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
-
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »You always know when a poster has lost the plot when they start making reference to Hitler!
is that*really* the best you can come up with in response to some extremely well-reasoned points and analysis?
1/10 must try harder.The questions that get the best answers are the questions that give most detail....0 -
Thus WASPI has them rattled as we speak.
People far too often are misguided and believe their own PR. There's a much larger macro game in play. I suspect the current Government is planning long term. Given the complete turmoil and lack of any coherent policy from the opposition parties. The storm will blow over in time.0 -
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.
I was aware of the original change to my SPA waaaay back in 1995 so for me that was certainly more than 'a few years notice' to 'prepare financially'.0 -
Entirely different situation .. and indeed perhaps a slightly distasteful comparison.POPPYOSCAR wrote: »You always know when a poster has lost the plot when they start making reference to Hitler!Well many younger ones may not have full appreciation of the distain - however, such scenarios do not have any place in comparisons or discussions on issues where there is not even the remotest connection.
ISIL/ ISIS are an example of a special interest group which you would not want to accommodate on general principle, due to that potential effect. There are many milder examples but it is sometimes easier to go full on with a more obvious caricature to help the case state itself.
An analogy was also drawn between a person leading a faltering campaign and someone losing a war who uses bluster and propaganda to tell himself and his people that they are winning, to inspire self-belief and boost morale, despite it being clear to a dispassionate observer that they are not in fact winning. Hitler and the Kim family are examples of people who have sought to inspire others to support them, by believing their own hype and broadcasting to others that they were winning and were the best,, despite that not being the case.
If you can't listen to someone draw an analogy - and you steadfastly refuse to contemplate any parallels between one unconnected event and another - without getting squeamish, perhaps debate is not for you.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating genocide, the suppression of human rights, or terrorism. But feel free to stick your head in the sand and have 'distain' for my observations as if I were advocating those things: If it helps you feel like you have some sort of moral high ground and therefore you must be the person who is more correct in your assessment of the situation at hand, then good for you.0 -
The "ask" has not changed - it's just been moved. It's now in the Notes section.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/waspi-women-against-state-pension-inequality-campaign/welcome-to-waspi/987711544622659?__mref=message
Does look like an attempt to hide it so that they can gain the support of Tory MPs.
As I'm not a big Facebook user, the attempt to hide it worked with me!
but they still haven't gained my supportEarly retired - 18th December 2014
If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough0 -
So, how then does such an unreasonable 'ask' get to the stage it has got to? As I have said many times, I have never thought the 1995 policy would be changed. The vast majority of people don't think that will happen. Yet this unreasonable 'ask' has secured two debates and has had a good deal of media coverage.
Usually anything that is so extreme or unreasonable barely sees the light of day. The Wasps are still flying as we speak. How come?
.
The media like a downtrodden minority story, so that explains the media coverage.
The WASPI's keep at it as they believe they've got a chance of getting moneyEarly retired - 18th December 2014
If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough0 -
Misrepresenting facts is a key part of the case. They have known for a long time (1995) that discriminatory retirement ages are unfair and should and will be changed. Unfortunately that does not make a good story.
It is a very necessary change it should have been done a very long time ago and cannot happen soon enough.
Still lets keep the begging bowl out there someone might be stupid enough to put something in.0 -
Misrepresenting facts is a key part of the case. They have known for a long time (1995) that discriminatory retirement ages are unfair and should and will be changed. Unfortunately that does not make a good story.
It is a very necessary change it should have been done a very long time ago and cannot happen soon enough.
Still lets keep the begging bowl outthere someone might be stupid enough to put something in.0 -
bowlhead99 wrote: »If you can't listen to someone draw an analogy - and you steadfastly refuse to contemplate any parallels between one unconnected event and another - without getting squeamish, perhaps debate is not for you.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating genocide, the suppression of human rights, or terrorism. But feel free to stick your head in the sand and have 'distain' for my observations as if I were advocating those things: If it helps you feel like you have some sort of moral high ground and therefore you must be the person who is more correct in your assessment of the situation at hand, then good for you.
The point under discussion is around pension policy changes and whether it is fair or not, if so what should / could be done etc. Events in Paris are a completely different matter in comparison and I would make no comparable associations whatsoever.
I'm not claiming moral high ground or anything else you might wish to infer.
I'm saying I don't agree with your analogies and for that reason I will bow out at this point.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »People far too often are misguided and believe their own PR. There's a much larger macro game in play. I suspect the current Government is planning long term. Given the complete turmoil and lack of any coherent policy from the opposition parties. The storm will blow over in time.
Its very true many get sucked into their own PR - no doubt about it. However, what any government is very keen to do is to minimise negative PR.
Its not any one event or campaign, its the collective negativity over time that they fear.
This pension issue will blow over in time certainly. The concern for the government is always damage limitation. I suspect it has already gone much further than they would like and they can't seem to find the ability to stamp it out at this stage. That's what will be concerning them more than the cost of any changes.
Add to that, there is posturing within the conservative party to be the next potential leader and prime minister. There is a lot a play behind the scenes.
Politicians have a priority list. Self first - party second - constituents third. Thats not the order they would recite if you ask them of course!!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