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

2456723

Comments

  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    SonOf wrote: »
    They should have focused on the 2011 changes which were unfair to a small group and not focused on the 1995 changes which gave plenty of notice.

    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.

    The 2011 changes were already watered down as it went through Parliament. In 2013 WASPI founder Anne Keen launched a petition that this watering down wasn't enough. It flopped with zero media interest.

    WASPI only took off when the demand to reverse the 2011 changes was expanded to a demand to reverse the 1995 changes and they started promising members that when the Government caved in they'd get a £30,000+ cheque in the post.

    There was no prospect of WASPI deciding the 1995 Pensions Act was fine and focusing on the 2011 Pensions Act. Not only had they already tried and failed, it would be like the Catholic Church declaring there is no God. Without a demand to reverse the 1995 Pensions Act and without the prospect of £30,000+ cheques from the Government there is no WASPI.
  • SonOf
    SonOf Posts: 2,631
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.

    The back to 60 campaign was just totally unaffordable. Tweaking the 2011 changes would have been more affordable and had the complete focus been on those and not split over a range of ages, then it may have had more success. It is too late now as you say.

    You are correct though that the number of people impacted by the 2011 changes was much lower and would not have garnered as much support.

    So, in effect, the 2011 changes would have been a more honourable cause but less supported by the volume of people but the 1995 changes were greedy and unaffordable but had greater numbers affected and therefore garnered more support.

    The MPs that supported it are also disgraceful. They know if was unaffordable. They know that is had to change following the EU court ruling. They just played the women involved for political gain.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,277
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    Forumite
    Malthusian wrote: »
    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.

    The 2011 changes were already watered down as it went through Parliament. In 2013 WASPI founder Anne Keen launched a petition that this watering down wasn't enough. It flopped with zero media interest.
    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.
    WASPI only took off when the demand to reverse the 2011 changes was expanded to a demand to reverse the 1995 changes and they started promising members that when the Government caved in they'd get a £30,000+ cheque in the post.
    Appealing to the unjustified greed of a large number who want to preserve their privilege rather than genuine unfairness to a far smaller number who weren't given sufficent notice by the 2011 act might get you a bigger pool with a vested interest, but it doesn't help the legal or political arguments.
  • The Equal Pay Act and the Race Relations Act were passed 5 years apart. Pay discrimination and disparity has existed (and continues to exist) based on gender and race, among other factors.

    Why would it be right that the pension system factors in the social and economic disadvantage for white women, but not for black men?
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,277
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    Forumite
    ArcticRoll wrote: »
    The Equal Pay Act and the Race Relations Act were passed 5 years apart. Pay discrimination and disparity has existed (and continues to exist) based on gender and race, among other factors.

    Why would it be right that the pension system factors in the social and economic disadvantage for white women, but not for black men?
    And if it were to, then why not life expectancy too?
  • 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.


    The truth is that the government have raided the National Insurance fund and have picked on what they saw as the weakest group to try to balance the books! WASPI women will not go away, we can't afford to!
  • robber2
    robber2 Posts: 558
    First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Geri~O wrote: »
    ....... suddenly................




    Oh come on :wall:
  • SonOf
    SonOf Posts: 2,631
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    It is unfair to suddenly bring in equality when historically it was unfair.

    How on earth can you say it was sudden?

    1995 changed but not implemented until 2010 is 15 years. And then you had a transition period so there is no cliff edge. Noting that the WASPI women actually wanted a cliff edge for those born after the 1950s.

    Most of those born in the 50s affected by the 1995 change had longer than 15 years to prepare. How long do you actually need?
  • JoeCrystal
    JoeCrystal Posts: 3,001
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    And if it were to, then why not life expectancy too?

    Indeed. :) Why not go a step further and take into account of health issues like life expectancy shortened by smoking...
  • 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.


    The truth is that the government have raided the National Insurance fund and have picked on what they saw as the weakest group to try to balance the books! WASPI women will not go away, we can't afford to!

    Black men haven't been treated equally durin their working lives. Nor have gay men. Nor have disabled men.

    Tell me why a white, heterosexual woman should have her economic/work place disadvantage factored into her pension entitlement age but a black, homosexual man should not?

    If you think he should then how many times have you made this argument over the years? I'd gues none.

    All the changes do is remove the privilege of women being the only group to have their economic disadvantage compensated by the pension entitlement age.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards