Campaigners raise £65,000 for legal challenge to women's state pension changes 21 October 2016 at 10:27AM in Pensions, annuities & retirement planning 60 replies 10.3K views

Former_MSE_Faye

WASPI may seek a judicial review on the legality of the changes...

Read the full story:
'Campaigners raise £65,000 for legal challenge to women's state pension changes'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

dunstonh

WASPI organised a petition calling for the Government to compromise on the issue, which was backed by MoneySavingExpert.com, and attracted almost 200,000 signatories.

Jumping on a bandwagon without realising what you are campaigning for. When MSE backed the campaign, Waspi wanted a return to age 60 for Women. MSE need to learn that not every campaign has merits or fairness. Does MSE still support the original aim of WASPI or has MSE changed it's position? I never thought that MSE or Martin Lewis would be in favour of gender discrimination.

From the MSE article:
These changes mean women born after 5 April 1950 will receive their state pensions

later than expected – in some cases six years later.

Changes made over 20 years ago. Plenty of time if you are going to harp on about the full difference.

Most people feel that the 2011 changes were too quick for some women. Being told you have an extra 18 months before getting the state pension when you are that close to retirement is not fair. If the focus was on that and not the 1995 changes then maybe there would be more support than under 200,000 signatures.

colsten

Two questions for MSE Faye

1. how much extra NI/tax would she be happy to pay to fund the WASPI demands?
   
   
2. what is her own state pension age, as currently projected?

Same questions to all other WASPI supporters.

jamesd

It's lamentable that MSE is advocating both an increase in gender discrimination and making women within the WASPI2 age range poorer. MSE should be ashamed of advocating such discriminatory conduct these days.

If you hadn't realised it, the new state pension that women who reach their state pension age after 6 April 2016 get is higher for most women than the old one. That's part of its purpose. Which is why in PM's questions on 12 October the Prime Minister, who is in the WASPI2's age range, replied:

"The hon. Lady should know that transitional arrangements are already in place. We did make changes. We committed £1 billion to lessen the impact of the state pension age changes on those who were affected, so that no one would experience a change ​of more than 18 months. In fact, 81% of women’s state pension ages will increase by no more than 12 months, compared to the previous timetable.

The Department for Work and Pensions informed people of the change in the state pension age after the changes that were made in 2011. Moreover, in the future women will gain from the new pension arrangements that are being introduced. Women’s pensions are a long-standing issue, but there will be better pension arrangements for them in the future because of the changes that the Government have made."

colsten

There must be lots of money where the £65,000 within 24 hours came from.

JezR

This represents donations of 2600 people if they are all at the £25 level.

The summary of pension age rises is also incorrect - although the linked gov.uk page gives the proper details.

Silvertabby

Well, they won't be getting a penny from me!

I would be more sympathetic if they were just campaigning about the 2011 changes, which put my own SPA age up from 65 to 66. I have no problems with the 1995 changes - they were well overdue, and well advertised in the media. But no, what they want (and they are prepared to scweam and scweam and scweam until they get it) is for ALL women born on or before 31 December 1959 to get their State pensions at 60, whereas it's ok for women born on or after 1 January 1960 to wait until 66/67.

And I still can't get my head round why they call themselves WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) - shouldn't it be WASPE (Women Against State Pension Equality)?

jamesd

Silvertabby wrote: »

And I still can't get my head round why they call themselves WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) - shouldn't it be WASPE (Women Against State Pension Equality)?

Yes, they should, because the change effect which they are trying to reverse is the one that is gradually removing a five year difference between when two people born on the same day can get their state pension.

Living_proof

There should definitely have been much more effective communication about the 1995 changes. I only knew about them as a friend was an avid Guardian reader, and prepared myself mentally for another couple of years or so before state pension. Fast forward to marriage breakdown, failure of CSA to exact a contribution towards children, youngest child five years at university, when the recent changes were announced, I didn't have any option other than to keep plodding on and now I am just counting down the months and already have 41 qualifying years. Everyone deserves to have at least ten years' notice of such a drastic change in retirement ago so they can plan responsibly. I would have improved my educational qualifications in my late 40s had I known I would be working so long. Other ladies have become carers, thinking they had just a short time to support themselves until retirement. Nobody is arguing that equal retirement age shouldn't be the ideal, but how it has been achieved has been slap-dash and badly communicated.

colsten

Silvertabby wrote: »

And I still can't get my head round why they call themselves WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) - shouldn't it be WASPE (Women Against State Pension Equality)?

When they talk about equality, they don't have gender equality in mind. What they are talking about is women who were born before April 6 1950, i.e. whose state pension age was 60. That's what they really want, a state pension paid from age 60. Naturally, they also want it at the full new rate of £155.65 a week, regardless of any contracting out, and they couldn't care less who pays. Their greed knows no bounds.

mgdavid

Living_proof wrote: »

There should definitely have been much more effective communication about the 1995 changes. I only knew about them as a friend was an avid Guardian reader, ........

do you now appreciate the benefit of reading newspapers and keeping oneself informed of current affairs?