MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

Paul_Herring wrote: »

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

It does make you wonder what the 3% who think it doesn't go far enough would like to see happen!

OldBeanz

Haha how absurd. They have used EU tactics to start another poll to ensure they get the result they want.
If the figures reflect the opinion of the population as a whole I would emigrate. No, I would want my tax back for the past 40 odd years as no-one wrote to me about having to pay.

Figures are now -
Yes 41%
Doesn't go far enough 40%
No they shouldn't 15%
Don't know 1%

Figs rounded down

jamesd

OldBeanz wrote: »

They have used EU tactics to start another poll to ensure they get the result they want.

So go and vote in the new one, I suppose. Tiresome.

Not sure we can blame the EU, just look at the SNP looking for reasons to rerun the recent once in a generation poll after it didn't give them the result they wanted but did leave people feeling safe enough that the union would survive to vote SNP at the last election. The "one person, one vote, once" effect isn't confined to under-developed countries.

OldBeanz wrote: »

Figures are now -
Yes 41%
Doesn't go far enough 40%
No they shouldn't 15%
Don't know 1%

Seems as though it might be a good idea to record those every day or so.

OldBeanz

jamesd wrote: »

...

Not sure we can blame the EU...

I do not know of any other organisation who blatantly held elections until the result they wanted was achieved but if you know of one that pre-dates them?

As for the SNP, they have no intention of running another referendum as they know they will loose. They have wound up their fruit-loops so far that they do not have a clue how to control them. Throwing the EU bone to them keeps them appeased for another few months.

Paul_Herring

OldBeanz wrote: »

I do not know of any other organisation who blatantly held elections until the result they wanted was achieved but if you know of one that pre-dates them?

1980/1995, Quebec do ya?

‘Neverendum’ – that was the word suggested by Anglophone Canadians in the wake of the second unsuccessful referendum in Quebec. Having lost heavily in 1980, the Parti Quebeçois simply waited 15 years and asked the voters anew. The close result – independence was defeated by less than 1 per cent – suggested that the word ‘neverendum’ was indeed appropriate. It seemed to many that the separatists would keep holding referendums until they got the result they wanted.

OldBeanz

Paul_Herring wrote: »

1980/1995, Quebec do ya?

Quebec is still part of Canada. They did not achieve the vote they wanted. The EU had elections in Ireland and when they lost then held another. It is not having a second election that I am alluding to but having a second vote so that there is the opportunity for the "establishment" vote to correct the first one which is what Savvywomen are up to by presumably deleting the previous votes.
The Quebec issue is why Frau Sturgeon will not have another vote until she is certain she can win; unfortunately for her she has to appease the loonier parts of her organisation who are convinced the original vote was rigged.

cannyshopper_2

I am a woman born in 1953 and for various reasons I won't qualify for a full pension whenever I get it (currently 64)

I have fallen out with WASPI because their original aim "to make fair transitional arrangements" sounds good but is without any firm ideas or consensus on what these arrangements should be.

They don't want any comments on their FB page other than from sycophants who can't appreciate the wider issues, so it is impossible to get any discussion going.

I don't expect to live more than another 15 years so I guess I'll lose out whatever is suggested.

Do I want a reduced pension now? that depends on how much its reduced by, and whether this would also qualify me for the other pensioner benefits such as the winter fuel allowance & concessionary travel. I'm currently living off my savings which are going to run out within 6 months.... I am not looking forward to having to sign on at the Job Centre to be allowed to continue to eat for the next year or so. Swapping one govt payout for another doesn't cost them any extra, it just comes out of a different pot. I know there's plenty of other women in their early 60's who are also in the same position. Signing on and being forced to look for non-existent jobs is demeaning and demoralising.

