Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

jem16

Triumph13 wrote: »

Surprise, surprise. If you put up a poll where one side are highly organised and will have been pushing round the call to vote on social media within minutes, of course you get a massively unrepresentative poll. That's even before you factor in self-identification of age group / gender and the poll letting people vote as many times as they want. A completely meaningless exercise.

Very true and I've seen a few posts urging people to vote for different age groups so that they can skew the votes.

MSE staff have now been made aware. The poll is basically useless.

colsten

jem16 wrote: »

The poll is basically useless.

MSE polls usually are. They are mere voodoo polls. Statistically totally meaningless. Just a bit of fun.

Pollycat

fronty wrote: »

If that is the actual wording provided by the DWP I can sort of understand why some women claim they didn't know, it could have been written better. Some less well educated women may simply not understand what that means but if it had been written differently it may have had a bigger impact.

For instance the emphasis in that statement is on the DWP - some women might not even know what those three letters mean. My Mum frequently asks me to look at correspondence she has received from various government departments, she simply does not understand half of it and I have to "translate" it for her. I think this might be quite common, a lot of official documents can be hard to understand to less well educated people. We don't all have degrees in English Language!

If it had been written with more emphasis on the "you", it may have had more impact, e.g.
"The notice is to inform YOU that YOU will no longer receive your state pension at age 60. Due to a change in the law you will now not receive your state pension until age 65." etc etc etc

Oh come on!
You really are clutching at straws. :rotfl:

It might not be the clearest wording but the mention of 'age 65' should have had any woman - regardless of their education of lack of it - running to someone to clarify if they didn't understand the content of the letter.

Maybe you think each affected women should have had a personal visit to explain in words of 2 or less syllables.

Pollycat

fronty wrote: »

If that is the actual wording provided by the DWP I can sort of understand why some women claim they didn't know, it could have been written better. Some less well educated women may simply not understand what that means but if it had been written differently it may have had a bigger impact.

For instance the emphasis in that statement is on the DWP - some women might not even know what those three letters mean. My Mum frequently asks me to look at correspondence she has received from various government departments, she simply does not understand half of it and I have to "translate" it for her. I think this might be quite common, a lot of official documents can be hard to understand to less well educated people. We don't all have degrees in English Language!

If it had been written with more emphasis on the "you", it may have had more impact, e.g.
"The notice is to inform YOU that YOU will no longer receive your state pension at age 60. Due to a change in the law you will now not receive your state pension until age 65." etc etc etc

If you read the extract of the letter you will see that it wasn't from the DWP, it was from the woman's occupational pension provider.
Any correspondence from somewhere like that should be treated with the utmost seriousness.
I don't know what the full letter from the woman's pension provider says, it may well explain what 'DWP' means.

silverwhistle

custardy wrote: »

but cool with the men working 47 to 49 years?

That got a lot of upvotes. But as I mentioned above back in those days attitudes were different and so were job and career expectations. Now I was never going to get married or pregnant barring an Immaculate Conception, and as I say have always been on my own, so have always known I'd have to be self-reliant. But, and it's a big but, if you think that women had the same career patterns and opportunities you are sorely mistaken.



Societal attitudes, including those of men remember, were different. So whilst I don't think wholesale compensation is in order a little more understanding of the background is in order I feel. Not sure what the solution is though.

Thrugelmir

silverwhistle wrote: »

Not sure what the solution is though.

The care crisis has even been costed yet. Keeping people alive for longer isn't just an issue for the NHS. Personal responsibility to fund, as far as is possible, has to form part of any future agenda and meaningful discussion. A grown up family discussion rather than an endless political bun fight.

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

Maybe you think each affected women should have had a personal visit to explain in words of 2 or less syllables.

Personally, no, but the WASPE lot appear to have seriously made much the same argument in the past... (a personal letter (with words of one syllable or less... ) ))

Pollycat

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Personally, no, but the WASPE lot appear to have seriously made much the same argument in the past... (a personal letter (with words of one syllable or less... ) ))

Y'know, Paul, I'm really struggling to understand what WASPI/Backto60 mean when they say they weren't aware. :think:

caveman38

RueyE wrote: »

No I think Pollycat is more correct in her post, "...I have no doubt that a lot of WASPI women will be swayed by Corbyn's 'promise'."
Not only will a lot of WASPI women vote for this 'promise', but also their partners, children, etc.
It is a 'clever' strategy adopted by Labour, that has tapped into the financial greed that exists within a proportion of today's society
For example, I contacted a family member (always been a CONS voter) who I knew would qualify for this 'promise', and would gain probably about 6k, and they were completely sold on the idea.
They are just looking at the short term personal gain, and not at the long term pain.
Alas I despair!!

And why shouldn't they?
I fail to see what my generation (68 & 65) will gain from whoever forms the next government. My wife was sent an email from GMBU to give her an estimate of what Corbyn would compensate her - it amounted to £31K over 5 years.
Now I wouldn't be sucked into believing a) whether they have any chance of being elected, or b) being able to deliver that promise. But if in the coming fortnight there emerges the possibility of a coalition government, then there is a possibility.
I think that us baby-boomer generation are sick and tired of the criticisms about the good fortune of being born in the 50's.
We all have children now mid thirties to 40 year old and compare lifestyles.
We had a mortgage that swallowed half my salary (because of 15% interest rates), ran 1 car and had 1 annual holiday.
My children have 1 expensive house but although have massive mortgages only pay 3% interest rates, have 2 foreign holidays a year and run 2 decent cars and have a better social life than we could afford.
So less of the sarcasm of the short term benefits and long term pain which would come if they were to receive this compensation.
Yes this is a selfish world but most of it is not of our doing.

Seabee42

In hindsight the boomers have done well, is it their fault they have been undertaxed for the benefits provided? Should we even care? Life is unfair the poor in this country are not poor on a world scale? The problem with the waspi payout from Labour is for a party that normally represents the poor it is giving a massive hand out not even remotely targeted at need.