Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

bigadaj wrote: »

Bizarre.

As a fairly unique waspi supporter on these boards what do you want or expect, as waspi have no clue?

As far as I know there are 10 million plus registered on this forum. Not sure what numbers you would classify as unique therefore!!

What I can see is the same people regurgitating the same repetitive drivel about the uselessness of WASPI. A lot of people are seemingly putting a lot of time into saying that the campaign is dead in the water.... only for it to still be there as a living breathing thing. If said people are buying lottery tickets, then my advice would be don't ..... said people's prediction methodology is somewhat lacking it would seem ....

Some people really do need to get out more!!

bmm78

jem16 wrote: »

The big questions still remain - what is the APPG going to actually do and what does Waspi actually want?

Be interesting to see what happens with the Queen's Speech this week. Keeley completely dodged the question on Moneybox this weekend, and made the completely misleading suggestion that no options had been costed (at least half a dozen have by my estimation).

Crabb hinted that there would be a Pensions Bill (which was not originally on the cards). This potentially could be open to an amendment from the opposition regarding the state pension. Frank Field has been pushing for a pensions bill to be included.

This does raise the question though of why the government would risk leaving the back door open, when there are really no overwhelming issues that desperately need to go through now?

At some point a specific proposal has to be put forward, with clear costing and funding.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

Be interesting to see what happens with the Queen's Speech this week. Keeley completely dodged the question on Moneybox this weekend, and made the completely misleading suggestion that no options had been costed (at least half a dozen have by my estimation).

Seems to be around 13 costings from 2011 which includes what has been suggested by Owen Smith. Then there are further costings made since this all began.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507644/foi-378-2016-table.pdf

Crabb hinted that there would be a Pensions Bill (which was not originally on the cards). This potentially could be open to an amendment from the opposition regarding the state pension. Frank Field has been pushing for a pensions bill to be included.

This does raise the question though of why the government would risk leaving the back door open, when there are really no overwhelming issues that desperately need to go through now?

Doesn't seem to be any mention of Pensions Bill in the Queen's Speech as yet.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7567/CBP-7567.pdf

At some point a specific proposal has to be put forward, with clear costing and funding.

From a government point of view, they can continue to do nothing and state that there are no plans to look at it.

From an APPG point of view - well, the ball is in their court.

Thrugelmir

bmm78 wrote: »

At some point a specific proposal has to be put forward, with clear costing and funding.

Funding from where though. We already in a world where money grows on trees. Soon we'll run out of trees...........

Seabee42

No doubt it can be funded by giving up the winter fuel allowance, free bus pass and making anyone under age 50 have a state pension age of 75. All to continue discrimination never mind age discrimination.

bmm78

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Funding from where though. We already in a world where money grows on trees. Soon we'll run out of trees...........

Exactly.

The ability to generate revenue is somewhat constrained by the tax locks for the coming parliament. Adjustment to future state pension ages is problematic with the state pension review and the "adult life spent in retirement" core principle to maintain. There is a "promise" to retain the Triple Lock until 2020 at least.

Leaving aside Magic Money Trees, scrapping Trident and Foreign Aid, and taxing the **** out of bankers and big businesses, it pretty much seems to be a case of cutting benefits elsewhere. “Funding” therefore seems to be a case of which group is to be sacrificed in favour of 1950s women.

There seems to be a notion in some quarters that all that needs to be happen is that a vote is triggered where the "rebel" tories vote for waspi and fair, transitional arrangements are secured.

In reality, it's a minefield from every point of view you look at it.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

There seems to be a notion in some quarters that all that needs to be happen is that a vote is triggered where the "rebel" tories vote for waspi and fair, transitional arrangements are secured.

All but one of the 28 Tories who have so far joined the APPG voted for ESA cuts. The other one did not vote.

So are we really to believe that they're looking to give Waspi their pensions/comp from age 60 whilst cutting benefits?

bmm78

jem16 wrote: »

Seems to be around 13 costings from 2011 which includes what has been suggested by Owen Smith. Then there are further costings made since this all began.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507644/foi-378-2016-table.pdf

I was thinking of the later costings, as well as John Ralfe's suggestion. The striking thing from the costings is how relatively cheap a means-tested safety net is.

jem16 wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be any mention of Pensions Bill in the Queen's Speech as yet.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7567/CBP-7567.pdf

Crabb's evidence to the Work and Pensions committee the day after suggested that a bill would be brought forward to address the Master Trust issue http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/work-and-pensions/160511%20DWP.pdf It does however seem to be very short notice and possibly jumping the gun, even without considering the Waspi issue.

jamesd

Pennylane wrote: »

http://www.paisley.org.uk/2016/05/mhairi-black-press-release-waspi-appg-launch/

Good for Mhairi Black :j

Sad to see a female politician supporting gender discrimination.

Her constituency is Paisley & Renfrewshire South and in the 2015 election she won as an SNP candidate with 23,548 votes ahead of 17,864 Labour then 3,526 Conservative.

It appears that a donation if money or time to the Labour candidate's campaign in the next general election may be a productive use of money for those who are opposed to gender discrimination.

It may also be worth getting organised to do so in respect of the campaigns for other MPs who want to increase gender discrimination in the state pension system. Is there a list of parliamentary members of the group yet so that work can be done to see where money and time can be best used?

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

A lot of people are seemingly putting a lot of time into saying that the campaign is dead in the water.... only for it to still be there as a living breathing thing.

I suggest not just talking but acting, in the form of such things as donating to fund legal action against the government if gender discrimination is increased in the state pension system and funding and otherwise supporting the election campaigns of the opponents of MPs who favour increasing gender discrimination in the state pension system.

One of the nice things about a democracy is that we can help to vote whose who support discrimination out of office.