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

hyubh

Scotswimmen wrote: »

I am appalled that Parliament has suggested we are to express our views here, where I have been treated with hostility & contempt for expressing my views.

Please understand that WASPI aims are not uncontroversial. WASPI opponents (and I am one) do not oppose WASPI means; we oppose WASPI ends. What you consider to be an obviously just cause (albeit, perhaps, a forlorn one) I see as fundamentally unjust. As such, I do not (for example) consider the current government's ignoring of the WASPI campaign as nefarious; I see it as prudent. This has nothing to do with my views of WASPIs as individuals - it is not an expression of 'hostility and contempt' - just a matter of holding different beliefs.

As an aside (though very much, I think, an illustration of this), I note that on more than one occasion in this thread you have accused opponents of being 'trolls' and of having been 'paid' to make anti-WASPI claims. This is not constructive - if you want to convince others, don't go immediately claiming bad faith. In other words: the justness of the WASPI cause should be the conclusion of your arguments, not the premise.

purplecarSJP

I stand by what I say and am not a liar as implied by some on here. The expectations, patterns of legislative change and Pay Gap (including Occupational Pension Gap) are all real. Anyone saying otherwise must be unreal as published evidence supports what I say. Facts are facts. It is not about claiming (falsely as implied) that 1950's women have always been downtrodden - what a strange interpretation. Anyone born in early 1960 cannot be in a school age group with 1950's born, with the exception of 1959, so sounds daft - and yes, things changed for you; my year were not even allowed into the metal work room, never mind study such subjects - entering the room in the basement was a punishable offence in my school. Pass rates for Grammar schools were shown in a documentary years later and I was shocked to discover I had to get more than a boy to pass. Inequity is well evidenced - just because your personal circumstances were optimal does not make it so for everyone - evidence cannot be denied.

purplecarSJP

this forum is listed on the Parliamentary notice asking for comments on three different sites in relation to set questions in order that MPs can take views forward - that seems to come from Parliament in my view - the web address has the word Parliament in it

p00hsticks

purplecarSJP wrote: »

this forum is listed on the Parliamentary notice asking for comments on three different sites in relation to set questions in order that MPs can take views forward - that seems to come from Parliament in my view - the web address has the word Parliament in it

As jem16 points out in post #77, the Parliamentary notice (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2015/e-petition-debate-on-transitional-state-pension-arrangements-for-1950s-women/) simply notes that the topic has been previously discussed on this forum, it's not directing people here to record their comments now.

For latecomers, the earlier thread where comments on the debate were invited by UK Parliament is here;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5398345

patanne

Re: 11+ In the mid 50s there was definitely an adjustment made to the results. If there had not been approx 70% of Grammar school places would have been filled with girls. Until my father (who was involved in the local 11+ exam at the time) saw the results he thought it was just a blip in the top juniors class he was teaching. But he was told this was not the case.

However, those results changed when they (boys and girls) reached puberty. So yes the results of 11+ were adapted to make it 50/50 at 16. Not a beginning he liked at all, but an eventual outcome that he could live with although he would have preferred not to have to 'live' with it. There was also an issue with the number of places available as most of the local grammar schools were single sex.

zagfles

hyubh wrote: »

Please understand that WASPI aims are not uncontroversial. WASPI opponents (and I am one) do not oppose WASPI means; we oppose WASPI ends. What you consider to be an obviously just cause (albeit, perhaps, a forlorn one) I see as fundamentally unjust. As such, I do not (for example) consider the current government's ignoring of the WASPI campaign as nefarious; I see it as prudent. This has nothing to do with my views of WASPIs as individuals - it is not an expression of 'hostility and contempt' - just a matter of holding different beliefs.

As an aside (though very much, I think, an illustration of this), I note that on more than one occasion in this thread you have accused opponents of being 'trolls' and of having been 'paid' to make anti-WASPI claims. This is not constructive - if you want to convince others, don't go immediately claiming bad faith. In other words: the justness of the WASPI cause should be the conclusion of your arguments, not the premise.

This was hilarious - the idea that posters who've been here years and discuss all aspects of pensions regularly and who have shown themselves to be very knowledgable are somehow trolls or being paid to undermine WASPI :rotfl:Talk about a persecution complex! Some are people who would actually benefit if WASPI got their way, but who don't see their 'ask' as fair.

This forum doesn't have the herd mentality like facebook. It's not an environment where you can post your views and expect not to be challenged, not to have people disagree with you. It's not censored, there's no-one who will delete posts just because they disgree with you. Abusive posts can be reported. Posts that simply disagree with you or challenge you can't.

jem16

purplecarSJP wrote: »

Inequity is well evidenced - just because your personal circumstances were optimal does not make it so for everyone - evidence cannot be denied.

