Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News

seven-day-weekend

The right decision. The Pension age rise has been known about since about 1995. The later increase (up to 66/67) did not have so much warning, but even so, afaiaa, that was for everyone, not just women.

Terron

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Had they succeeded and the law changed, from the date of the new legislation would men born at the same time not have a case to pursue to argue that from the point the law was amended that they were victims of discrimination?

Not just discrimination, but increased discrimination. I was born in 1959 and my pension age has been increased to 66. I a woman born on the same date were to get her pension 6 years before me then that would be unjustifiable,

Terron

zagfles wrote: »

It didn't have "zero media interest". It also had a lot of political interest. The SNP have been banging on about it for years, Labour included a pledge in their 2017 manifesto to keep the pension credit age in line with the 1995 act, thereby helping those most affected by the 2011 act while rejectig any attempt to unwind the 1995 act. That was actually a sensible, non discriminatory and not too expensive proposal.

Treating men and women differently for no good reason. How can you call that non-discriminatory?

Terron

Geri~O wrote: »

If women had been treated equally during their working lives this would have been fair, but women were not! It is unfair to suddenly bring in equality when historically it was unfair.

That is a justification for not equalizing the pension ages in 1975 at the same time as the equal pay act. Eventually though it was always going to be needed, It doesn't work against starting to equalize them 35 years afterwards and not completing it until 43 years afterwards Most if not all of their working lives they would have been covered by the equal pay act. Annoucing it in 1995 to start in 2010 can not sensibly be considered sudden.

ArcticRoll

Anyone who isn't in favour of this ruling needs to complete the following sentence:

"I think it's right that a white woman should continue to be able to retire 5 years earlier than a black man born on the same day because..."

ArcticRoll

Looking at it, it's quite bizarre the campaign wasn't along the lines that the original 1995 plans (equalisation to 65 by 2020) be implemented.

Arguing that 25 year is not sufficient time to increase the state pension age for women by even one single year and that it should be reinstated to 60 is utterly illogical.

SnowMan

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Looking at it, it's quite bizarre the campaign wasn't along the lines that the original 1995 plans (equalisation to 65 by 2020) be implemented.

Arguing that 25 year is not sufficient time to increase the state pension age for women by even one single year and that it should be reinstated to 60 is utterly illogical.

Talking of time, there is a bit at the end of the judgement that says the case is likely to have failed anyway based on timescale to make the appeal, but they seem to be saying it fails so miserably on all other grounds that they didn't need to look at that closely :rotfl:My reading only; the wording was

Delay

124. We do not intend to address the question of delay at any length, since we have considered and reached substantive conclusions on the arguments advanced. However, it must be recorded that the chief substantive changes to the SPA for the cohort of women represented by the Claimants came in a 1995 Act of Parliament. A delay of more than 20 years before the relevant legal challenge would in our view be fatal in any event.

zagfles

Terron wrote: »

Treating men and women differently for no good reason. How can you call that non-discriminatory?

Because it is! Pension Credit age has always been the same for men and women, and tied to the female state pension age. The Labour proposal was to retain the 1995 timetable for pension credit age, ie the same age for men and women. It's one of the very few sensible policies Labour have proposed! But it's probably too late now.

brewerdave

Oh no!! .....what am I going to do with all this Moet I've been hoarding to sell to these suddenly wealthy group of women:rotfl:

Malthusian

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Anyone who isn't in favour of this ruling needs to complete the following sentence:

"I think it's right that a white woman should continue to be able to retire 5 years earlier than a black man born on the same day because..."

Six years. Most black men born in the 1950s have a State Pension Age of 66 (those born after October 1954). Under WASPI's incredibly racist demand, their SPA would be 6 years later than a white woman of the same age.