MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases

Silvertabby

Not strictly accurate.
At some point in 2011, I was expecting to get my state pension in April 2017.
A little later in 2011, I was told it was put back to July 2018.
That is not '8 years notice'. Posted by Pollycat

I have every sympathy with the '1954' ladies. If the WASPI campaign was set up to just unroll the 2011 acceleration, then I may have supported it (even though I, born in 1956, wouldn't have gained anything).

However, their insistance that all ladies born on or before 31 December 1959 should get their pensions from 60 is just beyond ridiculous.

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

I have every sympathy with the '1954' ladies. If the WASPI campaign was set up to just unroll the 2011 acceleration, then I may have supported it (even though I, born in 1956, wouldn't have gained anything).

However, their insistance that all ladies born on or before 31 December 1959 should get their pensions from 60 is just beyond ridiculous.

But.....but......what about the 1953 ladies? (of which I'm one).
Actually, I only copped for a 15 month extension to my state pension age, several friends got hit with 18 months.

redux

Pollycat wrote: »

Not strictly accurate.
At some point in 2011, I was expecting to get my state pension in April 2017.
A little later in 2011, I was told it was put back to July 2018.
That is not '8 years notice'.

Apologies if what I said doesn't quite cover your circumstance.

I've tried checking a couple of things, to see whether I should correct myself.

Women's pension age was to be raised to 65 by November 2018, and both men and women further to 66 by April 2020. This was announced in October 2011 in the Pensions Bill, but was also previously announced in the Spending Review in October 2010.

This is where I rightly or wrongly got the 8 years generalisation from, namely October 2010 to November 2018.

Apparently some people alleged that the October 2010 announcement breached the coalition agreement, which said "We will...hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women."

66 by 2020 doesn't breach that, but if the scale was sliding from 65 in 2018 to 66 in 2020, I can see that over 65 in between might be arguable.

That was addressed by stretching the transition period 65 to 66, by 6 months to October 2020 (Pensions Bill in Oct 2011).

What I've just been reading doesn't cover the women on the earlier transition 60 to 65. It sounds from your post that some of those were also speeded up.

Even then, some of these details were set out in the 2010 election campaign, and even though some of the manifesto stuff doesn't happen, there was also the coalition agreement, so although you say less than 8 years formal notice for you maybe it could be seen coming ...

Silvertabby wrote: »

I have every sympathy with the '1954' ladies. If the WASPI campaign was set up to just unroll the 2011 acceleration, then I may have supported it (even though I, born in 1956, wouldn't have gained anything).

However, their insistance that all ladies born on or before 31 December 1959 should get their pensions from 60 is just beyond ridiculous.

If your second paragraph is still in play in some arguments, I agree with you it's ridiculous.

The transition 60 to 65 has been known since 1995, and was generously set to happen gradually 2010 to 2020. Chopping a couple of years from that at shorter notice a few years ago might have a bit of attention if necessary, but shouldn't throw too much of the rest wide open again.

stokesley

Pollycat wrote: »

But.....but......what about the 1953 ladies? (of which I'm one).
.

Hear hear!:T

Silvertabby

But.....but......what about the 1953 ladies? (of which I'm one).
Actually, I only copped for a 15 month extension to my state pension age, several friends got hit with 18 months. Posted by Pollycat

Sorry - should have said the 1953 and 1954 ladies !

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

Sorry - should have said the 1953 and 1954 ladies !

I knew what you meant, really.
We've had enough conversations about it on various threads.

Pollycat

redux wrote: »

Apologies if what I said doesn't quite cover your circumstance.

I've tried checking a couple of things, to see whether I should correct myself.

Women's pension age was to be raised to 65 by November 2018, and both men and women further to 66 by April 2020. This was announced in October 2011 in the Pensions Bill, but was also previously announced in the Spending Review in October 2010.

This is where I rightly or wrongly got the 8 years generalisation from, namely October 2010 to November 2018.

Apparently some people alleged that the October 2010 announcement breached the coalition agreement, which said "We will...hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women."

66 by 2020 doesn't breach that, but if the scale was sliding from 65 in 2018 to 66 in 2020, I can see that over 65 in between might be arguable.

That was addressed by stretching the transition period 65 to 66, by 6 months to October 2020 (Pensions Bill in Oct 2011).

What I've just been reading doesn't cover the women on the earlier transition 60 to 65. It sounds from your post that some of those were also speeded up.

Even then, some of these details were set out in the 2010 election campaign, and even though some of the manifesto stuff doesn't happen, there was also the coalition agreement, so although you say less than 8 years formal notice for you maybe it could be seen coming ...

There's no need to apologise and it's up to you whether you correct yourself or not but even if I had been given notice in October 2010 that still only gave me 6 years and 6 months notice of the change in my state pension age. i.e. from October 2010 to April 2017 (the date I was given waaaaay back in 1995.

Maybe some women did have 8 years notice but not me.

You may think we should have seen it coming but knowing since 1995 that I'd get my pension at age 63 years and 6 months, to be told with less than 7 years notice that it was to be extended by a further 15 months (18 months for some women slightly older than me - it was originally planned to be extended by 24 months) was certainly not on my radar.

redux

Pollycat wrote: »

There's no need to apologise and it's up to you whether you correct yourself or not but even if I had been given notice in October 2010 that still only gave me 6 years and 6 months notice of the change in my state pension age. i.e. from October 2010 to April 2017 (the date I was given waaaaay back in 1995.

Maybe some women did have 8 years notice but not me.

You may think we should have seen it coming but knowing since 1995 that I'd get my pension at age 63 years and 6 months, to be told with less than 7 years notice that it was to be extended by a further 15 months (18 months for some women slightly older than me - it was originally planned to be extended by 24 months) was certainly not on my radar.

As I said in the rest of my post, after the second quote, maybe those cases can be reviewed to some extent.

But if it's true they are also demanding that anyone born in the 1950s should retire at 60, this means cancelling changes made as long ago as 1995, which is more than half a career by 2025.

As per:

Silvertabby wrote: »

However, their insistance that all ladies born on or before 31 December 1959 should get their pensions from 60 is just beyond ridiculous.

Pollycat

redux wrote: »

But if it's true they are also demanding that anyone born in the 1950s should retire at 60, this means cancelling changes made as long ago as 1995, which is more than half a career by 2025.

And that's why what WASPI want is so ill-thought out, it's nonsensical.

Daniel54

The 2011 Act was passed 3rd November so technically less than 10 years notice to anyone born before 3rd November 1956

Under this act,men’s pension age also increased by up to a year,starting with those born on or after 6th December 1953 .

The Act did not uniquely impact women ,but also an estimated 2.2million men who should not be whitewashed out of the picture.There are issues of gender equality completely ignored by those who suggest a female only remedy is remotely possible.

The 2011 Act was undoubtedly poor legislation,in particular for the 500,000 women who received less than 10 years notice of an increase of a year or more

Maybe something might have been achieved for this particular cohort of women,but Waspi’s insistence on the one true ask scuppered even this remote possibility

Meanwhile extension of the state pension age will have adverse affects on those with the lowest earnings and lowest savings,whatever their gender , but our MPs seem to prefer to curry favour with Waspi,despite their unaffordable and discriminatory campaign aims.