WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Twopints

saver861 wrote: »

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?

You agree that the non-WASPI campaigners did achieve something, but now you think it is not enough? So what are you doing about it?

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

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

But you are once again spilling out reams of figures .... but not really saying much.

To put the converse point to you... pension act of 1995 declared the various points from that act and that certain women would get their pension at an increased age above 60.

All good so far ..... that brought in equalisation.

However, it was then decided to make further alterations in 2011 to save some money. So, some have been impacted further again. That money thus saved goes elsewhere. Where does it go exactly?

The government decided that was one source of money transfer. They decided it should come from this pension source rather than perhaps reducing spending in other areas, or increasing taxes etc.

The basis of these decisions are not necessarily what is the most economical but what is the least politically damaging. You need to get that!!

Twopints wrote: »

You agree that the non-WASPI campaigners did achieve something, but now you think it is not enough? So what are you doing about it?

Can you point me to the campaign that succeeded in achieving the initial reduction from 24 months to 18 months? Much obliged ...

Malthusian

saver861 wrote: »

The basis of these decisions are not necessarily what is the most economical but what is the least politically damaging. You need to get that!!

You are ignoring the third possibility, that the basis of the decision was what is most fair and just for the country. And the possibility that the government might have done something right for the right reasons I can only speak through gritted teeth.

But the government decided that this money should be raised by speeding up the ending of state pension inequality between men and women, rather than, say, raising income tax on those in work or cutting benefits to those who can't work or reducing spending on education. That seems fair enough to me. And it seemed fair enough to MPs to vote it through. And fair enough to the country that they didn't protest about it at the time or use their chance in 2015 to elect MPs who wanted to reverse the 2011 Act.

slightlymiffed

It may be worth re-visiting George Osborne's speech at the International Finance Ministers panel at the Global Investment Conference 2013 when he boasts that the savings made by increasing state pension age and accelerating womens' SPA, had made enormous savings which dwarfed almost everything else they had done (to reduce the deficit).

No doubt our resident MP here will spout reams of bilge justifying this but, have no doubts, the equalisation and, more particularly, the acceleration of womens' SPA was a deficit-cutting exercise.

Women did not object in 2011 because, in the main, they did not know. It was not thought necessary to inform women until at least 14 years after the 1995 Pensions Act that their SPA had changed. Some knew of course (all the pension/finance sector did) - but Mrs Goggins in Skegness probably wasn't reading the broadsheets, didn't catch the radio/tv mentions and was just busy 'breezing through life' trying to hold down a (mostly part time) job whilst coping with children, mortgage, housework etc. As for making 'suitable provisions' for her retirement - explain please.

And, as for Waspi's demise - dream on.

greenglide

Mrs Goggins in Skegness probably wasn't reading the broadsheets, didn't catch the radio/tv mentions

.... and totally ignored the Automated Pension Forecast that was sent out by DWP in 2004 or so? These were targeted so that the female age group impacted by the 1995 changes were sent out early in the process.

Of course this relied on people actually reading it.

slightlymiffed

greenglide wrote: »

.... and totally ignored the Automated Pension Forecast that was sent out by DWP in 2004 or so? These were targeted so that the female age group impacted by the 1995 changes were sent out early in the process.

Of course this relied on people actually reading it.

I'm a 1954 born woman whose first unsolicited notification from DWP was January 2012. Note the word 'unsolicited' here because it is crucial.

I actually contacted HMRC myself in May 2004 to request a state pension forecast prompted by previous communications from HMRC about shortfalls in my NI contributions (which incidentally, I paid). It was at this point that I was advised that my SPA would be 2018 - which I accepted.

Had I not done this, I (like many/most others) may not have known anything until 2012 when 1953/54 born women were finally informed. I could have been just 2 years off what I thought was my SPA. In my case, my SPA had been increased by another 18 months - I was already 58.

And let me repeat - I DID know (in 2004) but most women did not, despite spurious stats churned out by Mr Vara.

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Women did not object in 2011 because, in the main, they did not know

The various DWP surveys over the years conducted have indicated that the majority of women were aware that their state pension age was rising. If there are any reputable surveys suggesting otherwise I'm sure most people would be happy to approach them with an open mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/jan/31/state-pension-women-oppose-government-changes

As the article above shows, the changes were highly controversial at the time and MPs were "deluged with letters from worried women born in the mid-1950s".

The likes of Age UK and Saga (fronted by Ros Altmann) raised awareness of the changes, and these concerns were then pursued within Parliament by the likes of Rachel Reeves and Gregg McClymont. Alongside this, the Daily Mail ran a campaign against the severity of the changes. Throughout the campaign there were regular references to a potential legal battle.

Thousands of people signed a Saga petition, and there were demonstrations outside Westminster. The issue was debated at length by MPs, and eventually Reeves and McClymont managed to pin IDS down to the promise of transitional arrangements. Steve Webb was then able to negotiate the £1bn concession with those holding the purse strings (Cameron, Osborne et al).


While there are differences between the 2015 onwards WASPI campaign and the campaign fought in 2011, there's probably more common ground than not. There is a far greater social media influence in the WASPI campaign, but the 2011 campaign was fought much more strongly and effectively by MPs (to this point at least). The timing of 2011 was also better, as it was during the passage of the bill, and the aims were much clearer and realistic. It should be noted however that the government in theory has a weaker majority now than in 2011.

OldBeanz

Oh crikey. I thought this was all done and dusted. Well it is and like Brexit better to get on with it rather than hark on about what ifs. Most men, a lot of women and critically MPs failed to be convinced by your arguments.

slightlymiffed

OldBeanz wrote: »

Oh crikey. I thought this was all done and dusted. Well it is and like Brexit better to get on with it rather than hark on about what ifs. Most men, a lot of women and critically MPs failed to be convinced by your arguments.

Cripes no! Not 'done and dusted' at all Mr Beanz.

'Better get on with it'? - sounds very much like 'run along you silly little women'.

Not sure why you say 'most men'? This is not women objecting to equality with men but with the speed of change to womens' state pension age and the lack of notification.

Brexit, however, was a democratic decision on a referendum by a majority (who voted) of the electorate and yet still there are those who will not accept it.

Thrugelmir

slightlymiffed wrote: »

It may be worth re-visiting George Osborne's speech at the International Finance Ministers panel at the Global Investment Conference 2013 when he boasts that the savings made by increasing state pension age and accelerating womens' SPA, had made enormous savings which dwarfed almost everything else they had done (to reduce the deficit).

That's the annual budget deficit that's still accruing. Not the debt we already owe.

The triple lock is unsustainable in the longer term. There's the next really big saving. With most of the low hanging fruit now picked off.