WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

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

ermmm .... apparently there was a group prior to WASPI who apparently concentrated on the 2011 act. They were virtually anonymous, and achieved nothing. Why is that then?

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

ermmm .... apparently there was a group prior to WASPI who apparently concentrated on the 2011 act. They were virtually anonymous, and achieved nothing. Why is that then?

ermmm .... maybe because WASPI stole the limelight.......

PensionTech

What exactly did WASPI achieve, other than to close the door on any reasonable discussion regarding the 2011 Act, and waste huge amounts of public money on debates that didn't go anywhere because there wasn't a clear ask?

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

ermmm .... maybe because WASPI stole the limelight.......

ermmm ... don't think so ... the other group were certainly not in the limelight prior to WASPI ... they were pretty much in the dark!!

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

What exactly did WASPI achieve, other than to close the door on any reasonable discussion regarding the 2011 Act,

As has been said many times, you might have missed it, but there was no discussion of any prominence on the 2011act prior to WASPI. They opened the door rather than closed it I would suggest! There would have been no discussion any any of it had they not arrived!!

PensionTech wrote: »

and waste huge amounts of public money on debates that didn't go anywhere because there wasn't a clear ask?

But ..... its not WASPI or any other campaigning body that sanctions the debates. That is down to the right honourable members of parliament and the relevant committees.

I might start a campaign to ban all women named Susan from travelling on the Subway. It would be up to the parliamentary committee to decide whether it should be debated.

Personally, I do think there are too many Susan's on the Subway myself ....

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

ermmm ... don't think so ... the other group were certainly not in the limelight prior to WASPI ... they were pretty much in the dark!!

ermmm ... don't think so ...WASPI got to the limelight first!!

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

ermmm ... don't think so ...WASPI got to the limelight first!!

ermmm ... can anyone lend me a torch ... I can't see for the confusion ....

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

ermmm .... apparently there was a group prior to WASPI who apparently concentrated on the 2011 act. They were virtually anonymous, and achieved nothing. Why is that then?

saver861 wrote: »

ermmm ... don't think so ... the other group were certainly not in the limelight prior to WASPI ... they were pretty much in the dark!!

I know that WASPI seems to think that money grows on trees but not only were there campaigns before WASPI existed, they actually achieved something, as explained by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in responses to questions on Monday 11 July 2016:

QUESTION: "If he will make it his policy to introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age."
ANSWER: "Transitional arrangements are already in place. We committed over one billion Pounds to lessen the impact of these changes for those worst affected so that no-one will see their pension age change by more than eighteen months compared to the previous timetable. We have no plans for further changes".

That's a billion Pounds and 18+ months delay achieved by the non-WASPI campaigners vs nothing but noise from WASPI.

In response to other questions he gave these answers:

"As far as the proposals that have been put forward are concerned, regrettably they will cost a huge amount of money and therefore we have no plans to go down that route."

QUESTION about a woman losing her job before her state pension age who wants to get her pension early:
ANSWER:"Well I can assure my .. the Honourable Lady that under the coalition government and under the present government we have record levels of employment for women including women who are older and that is something to bear in mind. We are working extensively with employers to make sure that they appreciate the value of older workers and they do and that is why we have record levels of employment particularly for women."

QUESTION: "can I ask my honourable friend to keep an open mind ... Pension Credit arrangements for .. people which are ... means tested and could deal with the worst hardship cases?"
ANSWER: "What I would say to my honourable friend is that we do have particular criteria and ... if people fit that criteria then of course they will qualify for whatever benefit it is that they are seeking guidance on"

QUESTION: "With the imminent takeover of the new Prime Minister who herself falls into the category of women affected by these pension changes wouldn't now be the ideal moment to look again at the various proposals put forward"...
ANSWER: "May I remind the House that in 2012 the DWP did a survey ... only six percent of women who were due for retirement in the next ten years were unaware of the change, an increase, in the pension age and as I said earlier on the government has no plans to review this matter"

See the Hansard page for a more complete version, this is just the notes I took while watching.

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

I know that WASPI seems to think that money grows on trees but not only were there campaigns before WASPI existed, they actually achieved something, as explained by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in responses to questions on Monday 11 July 2016:

Question: Does my right honourable MSE friend understand that many don't see the reduction from 24 months to 18 months extension as far enough in terms of fairness?

Question:Would my right honourable MSE friend not agree that most posters on here have suggested that many impacted by the 2011Act as it stands have been treated unfairly?

jamesd

I remind saver861 of the assertion I was responding to, that only WASPi was doing anything when in fact that others got in first and did achieve something very substantial and costly.

So far as further measures go, I think that Mr Vara, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said it well at the end of the questions on this subject:

"I find it deeply regrettable that Opposition parties seek to make capital at the Dispatch Box, and indeed from the Back Benches, when they do not have a solid proposal. They cannot provide a proper, credible solution that will ensure that the financial position of the country is taken into account."

No, I would not agree that most posters here have suggested that many impacted by the 2011 act have been treated unfairly for the reasons likely to be meant by saver861, though I do personally agree that it treated millions of people unfairly, since I think that it treated men, other women and those of following generations unfairly by reducing the time to wait by at least 18 months at considerable cost to those others who were affected by the higher level of ongoing discrimination and costs.

As many here will be aware, the state pension is a benefit paid for out of NI. To put more than a billion Pounds of NI spending into context here are the numbers for 2014-15 from the OBR Welfare Trends Report of June 2015, as a percent of GDP, from the table on page 9:

5.5% state pensions
1.4% housing benefit
1.7% personal tax credits
1.2% disability benefits (DLA, PIP and AA)
0.8% incapacity benefits (incapacity benefit, ESA, SDA and incapacity part of IS)
0.2% income support
0.3% unemployment benefits (JSA)
0.7% child benefit
0.4% other welfare benefits

The total cost of benefits for various years has been this, from chart 2.1 in the spreadsheet:

Year	Nominal	Real	real spend	percent
	 cost	cost	per capita	of GDP
2010-11	199.3	214.4	3416.3		12.6
2015-16	217.2	214.1	3297.7		11.6

As will be apparent, a billion Pounds is a bit under 0.5% of GDP, or alternatively the same as the total bill for both income support and unemployment benefit or a bit under half of the cost of disability benefits.

Now some may disagree, but if I've a billion Pounds of NI money to allocate I'd rather it was spent on those who are unable to work or seeking work and unable to get it. That billion represents a very substantial increase in the money that could instead have been made available to help the disabled and unemployed. And this group would, of course, include those women in this group who are in actual hardship and relying on those benefits until they reach state pension age.

So I do wonder who those who want the money spent on this group of women are going to deprive of the money instead.