WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Mortgagefreeman

Picture on Linkedin looks similar to the WASPI one

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/susanbeevers

OldBeanz

Ah now I understand, I thought the inference was that her name was James Bondesque.

Malthusian

Definitely the same person who was sacked twice in a row for harrassing employees to the point of causing walk-outs, first at an automotive firm and then the Scottish Executive. Same hair, same smile. No doubt she will be good at banging heads together the next time some of the sisters look like splitting.

Mortgagefreeman

Malthusian wrote: »

Definitely the same person who was sacked twice in a row for harrassing employees to the point of causing walk-outs, first at an automotive firm and then the Scottish Executive. Same hair, same smile. No doubt she will be good at banging heads together the next time some of the sisters look like splitting.

If it is WASPI's new Partner UNISON should be informed. They won't be happy.

https://www.unison.org.uk/get-help/knowledge/discrimination/bullying-and-harassment

jamesd

No reason you can't tell them yourself. Disagreeing with WASPI is one thing but those involved deserve protection as much as anyone else.

colsten

Would you believe it, there is going to be yet another backbencher-initiated debate in Parliament on this. As if the country had no pressing issues to attend to. Such a waste of time and money!

The debate is on July 5th 2.30pm - 4.00pm. The motion is as per http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/63. From the wording, I think it would be fair to assume that the MP who tabled that motion doesn't actually fully comprehend the issue.

jamesd

Yes, looks like some pretty poor MPs bringing and supporting it. Here's the silliness in full:

"That this House believes it has a moral duty to ensure that there is a fair transition for women born on or after 6 April 1951 regarding their pensions; recognises the need for a non-means tested bridging pension that will secure the financial stability of those affected by the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts and compensation for those at risk of losing in the region of £45,000, creating a fairer pension system for all; and calls on the Government to bring forward transitional arrangements to provide pension certainty for the women disproportionately affected by this system"

I'm not quite sure how making two people born on the same day have a five year difference in state pension age or amount calculation advances the cause of creating a fairer pension system for all. That fairer system for all is what the 1995 and 2011 acts are doing by reducing that gap then reducing the cost shift from young to old of increasing life expectancy. What WASPI is seeking is just continuation of the gender discrimination that their financially better off supporters with extensive work records would benefit from.

The £45,000 loss figure is of course pretty silly as well, since many of those who now have a state pension age of 6 April 2016 or later will get more, not less, due to the higher base payment level of the single tier state pension. Those who are uncommonly well off and have a state pension age before that can probably afford to recoup that much and more by deferring their state pension for a while.

How about trying for something that really advances fairness instead:

1. Twins born on the same day have the same state pension age.
2. The male twin doesn't get on average to die two years before the female one.

That takes getting those starting ages the same as rapidly as practical and doing serious work to reduce the appalling earlier death ages for males than females with health, lifestyle and working conditions interventions.

Looks like a group of MPs who've been scammed by WASPI without even bothering to read the Commons Library paper on the subjects. Given that three of the sponsors seem to be relatively new MPs I suppose it's to be expected that they might be scammed into supporting a pro gender discrimination motion.

Of the supporters it's perhaps not surprising to see Kate Hollern, since she benefitted from gender discrimination herself via the use of an all-woman shortlist that excluded male candidates for selection as a possible MP in her constituency. I suppose she'll continue to advocate gender discrimination.

Silvertabby

Would you believe it, there is going to be yet another backbencher-initiated debate in Parliament on this. As if the country had no pressing issues to attend to. Such a waste of time and money!

The debate is on July 5th 2.30pm - 4.00pm. The motion is as per http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/63. From the wording, I think it would be fair to assume that the MP who tabled that motion doesn't actually fully comprehend the issue. Posted by colsten

"That this House believes it has a moral duty to ensure that there is a fair transition for women born on or after 6 April 1951 regarding their pensions; recognises the need for a non-means tested bridging pension that will secure the financial stability of those affected by the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts and compensation for those at risk of losing in the region of £45,000, creating a fairer pension system for all; and calls on the Government to bring forward transitional arrangements to provide pension certainty for the women disproportionately affected by this system"

Oh for goodness sake ! Surely the MPs who are thus far supporting this nonsense can't possibly have read it properly? Or are they that desperate for votes?

Whatever the reason, here it is in a nutshell:

Women born up to and including 31 December 1959 should be paid their State pensions from age 60 but women born on or after 1 January 1960 (just 1 day later) can 'do one'.

Spoken as a 1950s woman who was well aware of the well publicised changes from the mid 1990s.

dunstonh

Or are they that desperate for votes?

Exactly what it is. It was like that first time around. And we have just seen an election where promises of all sorts results in an increase in votes even if the bulk of the it is unfunded.

colsten

The irony is that the motion hasn't even got anything to do with what the Labour manifesto promised. They certainly hadn't budgeted for the £77-odd billion that WASPI would cost.

There are voices now saying that if Government can find £1bn for Northern Ireland, surely they can find the money for WASPI. Not sure whether I should laugh or cry - I would have thought that if we could find £77 billion, we would give most of it to the NHS, to safe housing, to Police, Doctors and Nurses, and to sick and disabled who had their benefits slashed. The "non-means tested" bit in the motion is an insult to everyone who currently has to get by on means-tested benefits.