WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

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

The name "Protest Against the 2011 Accelerated State Pension Age Rise" has been banded about as being instrumental in achieving the concession. Doesn't particularly lend itself well to acronyms, banners, sashes and anthems, it's got to be said.

As to how much of a part they played, I'm not entirely sure. I believe they were a group actively campaigning at the time though.

saver861

Malthusian wrote: »

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.... if they are doing it for reasons of fair and proper, why then did some women have considerably less than 10 years notice - which is now the agreed acceptable minimum?

At least, it could have been smoothed out more beneficially to those who are taking the biggest hit.

If 10 years notice is the deemed minimum then all those impacted by the 2011 act should have had 10 years notice ..... in the interests of the fairness that you talk about!!

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

Correction - most women knew. Waspi women claim not to have known, that's the difference.

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

The name "Protest Against the 2011 Accelerated State Pension Age Rise" has been banded about as being instrumental in achieving the concession. Doesn't particularly lend itself well to acronyms, banners, sashes and anthems, it's got to be said.

As to how much of a part they played, I'm not entirely sure. I believe they were a group actively campaigning at the time though.

I think you will find that Mrs Altmann claims she was fundamental in getting the concessions from 24 months to 18. She has said she would have liked to have more women fighting her corner at the time.

So, in essence, the 6 months concession was merely horse trading at government levels. There was no campaign of any significance to move the boundaries any further!

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

I think you will find that Mrs Altmann claims she was fundamental in getting the concessions from 24 months to 18. She has said she would have liked to have more women fighting her corner at the time.

So, in essence, the 6 months concession was merely horse trading at government levels. There was no campaign of any significance to move the boundaries any further!

(Some may suggest that Ros is every bit as formidable an embellisher as she was a campaigner....)

The Daily Mail at the time claimed it as a victory, and referred to it as an embarassing U-Turn for the government. Interestingly enough, the government got plenty of stick for being seen to have "backed down" to women's demands and for adding £1bn to the national debt. There were articles afterwards about how the increase to 67 would now need to be brought forward, as a result of the concession.

There seems to have been a big disconnect between IDS promising transitional arrangements, and Cameron/Osborne/Clegg/Alexander months later deciding what exactly they would be.

The current Waspi campaign would do well to take note of what went down in 2011, rather than pretending that it never actually happened. Transitional arrangements were effectively agreed and accepted without any clear definition of what they would actually be, and when all was said and done the campaigners weren't sure if they should call it a "victory" or not.

Mistermeaner

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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

You just manufactured something to be offended about from nothing

Now run along you silly little woman

OldBeanz

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

So Waspi ins' done and dusted where are they going from here? The Gcernment has no intention of coming up with extra money and is in office until May 2020 when it will all be over and dusted.
The name Waspi suggests it was to do with inequality rather than the pace of change.
Some men were not given 10 years notice of the change of pension - even if they did listen to the news.
Bonkers, unfocused and beaten.

mystic_trev

OldBeanz wrote: »

So Waspi ins' done and dusted where are they going from here? The Gcernment has no intention of coming up with extra money and is in office until May 2020 when it will all be over and dusted.

Most of that time will be spent trying to sort out Brexit and it's consequences. I can't see WASPI's demands being high on anyone's agenda.They're welcome to continue their futile campaign. I firmly believe everyone should have a hobby.

slightlymiffed

bmm78 wrote: »

(Some may suggest that Ros is every bit as formidable an embellisher as she was a campaigner....)

The Daily Mail at the time claimed it as a victory, and referred to it as an embarassing U-Turn for the government. Interestingly enough, the government got plenty of stick for being seen to have "backed down" to women's demands and for adding £1bn to the national debt. There were articles afterwards about how the increase to 67 would now need to be brought forward, as a result of the concession.

There seems to have been a big disconnect between IDS promising transitional arrangements, and Cameron/Osborne/Clegg/Alexander months later deciding what exactly they would be.

The current Waspi campaign would do well to take note of what went down in 2011, rather than pretending that it never actually happened. Transitional arrangements were effectively agreed and accepted without any clear definition of what they would actually be, and when all was said and done the campaigners weren't sure if they should call it a "victory" or not.

Some interesting thoughts BMM - and agree Waspi campaign would do well to take note of exactly what happened in 2011. It was that Act which was so ill thought through and financially damaging for many women.

slightlymiffed

mystic_trev wrote: »

Most of that time will be spent trying to sort out Brexit and it's consequences. I can't see WASPI's demands being high on anyone's agenda.They're welcome to continue their futile campaign. I firmly believe everyone should have a hobby.

Thanks for that Trev - I agree everyone should have a hobby.

Your hobby since you 'retired at 42 and never regretted it' seems to include taking a pop at those not as fortunate as yourself.