MSE News: Pensions Minister: 'no straws to clutch to' for WASPI campaigners

bmm78

coyrls wrote: »

The way I read it is that the proposed "compensation for their losses" is to extend pension credit to 1950s-born women (I don't know what a WASPI woman is), there is nothing else on offer. It doesn't seem a bad "solution" to me.

The Labour policy announced in November was to restore eligibility to Pension Credit to the 1995 timetable, but with the qualifying age continuing to increase to 66 by 2022.

It isn't a bad solution, as it is means-tested and relatively cheap to implement (costed at £860m over the paliamentary term). There would need to be proper consideration of the treatment of men to ensure that the benefit was not discriminatory, but on the whole it is feasible and would help those most in need.

However, there is a complete disconnect between this proposed policy, and the suggestion that all 1950s women would be "compensated" as a result, as it would only impact on a small percentage of 1950s women. Just by simple maths, £860m across 3.5m women (plus men) is not going to go very far, unless the eligibility criteria is highly restrictive.

zagfles

coyrls wrote: »

The way I read it is that the proposed "compensation for their losses" is to extend pension credit to 1950s-born women (I don't know what a WASPI woman is), there is nothing else on offer. It doesn't seem a bad "solution" to me.

It would have to be men too as it would be illegal to make sexist changes in benefits - when pension credit was first introduced the age was set at the female state pension age but it was available to both men and women.

So if, for instance, Labour decided to set pension credit age at the 1995 act female SPA timetable, it would have to apply to both men and women.

Silvertabby

“ The way I read it is that the proposed "compensation for their losses" is to extend pension credit to 1950s-born women (I don't know what a WASPI woman is), there is nothing else on offer. It doesn't seem a bad "solution" to me.
Originally posted by coyrls ”
It would have to be men too as it would be illegal to make sexist changes in benefits - when pension credit was first introduced the age was set at the female state pension age but it was available to both men and women.

So if, for instance, Labour decided to set pension credit age at the 1995 act female SPA timetable, it would have to apply to both men and women.

Zagflies - I was just about to make the same point. I wonder if this has been factored in, or if it will be another thing to be paid for from Corbyn's 'bottomless pit' of money.

System

There's a paradox there, because if something is changed in a way that affects men and women equally, then it can't be said to be rectifying an imbalance.

rpc

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

There's a paradox there, because if something is changed in a way that affects men and women equally, then it can't be said to be rectifying an imbalance.

WASPI object to rectifying an imbalance...

OldBeanz

Assuming that the polls are right and that no changes asked for by WASPI will be introduced before 2022, do we think they will give it a rest come the 9th June?

Paul_Herring

OldBeanz wrote: »

Assuming that the polls are right and that no changes asked for by WASPI will be introduced before 2022, do we think they will give it a rest come the 9th June?

Are you asking rhetorical questions?

OldBeanz

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Are you asking rhetorical questions?

Who moi?

Acquinas

Ok, so I think it has been possible for many of us. I can draw down a DB pension of about £20k p.a. Assuming hyubk's x 20 multiplier (which seems about right) that's a hypothetical pot of £400k. That's been based on 30+ years on a middling income and ongoing attention to my pension arrangements since my late 20s. Plus quite a lot of getting on my OH's nerves in terms of turning down the thermostat and cutting my own hair. But I look at my son who us just leaving uni and, although he will be starting on a reasonable entry-level salary and a decent DC scheme that involves a decent non-contributory element, it's clear that student loan repayments and crippling housing costs are going to set him back years compared to how it was with me. I had my own house by age 23, was married by 25 and was paying AVCs by the time I was 35. Sure I got burned by Equitable Life and was mis-sold some endowments in the 1980s, but they seem like minor bumps compared to the mountain he has to climb. Nevertheless, with an employer that will match his own contributions up to 3% over and above the non-contributory element, he has committed to putting in what he can afford. But will he ever get to £250k (at today's value)? Seems a big ask.

bmm78

OldBeanz wrote: »

Assuming that the polls are right and that no changes asked for by WASPI will be introduced before 2022, do we think they will give it a rest come the 9th June?

The political campaign was effectively dead as a dodo by 24th June 2016.

Barring the unthinkable in June, it should be obvious to them that there will be no further concessions made, and that there isn't much point lobbying MPs any more.

Logic and reality are not WASPI strong suits though, so they will probably keep on doing what they have doing, and finding the most inopportune dates so that their "marches" can coincide with the most significant political events and get the least publicity possible. The campaign will gradually lose steam when Virgin take Eggs Benedict off the First Class menu, and probably never recover when the Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards split the campaign down the middle over whether the bridging [STRIKE]pension[/STRIKE] incomey thingy should be "fairly transitional" or "transitionally fair".

There will be continued crowdfunding efforts and huffing and puffing about legal action, which will drag on for years until the Parliamentary Ombudsman helpfully points out that complaining about not getting a letter is pointless if there was no legal requirement to send one.