WASPI Women

[Moulin Yarns]

Lost the court case. Will be appealed


BREAKING: Women lose High Court challenge on state pension age https://t.co/KxlMqGh5bM

[Cataplana]

Lost the court case. Will be appealed


BREAKING: Women lose High Court challenge on state pension age https://t.co/KxlMqGh5bM

I'm not sure I fully understand the issues here. It seems unfair for the women to have their retirement date put back, but does seem fair that they are made to retire at the same age as men.

In fact, given that men do not live as long as women, it seems they are still getting the better deal.

Is this one case of feminism backfiring on itself?

[lyonhibs]

I'm not sure I fully understand the issues here. It seems unfair for the women to have their retirement date put back, but does seem fair that they are made to retire at the same age as men.

In fact, given that men do not live as long as women, it seems they are still getting the better deal.

Is this one case of feminism backfiring on itself?

As far as I can tell, it's not the principle of equalisation they are against, rather its execution/prior info that was (or was not) communicated.

[JeMeSouviens]

As far as I can tell, it's not the principle of equalisation they are against, rather its execution/prior info that was (or was not) communicated.

:agree:

It wasn't phased in at all. So you had women just about to retire suddenly finding that they wouldn't get any state pension for another 5 or 6 years.

[JeMeSouviens]

WHAT ARE WE CAMPAIGNING FOR?
The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA (State Pension Age) to 65, the same as men’s. WASPI agrees with equalisation, but does not agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little or no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.

The campaign started with ordinary women who in 2015 got together via Facebook and decided to fight this injustice.

THE AIM OF THE WASPI CAMPAIGN IS: TO ACHIEVE FAIR TRANSITIONAL STATE PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ALL WOMEN BORN IN THE 1950s AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES TO THE STATE PENSION LAW (1995/2011 ACTS)

This translates into a ‘bridging’ pension to provide an income until State Pension Age, not means-tested, and with recompense for losses for those women who have already reached their SPA. There are no specific age groups within the period mentioned above that are favoured above others.

WE DO NOT ASK FOR THE PENSION AGE TO REVERT BACK TO 60

https://www.waspi.co.uk/waspi_ask/

[speedy_gonzales]

:agree:

It wasn't phased in at all. So you had women just about to retire suddenly finding that they wouldn't get any state pension for another 5 or 6 years.

My mum is an active WASPI campaigner and was affected by this.
Born in '55 she wasn't aware of the changes until just before she turned 60, but fortunately for her, she & my dad aren't struggling so not as affected as others.
Her biggest bugbear was that it was not communicated well, she doesn't take too kindly when I say that it was in the papers over 20 years ago and was a fairly hotly contested debate at the time. She rightly argues back that not everybody reads the papers (then or now).
As has been highlighted here and by the court ruling, this isn't discrimination against women but correcting a historical discrimination against men. The counter argument is, traditionally, women have to take years out of the labour market to raise children so could end up working longer to get their "stamp".
How it has been handled though has been pretty poor, a letter to every person affected may have been a step too far but a wider spreading information campaign should have been carried out in the time leading up to the changes.
I also think more use should be made of the "Government Gateway" website and people should be encouraged to logon and check their figures themselves, including your own NI contributions.

[RyeSloan]

:agree:

It wasn't phased in at all. So you had women just about to retire suddenly finding that they wouldn't get any state pension for another 5 or 6 years.

Apart from it was phased and it was publicly available information since 1995.

Yes the phasing was quite severe in that it was meant to increase gradually from 2010 - 2020 but was accelerated in 2011.

From what I can see that moved the age from 60 to 63 in 2016 and then 65 in 2018. It then moves to 66 in 2020.

That would suggest that since 1995 it was known the age would increase after 2010 and that it didn’t increase until 5 years after the acceleration in 2011.

