Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

Malthusian

WASPI's (or whoever's) demand is as follows:

WASPI_Facebook_page wrote:

"WASPI ask the Government to put all women born in the 50s, or after 6th April 1951 and affected by the changes to the state pension age in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950."

For those not au fait with former pension law, this means giving everyone born in the 1950s a state pension age of 60, with a backdated lump sum paid to all WASPI members.

No incarnation of WASPI has formally retracted this demand so we can assume it still stands. When they bang on about vague "transitional arrangements" and "bridging pensions", what they mean is something that pays them the same amount they would have received if their State Pension had been 60.

When WASPI say "We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60", they are referring to the fact that they only want the pension age to revert to 60 for women born in the 1950s. Someone born on 1 January 1960 would still have an SPA of 66 under WASPI's demand and the "State Pension Age" would still be 68.

hyubh

merrydance wrote: »

It's no Waspi taking them to court it's Back to 60

Well, it was you who quoted the WASPI 'Ask' and asserted that this was what the judicial review was all about. Back to 60 (per their name) reject the attempted cleverness of claiming 'We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60'...

Gers

lisyloo wrote: »

I disagree with muddled.

Yes it’s a generalisation that there wasn’t gender equality in the past and there are individual exceptions going back in history but in general there was gender inequality and in general the situation has improved.
I don’t think anyone would dispute this in general.
When women could go to university (in general) is a significant turning point. Not the only one and there will be exceptions, but it’s significant in terms of career opportunities.
Pension entitlement is generalised (apart from NI) it’s not individually customised.

Nice to see you not repeating your previous idea of all women being equal if all things if they really want it etc ( I summarise). Thanks.

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t think you are claiming that women had equal opportunities in 1928 are you?

Don't be ridiculous! Of course I wasn't... I said my mother was born in 1928, she didn't access university then!

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t agree.
The existence of family planning has transformed women lives from being baby machines and knackered at the end of their lives to having longer life expectancy,
The pension changes are actually overdue compared to increases in longevity.

You can agree or disagree, matters not. It's just that you muddle your thoughts and then write them down. If you had more clarity then perhaps we wouldn't disagree!

Gers

bluenose1 wrote: »

With regard to your mum I assume she was from a wealthy background because I know my working class family during the 50s had to work from 16 to put food on the table.

Absolutely not! She was a refugee from war-torn Germany who arrived in this country without any wordly goods or money of her own. Married my father (a Scottish soldier) and together they pulled themselves out of poverty by dint of hard work. My father was down the mines at 15 and only escaped when the war started and he signed up.

Assumptions are not always so off key.

Gers

xylophone wrote: »

You give the months for 2019 but not for 2010.....which seems somewhat inconsistent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-age-timetable/state-pension-age-timetable

Is that because the SP was awarded starting exactly on 60th birthday? I don't know...just guessing.

lisyloo

Gers wrote: »

Absolutely not! She was a refugee from war-torn Germany who arrived in this country without any wordly goods or money of her own. Married my father (a Scottish soldier) and together they pulled themselves out of poverty by dint of hard work. My father was down the mines at 15 and only escaped when the war started and he signed up.

Assumptions are not always so off key.

I don’t dispute your anecdote but don’t I believe it’s representative.
I’ve found evidence fairly hard to find but this publication has a chart of participation by gender between 1972 and 2004 in England

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8717/1/DIUS-RR-08-14.pdf

My anecdote is just one but I believe more representative of the societal norm at the time that that men were expected to be providers and women carers.

xylophone

Is that because the SP was awarded starting exactly on 60th birthday? I don't know...just guessing.

Not from 6/4/10.

Gers

lisyloo wrote: »

My anecdote is just one but I believe more representative of the societal norm at the time that that men were expected to be providers and women carers.

Exactly! That is what I said about societial changes.

Terron

Silvertabby wrote: »

If this is achieved (and I'll eat my old WRAF beret if it is!) then we will be in the unacceptable position of women born in 1959 getting (the equivalent) of the State pension back dated to 60, whereas women (and men) born in 1960 will have to wait until they are 66. What an unfair cliff edge!

It is worse than that Men born in 1959 (like me) now have a state pension age of 66 They want women born on the same day as me to get 6 years extra pension rather than the 5 it used to be. i.e. they want increased inequality, above the old inequality. Given that the equal pay act was in effect before I started working, pension equality was long overdue in 1995.

Silvertabby

Terron wrote: »

It is worse than that Men born in 1959 (like me) now have a state pension age of 66 They want women born on the same day as me to get 6 years extra pension rather than the 5 it used to be. i.e. they want increased inequality, above the old inequality. Given that the equal pay act was in effect before I started working, pension equality was long overdue in 1995.

In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension ages should have been included in the 1975 sex equality legislation. That way, the increases could have been spread out over a much longer period.

I suppose Harold Wilson must have thought that would be a vote loser, and so left if for the Tories to sort out. Now, where have we heard that before !