So the answer might be either Walter Womersley or Wilfred Paling, being the respective Ministers of Pensions at the time. At least, they'd have been responsible for it, even if they hadn't thunk it.

Of course, that might be more information than you actually wanted, but I can't help that.:)

westv

Maybe part of the reasoning was due to the fact that generally (??) men marry women younger than them. If state pension started earlier for women there was more chance of both spouses getting a pension at similar times. Or maybe that had nothing to do with it!

JezR

The 'official' reasons from the DWP for the drop in pension age for women enacted in 1940 are:

There was a desire to improve pensions generally and this provided an opportunity which was less costly than other options;
The fact that wives tended to be younger than their husbands mean that a common pension age was seen as problematic. It was felt that wives should qualify for their pensions at the same time as their husbands;
Women’s domestic responsibilities on top of their paid work were felt to leave them ‘tired’ at 60.

This ignores the contributory backdrop of the campaigning through the 1930s of the National Spinsters' Pensions Association who had demanded women's pensions at 55. They raised a petition of over 1 million.

State Pensions then were very different - the insured scheme was based on contributions made 5 years before being 65, and not a lifetime record. The majority of those represented by the NSPA were textile workers in the Midlands and North who as their 50s and 60s went on were no longer physically capable of the work, and failing the contribution test had no pension and only public assistance to fall back on (the institution formally called the workhouse) until qualifying for the non contributory pension at 70 - which wouldn't support them either on its own.

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

For a meeting at which 120 attended which concerned the proposed spending of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to be over in 15 minutes is really bloody impressive. There are some people who seem to think this indicates a certain lack of sincerity on the part of the MPs, I just can't feel that way, all I can think about is how they even managed to get all 120 of them to sit down and sign the attendance in 15 minutes.

The excuse is that it was just meant to be a short formal meeting to set up the group formally.

Their main problem is where to go from here. The APPG has no clout and unless they can somehow force a front bench debate with vote and all 28 Tory members of this group are prepared to defy the inevitable whip, nothing is going to happen.

bmm78

jem16 wrote: »

The excuse is that it was just meant to be a short formal meeting to set up the group formally.

Their main problem is where to go from here. The APPG has no clout and unless they can somehow force a front bench debate with vote and all 28 Tory members of this group are prepared to defy the inevitable whip, nothing is going to happen.

Jem - where did this excuse/clarification come from?

There's the issue of the whip, but there's also the question of whether the current opposition would actually want to defeat the government on a fiscal vote, which could open a huge can of worms in terms of no confidence etc.

The MPs involved have their own agenda, which will vary from one to the other. There is little downside to being seen to be supportive of the cause, but posing for a photo op is worlds away from defying a three-line whip.

The most likely chance of a positive outcome is still by persuading the government that the political kudos involved is worthwhile. The APPG could be considered a step towards this as it at least waters down the partisan element, but faux outrage at things like Crabb's "breezing" comment is horribly misguided.

There were glimmers of hope in the subtext of Crabb's words this week, so turning him into this week's pantomine villain is pointless at best and counter-productive at worst.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

Jem - where did this excuse/clarification come from?

Technically not an excuse but WASPI Campaign had posted on their FB page long before the meeting that it was intended just to be a short formal meeting to set up the group and was only for parliamentarians.

There's the issue of the whip, but there's also the question of whether the current opposition would actually want to defeat the government on a fiscal vote, which could open a huge can of worms in terms of no confidence etc.

I also wonder what Labour would do if they suddenly found themselves in power and having to support WASPI like they claim to be doing. We all know that's never going to include the 1995 Act as WASPI would want.

The APPG could be considered a step towards this as it at least waters down the partisan element, but faux outrage at things like Crabb's "breezing" comment is horribly misguided.

Especially as he's now been quoted as saying women by Paul Lewis instead of people as he actually did say. As we know what he said is absolutely true - many people don't give pensions a thought until it's too late.

There were glimmers of hope in the subtext of Crabb's words this week, so turning him into this week's pantomine villain is pointless at best and counter-productive at worst.

Agreed. He's quite right when he says that the women he has talked to simply aren't interested in anything other than their pension at age 60. WASPI campaign posting on their FB page that none of Owen Smith's 6 options could be supported as they didn't meet their demands was not missed even though WASPI tried to repair the damage by pulling it within hours and reposting a different statement.

There appears to be a bit of a division amongst the WASPI 5 co-founders as it looks like they're not all singing from the same song sheet.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Their main problem is where to go from here.

They have had that problem from the day one... thread loads on here that they have nowhere to go from here.... and yet ...

jem16 wrote: »

The APPG has no clout and unless they can somehow force a front bench debate with vote and all 28 Tory members of this group are prepared to defy the inevitable whip, nothing is going to happen.

As long as all those opposing the WASPI issue keep it on the agenda then it's possible something might happen. If all those opposing it, like the majority of actual posters on these threads, were to diss it then WASPI would shrivel up out of sight.

Once again, the irony will be lost on many ....