Do I want the changes as per the 2011 Act scrapped for anyone like myself who had less than 10 years notice of the changes this Act introduced? (I think this means everyone born between 1952-1956 but I don't want to argue about details) Well, it seems like a fairly trivial suggestion but it costs a LOT of money to give up to £12K in extra pension to around 700,000 people.... that's a very rough estimate of £8.4Bn !!!! I have no way to verify the actual numbers affected: but one MP in the debate in Feb quoted a cost of £30Bn (just to roll back the 2011 Act) which is clearly out of the question.... This also begs the question just how accurate are the Govt estimates, and why is misinformation of this magnitude STILL being quoted????

I do agree with the principle of equalisation, and I would ask the men who seem to think we women have had it too easy for too long to consider some of the things we have had to put up with since we started working over 40 years ago:
Was it fair that women of our age group were forced to accept lower wages than men for most of our working lives;
In many cases we were not allowed to join company pension schemes because we were women;
Back in the early days some occupations forced you to resign from your job when you got married or had children.

We aren't asking for much really: an acknowledgment from this Govt that we have been unfairly treated would be a start, regardless of any financial arrangements that are made to alleviate the dire circumstances some women have found themselves in through no fault of their own.

OldBeanz

Another who agrees with equalisation as long as they are not affected. Some are more equal than others.
What company scheme were you not allowed to join?
Women have had equal pay for more than 40 years so you were not forced to accept lower pay.
Surely the time to complain was in 2011.

cannyshopper_2

OldBeanz wrote: »

Another who agrees with equalisation as long as they are not affected. Some are more equal than others.
What company scheme were you not allowed to join?
Women have had equal pay for more than 40 years so you were not forced to accept lower pay.
Surely the time to complain was in 2011.

The Equal Pay Act might have been in force for 40 years but women's pay is still lagging behind men's for several reasons. I worked in the IT industry during the 1980's so it wasn't a question of whether the work was equal or equivalent. I was working alongside men who were getting at least 10% more than I was. It was a choice of accepting the status quo or looking for another job. [Incidentally, that is one reason I do not have any significant personal pension: my average stay with any one employer during this period was 18 months] If I said "I'm not working for that salary because Mr X is paid more" my earnings would have been zero.

I DID start to complain in 2011 but I was a voice in the wilderness. No-one seemed to appreciate the issues. At least the WASPI campaign has brought the issues to a wider public.

I repeat - I'm not against equalisation. My main gripe is that due to the 2011 Act the phased implementation has been speeded up with very little notice. MPs and senior civil servants have been given 10 years notice of changes to their own pensions. Furthermore, the Govt has said that future increases in state pension age will be given 10 years notice before implementation. (Not sure if this is law, policy or just an advisory notice) The effect of the 2011 Act was to defer my State Pension Age by a further 18 months in addition to the delay due to the 1995 Act. That is, I was given barely 5 years notice of the additional wait. Others of a similar age have had less than 3 years notice. One rule for MPs and senior civil servants and another rule for the rest of us. That cannot be regarded as fair whichever way you look at it.

Incidentally, my former husband was eligible for pension credit & concessionary travel etc when he was 60. (This was the retirement age for women at the time) So in some respects men WERE treated more favourably to bring them into line with women.

When State Pensions were first introduced, it was expected that most people would only receive a pension for about 5 years, due to the average life expectancy of the time. I do not know why the age was set 5 years earlier for women, but of course far fewer women would have earned a pension in their own right in those days. As husbands are generally a few years older than their wives, perhaps this was a way of allowing them to enjoy their retirement together?

POPPYOSCAR

OldBeanz wrote: »

Another who agrees with equalisation as long as they are not affected. Some are more equal than others.
What company scheme were you not allowed to join?
Women have had equal pay for more than 40 years so you were not forced to accept lower pay.
Surely the time to complain was in 2011.

Oh come one.


Women were not offered jobs like men were 40 years ago and did not earn as much as men did.


Things are different now yes but still have some way to go even now.


Even when I put my name first on things I find my husband's name is usually put first which irks me no end.