WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mystic_trev

saver861 wrote: »

Yes ... but if all those impacted by the 2011 Act and felt that something should be done about it then they too could have started a campaign converse to the WASPI ask.

I believe there was already an Action group for the 2011 Act, which unfortunately got rolled into the WASPI campaign.

saver861

mystic_trev wrote: »

I believe there was already an Action group for the 2011 Act, which unfortunately got rolled into the WASPI campaign.

Yes - but they were clearly ineffectual otherwise WASPI would not have been born. Equally there would be no reason to roll into WASPI if it was clear their ask was different to WASPI's.

The difference between attempting to attain changes for the 1995 act and the 2011 act would be obvious I would have thought.

dunstonh

Yes - but they were clearly ineffectual otherwise WASPI would not have been born.

Clearly both were ineffectual then.

atush

Saver,

if you dont give up flogging that dead horse I may have to report you to another all letter organization. Peta.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

Clearly both were ineffectual then.

Yes - if you take the view that the 2011 action group were pretty much anonymous. so nothing was ever going to happen there - There is no chance of anything getting changed in 1995 act - that will never happen so WASPI.

That said, if, and it is a humongous if, anything changes in relation to the 2011 act then it will be as a result of the WASPI campaign.

atush wrote: »

Saver,

if you dont give up flogging that dead horse I may have to report you to another all letter organization. Peta.

Ah but I'm not flogging no horse, or wasp .... I'm just saying that the 2011 act is unfair to a lot of women particularly those that got hit with an 18 month extension and had less than 10 years notice.

Soooo, horses one of my most favourite animals and I have spent a lot of time on horseback ... so don't do flogging em .... dead or alive!!

Thrugelmir

saver861 wrote: »

Ah but I'm not flogging no horse, or wasp .... I'm just saying that the 2011 act is unfair to a lot of women particularly those that got hit with an 18 month extension and had less than 10 years notice.

Life isn't fair. Majority simply get on with their lives and their own destinys though.

saver861

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Life isn't fair. Majority simply get on with their lives and their own destinys though.

But if that were true we would still be throwing men into colosseums with hungry lions, slavery would be well and prosperous etc etc!!

p00hsticks

saver861 wrote: »

The suggestion appears to be that many think the 2011 Act was unfair. However, the same 'many' did not do enough about it. Unfortunately all that happened was most of those spent their time moaning about WASPI in a cesspit of negativity.

I think the thing is that you can sympathise but still not believe that anything needed doing about it. I'd certainly put myself in that category.

Yes, I feel sorry for those women who at relatively short notice found their pension age put back for a second time.

But I also believe that the benefits system we have in place means that for those in real financial hardship as a result, there are sufficent working age benefits already in place to provide basic financial support and that nothing else is really necessary - no 'compensation' or 'winding back the legislation' or any of the other demands.

The one positive thing to come out of the whole debacle is that lessons appear to have been learnt in terms of ensuring that future changes to State Pension Age have a more acceptable lead in time.

And hopefully individuals will take more responsibility for their own lives and pay at least a modicum of attention to at least the major changes that governments make

saver861

p00hsticks wrote: »

The one positive thing to come out of the whole debacle is that lessons appear to have been learnt in terms of ensuring that future changes to State Pension Age have a more acceptable lead in time.

But by your very own premise, why should some of those women 1950's women have had less than the acceptable lead time?

The Government have agreed that any future changes will have at least 10 years notice. That was thrashed out just after the 2011 Act.

So you say its tough luck on those that had just 5 or 6 years notice but in the same message state that everyone should have a more acceptable lead time!!!

p00hsticks wrote: »

And hopefully individuals will take more responsibility for their own lives and pay at least a modicum of attention to at least the major changes that governments make

Yes, but those that had the 18 month extension and 5 or 6 years notice did that, but the changes were totally out of their hands!

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

But by your very own premise, why should some of those women 1950's women have had less than the acceptable lead time?

The Government have agreed that any future changes will have at least 10 years notice. That was thrashed out just after the 2011 Act.

So you say its tough luck on those that had just 5 or 6 years notice but in the same message state that everyone should have a more acceptable lead time!!!



Yes, but those that had the 18 month extension and 5 or 6 years notice did that, but the changes were totally out of their hands!

And if WASPI had concentrated on that, the outcome just might have been different.

I don't care how many times you post variations of this:

saver861 wrote: »

Yes ... but if all those impacted by the 2011 Act and felt that something should be done about it then they too could have started a campaign converse to the WASPI ask.

The suggestion appears to be that many think the 2011 Act was unfair. However, the same 'many' did not do enough about it. Unfortunately all that happened was most of those spent their time moaning about WASPI in a cesspit of negativity.

If someone wants something to happen do something about it .... don't spend time moaning about what someone else is doing, or not doing.

the fact remains that their demands were ridiculous, poorly thought out and poorly worded and were never going to be met.