MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

OJ was the least of the things happening to her in 1995 but she still managed to ask for a state pension forecast and get personal notification of the pending change.

But denies that her forecast in 1995 was notification.

Submission ESP0128 was apparently actually made as an email to the Rt Hon Frank Field MP, the Chair of the Commons Work and Pensions Committee, asking him to "keep fighting for us!"

That one is even more astonishing. Apparently what is the problem as there is plenty of money to spare in the NI fund.

Meanwhile WASPI campaign has posted on their Facebook page that there is only one official WASPI submission and that anything mentioning WASPI in any other submission is not associated with them. Perhaps they should have thought about this before they encouraged their supporters to make submissions.

jamesd

They might also have thought about it before soliciting them and passing them on themselves as submissions. At least a couple appear to have been made in that way.

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

They might also have thought about it before soliciting them and passing them on themselves as submissions. At least a couple appear to have been made in that way.

Their supporters were all asking if waspi would be making a submission. One of the co-founders kept replying to say it would be right for waspi to make a submission as they couldn't speak for everyone - some may want to take a reduced state pension. They encouraged individuals to submit.

Then waspi did make a submission from the campaign founders and now the declaration on their FB page.

They don't seem to have a clue what they're doing - Zumba this afternoon apparently. :rotfl:

jamesd

Look on the bright side, though. Berwick-Upon-Tweed Women Against State Pension Inequality in ESP0163 wrote that:

"Our activist group comprises of 20 women and we have 470 supporters who are seeking fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). In effect these women have all had significant changes imposed on them with lack of appropriate notification ... women who we represent were all stunned to discover when they were aged 58 and 59"

Yet that ESP0138 submission kindly informed us that:

"WASPI have provided a platform for a group of people ... I was concerned about my NI/Pension provision so I requested a forecast 1995. In the response I received a sheet of paper EQUALISATION OF STATE PENSION AGE (SU6317) The Government has announced their proposal, until approval by Parliament and Royal Assent current legislation remains in force. How could I not have been informed personally of such a monumental change in our law that would directly affect me?"

Seems rather obvious why WASPI would want to discredit submissions apparently by WASPI members or supporters that contradict WASPI's own claims, as well as the claims of the submitter, by saying that they did actually receive personal notification back in 1995.

jamesd

That ESP0163 Berwick-Upon-Tweed WASPI submission is itself funny in places, for example:

The proposal means "The new State Pension of £155 p/w will be set above the means test level but for women born between 06.04.51 to 05.04.53 they will be denied the new rate of £155.65 ... For these women denied the higher £155.65 State Pension, £131 is a small amount to live on per week to cover all accommodation, utilities, food bills, clothes and living costs"

Seems that in one part they know about means tested benefits including Pension Credit yet a few paragraphs later have forgotten them and even think that there's no such thing as say Housing Benefit.

This recommendation is also sadly silly:

"Early drawing should be made available to 1950’s women with limited actuarial reduction to offer protection from poverty. Specifically to ensure an amount no less than £130 per week"

I don't see any reason why the working age benefits available to those in the affected group to protect them from poverty should be limited to just £130 when they already have an entitlement if in poverty to have such things as income support, housing benefit, council tax credit and a range of other benefits that are likely to amount to more than that. Perhaps key here is that WASPI isn't actually really all about those in poverty but wants the money paid to those who aren't in financial need.

"living off their savings or what small earnings they have been able to find"

With the current minimum wage that means finding work for 18 hours a week to get to the WASPI £130. WASPI members might want to investigate whether the families of their children, grand children or other relatives may want any child care, house, school* or business cleaning, taxi or dog walking services that could pay that much, assuming that most are able to do at least some limited amount of work and on the general means tested working age benefit principle that you're supposed to be working if you can work.

And this one:

"Where women in the 1950’s cohort have more than 35 years National Insurance Contributions they should have a refund of those contributions payments to enable them to further partially make up shortfall in state pension income"

Apparently that WASPI want people to forget that men and women have been and are able to accrue more state pension entitlement beyond 35 years worked until they reach the flat rate cap, or reach their state pension age, and that it is routine for there to be no basic state pension increase after just 30 years under the old system. I wonder why they don't want men to also get their NI beyond 35 years worth refunded? Of course that answer is that WASPI is about increasing gender discrimination and not about equality or anything that might equalise with men.

With friends like those the fortunately few women in financial difficulties (meaning sufficient for means tested benefits) don't need any declared enemies.

Isn't open government and publication of evidential submissions interesting?

*lest anyone look down on those jobs, that's one my own mother did as her first return to work while I was a child.

mgdavid

missbiggles1 wrote: »

And the same patronising rubbish about our generation only having low paid, part time work because we were all up to our armpits in child and elder care throughout our lives!

presumably they've never heard of Nicola Horlick!

missbiggles1

mgdavid wrote: »

presumably they've never heard of Nicola Horlick!

Well, as she was born in 1960, they may not think her relevant.:)

However, everybody I know who was born in the early 50s has worked all their lives, taking off, perhaps, 5/10 years if they had children. Not all of them were in well paid jobs, of course, but you don't need to have been well paid to be eligible for a full pension.

xylophone

Nicola Horlick!

A representative example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Horlick

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

Look on the bright side, though. Berwick-Upon-Tweed Women Against State Pension Inequality in ESP0163 wrote that:

One of the co-founders has specifically stated that the Berwick-Upon-Tweed group has nothing to do with WASPI and that the submission misrepresents WASPI and should not have used their name.

Seems rather obvious why WASPI would want to discredit submissions apparently by WASPI members or supporters that contradict WASPI's own claims, as well as the claims of the submitter, by saying that they did actually receive personal notification back in 1995.

Perfectly obvious to me too but it's like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. WASPI encouraged supporters to submit evidence. Now they've read the submissions they don't like what their supporters have been submitting.

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

That WASPI submission is itself funny in places, for example:

This is not from Waspi but a group that Waspi has since disowned.

This is the ( ONLY ) official submission by Waspi.

Perhaps key here is that WASPI isn't actually really all about those in poverty but wants the money paid to those who aren't in financial need.

Got it in one James. None of the co-founders are in financial need. Twitter has a phrase for them - greedy, not needy.

Of course that answer is that WASPI is about increasing gender discrimination and not about equality or anything that might equalise with men.

Of course it is and always has been.

With friends like those the fortunately few women in financial difficulties (meaning sufficient for means tested benefits) don't need any declared enemies.

This is the real shame of the whole thing. They have got people with time and energy to do a choir, zumba and supermarket dashes. Every time there has been a debate they seem to be able to find the time and expense of travelling to and staying in London. Yet they want us to believe this is nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.

Meanwhile those in real financial difficulties are in danger of getting absolutely no help at all whilst their personal stories have been used for the Waspi co-founders attempt at fame.

Isn't open government and publication of evidential submissions interesting?

Very interesting and shows the huge sense of entitlement from these 1950s women. Despite Waspi's claim that it was never about getting compensation or pension from age 60, it is quite evident from these submissions that this is entirely what is wanted.

They make me ashamed to be a 1950s woman myself.