MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

mgdavid

t0rt0ise wrote: »

...... I do think the sudden changes were unfair.

I do think 'sudden' is an exaggeration.

mark1959

I'd be quite happy to receive my state pension at 64 as well. (I'm male and probably won't live as long as you) But my SP is 66. That's life.

mark1959

And fairer. (If there's such a word) Or would you like to carry on the blatant unfairness and gender discrimination against males.

brewerdave

Just went on the savvywoman site out of curiosity -now appears to be over 75% against any changes !!

jem16

t0rt0ise wrote: »

I do think the sudden changes were unfair.

If you're referring to the 2011 Act only, them many would agree that it was handled badly and with too short notice for those born in 1953/54.

Anyone born before 1953 wasn't affected and anyone born after 1956 had at least 10 years' notice.

jem16

brewerdave wrote: »

Just went on the savvywoman site out of curiosity -now appears to be over 75% against any changes !!

Those not supporting WASPI don't want 1950s women getting their pension early as it's unfair on others.

It also seems that WASPI supporters don't want a reduced pension for life as they see their pension at age 60 as their entitlement! Lack of notice is simply a smokescreen to hide that they simply want the money.

There is also a Protest against 2011 group that's gaining more traction with many original WASPI supporters who now feel that the WASPI aim is getting them nowhere and is in danger of seeing nothing given. This group was founded in 2010 and was involved in getting the 6 months reduction on the final bill.

Paul_Herring

brewerdave wrote: »

Just went on the savvywoman site out of curiosity -now appears to be over 75% against any changes !!

Yup. Surprised it's still up to be honest.

Malthusian

There is also a Protest against 2011 group that's gaining more traction with many original WASPI supporters who now feel that the WASPI aim is getting them nowhere and is in danger of seeing nothing given.

Splitters!!!

Leaving aside the question of whether the 2011ers are more justified in demanding a reversal, I can't see it going anywhere as the group affected is much smaller and the time to protest was when the 2011 bill was working its way through Parliament. It's also less of a draw for the media as "I'll have to work for another 18 months" isn't much of a sob story. There just isn't going to be the same level of anger and denial as WASPI have drummed up.

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

Splitters!!!

You could say that it's WASPI who has split from this group.

I can't see it going anywhere as the group affected is much smaller and the time to protest was when the 2011 bill was working its way through Parliament.

The group has been working on it since 2010 and was instrumental in getting the 6 months concession.

However I still don't see it getting anywhere either.

Daniel54

jem16 wrote: »

I would have thought it would be split between Yes and It doesn't go far enough as that seems to be the WASPI view so far from what I've read.

Interesting that Ms Pennells has announced on Twitter that the poll had been hijacked.It now appears to have been manually adjusted to achieve exactly the above result.

What a sham.