We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Government refuses to budge on women's state pension changes
Comments
-
Malthusian wrote: »This I am afraid is standard practice for many needs-based government benefits, turn virtually everyone down initially and then look at the ones who bother to appeal.
It is standard, but its not helpful when the people who are good at appealing are not necessarily the ones in the most need. It should be set up like like car parking fines to dissuade them from doing it like that. If the DWP doesn't give you the money straight away then the benefit should double (and no sneaky halving the benefit in the first place). With the extra money coming from the decision makers pay packet.0 -
The point being missed by so many is that actually, it is not WASPI that generated their publicity, but the 'opposition' to WASPI.
If those who had opposed WASPI had kept quiet, it would never have gotten to where it is now.
The campaign in terms of getting the issue into the public domain has been entirely successful. It has now had coverage in all areas of the media and two debates in the HoC. That is down mainly to those who opposed it and wanted to shout louder. Had they stayed silent, so too would the campaign have been silent and mostly unheard of!!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.0 -
I think MSE should take more care on what they support. If you are setting yourself up as a consumer champion to be taken seriously by the authorities then you need to have some balance in what you look at.
Well, I think MSE knows what they are doing!!! Lets look at the facts - started in 2003 with a domain registration for about £20. Around ten years later its value is £20,000,000. Not a bad investment and would not have happened if they had not known what they were doing! How many on here can say the equalled or surpassed that progress?
Personally, I think MSE should continue to do as it pleases. If they wish to support a campaign, they should, even if I personally object to the campaigns aims totally.0 -
The point being missed by so many is that actually, it is not WASPI that generated their publicity, but the 'opposition' to WASPI.
If those who had opposed WASPI had kept quiet, it would never have gotten to where it is now.
The campaign in terms of getting the issue into the public domain has been entirely successful. It has now had coverage in all areas of the media and two debates in the HoC. That is down mainly to those who opposed it and wanted to shout louder. Had they stayed silent, so too would the campaign have been silent and mostly unheard of!!Well, I think MSE knows what they are doing!!! Lets look at the facts - started in 2003 with a domain registration for about £20. Around ten years later its value is £20,000,000.0 -
Well, I think MSE knows what they are doing!!! Lets look at the facts - started in 2003 with a domain registration for about £20. Around ten years later its value is £20,000,000. Not a bad investment and would not have happened if they had not known what they were doing! How many on here can say the equalled or surpassed that progress?
Personally, I think MSE should continue to do as it pleases. If they wish to support a campaign, they should, even if I personally object to the campaigns aims totally.
Ratners founded in 1949 and was successful until Gerald made one mistake in a single sentence and the public turned.
Success during a period does not mean you can take your eye of the ball. MSE does so well because Martin Lewis is considered credible. Once the credibility is lost, it is hard to recover and may never recover. If you are not taken seriously by those in authority you won't get the changes you campaign for.
MSE should continue to do as it pleases as it has every right to run its business how it likes. However, that does not prevent any of us offering opinion where we believe it is doing something wrong.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
I may have misunderstood your point above but it seems at odds with what you posted on a number of threads on different occasions - for example:
I think you may have misunderstood also. Its saying the same thing. Had the WASPI campaign not had any opposition then it would have not gotten very far. In the main, it is those that opposed the campaign that generated the PR.
Put another way, you can start a campaign to have 25 hours in the day instead of the current 24. Now, if the majority think that's a silly idea and dismiss it without comment then it remains in relative obscurity. However, if people start opposing it and declaring it unworkable etc then that generates interest from others. Others then want to put their t'uppence worth and before you know it, its over the media, tv, radio etc.
You may not get the hours in the day changed, but you got it in the public domain. You then are in a position to move further if you want.... or you might be bored at that stage and move onto something else!!I can't follow your logic there. Who are the 'opposition' that forced/encouraged WASPI?
As explanation above.Moneysupermarket don't do numbers very well, do they, if they paid over 4 times the value of the site? Also, Martin Lewis shouldn't have paid £100 to get going if £20 was all that's needed, should he. Or is there a chance you got your numbers wrong?
