MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

GibbsRule_No3

So I notice that despite emails from my MP Zac Goldsmith, assuring me he "understands", he obviously did not feel the need to attend and vote on my behalf.

SnowMan

Astonishing that when Mr Vara says

Mr Vara: Yes, there are many people, including people in WASPI, who want to unravel the 1995 reforms. It is out there on the internet for people to see, so let us not try to deny the two options that are being debated out there

Owen Smith's short term memory fails him and and he both mis-quotes this and demands an apology from Mr Vara

[FONT="]Owen Smith:[/FONT][FONT="] The Minister repeats the calumny that the WASPI women are saying, “Do not equalise pensions, and get rid of the 1995 Act[/FONT]...........It is not true. Will he withdraw it?

The WASPI facebook page (currently) says

There is a misconception, by our detractors, that WASPI want to "undo the 1995 Pension Act" and this is being cited as a reason for not helping the women affected.

But surely Mr Vara is factually correct when he says the above, when the WASPI facebook page (until the demand was removed) said

What is our ask? Put all women born in the 1950s, or after 6th April 1951, and affected by the changes to the state pension age in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950

and comments to the select committee (below) state that they do want to undo the 1995 Act for this cohort of women

Anne Keen: 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

It is almost like WASPI and some of the MPs like Owen Smith want to re-event the truth. Quite shocking to me.

PensionTech

It is almost like some of the MPs like Owen Smith want to re-event the truth

Oh no, you've misunderstood. WASPI aren't asking for the 1995 changes to be undone, they're asking for "transitional arrangements". No matter if their suggested "transitional arrangement" is to compensate all women in their 50s or born in the 50s (they keep changing their mind) for what they would have received if the 1995 changes hadn't taken place, which has exactly the same effect as undoing the 1995 changes. And they agree that pensions should be equalised, they don't want to be advantaged over men, but they do want to be compensated for not being advantaged over men, and they don't want men to be compensated for any of the changes that have affected both sexes, only women. And they do think that SPA should be increased, just not for them, because then they'd be worse off than the people born before them, and you should never have people worse off just because they were born at a different time. People born after them can take the hit. It's all very fair when you think about it. It's just transitional arrangements, yeah?

jem16

PensionTech wrote: »

It's just transitional arrangements, yeah?

I'm sorry but you must be one of those detractors that assume an alias and infiltrate Facebook & Twitter with your lies and mistruths. We ( Waspi ) only want what we are entitled to!

monkeyspanner

So I notice that Ben Howlett (Con Bath) voted against the motion despite an assurance that he would abstain and not support the Government. Climbing the greasy pole?

Not even willing to support those in most need that he spoke about at length in the previous debate.

monkeyspanner

Pollycat wrote: »

Did anyone watch the debate?

Was it more of the 'same old, same old'?

Yes
and Yes Vara took 35mins to say the same thing.

PensionTech

I'm sorry but you must be one of those detractors that assume an alias and infiltrate Facebook & Twitter with your lies and mistruths.

monkeyspanner

jem16 wrote: »

So another waste of time debate as Opposition Day debates have a vote which is non-binding on the government as far as I'm aware.

My prediction - Labour/SNP MPs regurgitating Waspi sob stories with fiction presented as fact, no costed solutions by any opposition MP and nothing achieved at the end.

The only costed solutions that the government wish to hear about are cost neutral or cost saving and the government will not release any information about their own costings regarding transitional arrangements.

If you think this is a waste of time wait until the real facts about the new "fixed rate" state pension emerge. No doubt that will also be trailed as well publicised, which it has been, but only the very sanitised government version of a pension system which will see many lose a substantial amount of pension compared to the old system.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/20/20-million-lose-out-pension-reform?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
http://www.secmeme.com/2013/06/1984-instruction-manual.html

OldBeanz

monkeyspanner wrote: »

The only costed solutions that the government wish to hear about are cost neutral or cost saving and the government will not release any information about their own costings regarding transitional arrangements.

If you think this is a waste of time wait until the real facts about the new "fixed rate" state pension emerge. No doubt that will also be trailed as well publicised, which it has been, but only the very sanitised government version of a pension system which will see many lose a substantial amount of pension compared to the old system.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/20/20-million-lose-out-pension-reform?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
http://www.secmeme.com/2013/06/1984-instruction-manual.html

The whole point is that WASPI should have started in 1995 or 2011 at the latest. They have missed the boat just as the 20m will not realise/kick out until it is too late as well. Simples. People in their 40's do not pay much attention to their pensions.

SallyG

What happens next?