MSE News: ’Women's state pension petition secures second Parliamentary debate

colsten

There is a new blog by Frances Coppola. That woman makes a lot of sense. http://www.coppolacomment.com/2016/02/what-they-really-want.html

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

There is a new blog by Frances Coppola. That woman makes a lot of sense. http://www.coppolacomment.com/2016/02/what-they-really-want.html

I've not read this new link yet but you can certainly understand why WASPI supporters don't like her.

dunstonh

I heard Ros Altman on the radio this morning and her message was that she was disagreeing with WASPI about there not being enough time and she focused on the changes occurring in 1995 and that 20 years is more than enough and that there was plenty of coverage back then.

If the focus turns too much to 1995, then WASPI have blown it because of their foolish campaign. They should have stuck to the 2011 changes as being unfair and not dilute that issue with irresponsible campaigning trying to get the age back to 60.

Goldiegirl

The WASPI Facebook page is in meltdown about Ros Altmann's comments today


I think the problem with the WASPI supporters is that they can't distinguish between what happened in 1995 and 2011.


Ros Altmann has said no one has had an increase of more than 18 months.


But the WASPI supporters can only see the increase from 60 to 66 - they think it's all part of the same thing


Typical comments say that they had two years notice of a six year increase in their age.


They've lost £36k and have been robbed


There also keep commenting that they've worked since they were 16 - not sure what this as got to do with it.


Another good one was that a woman thought it was unfair that she'd now get her pension after her husband.


To be honest, it's fairly depressing. The amount of misunderstanding and confusion is at record levels.


The supporters have latched on to getting their pension (or compensation, or whatever they want to call it) from the age of 60.


If WASPI now do an about turn and start concentrating on 2011 (which is what they should have done in the first place) the supporters will feel betrayed, and will turn on WASPI.

bowlhead99

saver861 wrote: »

No, not at all ...I'm still waiting for the reasoned comments


Anytime .... now that I have put you right ... job done!!!!:D

It's OK, if you don't understand, feel free to consider that you have "put us right".
:beer:

Pollycat wrote: »

I've not read this new link yet but you can certainly understand why WASPI supporters don't like her.

Yes, her points are far too well reasoned and sensibly articulated for her to be a pushover as they would like, and she gets involved in Twitter discussions when they are trying to bamboozle MPs with agenda-driven " facts "

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It's OK, if you don't understand, feel free to consider that you have "put us right".
:beer:

'us'?? .... nope, only the ones that have difficulty recognising a spike in a trend ...

Personally I would have thought a one eyed Albanian with failing eyesight, even on a foggy day, could clearly see the spike!!

Pollycat

I really hope that the MPs with a modicum of common sense & who haven't automatically believed everything their constituents have told them keep the debate on topic.

bowlhead99

Pollycat wrote: »

I really hope that the MPs with a modicum of common sense who haven't automatically believed everything their constituents have told them keep the debate on topic.

Hear hear.

The January backbench "debate" seemed far too much of a Labour and SNP love-in with lots of anecdotes from constituents which do of course inform the discussion but generally looked at individual examples rather than the big picture of high level fairness. The conclusion was full support for the motion for unspecified transition arrangements with zero "nays" against. Not sure it would be the same if debated on front benches with more conclusive outcomes at stake.

Paul_Herring

Goldiegirl wrote: »

The WASPI Facebook page is in meltdown about Ros Altmann's comments today


I think the problem with the WASPI supporters is that they can't distinguish between what happened in 1995 and 2011.


Ros Altmann has said no one has had an increase of more than 18 months.


But the WASPI supporters can only see the increase from 60 to 66 - they think it's all part of the same thing

Typical comments say that they had two years notice of a six year increase in their age.

They've lost £36k and have been robbed

There also keep commenting that they've worked since they were 16 - not sure what this as got to do with it.

Another good one was that a woman thought it was unfair that she'd now get her pension after her husband.

Couldn't find that one.

To be honest, it's fairly depressing. The amount of misunderstanding and confusion is at record levels.

And I'm certain at least some of it is rather deliberate.

harz99

dunstonh wrote: »

I heard Ros Altman on the radio this morning and her message was that she was disagreeing with WASPI about there not being enough time and she focused on the changes occurring in 1995 and that 20 years is more than enough and that there was plenty of coverage back then.

If the focus turns too much to 1995, then WASPI have blown it because of their foolish campaign. They should have stuck to the 2011 changes as being unfair and not dilute that issue with irresponsible campaigning trying to get the age back to 60.

Agreed, but Ros Altman.................what a turncoat, used to be a pensioners champion, now a government lackey.