WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

bmm78

Pennylane wrote: »

I can't believe I've not been on here since 30 June!! :rotfl:

Very glad that sexter and Pensions Minister Stephen Crabb has resigned and we now have Damien Green. Let's hope he's better than Crabb.

Theresa May has already being replying to our emails on women's pensions. :T

A new cabinet provides Waspi with an opportunity for a fresh start. Their best chance of success is to get the government onside, rather than an APPG-led rebellion.

To do this they need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and establish clear, realistic and costed aims.

Creating pantomine villains out of the likes of Crabb, Altmann, IDS and Vara has been misguided and counter-productive, as has the hero worship of MPs who claim to champion the cause but have refused to clarify what solutions they will support, never mind how they will be funded.

At least one of the co-founders gets this, but unfortunately the less rational elements in charge are dictating things at the moment.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

To state pensioners, of course. There are more of them due to the size of the baby boomer generation that is retiring, increases are above inflation and the single tier pension pays more to women in general than the previous system, notably including women who have had their state pension ages increased so that they are under the single tier system instead of the previous one.

I provided you with the list of things were NI benefit spending goes so it should be obvious what the choices are. We've seen the state pensions increase faster than inflation and we've seen things like the bedroom tax, caps on housing and other benefits, increased testing thoroughness for disability benefits, greater checking and searching requirements for job seekers as well as more people excluded from child benefit that should make it clear that money isn't going to those places in the list instead.

According to Wikipedia - "After a short baby boom immediately after the war peaking in 1946, the United Kingdom experienced a second baby boom during the 1960s, with a peak in births in 1964, and a third, smaller boom peaking in 1990."

So why are we seen as greedy 1950's born 'baby boomers' when a) we're not even in that demographic and b) there should arguably be a much larger cohort of 1960's born baby boomers whose NI contributions will be better able to fund existing pensions.

Pity the 1970's born - they will have to fund the actual 1960's born baby boomers' pensions. And so it goes on...

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

I'm not clear on your point. You have provided a link that outlines the protests made by an amalgamation of various organisations, unions and MP's and highlight the example of a lady called Barbara Bates.

Did you read any of the comments at the bottom - in particular one from Barbara and one from Ruth? These two ladies along with one other are the founders of the Protest against 2011 group.

These people were successful in their campaign in so far as they achieved a 6 months concession for some women.

But why did they stop at 6 months concession?

The government made it quite clear that a £1.1bn concession was as far as they were going. The Act became law after that.

I'm not clear why the group you refer to stopped at 6 months as having 'achieved' something, when many feel the 'current rules' of 2011act is still unfair.

They have not stopped. As you have been told before this group has continued to campaign. Their numbers, however, are much smaller. WASPI claimed to be campaigning for both 1995 And 2011 Acts which was why they stepped back initially.

Their aim is quite simple. They want the 2011 Act revoked and to revert to the 1995 timetable. It's very unlikely that they will get this especially as it's now happening but at least it's a clear aim.

It seems to be akin to saying a football team that is 4-0 down and scores a goal to make it 4-1 and are then somehow happy that they going out 'winners' having pulled just one goal back!!

No it's akin to going into a car dealership to buy a new car. You're quoted £15k but manage to get it down to £14k through negotiating. You're happy that it's now £1k less so you are a winner but you still realise that you might have got another £2k off if you had been in a stronger position.

slightlymiffed

Mistermeaner wrote: »

All that enervgy and noise and tax payer money wasted on discussions and debates at Westminster instead of dealing with the much more significant and worthy issues at hand....

Think how much voluntary work all those waspi campaigners could have done

Opportunity costs

You've missed the point here - many/most Waspi campaigners ARE still working (although some are unable to do so because of illness).

Women still contribute to a far greater degree to unpaid voluntary and caring work.

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

A new cabinet provides Waspi with an opportunity for a fresh start. Their best chance of success is to get the government onside, rather than an APPG-led rebellion.

It should be clear to all and WASPI that changes to the 1995 Act will not ever happen - that is without question.

If there is any change it will be some reform of the 2011act. Personally I think it would be fair to leave it, such that all those that had less than 10 years notice to have their 2011 changes revoked.

It will all have to come to an end at some point and, as each year passes, those that are impacted will either be getting their pension or very near to it - at which point the whole protest thing will lose momentum in any case.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

A new cabinet provides Waspi with an opportunity for a fresh start. Their best chance of success is to get the government onside, rather than an APPG-led rebellion.

