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

dunstonh

patanne wrote: »

Oh dear indeed! There is no way they are going to make changes to the 1995 ones and it looks like it will be used as the excuse to also not look at the 2011 ones. Just what I was afraid of!

And guess who you can blame for that.... WASPI.

mgdavid

Motion passed 158 to 0.
The result of the vote will not be binding on the government.

SallyG

Speaker's just said the motion is not binding on Government.
Brilliant demonstration of how not to effect change.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

And guess who you can blame for that.... WASPI.

But how did the debate today come about?

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Right from 1995, I knew about it, most of the people I know knew about it, and many people on here knew about it

Agreed - my affected work colleagues and I even remembering talking about it. We all knew it wasn't going to be age 60 for us.

Criticisms of the government sticking its head in the sand - no mention of all the women who did just that for 15/20 years.

PensionTech

most of the mp's speaking have referred to WASPI, including some on the government side

Nobody (to my knowledge) has said "And may I remind you, this would never have come up if it weren't for WASPI!" which makes your claim that this is one of the main and most important points of the debate rather unfounded. I am only following Jo's updates though so I may have missed it - but to be fair, if I have, it is because any such statement wouldn't be particularly constructive and therefore not worth her tweeting. I know that you have repeated this over and over again but I am not sure why the very fact of WASPI carrying out this campaign has any bearing on the actual issues at hand - which is to say, whether women in the 1950s are entitled to compensation (or some vague "transitional provisions"), at the expense of other taxpayers/NI contributors, for having their SPA equalised.

monkeyspanner

mgdavid wrote: »

Motion passed 158 to 0.
The result of the vote will not be binding on the government.

The government have shown their complete contempt for the democratic process by not voting as the vote was not binding. Absolutely disgusting.

mgdavid

monkeyspanner wrote: »

The government have shown their complete contempt for the democratic process by not voting as the vote was not binding. Absolutely disgusting.

more likely it shows the naivity of Mhairi Black and the opposition parties in apparently not understanding how Parliament works; it could have been done differently.

PensionTech

It isn't clear from Jo's tweets, but can anyone confirm that the motion that has been passed relates to transitional provisions for the 2011 changes only, rather than and/or the 1995 ones? Just want to check whether 100% of the MPs in session today are insane or not.

I assume we are talking about the 2011 changes from the wording "acceleration of that equalisation" but want to be sure.

monkeyspanner

mgdavid wrote: »

more likely it shows the naivity of Mhairi Black and the opposition parties in apparently not understanding how Parliament works; it could have been done differently.

You may not be a salary slave anymore but you are still a slave as most of us are.