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

atush

Saver, is there a thread you don't want to hijack?

Let me know and i'll go read it lol

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

So why did you write
Quote:
Thats all red herring. If the majority agree there is no basis for changing the 1995 agreement then it's largely irrelevant. However, if you had noted the debate brought up by Mhari Black you will have seen the Conservatives accusing Labour, who were then in government

Labour came into Government two years after the Conservatives in 1997 - thus they were then in government. I can't say I get my posts proof read before posting so some reading between the lines is necessary!!

If the majority is in agreement that there should be no change to the 1995 policy then its of no account in any event. The point I was making was that the Conservative MP scored an own goal.

I'm not posting further on this point as its an irrelevance to the thread and I'm getting told off for going off topic.

saver861

atush wrote: »

Saver, is there a thread you don't want to hijack?

Let me know and i'll go read it lol

I expect it might be one of the shorter threads then

Its a fair point though. If threads are looking for just specific information or answers to specific questions it would be useful somehow to be able to distinguish and thus avoid debating posts.

zagfles

DaveMcG wrote: »

Fine if you want to review the 2011 changes, but just be certain that you won't be reversing the changes just for women. As it would be quite blatant discrimination to further increase the retirement dates of men alone. So that should be made crystal clear before any debate.

Yes, the only sensible mitigation proposal I've seen (and mentioned earlier in this thread) is to keep the pension credit age as per the 1995 timetable.

This is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally to men and women, and it will ensure cases of genuine hardship due to short notice of the 2011 changes for both men and women are dealt with without costing too much.

nonolerigolo

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, the only sensible mitigation proposal I've seen (and mentioned earlier in this thread) is to keep the pension credit age as per the 1995 timetable.

This is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally to men and women, and it will ensure cases of genuine hardship due to short notice of the 2011 changes for both men and women are dealt with without costing too much.

Knowing that the younger generation is going to work well other 66 years, probably 70, If I were all these women I will just stop complaining and be pleased I will have to work well less than the men and all the other generation.

What people should realized: if the government was too paid off, what will happen, more tax (pension) for the younger generation. Do you not give a Toss about you OWN CHILDREN future?

People should stop looking at their own interest and look for the interest of the country (aka the next generation, aka their children).

OldBeanz

"What do you think should have been covered that was not?"

Someone raises the impact on the younger generation - appears a quite reasonable point to raise in the debate.

zagfles

jem16 wrote: »

Can we please stick to the topic of this thread which is to inform the debate.

WASPI has changed their main "ask" on Facebook.

Why was this done at such a late stage and after people have put their name to the petition? This is hugely detrimental to the whole campaign as people don't know what they're signing up to.

Yes, and are we going to get any MPs who actually have the guts to criticise WASPI this time? About their censorship of discussions on their site, about their change of tack after people have signed the petition?

Or will be have a repeat of the fawning compliments for the way they conducted their campaign again?

SnowMan

There seemed to be no attempt to understand the issues in the original debate, or to objectively examine claims made by WASPI and their supporters. It reflected on Parliament very badly indeed.

As a starting point MPs should read Frances Coppola's excellent blog (before she was hounded out of the debate) to get a more balanced view of the subject.

http://www.coppolacomment.com/2015/12/here-i-stand-i-can-do-no-other.html

Personally I think the 2011 changes were made with too little notice of an up to 18 month increase.

If MPs agree with that they should look at and debate practical solutions to deal with this.

One solution is to support a further mitigation of the maximum increase to 12 months see this post.

But the solution mentioned by others of limiting the increase in Pension Credit Age to the 1995 Act timetable has huge merit in dealing with real hardship, as opposed to the WASPI definition of hardship which seems to be the 'compelling' hardship of having to spend some of your savings or rely on a partner's income temporarily.

From Work and Pensions Committee oral evidence
Lin Phillips: Absolutely, yes. We have lots and lots of really compelling stories. If you are out of the labour market in your 60s it is impossible, virtually, to get back in. Some women are finding you can sign on for Jobseeker’s allowance maybe for six months and if it is income based, if you have a partner, then you do not get an income after that. When you have been used to working all your life and you are not contributing, that has a knock-on effect on relationships, on how you feel. I know if I wake up in the morning and I do not have any work, it is the first thing I think of because I am not contributing, so you are using your savings.

zagfles

What were the most important points in the first debate for you?

There was too much emotive posturing, too many irrelavent examples of how a higher state pension age has affected some women, rather than how the notice/comminication of the higher pension age has affected them. Something which has equal effect on a man of the same age is totally irrelavent. Too much reliance on the information supplied by WASPI, there was too much fawning compliments over the way their campaign was conducted with no criticism of them for closing down debate on their site by deleting anything which didn't conform to their agenda, or challenging the information they supplied.

What do you think should have been covered that was not?

There was not enough debate of who should pay for any compensation, eg next generations. There was not enough discussion of specific measures to compensate those who were the worst affected. There was no discussion about the general principle that the government don't have to, and in fact rarely, write to people individually to inform them of changes in law that affect them. What happened to the principle of "ignorance of
the law is no excuse"?

What points do you think a second debate should focus on?
The 2011 changes only. The notice period given. Measures to compensate those worst affected, with any proposal costed with an indication of how it might be paid for (eg increased taxes, more borrowing etc). Ensuring any compensation is non discriminatory, for instance if 10 years notice is called for then this should apply equally to men who've had their state pension age increased without 10 years notice.

What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?
That depends on what their response is!

bmm78

UKParliament wrote: »

[*]What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?

There was little constructive debate.

It was concerning to see suspect research from Paul Lewis treated as fact, and contentious arguments from WASPI not sufficiently challenged.

Contrary to Mr Lewis' suggestions, the equalisation of state pension gained considerable media attention at the time, and far from trying to keep it hidden the government actually announced it on live television at the 1993 budget.

Two major issues were conflated throughout the debate:

1) The changes brought on by the 1995 and 2011 Acts respectively. The issues are fundamentally different and there should be a clear distinction between the two.

2) The impact of the lack of notice, as opposed to the impact of the changes themselves. In many cases (such as Lin Phillips based on her evidence to the committee), the lack of notice had little or no meaningful impact on their retirement plans. For example, Lin Phillips suggested that with notice she could have saved into a personal pension, and then later complains that she may have to rely on her savings over the next few years (which is essentially the same net result).

If the debate is about lack of notice, it also has to be accepted that in many cases additional notice would have made little difference to the individual. Building adequate personal pension arrangements does not just require "notice" or "planning". It requires disposable income, which the worst affected did not have anyway.

UKParliament wrote: »

[*]What points do you think a second debate should focus on?

Make a clear demarcation around the 2011 changes, and emphasise that the 1995 Act is off the table for debate.

Focus on establishing the true impact of the issues surrounding 2011, and where detriment has been identified as a direct result, propose solutions to address this.

Acknowledgement from all parties to the debate that this is not a zero sum game, and that any changes potentially have an impact on other constituents, particularly future generations.

As any solution has to be cost-effective, the neediest cases have to be prioritised.

UKParliament wrote: »

[*]What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Is the current benefit system fit-for-purpose in terms of preventing poverty for those affected by changes to the state pension? If not, what changes can realistically be implemented to address the issue?