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

SnowMan

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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

My mum was aware of the 1995 changes even though she wasn't herself affected. She said there was a lot of publicity at the time and was amazed that some women were saying they didn't know about it.

jem16

PensionTech wrote: »

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

Well they all kept going on about agreeing with equalisation but were concerned with the acceleration.

However most of them kept then contradicting themselves by going on about the 1995 changes too.

jem16

SnowMan wrote: »

My mum was aware of the 1995 changes even though she wasn't herself affected. She said there was a lot of publicity at the time and was amazed that some women were saying they didn't know about it.

Oh there was a lot of publicity and a lot of talk but it's amazing what talk of compo will do for the memory.

zagfles

In amongst all the ranting and frothing there was actually quite a good solution proposed by the opposition, to maintain the pension credit qualifying age as per the 1995 timetable.

This is non-discriminatory (it applies equally to men and women), it shouldn't be that expensive (it's a means tested benefit), and it addresses the point about lack of notice of the 2011 changes resulting in serious hardship.

The govt would do well to consider this if they find any more money down the back of the sofa...

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

In amongst all the ranting and frothing there was actually quite a good solution proposed by the opposition, to maintain the pension credit qualifying age as per the 1995 timetable.

Yes it was the one proposal that actually made sense and was fair for everyone.

We have one WASPI woman on Facebook who is threatening to not defer her state pension as a protest. :rotfl:

Seabee42

The government is currently spending 90 billion pounds a year it does not have. There is no such thing as a sofa with money in it just debt for the next generation to pay who will never dream of people being unfortunate to retire at 65!

monkeyspanner

Perhaps a legal challenge should now be expected. A similar case in Holland has been ruled as infringing human rights under article 1.
http://www.ipe.com/countries/netherlands/raising-retirement-age-could-violate-human-rights-court-warns/10011154.fullarticle
Of course the dutch equivalent of the DWP will appeal the decision

JezR

zagfles wrote: »

In amongst all the ranting and frothing there was actually quite a good solution proposed by the opposition, to maintain the pension credit qualifying age as per the 1995 timetable.

This is non-discriminatory (it applies equally to men and women), it shouldn't be that expensive (it's a means tested benefit), and it addresses the point about lack of notice of the 2011 changes resulting in serious hardship.

This was suggested by Altmann in 2011 long before she was wearing a government hat.

dunstonh

monkeyspanner wrote: »

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

The process was correct. Not disgusting at all. If they wanted a different outcome then a different process would have been needed and its quite possible, indeed probable, that the voting would have been different as the MPs debating know full well that this symbolic vote doesnt mean anything.

SnowMan

zagfles wrote: »

In amongst all the ranting and frothing there was actually quite a good solution proposed by the opposition, to maintain the pension credit qualifying age as per the 1995 timetable.

This is non-discriminatory (it applies equally to men and women), it shouldn't be that expensive (it's a means tested benefit), and it addresses the point about lack of notice of the 2011 changes resulting in serious hardship.

The govt would do well to consider this if they find any more money down the back of the sofa...

As you say this deals with genuine hardship. The WASPE definition of hardship seems to be the 'compelling' hardship of having to spend some of your savings or rely on a partner's income temporarily.

From Work and Pensions Committee oral evidence
Lin Phillips: Absolutely, yes. We have lots and lots of really compelling stories. If you are out of the labour market in your 60s it is impossible, virtually, to get back in. Some women are finding you can sign on for Jobseeker’s allowance maybe for six months and if it is income based, if you have a partner, then you do not get an income after that. When you have been used to working all your life and you are not contributing, that has a knock-on effect on relationships, on how you feel. I know if I wake up in the morning and I do not have any work, it is the first thing I think of because I am not contributing, so you are using your savings.

Going forward having a pension credit age below SPA is also a way of partly addressing mortality variations across regions.