So while I absolutely sympathise with those effected and no doubt in a personal level it has impacted many people I’m also not buying the fact that the government can be totally blamed for people finding out a ‘a few weeks before they planned to retire’ or in some cases I’ve seen people say they actually retired only to find out they were not due the state pension.

Equality cuts both ways and at some point the retirement date needed to be equalised, that was always going to effect a certain group of people born in certain dates. Just as the increases to 66 and 67 is effecting other groups born in certain years.

As for the notification and acceleration. Well (again based on what I have read so happy to be corrected) there was 15 years notice ahead of the 2010 date. 5 years notice of a 3 year increase and 8 years notice of a 5 year increase. The accelerated dates do seem a bit tight but none the less it wasn’t done overnight.

Maybe easy for me to say and a bit heartless as not directly effected in this instance (although I do have to wait till I’m 67 now) but surely there has to be some element of personal responsibility here?

[Moulin Yarns]

My wife is 63. She will have to wait until she is 66, as will I, before we qualify for the state pension.

Apart from anything else we both started working with the expectations to get our pension at 60 and 65 respectively.

The speed of acceleration of the increase in pensionable age for women is what the dispute is about. My wife is missing out on 6 years of state pension, I only have to wait one additional year, how is that fair?

[Cataplana]

My wife is 63. She will have to wait until she is 66, as will I, before we qualify for the state pension.

Apart from anything else we both started working with the expectations to get our pension at 60 and 65 respectively.

The speed of acceleration of the increase in pensionable age for women is what the dispute is about. My wife is missing out on 6 years of state pension, I only have to wait one additional year, how is that fair?

The fundamental argument is that mortality tables show women live longer, so will be in receipt of pension longer than men.

Men were "penalised" a lot more when the gap was five years.

[Moulin Yarns]

The fundamental argument is that mortality tables show women live longer, so will be in receipt of pension longer than men.

Men were "penalised" a lot more when the gap was five years.

I'm sure even you understand the inequity of the acceleration of the pensionable age for women, even though you think it is all about equality for men. (I agree that women live longer, but that is not what the court case was about! even though it is a generalisation about life expectancy :wink:)

Men were never penalised, as you put it, because pension age was always thus. I'm not even going to search for when women even started to receive the state pension but I bet it wasn't that long ago!!!



Oh alright then.



https://www.savvywoman.co.uk/2015/03/history-of-the-state-pension-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-it-affects-women/

[Cataplana]

I'm sure even you understand the inequity of the acceleration of the pensionable age for women, even though you think it is all about equality for men. (I agree that women live longer, but that is not what the court case was about! even though it is a generalisation about life expectancy :wink:)

Men were never penalised, as you put it, because pension age was always thus. I'm not even going to search for when women even started to receive the state pension but I bet it wasn't that long ago!!!



Oh alright then.



https://www.savvywoman.co.uk/2015/03/history-of-the-state-pension-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-it-affects-women/

I'll be more careful about the questions I ask in future. On the positive side, I can see the unfairness of getting put back seven years instead of two.

I think it should have been phased, (now that we've discussed it here) , at some point they should be equalised. I'm pissed off enough about having to wait two years extra, so I think it's been a real body blow to work on seven extra years.


All people over the age of 70 got the OAP in the 1908 Act. by the way.

Mortality tables , by their nature, are a generalisation, regrettably they are the foundation of pension funding, as it just is not practical to work out the exact life expectancy of ever member of a scheme, then charge them accordingly.

[heretoday]

It wasn't given enough publicity at the time. If it had, there would have been outrage.

[JimBHibees]

It wasn't given enough publicity at the time. If it had, there would have been outrage.

Who was the party in power at the time? Pretty shameful on mass media/Unions/other political parties not to have highlighted this much more if such a big story.

[Danderhall Hibs]

It wasn't given enough publicity at the time. If it had, there would have been outrage.

It was probably more the case that it was that far away in the future a 40 year old woman had other stuff to worry about.

Just like now how we don’t see protests about the age going up to 67 then 68 and rumours of 70.