MPs debate the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

mgdavid

Killer comeback from Richard Graham when he is challenged by Labour MP on notification failures (of the 1995 act), pointing out Labour was in power for 13 years (1997 to 2010).

PensionTech

Killer comeback from Richard Graham when he is challenged by Labour MP on notification failures (of the 1995 act), pointing out Labour was in power for 13 years (1997 to 2010).

A failed attempt at cheap political point-scoring from Labour, and a successful one from the Tories - but hardly important to the outcome of today's debate, surely. Let's not get sidetracked!

I am more interested in some of the main arguments here:

"Black says the state pensions are a contract that people entered into and it is now being broken."

"Keeley: The UK should put in transitional provisions to protect those affected by unfair pension age changes."

"Smith says she understands cost of returning to 1995 timetable would be £30bn."

"Fysh: It would be entirely wrong to reopen a decision which was taken in 2011 and burden future generations."

"Anderson is launching a strong attack on the government's position that it can't find the money for women seeking compensation."

"Graham is counselling MPs not too get too swayed by emotional arguments presented but also focus on practical implications of any proposal."

"Concerns of 1951-53-born women who will miss out on the new single tier pension are raised."

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

I am more interested in some of the main arguments here:

"Black says the state pensions are a contract that people entered into and it is now being broken."

....

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Unfortunately you copy only selected tweets from Jo Cumbo. She has made many quotes from the debate.

From what I have seen, and I have not seen it all and did not see Black's opening speech, there has been much congratulatory gestures to both Black and WASPI. Some points I have noticed.

- Issue would not be considered had it not been raised by WASPI
- both sides congratulating Black
- both sides comment on very poor communication from government
- torys attribute communication problem to labour for being in government at the time.
- many personal accounts from constituents
- 10 years issue raised several times - should be equal for all
- reference to potential changes from government side of 30% relief for pensions. Sounds like that could be a runner in the budget.

It seems the main defence from the government side, while there is sympathy with those impacted, the cost to reverse changes would be too expensive. Nobody has the answer to how changes would be paid for.

I'm not sure anything will be agreed on this in parliament.

My own view this will got to a challenge in court. If it is shown that there has been unfairness, the inability to pay will not be an acceptable defence.

One thing I'd bet on - this thing will run and run.

PensionTech

Unfortunately you copy only selected tweets from Jo Cumbo. She has made many quotes from the debate.

Yes. The idea was to condense the page into what I saw as the most relevant excerpts so far and move the discussion away from the Labour/Tory playground accusations. I have pasted a link to Jo's Twitter page for anyone interested in following the whole thing. Of course I would not replicate it all here. I think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder to pick at something so nebulous.

Issue would not be considered had it not been raised by WASPI

Actually, that hasn't been covered at all, and is not really relevant to the outcome. If you wish to congratulate WASPI on bringing it into focus then you may, but there are plenty who would also criticise the hysterical and demanding way WASPI have conducted this campaign - running the very real risk, as patanne says, of obscuring the legitimate concerns about the schedule of the 2011 changes with ranting and frothing about the 1995 changes.

I would actually be interested to see this go to court but I do not think there could be a legitimate basis for doing so. The idea of the SP being a "contract" rather than a benefit is rhetoric and I would think it unlikely to have any legal standing. Unfairness is not illegal (and, as many people have pointed out, the increase in women's SPA is not unfairness, but rather a move from unfairness to fairness). Discrimination is illegal, but I think you would be hard pressed to successfully call this direct or indirect discrimination.

At the moment this is an emotional (and I must say quite ill-informed - one of the points raised in Westminster was that people in different parts of the country have different life expectancies - are they seriously suggesting that we start to base state pension entitlement on residential location?) debate with very little in the way of practical or legal arguments - and that doesn't bode well for WASPI.

atush

I know, lets give a bigger SP to those who smoke, drink and dont eat veg?

Which accts fro some of the lower LE in some areas.

mgdavid

saver861 wrote: »

.......

From what I have seen, and I have not seen it all and did not see Black's opening speech, there has been much congratulatory gestures to both Black and WASPI. .........

it's only polite to congratulate people - before quietly ignoring them and getting on with more important matters.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

Actually, that hasn't been covered at all, and is not really relevant to the outcome.

huh? most of the mp's speaking have referred to WASPI, including some on the government side.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5630734-fb25-4d06-84fa-f9eb50d72d71

Check out some of the speakers.

PensionTech wrote: »

If you wish to congratulate WASPI on bringing it into focus then you may, but there are plenty who would also criticise the hysterical and demanding way WASPI have conducted this campaign

I have said many times, they brought it up. Many have said they think the 2011 policy is unfair but nobody brought it up until WASPI did. Apparently WASPI are trending on Twitter!!

PensionTech wrote: »

- running the very real risk, as patanne says, of obscuring the legitimate concerns about the schedule of the 2011 changes with ranting and frothing about the 1995 changes.

Its all being discussed, 1995, 2011, 10 years notice etc etc

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

it's only polite to congratulate people - before quietly ignoring them and getting on with more important matters.

Yes - that may well be true. This might be fade into the wilderness. At this stage I see more mileage in this.

Time will determine either way.

Goldiegirl

PensionTech wrote: »

Black: "The 1995 Act technically gave women 15 years notice but the problem was nobody knew this."

It wasn't a very good start - she can't possibly say nobody knew this. Right from 1995, I knew about it, most of the people I know knew about it, and many people on here knew about it

Pollycat

greenglide wrote: »

It is 20 years since the legislation changed but relative to that in is "relatively recently" that people have reached SPa who are impacted by it.

It depends how recent your recent is!

No it doesn't.
My objection to that sentence is that the writer makes out that -until recently - every woman expected to get their pension at age 60. And that is simply not the case.
Some people were aware of the change as far back as 1995.
Nobody can reasonably describe that length of time as 'recent'.