MSE News: Government refuses to budge on women's state pension changes

jem16

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Was this in the actual petition as presented to the Committee or just on faceache.?

It was given in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 16th December.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/understanding-the-new-state-pension/oral/26407.pdf

Q60 Heidi Allen: Lin and Anne, it sounds like it is predominantly about communication, the fact that you just did not know that this was coming. Given that there is not money sloshing around and that that is the world that we are living in now, what would
success look like for you? At the end of the year, great job, what is the solution that you are looking for?

Answer by Anne Keen;

Anne Keen: What we have asked we have already put out there, basically, because we have a petition now, which is going really well. I think it is over 57,000 signatures, almost 10,000 in a few days recently.

and

Anne Keen: Yes, so we think this has had a major impact and influence upon that. Basically, what we are asking—and we feel this is a very fair ask—is for the Government to put all women in their 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state
pension age in exactly the same position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950. As Lin has touched upon, we have worked since we were 15 and we have built up over 40 years’ worth of National Insurance contributions now. All of our working lives we expected to receive our pension when we were 60. Nobody told us any different. Although there was not a written contract as such, there was a psychological contract. All of our working lives we were told, “You will get your pension when you are 60”.

So yes the petition and the "ask" are ( in the words of Anne Keen herself ) inextricably linked.

The problem is that not all who signed the petition knew about it.

POPPYOSCAR

So it was not actually IN the petition then?

jem16

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So it was not actually IN the petition then?

No-one has ever said it was. Quite the opposite in fact.

bowlhead99

saver861 wrote: »

Then again .... this is what your right honourable friend Mr Richard Graham said ...

Thank you, Mr Stringer. In conclusion, the WASPI campaign has been well put together, and the e-petition has been a great success; that is why we are all here. I congratulate WASPI. All the points made by the campaign about communication in the past will have been noted and largely accepted by almost everybody in the House.


hmmm ..... there seems to be a division in the house on the merits of the WASPI campaign ..... lordy lord ....

Well:
It is standard, polite and respectful to congratulate someone for succeeding to get people around the table. The goal of raising awareness of a depth of feeling around an issue and bringing it to the politicians door has succeeded. Just like other petitions like "keep Trump out of the UK".

So he thanks them for bringing the issue and because he is being respectful he can't say: "haha you've brought the wrong issue, you idiots". It doesn't mean that the view they successfully got to the table was actually a view that would stand real scrutiny or get its way in rolling back the clock on 1995 and 2011 rule changes. Waspi got their wishes to the table by appealing for very wide support: by making wishes which spoke to all women affected by 1995, who would not have joined the bandwagon with such passion if the petition was targeted solely at the impact of a 2011 rule change on women born in a particular six month period, for example.

He notes that points around communication will indeed have been noted and accepted. One point around communication is that even if you shout loudly about new rules and laws and cover it on TV and radio and in several hundred newspaper and magazine articles over a period of years - there will still be those who do not hear it, do not understand it, or perhaps, hear but ignore it.... and later claim their ignorance is your fault even though in law their ignorance to rules is not usually a defence to having to abide by them.

So clearly, governments of both party colours can learn lessons about the relative success or failure of communications to improve things for next time.

But poor communication doesn't change the fact that the rules are valid. Hence, in his speech, a member of government is more than happy to admit that communication is poor - and thank them for raising it - rather than actually admit that rules are bad.

Especially because the petition was written broadly enough to cover 1995, which means the Tory minister would be happy to note a few communication problems - because any communication deficiencies around 1995 changes could have been fixed by Labour in the next 13 years of government and they didn't think there was a problem until now. By contrast a petition getting signatures purely about 1953/4 women and 2011 changes... if *that* had been able to garner 100k sigs on its own - would have been squarely a Con/Lib problem with strong opposition support.

So in summary I'm not at all surprised to hear the government politely commend waspi for raising an issue, *especially* when they can politely just take on board the "communications issue" as "a lesson for next time". And then dismiss the bulk of the issue because the method of raising the issue for maximum broad support meant that it was raised broadly enough to allow the government to say that most of the rules are old, and have been looked at before, and are certainly not going to get revisited.

Waspi did do a great job of getting people behind the campaign. They deliberately didn't do a great job of focusing the campaign on a highly specific problem for a small group, because that would not have helped them corral so many people together on social media and get the same level of traction.

Ultimately, by not wanting to make concessions and focus their "ask" on practical solutions for 10% of '50s women, because of the implication that they would have to tell 90% of their followers that the rest of the cause was quietly being dropped... they drove forward with an unrealistic "ask". It was an unstoppable machine and so the Waspi leadership could not go in front of the MPs and say actually we only really really really want this bit and the rest would be nice too.

When giving evidence they wanted rule changes for all their gang, even new arrangements for 1951 women, and they were not concerned with the fate of 1960s women who would implicitly be given their own cliff face compared to their elders if the elders were allowed to retire earlier. The ask was unreasonable. So it failed.

That's my take on it anyway.

immy1

I am one of those women who will have to wait an extra 6 years to receive my pension. In principal I agree that men and women's pensions should be paid at the same age but there should be some safety net for those who have had no time to prepare financially. My main objections are:-
1. I have already paid enough contributions to receive a full state pension but this makes no difference.I have also received a state pension forecast and under the new rules still wont have enough to get a full state pension. Apparently this will be the case for the majority too.
2. There are many women who work in low-paid jobs who require more than a few years notice to start putting money aside to compensate for the loss. What about those who are made redundant (an ever increasing possiblity in the current economic climate). Where will they get a job at age 60+ which enables them to make up the pension shortfall?
3. There is currently a massive furore taking place about the possibility of migrants having to wait 4 years before claiming in-work benefits. In comparison there's no concern at all for women in my predicament and the extra 6 year wait. Also, unlike migrants coming into the UK I have contributed taxes and national insurance for over 37 years. There also seems to be no shortage of goverment money for the foreign aid budget. While altruism is a worthy cause, governments need to start putting their own citizens first especially when many are suffering grave financial problems and considering that we are the ones being denied our benefits despite having paid for it all our working lives.

POPPYOSCAR

immy1 wrote: »

I am one of those women who will have to wait an extra 6 years to receive my pension. In principal I agree that men and women's pensions should be paid at the same age but there should be some safety net for those who have had no time to prepare financially. My main objections are:-
1. I have already paid enough contributions to receive a full state pension but this makes no difference.I have also received a state pension forecast and under the new rules still wont have enough to get a full state pension. Apparently this will be the case for the majority too.
2. There are many women who work in low-paid jobs who require more than a few years notice to start putting money aside to compensate for the loss. What about those who are made redundant (an ever increasing possiblity in the current economic climate). Where will they get a job at age 60+ which enables them to make up the pension shortfall?
3. There is currently a massive furore taking place about the possibility of migrants having to wait 4 years before claiming in-work benefits. In comparison there's no concern at all for women in my predicament and the extra 6 year wait. Also, unlike migrants coming into the UK I have contributed taxes and national insurance for over 37 years. There also seems to be no shortage of goverment money for the foreign aid budget. While altruism is a worthy cause, governments need to start putting their own citizens first especially when many are suffering grave financial problems and considering that we are the ones being denied our benefits despite having paid for it all our working lives.

In agreement with you.


Have you contacted your MP? You should make them aware of your discontent.

OldBeanz

Dearie me another person who knew nothing about the 1995 changes.
You have not explained why you think it is unfair to retire at the same age as a man who is likely to live less time than you and is far more likely to have been in a physically demanding job.

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So he thanks them for bringing the issue and because he is being respectful he can't say: "haha you've brought the wrong issue, you idiots".

Yes - he does the honourable thing you might say by commending WASPI - a bit like you would tell your mother in law how delighted you are that she has come to stay for a week!!

However, Richard Graham and his mate Mr Vara did not want to be there discussing this issue with the idiots. They really would have preferred if the idiots had lost their way long before getting to that point. The problem for them is that it has not died away and in fact it has escalated. So the words coming out of Mr Graham's mouth and the thought in his mind will no doubt have been somewhat different in his commendation.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

by making wishes which spoke to all women affected by 1995, who would not have joined the bandwagon with such passion if the petition was targeted solely at the impact of a 2011 rule change on women born in a particular six month period, for example.

It will always be hypothetical what would have happened if they had focussed solely on the 2011 changes. The petition might not have got there. There would have been no debate and only a small minority would have heard of WASPI.

I only heard of them a few months ago but the campaign has been going since last April.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So clearly, governments of both party colours can learn lessons about the relative success or failure of communications to improve things for next time.

Mhari Black said that in her first debate conclusion. There is nothing to be done about the 1995 changes other than learning from the poor communications. So, there is no loss of money, face or anything else by admitting to that.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Especially because the petition was written broadly enough to cover 1995, which means the Tory minister would be happy to note a few communication problems - because any communication deficiencies around 1995 changes could have been fixed by Labour in the next 13 years of government and they didn't think there was a problem until now.