Agreed. Even the WPSC stands a better chance than the APPG but Frank Field was severely criticised by one co-founder for bringing up the early reduced pension.

At least one of the co-founders gets this, but unfortunately the less rational elements in charge are dictating things at the moment.

I would go as far as saying 3 co-founders get this so really the majority. Unfortunately that minority is managing to successfully block the majority out despite all the founders being told by MPs that they really need to be more realistic in what can be achieved.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

These people were successful in their campaign in so far as they achieved a 6 months concession for some women.

My point is that the 6 months concession was not a 'success' but a 'failure'. That is why so many think that the current 18 months extension is 'unfair' - thus you cannot say the group 'succeeded'.

jem16 wrote: »

The government made it quite clear that a £1.1bn concession was as far as they were going. The Act became law after that.

People are still protesting though ... including groups you mention that gave way to WASPI ...

jem16 wrote: »

They have not stopped. As you have been told before this group has continued to campaign. Their numbers, however, are much smaller. WASPI claimed to be campaigning for both 1995 And 2011 Acts which was why they stepped back initially.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can put this .... I'm running out ways.

If this group only sought to have changes to the 2011act revoked but WASPI were clearly looking for changes to the 1995 act and 2011 act then why would the group take a step back?????? They would have decided that the 1995 act was not for changing and, instead of stepping back, they should have stepped forward!!!

jem16 wrote: »

No it's akin to going into a car dealership to buy a new car. You're quoted £15k but manage to get it down to £14k through negotiating. You're happy that it's now £1k less so you are a winner but you still realise that you might have got another £2k off if you had been in a stronger position.

Again, as I have said many times before. The car dealer decides he wants £14k for his car. He knows customers will very likely want a discount from the quoted price sooooooooooooo what does he do. He puts it on at £15k .... customer comes along and barters to £14k. Customer thinks he has got £1k off when, in fact, dealer goes to the bank smiling knowing he has got the £14k he wanted in the first place. As with the Government making 24 months extension knowing there would be opposition and then reverting it back to 18 months.

Those hardened MSE type buyers would have got the car for £13k or less!!!

Not rocket science ...... not even science!!

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

My point is that the 6 months concession was not a 'success' but a 'failure'.

Any concession was a success.

That is why so many think that the current 18 months extension is 'unfair' - thus you cannot say the group 'succeeded'.

They succeeded in winning a concession so yes I can.

As with the Government making 24 months extension knowing there would be opposition and then reverting it back to 18 months.

They wouldn't have assumed opposition. There was none for the 1995 Act.

Those hardened MSE type buyers would have got the car for £13k or less!!!

And those that just accept what they're quoted would pay £15k. So yes there are degrees of success but success nonetheless.

Anyway it's obvious that no matter what I say you'll disagree and you really weren't interested in getting links to the campaign so I'll leave you to it.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

According to Wikipedia

The baby boom generation still means those born between 1946 and 1964 even in the UK and that group besides a higher birth rate has benefited from improved health care and life expectancies. As a result it's projected that the percentage of those aged 65 and over will change from 15.9% in 2004 and 17.7% in 2014 to 19.9% in 2024, 23.3% in 2034 and 24.5% in 2044 (table is on page 9).

That'll mean that the late baby boomers and some of those from the immediately following periods will be receiving their state pension at the time of peak financial stress on the state pension system.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Any concession was a success.

They succeeded in winning a concession so yes I can.

Lets put this another way. If they had got a concession that most people felt reasonable then we would not be having this discussion!!

jem16 wrote: »

They wouldn't have assumed opposition.

Sure they would ... that's why there is an opposition party in Westminister!!

jem16 wrote: »

There was none for the 1995 Act.

I don't know the detail of what happened at that time but the 1995 Act was about equalising men and womens pensions ... which virtually everyone agrees with, so unlikely to be opposition to a common good. Even the opposition parties are smart enough to know not to oppose something that the vast majority of the population agrees with!

jem16 wrote: »

Anyway it's obvious that no matter what I say you'll disagree and you really weren't interested in getting links to the campaign so I'll leave you to it.

Not particularly - I'm sure I've agreed with you on various posts on various topics. I'm not sure what links you are referring to but I looked at the two you provided and my opinion is as stated above.