Well I was referring to £20 just for the domain registration. "Lets look at the facts - started in 2003 with a domain registration for about £20." Now if Martin paid £100 for the domain name registration I think he has been had - he has obviously learned some bartering skills since then!!
As for the £20m - I was referring to Martins take - which I thought was around £20-£30m. Put another way, he invested £100, and got £20m or so back 10 years later. Not bad, even if he did pay £80 too much for his domain reg.
Not sure I would position myself to tell Martin Lewis how to make decisions or money!!!0 -
WASPI have changed their Facebook page and their 'ask' has disappeared (for the time being at least)
They now say
We are an action group campaigning against the unfair changes to the State Pension Age (SPA), imposed upon women born on or after 6th April 1951 (and how the changes were implemented). This includes both the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts, which are inextricably linked.'
They now appear to be campaigning for all women born after 6th April 1951 - not just 50's women.
They still haven't dropped 1995 - maybe the last sentence should read 'inextricably linked in WASPI's minds'!
They are urging women to see their MP's
I have to admit the WASPI Facebook page has a certain awful fascination for me. There really is a lot of entertainment still to be had!
I see Owen Smith MP has tweeted that 'We'll bring it back to the HoC soon - and present options 4 Govt to honour their promise of Transitional protection.'
Last night some of the WASPI supporters were posting on Facebook that they hoped that these Transitional protection proposals weren't means tested. Says it all really, many of them think the only acceptable transitional arrangement is to be treated as if they retired at 60 for all 1950's women,which is not going to happen.
Also, most of the supporters probably won't notice the introduction on the Facebook page and won't realise that it appears WASPI have drawn back from their unachievable ask!Early retired - 18th December 2014
If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough0 -
Ratners founded in 1949 and was successful until Gerald made one mistake in a single sentence and the public turned.
Absolutely. And many have learned from Gerald Ratners mistake, including himself! He did not do too badly out of it selling his Gyms company for £4m later and becoming an after dinner speaker - presumably about how not to disengage your customers!!!!Success during a period does not mean you can take your eye of the ball. MSE does so well because Martin Lewis is considered credible.
Yes I have made this point before when you brought it up previously. Success is never guaranteed. Past performance and all that.... In the day of social media and the instantaneity of news, that makes it ever more precarious.
Ratner was unlucky, if you could put it like that, when he dropped the ball. At that time there was no Twitter, Facebook etc. His words managed to get out nonetheless - but many others were saying the same or similar things that never got beyond the walls they were in.
So, as I said before, it is for that same reason that MSE and Martin Lewis are unlikely to back anything that will cause them adverse publicity. They think carefully about what they support - you can bet your house on that. And they certainly would not continue to support something if it was generating a negative reflection. MSE continued to support the WASPI campaign right up to the day of the debate on 1st Feb.MSE should continue to do as it pleases as it has every right to run its business how it likes. However, that does not prevent any of us offering opinion where we believe it is doing something wrong.
True. This is a forum for opinions. However, we are guests rather than paying subscribers. Not agreeing with a campaign is entirely different to not agreeing with MSE supporting that campaign.0 -
I think you may have misunderstood also. Its saying the same thing. Had the WASPI campaign not had any opposition then it would have not gotten very far. In the main, it is those that opposed the campaign that generated the PR.0
-
Maybe I've missed it in one of your earlier posts, but it seems to me that it's only just now that you've started to say specifically that it's the opposition to WASPI that got the campiagn so far - not the WASPI campaign itself.
I'm not sure how else to explain it. WASPI started the campaign but, in reality, the campaign is unlikely to have made noticeable progress unless there was a groundswell of opposition. Once there is sufficient opposition that then gathers pace like a snowball.
That's how it works for all of these things.
Companies use it sometimes to generate PR. You might recall a few years ago Coca Cola done something saying it was going to change the ingredients of Coca Cola. Coca Cola fans started to voice opposition. This generated any amount of publicity for the company virtually all at no cost.
Similarly, when Clinton was US President, Hilary dropped the ball on a Health Care issue. She took objection to what some of her opponents were saying and actually generated a great deal more adverse publicity than if she had ignored it. Had she said nothing, the issue would have just died away without notice.
In football, they call it an own goal .....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards