MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take...

bmm78 · 10 July 2017 at 6:48PM

le_loup wrote: »

Aw, this is getting very DMish. Attack the message - and it needs to be attacked - not the messenger.

I don't think posting previous dubious statements made in her role as a WASPI campaigner (in the mainstream media), is crossing any red line. She makes some highly contentious comments in the MSE article, and previous examples of this helps to put these comments into context.

Let's not forget that this is a campaign that is demanding £77bn of taxpayer's money, has threatened legal action (kind of) against the government, and whose supportive MPs have tried to sabotage important private pension legislation.

rtho782 · 10 July 2017 at 7:20PM

If she needs to expend so much effort explaining how she is not against pension age equality, perhaps they shouldn't have named their group WASPI.

And, any reduction in their pension age just means my generation pay for it when we won't be getting a pension until much later, and haven't benefited from a lifetime of house price growth.

hyubh · 10 July 2017 at 7:35PM

bmm78 wrote: »

This bit in particular caught my eye:

"She is a retired primary school head who worked in Surrey"

'"she says. “I’ve got a small occupational pension"'

:think:

If I'm reading the details right, won't she be one of those public sector scheme members who have benefited from the government deciding to grant full increases on their GMP, for life, as a 'transitional' measure...?

colsten · 10 July 2017 at 8:46PM

LHW99 wrote: »

As someone who had my pension age put back twice (ie in the relevant cohort) I may say to Ms. Cowley and the WASPI campaign (and MSE Martin should he care to recieve my views) you do not speak for me, or many others of my age.
Yes, I was disgruntled to have my SPA put back a second time - I would have preferred the Government to have made the change in one go from the start and had done. But so what. Governments of all persuations do things that I don't personally approve of.
I have spent my life wanting and expecting equal opportunity - which in my field was not that evident when I began work. I am not going to go back on that now and ask that I should be treated better than the men I worked with, and who I expected to treat me in the same way as they treated their male colleagues.
On the whole our generation, male and female, have benefitted by a reduction in the heavy manual activities required of earlier generations. Those who are unfit for work have access to appropriate benefits if they are below SPA, which is as it should be.

Hear hear! I am much in the same situation and of the same opinion - could not have said it better myself!

Archi_Bald · 10 July 2017 at 8:46PM

rtho782 wrote: »

And, any reduction in their pension age just means my generation pay for it when we won't be getting a pension until much later, and haven't benefited from a lifetime of house price growth.

You and people your age and younger are also most unlikely to benefit from a defined benefit pension, unlike Jane Cowley and huge numbers of 1950s women. Huge numbers of the protesters are teachers, nurses and civil servants. Or should I say "were", as large numbers of them are now at state pension age, and many of them had stopped working before then.

Silvertabby · 10 July 2017 at 9:39PM

“ As someone who had my pension age put back twice (ie in the relevant cohort) I may say to Ms. Cowley and the WASPI campaign (and MSE Martin should he care to recieve my views) you do not speak for me, or many others of my age.
Yes, I was disgruntled to have my SPA put back a second time - I would have preferred the Government to have made the change in one go from the start and had done. But so what. Governments of all persuations do things that I don't personally approve of.
I have spent my life wanting and expecting equal opportunity - which in my field was not that evident when I began work. I am not going to go back on that now and ask that I should be treated better than the men I worked with, and who I expected to treat me in the same way as they treated their male colleagues.
On the whole our generation, male and female, have benefitted by a reduction in the heavy manual activities required of earlier generations. Those who are unfit for work have access to appropriate benefits if they are below SPA, which is as it should be.
Originally posted by LHW99 ”

Hear hear! I am much in the same situation and of the same opinion - could not have said it better myself! Posted by colsten

Ditto. I've told younger colleagues of my experiences as a woman in the Armed Forces in the 1970s, but I don't think they believed me. Perhaps it's best if I don't give any examples of the problems I had to deal with on a family forum!

Not only that, but before I joined up I worked as a shelf stacker in our local Co-op. Dress policy for women was the issued knee-length dust coat, with the proviso that our own clothes must not be visible above the neck or below the hem of the coat. The job involved climbing ladders to stock the higher shelves - which left us a 'bit exposed' to say the least. A senior colleague asked the manager if we could wear trousers (this was the early 1970s) but we were told 'definitely not - lady shoppers sometimes bring their husbands in with them, so the least we can do is give them something nice to look at'. This was said in all seriousness. Then when my friend accepted a job at a petrol station, she was told that her 'uniform' would be her own denim jeans and the issued t-shirt with the garage logo on the front. Fine, except this was nothing more than 2 hankerchiefs with shoe lace straps. My friend (who was never in any danger of falling flat on her face) said she couldn't wear that as her bra straps would show. 'No they won't', she was told 'dress regs are NO bra'.

All that is in the past now, and rightly so - but equality doesn't just apply to the good things.

badmemory · 11 July 2017 at 2:42AM

I was really hoping that by now this would have died a (hopefully very quiet) death. I find the ignorance of supposedly intellegent women (teachers etc) to be, as I have said before, quite embarrassing. My mother, who would have been 93 last week, knew about these changes. We discusssed the hope that state pension age may have been equalised at 63. This was before the increase in life expectancy became so evident. I also find it embarrssing that so many women find that the equality we (well most of us) wanted, was unnoticed. Having a young child or other caring responsibilities is not an excuse.

Former_MSE_Jason_Mills · 11 July 2017 at 11:24AM

jamesd wrote: »

Further to my earlier post, I complain that this coverage has breached the MSE Editorial Code by:

A. covering the topic but completely failing to mention the offer of help by the minister when the Editorial Code repeatedly emphasises that the site must put the consumer first

and

B. breached normally accepted ethical standards for journalism by using a title that falsely asserted that a minister had said something on the topic that he in fact had not said.

To be clear, I also recognise that Martin and presumably MSE wish to campaign on this issue and that I probably differ at least in some areas of emphasis on that campaigning. This complaint is expressly NOT about that campaigning, but solely confined to the matters in this complaint. That is, campaigning is great, including when I may disagree, but please try to put the consumer first and maintain good standards of accuracy when doing it.

Dear jamesd,

Many thanks for contacting the Forum and raising your concerns about MSE’s guest comment from Jane Cowley, a director of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2017/07/guest-comment-waspi-campaign-responds-to-pensions-minister-advice-to-take-up-apprenticeships

Last Wednesday (5th July), cross-party MPs spent more than an hour describing the financial hardship caused to some 3.5 million women born in the 1950s who have been affected by the changes made to the State Pension Age. First and foremost, MSE is a consumer champion website and given the large number of consumers affected by these changes, it is editorially appropriate that MSE reports and provides its users with WASPI coverage. Alongside our news stories which are journalistically robust, MSE sometimes invites contributors to provide the site with a guest blog.

On reading the transcript of the debate, there’s no doubt that Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman MP put forward apprenticeships as one of the key solutions to those women affected by the changes state pension age:

“Thirdly, we have also extended apprenticeship opportunities—one of the best routes into skilled employment—for people of all ages and gender. For example, in England in 2014 to 2015, 12% of those starting apprenticeships were aged over 45.”

The Minister’s response focused almost entirely on returning individuals to the labour market rather than debating any potential transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s who now have to wait up to 6 years longer before being eligible for their state pension. Guy Opperman’s closing remarks re-iterate this:

“It is not the Government’s proposal to repeal or ameliorate the 1995 or 2011 Acts, but I accept that we must do all we can to assist everyone affected into retraining and employment, and to provide support if that is not possible. The commitment to provide support is clear, unequivocal and ongoing.”

It is also worth noting that Grahame Morris MP refers to apprenticeships during his summary, making it clear their role was part of the debate.

“As a nation, we owe a debt of honour to the WASPI women, many of whom are now in ill health, who have paid their contributions and who are not looking for apprenticeships at age 64 but for some recognition of their contribution—sometimes over 44 or 45 years or more. I ask the Minister to discharge his responsibilities; otherwise, the people may discharge this Government.”

Finally, with regards to how MSE presented Jane Cowley’s blog to its users – please note MSE’s introductory remarks.

“During the same parliamentary debate on Wednesday (5 July), Opperman said the Government had done a "massive amount" to get people back into employment or retraining during their pre-pension years, including supporting "lifelong learning", with over 200,000 over-60s entering further education since 2014/15, and extending apprenticeship opportunities. Views do not necessarily reflect those of MoneySavingExpert.com.”

This accurately summarises Guy Opperman’s position in the debate and also clearly states that the views being expressed don’t necessarily reflect those of MSE.

Once again, many thanks for raising your concerns – MSE really appreciates feedback and dialogue with its users.

bmm78 · 11 July 2017 at 12:07PM

MSE_Jason_Mills wrote: »

Last Wednesday (5th July), cross-party MPs spent more than an hour describing the financial hardship caused to some 3.5 million women born in the 1950s who have been affected by the changes made to the State Pension Age. First and foremost, MSE is a consumer champion website and given the large number of consumers affected by these changes, it is editorially appropriate that MSE reports and provides its users with WASPI coverage.

Every woman born after 1950 and every man born after 1953 has had their state pension age increased. As a consumer champion, what is MSE doing to highlight the financial hardship of those born after 1961, who have a higher state pension age than any woman born in the 1950s and have in many cases had their state pension age increased three times? Why does there appear to be a disproportionate focus on women born in the 1950s?

MSE_Jason_Mills wrote: »

On reading the transcript of the debate, there’s no doubt that Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman MP put forward apprenticeships as one of the key solutions to those women affected by the changes state pension age:

“Thirdly, we have also extended apprenticeship opportunities—one of the best routes into skilled employment—for people of all ages and gender. For example, in England in 2014 to 2015, 12% of those starting apprenticeships were aged over 45.”

At what point was this proposed as a "key solution"? The context for several areas Opperman covered was "the Government have done a massive amount on a progressive basis to get people back into employment or retraining in their pre-pension years".

MSE_Jason_Mills wrote: »

The Minister’s response focused almost entirely on returning individuals to the labour market rather than debating any potential transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s who now have to wait up to 6 years longer before being eligible for their state pension. Guy Opperman’s closing remarks re-iterate this:

"Now" have to wait up to 6 years longer? The bulk of these changes were passed through parliament 22 years ago.

MSE_Jason_Mills wrote: »

It is also worth noting that Grahame Morris MP refers to apprenticeships during his summary, making it clear their role was part of the debate.

“As a nation, we owe a debt of honour to the WASPI women, many of whom are now in ill health, who have paid their contributions and who are not looking for apprenticeships at age 64 but for some recognition of their contribution—sometimes over 44 or 45 years or more. I ask the Minister to discharge his responsibilities; otherwise, the people may discharge this Government.”

Morris immediately leapt onto Opperman's remarks and distorted them. How does that in any way prove that apprenticeships were a key part of the debate? Opperman did not mention apprenticeships at any point other than the words quoted above.

The article (and defence of it) continue to attribute statements to the Pensions Minister that are only possible through inference. Opperman made a factual point about apprenticeships for over 45s. He may or may not have intended this to be taken as a "solution" for 1950s women; his subsequent clarification suggest otherwise.

However, the title of the article claims that he "advised WASPI women to take up apprenticeships", which is completely incorrect and misleading.

I think it is reasonable for MSE to cover the WASPI issue; it is evidently a hot topic judging by the number of comments it generated. However, MSE surely have a responsibility to cut through the numerous myths and distortions that surround the issue, and present information and opinion in a balanced way.

haras_nosirrah · 11 July 2017 at 12:32PM

she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes

MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take...

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free