It also does not make it so that your personal circumstances, being less than optimal, were the same for everyone.

I was born in 1956 and the majority of my friends were born from 1952 to 1958 approximately. In Scotland if you passed the qualifying exam you went to senior secondary and if you didn't you went to junior secondary. This was all down to academic achievement and the opportunities were exactly the same for boys and girls. We were able to choose exactly the same subjects if we wished although not many boys chose Home Economics I must admit.

As to having to achieve a higher score, that is not quite accurate. Entry to grammar school or senior secondary school will have ensured an equal ratio of boys and girls. As boys tended to mature later than girls, their scores were probably lower than the girls so there would have been boys who were accepted for a place with a lower score than girls. Even if all the girls had score 100 and all the boys had scored 50 it would not have meant that 100% of girls would have been accepted.

Most of my friends were teachers with access to Defined Benefit pension schemes. Some went into the NHS with a similar Defined Benefit scheme. A friend who has just retired worked for Scottish Power and again had a good company pension scheme. Later on she became a Classroom assistant and had access to the LGPS - she's slightly older than me.

I knew all about the 1995 changes to my state pension age and personally I haven't met anyone who did not know. It was all over the TV from the 1993 Budget and in numerous media sources. There are many who will just not have taken any interest at that time as it was too far away and they just didn't think about it. Even with personal notification I expect the letters would just have been binned and forgotten about as too far away. There was no personal letter to notify people that they were retiring at age 60 either but many seemed to have just assumed that.

The 2011 changes for some were different with much less notice. I had almost 10 years so I'm not complaining over a few months. I accept the state pensions should be the same for men and women and that they need to rise in line with life expectancy.

The means by which to live in retirement are important but people also need to see that they play a major part in that planning too. It's not good enough to stick your head in the sand for 20 years and then expect everyone to pick up the tab for you.

purplecarSJP wrote: »

this forum is listed on the Parliamentary notice asking for comments on three different sites in relation to set questions in order that MPs can take views forward - that seems to come from Parliament in my view - the web address has the word Parliament in it

As I've already said, that was not what the Parliament website said. To clarify this is what it said;

Ahead of the debate on 1 February, there were online discussions on the following forums:

Money Saving Expert
Mumsnet
Gransnet
Participants in the discussions were invited to respond to the following questions:

Please note that it says "there were online discussions and that participants in those discussions were invited to respond".

All that meant was that people who were already discussing it were being asked for their comments on specific questions as it was obviously something they were already interested in. It's always good to get opinions from all sides in a debate.

There are questions which we would like to put to you, as members of the WASPI campaign. So far Scotswimmen has not answered but perhaps both of you would think of doing so.

1. WASPI's main ask is to put all women born in the 50s after April 1951, back in the same financial position as if born before 1950. This effectively means that WASPI wish all 1950s women to have their state pension at age 60. Do you support this aim? Do you feel that this should apply to all 1950s women regardless of personal circumstances?

2. If you do not agree with the above aim, what do you feel should happen?

missbiggles1

purplecarSJP wrote: »

I stand by what I say and am not a liar as implied by some on here. The expectations, patterns of legislative change and Pay Gap (including Occupational Pension Gap) are all real. Anyone saying otherwise must be unreal as published evidence supports what I say. Facts are facts. It is not about claiming (falsely as implied) that 1950's women have always been downtrodden - what a strange interpretation. Anyone born in early 1960 cannot be in a school age group with 1950's born, with the exception of 1959, so sounds daft - and yes, things changed for you; my year were not even allowed into the metal work room, never mind study such subjects - entering the room in the basement was a punishable offence in my school. Pass rates for Grammar schools were shown in a documentary years later and I was shocked to discover I had to get more than a boy to pass. Inequity is well evidenced - just because your personal circumstances were optimal does not make it so for everyone - evidence cannot be denied.

I thought it was the Scots person who was claiming she'd been called a liar? Some confusion of identity, perhaps?

Pollycat

purplecarSJP wrote: »

this forum is listed on the Parliamentary notice asking for comments on three different sites in relation to set questions in order that MPs can take views forward - that seems to come from Parliament in my view - the web address has the word Parliament in it

You've missed that boat:

UKParliament wrote: »

Your comments will be shared with MPs prior to the debate on 1 February. This is your chance to get involved and influence the work of Parliament.

Comments need to be posted by 10am Thursday 28 January.

I too would ask purplecarSJP who has implied she is a liar.

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

Credibility? - it's not looking good.

You have already declared my 'credibility' as dubious!

I don't know if you are the MSE 'credibility' checker - if so you should declare yourself as so, if not, perhaps you should refrain, at least until you have a 'creditable' basis for your assessment.