MSE News: MPs demand rethink of women's state pension changes

Malthusian

I have a comment to make but by the time I've typed it MSE will have posted another thread about Waspish, so I will post it there instead.

saver861

Al. wrote: »

Who now is there to campaign for the ladies destitute, penniless and bereft of hope?

If you or others had done something proactive prior, or during the current campaign, to help these people then then I would applaud your sentiment.

As that did not happen, such words are hollow.

Al.

I acted as a community volunteer for The Pensions Advisory Service, the forerunner of the Money Advice Service and the National Association of Pension Funds, educating people in the workplace. I spoke to, and helped, thousands of people over the course of three years until the success of my private practice compelled me to spend less time acting in such a capacity.

You weren't to know that, just saying.

saver861

Al. wrote: »

I acted as a community volunteer for The Pensions Advisory Service, the forerunner of the Money Advice Service and the National Association of Pension Funds, educating people in the workplace. I spoke to, and helped, thousands of people over the course of three years until the success of my private practice compelled me to spend less time acting in such a capacity.

You weren't to know that, just saying.

Fair enough, thats admirable.

The point I'm making is that there was no other option out there other than the current campaign to get the pension issue discussed.

So many say the 2011 changes unfair - so little action.

The current campaign was the only one on the block and thus, if there is any changes that will help those in most need, it will have come from this campaign.

phillw

saver861 wrote: »

So many say the 2011 changes unfair - so little action.

Because it's a logical fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

The women who are complaining want equality with the women who could claim their pension at 60. The fairest solution would be to take people out of retirement to make up for the not working to 68. As that isn't going to happen then suck it up.

Why is it ok to expect a man to work until he is 68, just because he always knew he was but let a women retire at 60 because she is sexist and thought she wouldn't have to work as long as a man? All the time chastising men for wanting to do the things they used to get away with in the 1970's.

Al.

saver861 wrote: »

Fair enough, thats admirable.

The point I'm making is that there was no other option out there other than the current campaign to get the pension issue discussed.

So many say the 2011 changes unfair - so little action.

The current campaign was the only one on the block and thus, if there is any changes that will help those in most need, it will have come from this campaign.

Thank you for your gracious comment.

I suppose it could be argued that Labour had 13 years in power, post 1995, and did nothing. Similarly, they didn't press the point when in early opposition. In my experience (I even helped employees at the Dept of Work & Pensions, as well as Lincs County Council, Rutland County Council, BAe, HMP Holloway, John Lewis Partnership, MoD, Honda (UK), Siemens, American Express, Comparethemarket, Prudential plc and the NHS) and practically every single lady I chatted with was aware the benefits schedule reflected SPA@65. Sure, they all grumbled, but they knew.

My experience is at odds with the snapshots afforded by WASPI and a few MPs and other commentators.I concede that the people most unlikely to be aware wouldn't have been likely to have roles at those companies, and it's those ladies who most need help. Not the WASPI core cohort. I would extend help to those genuinely plausible cases who have fallen through the net, and the case that 2011 didn't allow sufficient lead in will fall on many deaf ears.. including, I suspect, males who had to endure annuity disadvantage when gender harmonisation was introduced at 12/18 months notice a few years back.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

So many say the 2011 changes unfair - so little action.

There was action though - the increase of 2 years was pegged back to 18 months. Government made that concession at the cost of £1.1 billion.

There was also a petition back in 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/08/unions-petition-oppose-pensions-bill

May well have been others.

The current campaign was the only one on the block and thus, if there is any changes that will help those in most need, it will have come from this campaign.

Any reason to think it will fare any better than the previous submission back in March 2015 by one of the co-founders of WASPI?

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/revert-to-the-governments-promise-regarding-no-increase-in-the-state-pension-age-until-2016-2012

WASPI campaign is an offshoot of this original one.

Pollycat

Al. wrote: »

Well done everyone. I hope you're proud; you screwed it up with your trendy lack of strategy, acumen and insight because you didn't think it through, you didn't look to yourselves and you were greedy - you ran a deceitful, nasty and malicious campaign and you thought that Twitter froth would cause the g'ment to fold and spend £40bns up threading the consequences of your laziness and self neglect. Let us know the next time you want to run a campaign would you, and I'll be certain not to spend too much time and effort getting behind it. Who now is there to campaign for the ladies destitute, penniless and bereft of hope? You? I doubt it, you'll be too busy roaming social media looking for the next cause intended to raise your own profiles. Angry? You bet.

I'm assuming the 'everyone' you refer to above are the leaders of the WASPI campaign.....

Al.

I tweeted this last Sunday, which probably underscores my annoyance and frustration. The real victims are those who have been allowed to slip through the cracks due to the crass mismanagement of this matter by selfish campaign founders and opportunistic commentators (who should have known better) and buffoon backbench politicians (who fair enough, have an excuse). It makes me angry just thinking about it. I do concede that if it wasn't for the campaign, nothing would have been done anyway, but if it had been run properly, those most in need of help may have a chance. I accept too, it would never have got off the ground under those circumstances.

https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/683598195151208448

saver861

phillw wrote: »

Because it's a logical fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

I can't say my Latin is up to scratch to be honest!!

However, your point is correct on scientific principle. If most people believe the sky to be blue it does not mean it is blue subject to scientific proof otherwise. Of matters unquantifiable, they are thus subjective. In such case, if the majority believe it to be true that then proves the case of subjectivity.

phillw wrote: »

The women who are complaining want equality with the women who could claim their pension at 60.

This has been done to a death on a number of threads now so I'll pass for now.

Al. wrote: »

I do concede that if it wasn't for the campaign, nothing would have been done anyway, but if it had been run properly, those most in need of help may have a chance. I accept too, it would never have got off the ground under those circumstances.

We agree here. There are a lot of people in prominent positions late to this party. This was missed and should have been off the ground in 2011. Five years later is much too late for those charged with responsibility for such matters and those professionals who are positioned, or positioned themselves, to champion such causes.

Mhari Black did say in her conclusion that the 1995 issue is done and there was little we could do about it other than learn from it in terms of better communication etc. She said that the 2011 policy 'is' something that we can do something about. If that remains the ethos then its possible any changes sought will be restricted to 2011 and then tie in with your own position.

On a final note, I watched Mhairi Black's speech. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, but I better learn the correct version because she is going to be around for a long time. Regardless of all opinions, that was impressive from a 21 year old!!