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

Seabee42

If they are really in need of help then the benefit system has not suddenly ceased to exist.


There is no excuse for this policy of give me more now just because I want it.

Paul_Herring

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

What has his wife and sisters being in their 50s have anything to do with the debate?

Well they're talking about women born in the 1950's - both that and his sisters' ages have a 0 and a 5 in them...

Or something. Reminds me of the end of a 3-2-1 programme.

jem16

One such "story" comes to mind but this was from Helen Jones I believe ( who put forward the motion ).

Twins born March 53, called Jack and Jill. Jack will get £155 and Jill will get £131 - why because she's a woman.

No mention of the fact that Jill will get her pension in March 2016 at age 63 and Jack will have to wait until March 2018 at age 65 - why because he's a man.

SnowMan

jem16 wrote: »

One such "story" comes to mind but this was from Helen Jones I believe ( who put forward the motion ).

Twins born March 53, called Jack and Jill. Jack will get £155 and Jill will get £131 - why because she's a woman.

No mention of the fact that Jill will get her pension in March 2016 at age 63 and Jack will have to wait until March 2018 at age 65 - why because he's a man.

If Jill and Jack were born on say 7th March 1953, Jill would have a SPA of age 63 (to within a day or so). Jack would have an SPA of 65.

The amounts quoted suggest that they must both have 33 Qualifying Years to age 63 (35 to age 65 for Jack).

It is reasonable to assume both were contracted-in (if Jack was contracted-out of SERPS/S2P then Jack would have not got £155pw in state pension). Changing that assumption doesn't change the conclusions.

So if Jill deferred her state pension to age 65 she would get a 20.8% uplift (10.4% x 2)

If Jill had just £9pw of additional state pension then her state pension at age 65 would be

(119.30 + 9)*1.208 = 155pw

The same as Jack.

As there is only a low probability that Jill's additional pension would be as litle as £9pw, the conclusion is that in relation to state pension, usually (not always but usually), Jill is better off than Jack.

So to use that as an example of why Jill is badly treated relative to Jack (the MP described Jill's treatment as ludicrous) ...................

It was actually an intervention during Helen Jones speech, but her reply was that the system was full of inequalities like that (Jack and Jill's)

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

WASPI has been too greedy with their main ask and this has now come back to bite them.

The main issue is that those really in need of help are in real danger of getting nothing now.

This still goes back to the fact that there was no ask on the table previously. It has not come back to bite them because that was their ask from the outset. If there had been a proposal to look at the 2011 changes only, then that might have been impacted by the WASPI campaign, but there was nothing beforehand.

Then that raises the question, if the WASPI ask was so out of this world, how did it make so much progress? The difference between the facebook page and the petition is not the answer. That has been stated since the petition was at around 20,000 - it is now 140,000.

WASPI has actually had a very successful campaign in terms of bringing the issue to the forefront. The outcome may not be as they wish, but they have achieved considerable exposure from something that they only started less than twelve months ago.

The 1953/54 women are the most impacted. They have had an extra 18 months and just 5 or 6 years notice. The fact is, if those conditions were imposed on the majority, that majority would be up in arms. As it is, there are far too few of them to make any difference. The rest are not impacted, and thus have no real interest. Many will say what about those in most need - but if the majority really cared about those in most need then there would be a change. Reality is, most people are only concerned about their own issues. The loss of the 1953/54 women is of no account, so long as it does not impact on most individuals personally.

Ros Altmann campaigned for these women in 2011 and got the extensions reduced from 2 years to 18 months. Many 'sayers' say that these women are still being more than unfairly treated. Why then did it stop at 18 months in 2011? Why was it not continued to get a greater reduction. If it is unfair now, it was equally unfair then.

The main reason this is being looked at now is down to WASPI. This combined with the SNP. The SNP are utilising a very convenient vehicle to further their intentions. WASPI and the SNP arrived around the same time, and they buddied up. Had the normal HoC seating arrangements been in place, i.e. Tory / Labour then this campaign probably would not have got rolling.

So, WASPI got their day but won't get their outcome.
SNP get their publicity.
Lots of 'sayers' try to make themselves look good by saying how nice it would be if those most in need got something.....

.... and after all that, ... as it stands... the 53/54 women get nothing.

That's people ... and thats politics.

JezR

Don't we have to take into account that Jack tumbled down the hill and broken his crown? And Jill came tumbling after? So Jack may in receipt of ESA / PIP to pay for vinegar and brown paper and Jill receiving Carer's Allowance or even vice versa.

That's the kind of thing you get when you bring up nursery rhyme characters ...

mgdavid

saver861 wrote: »

...................

So, WASPI got their day but won't get their outcome.
SNP get their publicity.
............

and they both end up looking stupid, and having done their credibility no good at all for the future....

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Then that raises the question, if the WASPI ask was so out of this world, how did it make so much progress? The difference between the facebook page and the petition is not the answer. That has been stated since the petition was at around 20,000 - it is now 140,000.

The very simple answer is that most people who signed the petition have no idea what the Facebook and WPSC "ask" is. There are many on Twitter already saying that.

Lots of 'sayers' try to make themselves look good by saying how nice it would be if those most in need got something.....

Pity you don't actually know....

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The very simple answer is that most people who signed the petition have no idea what the Facebook and WPSC "ask" is. There are many on Twitter already saying that.

Most people signed have no idea about the facebook page? It existed long before the petition page.

If you do a Google search for WASPI their facebook page is the first one that comes up. At some point you will need to get past the fact that most of the current 142,000 signed knowing what they were doing.

Many on Twitter saying they signed in error? How many? What percentage of 142,000?

I don't think you will be convinced and you will be forever of the view that only the knowledgable ones did not sign, the rest were misled!!

Ah well, it matters not now in any case as the petition purpose is now exhausted.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Most people signed have no idea about the facebook page? It existed long before the petition page.

If you do a Google search for WASPI their facebook page is the first one that comes up. At some point you will need to get past the fact that most of the current 142,000 signed knowing what they were doing.

So what if the WASPI Facebook page existed long before the petition?

I don't 'do' Facebook - nor Twitter - so the first I'd read of it was when one of the MSE mods posted a link to the petition.

I believe it was this thread posted on 14th December:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5378979
I followed the link in the thread to the petition.
I thought the petition was clumsily worded and although I didn't agree that 1995 changes should have been included, I did agree that the 2011 changes were unfair - so I signed it.

Nowhere in the MSE article was WASPI's Fb page mentioned.
Or WASPI's 'demands' or 'asks'.

So, yes - I did sign knowing what I was signing but I didn't know about the silly stuff on WASPI Facebook page.

saver861 wrote: »

Many on Twitter saying they signed in error? How many? What percentage of 142,000?

I can't say how many of the142,000 signed in error but I've already posted on here that if I thought it was possible and if would do any good, I would retract my support of the petition.

saver861 wrote: »

I don't think you will be convinced and you will be forever of the view that only the knowledgable ones did not sign, the rest were misled!!

I do think I was misled - misled by the wording of the petition which did not mirror WASPI's fb page.

I think WASPI have been incredibly duplicitous about what was included in the petition and what they actually wanted.