Again, as was argued in the first debate. The conservatives accusing Labour of not sorting out the communication issue in their term in Office, - oh wait, but the conservatives were saying communications were ok .... hmmmm ......

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So in summary I'm not at all surprised to hear the government politely commend waspi for raising an issue,

but the Government has not put this to bed .... they did not want this to go anywhere near as far as it has done. They have not been able to kill it off. The fact is that the demands of the 1995 changes was never a runner, yet they have not been able to squash it.

As it stands WASPI v Government - WASPI has won to this point. WASPI started off as a handful of regular women against the great Government machine. The WASPS are still whining!!

Now it might be that the Government had hoped this would die out - it might be they expect this will die out. However, its just not happening. And all Governments know pensioners count for many of their likely votes.

In the end, if they make no concessions then they know they have upset a certain section of pensioners i.e. voters. On its own that won't figure in the big scheme of the numbers game. However, they know too that further down the line if they upset another section of pensioners the whole thing comes back again.

If they had thrown a free scraps to the hungry protestors then it might have fizzled out and some at least might be content that they got something. As it stands, the government defiance is working against them in getting rid of this annoying little problem.

POPPYOSCAR

saver861 wrote: »

Yes - he does the honourable thing you might say by commending WASPI - a bit like you would tell your mother in law how delighted you are that she has come to stay for a week!!

However, Richard Graham and his mate Mr Vara did not want to be there discussing this issue with the idiots. They really would have preferred if the idiots had lost their way long before getting to that point. The problem for them is that it has not died away and in fact it has escalated. So the words coming out of Mr Graham's mouth and the thought in his mind will no doubt have been somewhat different in his commendation.



It will always be hypothetical what would have happened if they had focussed solely on the 2011 changes. The petition might not have got there. There would have been no debate and only a small minority would have heard of WASPI.

I only heard of them a few months ago but the campaign has been going since last April.




Mhari Black said that in her first debate conclusion. There is nothing to be done about the 1995 changes other than learning from the poor communications. So, there is no loss of money, face or anything else by admitting to that.



Again, as was argued in the first debate. The conservatives accusing Labour of not sorting out the communication issue in their term in Office, - oh wait, but the conservatives were saying communications were ok .... hmmmm ......



but the Government has not put this to bed .... they did not want this to go anywhere near as far as it has done. They have not been able to kill it off. The fact is that the demands of the 1995 changes was never a runner, yet they have not been able to squash it.

As it stands WASPI v Government - WASPI has won to this point. WASPI started off as a handful of regular women against the great Government machine. The WASPS are still whining!!

Now it might be that the Government had hoped this would die out - it might be they expect this will die out. However, its just not happening. And all Governments know pensioners count for many of their likely votes.

In the end, if they make no concessions then they know they have upset a certain section of pensioners i.e. voters. On its own that won't figure in the big scheme of the numbers game. However, they know too that further down the line if they upset another section of pensioners the whole thing comes back again.

If they had thrown a free scraps to the hungry protestors then it might have fizzled out and some at least might be content that they got something. As it stands, the government defiance is working against them in getting rid of this annoying little problem.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.


I have seen them in a whole new light over this and other things which have also been building up are making me think differently about them.

Goldiegirl

immy1 wrote: »

I am one of those women who will have to wait an extra 6 years to receive my pension. In principal I agree that men and women's pensions should be paid at the same age but there should be some safety net for those who have had no time to prepare financially. My main objections are:-
1. I have already paid enough contributions to receive a full state pension but this makes no difference.I have also received a state pension forecast and under the new rules still wont have enough to get a full state pension. Apparently this will be the case for the majority too.
2. There are many women who work in low-paid jobs who require more than a few years notice to start putting money aside to compensate for the loss. What about those who are made redundant (an ever increasing possiblity in the current economic climate). Where will they get a job at age 60+ which enables them to make up the pension shortfall?
3. There is currently a massive furore taking place about the possibility of migrants having to wait 4 years before claiming in-work benefits. In comparison there's no concern at all for women in my predicament and the extra 6 year wait. Also, unlike migrants coming into the UK I have contributed taxes and national insurance for over 37 years. There also seems to be no shortage of goverment money for the foreign aid budget. While altruism is a worthy cause, governments need to start putting their own citizens first especially when many are suffering grave financial problems and considering that we are the ones being denied our benefits despite having paid for it all our working lives.

You mentioned a safety net - what arrangements would you like to see in place as a safety net?