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

monkeyspanner

Seabee42 wrote: »

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!

True, but it isn't the fault of this group of people that the UK runs a budget deficit. In addition the government had no trouble finding something "in the sofa" to finance a pointless bombing campaign in Syria. Or a 10% salary increase for MPs. Also true that the thought of retiring at 65 will be a distant memory particularly as the NI fund is expected to improve due to the 2011 changes but then decline again until completely depleted around 2030. So expect more SPA changes.

PensionTech

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

I read this article too the other day and found it quite astonishing. It seems to hinge on a very wide interpretation of "possession" and of "excessive individual burden". Tax hikes could be opposed on much the same basis, if this were to stand. I will be extremely surprised if this doesn't get thrown out.

Goldiegirl

PensionTech wrote: »

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.

From Jo's tweets, the wording of the motion seems very woolly - it's not clear whether they are talking about 2011, 1995 or both.


But it's no surprise that the motion was passed 158 to 0, as the MP's that bothered to attend were ones that were supportive, as evidenced by some of the comments in the tweets - emotive words such as 'robbed, contempt and lives being ruined' are mentioned

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But it's no surprise that the motion was passed 158 to 0, as the MP's that bothered to attend were ones that were supportive, as evidenced by some of the comments in the tweets - emotive words such as 'robbed, contempt and lives being ruined' are mentioned

Don't forget arrogant and missing the point for anyone that held an alternative viewpoint.

Paul_Herring

jem16 wrote: »

Don't forget arrogant and missing the point for anyone that held an alternative viewpoint.

I thought the current discussion was about the politicians, not WASPI...



Oh...

zagfles

PensionTech wrote: »

I read this article too the other day and found it quite astonishing. It seems to hinge on a very wide interpretation of "possession" and of "excessive individual burden". Tax hikes could be opposed on much the same basis, if this were to stand. I will be extremely surprised if this doesn't get thrown out.

It highlights the problems with the ECHR or any "human rights" legislation - it's woolly rubbish that can be interpreted as meaning almost anything depending on the whim of a few judges.

Goldiegirl

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I thought the current discussion was about the politicians, not WASPI...



Oh...

Goldiegirl wrote: »

From Jo's tweets, the wording of the motion seems very woolly - it's not clear whether they are talking about 2011, 1995 or both.


But it's no surprise that the motion was passed 158 to 0, as the MP's that bothered to attend were ones that were supportive, as evidenced by some of the comments in the tweets - emotive words such as 'robbed, contempt and lives being ruined' are mentioned

That WAS the politicians!

Paul_Herring

Goldiegirl wrote: »

That WAS the politicians!

I know it was. I was making a joke by pretending to confuse the two groups.

Goldiegirl

Sorry, I didn't see your 'oh' on the original post!:rotfl:

It certainly looks as if some of the MP's plundered the WASPI Facebook pages for their comments!:rotfl:

patanne

jem16 wrote: »

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:

Well good for her (not), that will save future generations money and make her live on less. I will apolgise in advance here but - do any of these WASPIs have half a brain? Just who does she think that is going to punish other than herself. Even at the new rates it is still a good deal.