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

Pollycat

greenglide wrote: »

The constituent did claim this, the MP said that the constituent claimed this so the MP was perfectly correct to state that the constituent claimed this.

As long as the MP didnt claim that the claim was correct then the MP's statement was technically, correct.

Where did I say that the MP wasn't (technically or otherwise) correct in her statement?

The constituent lied to her MP to make her situation sound worse than it really is (or was mistaken - I know which I believe).

Zagfles understood my point.

Personally, if I were going to stand up on live TV and state something that I'd been told, I would check that the facts were correct first.

Maybe that's why I'm not an MP.

Paul_Herring

greenglide wrote: »

The constituent did claim this, the MP said that the constituent claimed this so the MP was perfectly correct to state that the constituent claimed this.

As long as the MP didnt claim that the claim was correct then the MP's statement was technically, correct.

If you're going to argue that way, then the MP shouldn't have made the comment, since what the constituent claimed was wrong, and thus irrelevant to the debate.

If her constituent claimed the moon was made of cream cheese, it would make as much sense for the MP to pass that little nugget of information to the chamber during the discussion...

---

Edit: Oops - seems this point had already been made at the start of page 3 (for me)...

greenglide

I never said I thought the MP should have repeated this, especiallyif it was known to be incorrect, it was a simple statement of fact.

The whole matter needs looking at dispassionately, without all this garbage being spread out by pressure groups and people whose memories may be tainted by the possibilities of getting legislation changed in there favour.

jem16

greenglide wrote: »

without all this garbage being spread out by pressure groups and people whose memories may be tainted by the possibilities of getting legislation changed in there favour.

Definitely a lot of garbage about judging by the comments on the news article.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2016/01/womens-state-pension-petition-hits-100000-signatures

jem16

They still seem a little unsure what they were debating about yesterday;

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35261635

Plans to increase the state pension age for women from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020 were initially set out in 1995.


'Undue hardship'

But the coalition government decided to speed up the process in 2011, resulting in the state pension age for women increasing to 65 in November 2018 and then to 66 by October 2020.

The SNP and Labour warned the 2011 decision to accelerate the rate at which state pension age is to be equalised with men "directly discriminates" against women born on or after 6 April 1951.

Paul_Herring

jem16 wrote: »

The SNP and Labour warned the 2011 decision to accelerate the rate at which state pension age is to be equalised with men "directly discriminates" against women born on or after 6 April 1951.

So, the process of removing discrimination... discriminates.


I can sort of see how that works. If I squint. And stand on one leg....


(Disadvantage, yes. The SJW language of discrimination as implied here, no.)

MoneyWorry

So many inaccuracies during the debate. Ms Black stated that nobody had been told directly of the rises in SPA. I was born in 1960 and I have two letters. My sister born in 1951 and living in another part of the country also has letters. Maybe, we were the chosen two....:D

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

Definitely a lot of garbage about judging by the comments on the news article.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2016/01/womens-state-pension-petition-hits-100000-signatures

Most of it is the usual no one told me, I've been robbed, it's soooooo unfair stuff. There's a couple of people who are going against the grain, but they are being accused of working for government.

But most of it makes me embarrassed to be a woman of a certain age!

Goldiegirl

MoneyWorry wrote: »

So many inaccuracies during the debate. Ms Black stated that nobody had been told directly of the rises in SPA. I was born in 1960 and I have two letters. My sister born in 1951 and living in another part of the country also has letters. Maybe, we were the chosen two....:D

I got letters too, so it's at least three of us!

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I got letters too, so it's at least three of us!

Count me in too!

I definitely got a letter about the 2011 change.

Not sure about the 1995 one although I was definitely aware of the change.
I did work for a very large national company though so it's possible the information was disseminated by HR.

No memory tainted by the possibility of legislation being changed in my favour here. :cool: