MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases

Paul_Herring

but also an estimated 2.2million men who should not be whitewashed out of the picture

Of course they can. This is GRASPI we're talking about - they don't care about men. Or anyone born after 31st December 1959.

jem16

Daniel54 wrote: »

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

Oh good I can now jump up and down and shout snotfair as I just fit into this by about 4 months.

However I won’t as I can manage perfectly well for my extra year and would rather help went to where it’s really needed.

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

With some of those only being a couple of months extra, I’d perhaps even concentrate on the 300,000 with the 18 months increase. Not all of these will have a problem with it though.

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

Very true.

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.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a debate actually concentrated on helping the worst affected and came up with a fully costed solution that the government would find difficult to ignore?

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

With some of those only being a couple of months extra, I’d perhaps even concentrate on the 300,000 with the 18 months increase. Not all of these will have a problem with it though.

I'm a 15 month increase woman, and whilst I think the (relatively) short notice is unfair, I'm not jumping in a First Class carriage to London, swilling champagne & demanding unreasonable action by the Government.

jem16 wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a debate actually concentrated on helping the worst affected and came up with a fully costed solution that the government would find difficult to ignore?

Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful.
But no chance with WASPI.

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm a 15 month increase woman, and whilst I think the (relatively) short notice is unfair, I'm not jumping in a First Class carriage to London, swilling champagne & demanding unreasonable action by the Government.

Some of them are even planning a 2 day event with the Back to 60 demo and the WASPI demo on consecutive days.

It certainly is giving the government the very strong impression that it’s pension at 60 and nothing less will do.

Paul_Herring

jem16 wrote: »

Some of them are even planning a 2 day event with the Back to 60 demo and the WASPI demo on consecutive days.

Don't they have jobs or job centres to go to? Wish I had that much time off, and money, to go gallivanting off to London every week...

Malthusian

jem16 wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a debate actually concentrated on helping the worst affected and came up with a fully costed solution that the government would find difficult to ignore?

There already is a fully costed solution. If you're of working age you can get a job. If you're of working age and can't find a job you can claim JSA. If you're incapable of working due to illness or disability you can claim ESA. (Or Universal Credit if applicable.)

Terron

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.

As a man born in 1959 whose pension age was put back to 66 in 1995 I agree.

jem16

Terron wrote: »

As a man born in 1959 whose pension age was put back to 66 in 1995 I agree.

1995 Act didn't affect men. It would have been the 2011 Act that changed your spa to 66.

Terron

jem16 wrote: »

1995 Act didn't affect men. It would have been the 2011 Act that changed your spa to 66.

No. It was the 2007 Act I remembered that the 2010 act did not change my pension age but forgot when it was initially changed.

jem16

Terron wrote: »

No. It was the 2007 Act I remembered that the 2010 act did not change my pension age but forgot when it was initially changed.

Not quite.

The 2007 Act would have increased your spa to a maximum of 65 yrs 9mths. Then the 2011 Act increased it to 66 as it speeded things up a bit.

The 2007 Act seems to have been forgotten about, especially by Labour even though it was their Act, and did affect men and women born 6th April 59 onwards.