Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Pollycat

caveman38 wrote: »

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.

Why shouldn't they?

Maybe because it was a knee-jerk reaction in response to a question to Boris Johnson that Labour saw as a potential vote-winner?
A pie-in-the-sky idea that isn't in Labour's manifesto and isn't costed?
(because Corbyn admitted it will come out of 'Government reserves').

caveman38

Seabee42 wrote: »

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.

Boomers did benefit from Final Salary Pension Schemes yes. We also have benefited from house inflation too.
But the younger generations don't realise that we had a struggle at a time that is comparable to them now. Except that they have more than we did.
We are not talking about being poor nor are we talking about the world.
What do you mean "Should we even care?"

caveman38

Pollycat wrote: »

Why shouldn't they?

Maybe because it was a knee-jerk reaction in response to a question to Boris Johnson that Labour saw as a potential vote-winner?
A pie-in-the-sky idea that isn't in Labour's manifesto and isn't costed?
(because Corbyn admitted it will come out of 'Government reserves').

Aren't all manifestos, vote winners?

Pollycat

caveman38 wrote: »

Aren't all manifestos, vote winners?

It's not in the manifesto. :whistle:
I'd have a little more confidence in Labour doing what they now say they are going to do if it was.
It still wouldn't convince me to vote for Corbyn though.
And that's from an 'affected' women who stands to receive a hefty WASPI hand-out and from a woman who has never voted for any party other than Labour in my whole life.

caveman38

Pollycat wrote: »

It's not in the manifesto. :whistle:
I'd have a little more confidence in Labour doing what they now say they are going to do if it was.
It still wouldn't convince me to vote for Corbyn though.
And that's from an 'affected' women who stands to receive a hefty WASPI hand-out and from a woman who has never voted for any party other than Labour in my whole life.

OK, you're right there. You are also a noble person who would forfeit that money because you don't want Corbyn as PM.
FYI, we are both Conservative voters and will vote that way this time too, regardless of the incentive to vote Labour.
My only argument is that I wouldn't blame anyone to vote Labour for the cash and I object to the "boomer" accusations.

Pollycat

caveman38 wrote: »

OK, you're right there. You are also a noble person who would forfeit that money because you don't want Corbyn as PM.
FYI, we are both Conservative voters and will vote that way this time too, regardless of the incentive to vote Labour.
My only argument is that I wouldn't blame anyone to vote Labour for the cash and I object to the "boomer" accusations.

It's not a case of forfeiting that money because I don't believe there will be any money.

I'll take 'noble' because I do believe that the money Labour (say they) plan on giving women could be and should be spent on more important things.
I'll take 'noble' if you mean I believe that a lot of these WASPI women are not in financial distress so don't need the 'compensation and if you mean I believe that a lot (not all) of these WASPI women are saying they were unaware when that is not true.


I wouldn't blame anyone for voting for any party for whatever reason.

badmemory

I too object to the boomer accusations. A lot of us did not have final salary pensions or indeed any employment pensions at all they were not the norm. We did of course benefit from over 15% interest rates. Those of us older boomers benefitted from very poor post war nutrition (many of us grew up shorter than our parents and younger siblings). Also from fathers fairly recently demobbed many of whom were not in the best mental health. But let us not let the truth get in the way of a good gripe!


And to repeat - the news about the increase in SPA was all over the papers & talked about a lot. Originally the hope was that mens SPA would be reduced & womens increased to 63. But when the increase in life expectancy was spelt out that was obviously not going to happen.


We have been shouting for equality - well this is definitely where it starts, well started.

nwc389

I am in the affected group , born in early 1956 .
I didn’t find out about the 1993 changes until around 2002-2004 when I made some joke about ‘ roll on 60 when I get my pension’ to a colleague and they put me right ! Why didn’t I know about the changes before ? Well it might have been that in 1993 when they were announced I was busy with a toddler , a new baby and a job et al .
The second lot of changes I did get a letter. I do think they were wrong to have accelerated the changes at this time as they were advised that the message about the first changes had not reached a large percentage of the affected group of women ( source documents from dwp at recent court case)
However I voted against the compensation option . The changes were badly communicated initially but were not unfair and I’ve never thought that anything would come of various campaigns or court cases .

custardy

silverwhistle wrote: »

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.

attitudes were different in the 90's?

Paul_Herring

custardy wrote: »

attitudes were different in the 90's?

.. 1890's, quite possibly...