AIBU in thinking the government have made the correct decision not to blanket pay all WASPI women £3k? This goes against the Ombudsman recommendations to pay between £1k-3k to every WASPI women.

I think you’ll find they were. There were virtually no maternity rights in the 70s/early 80s.

Ginmonkeyagain · Yesterday 14:13
**
Indeed. We all have a duty to keep up with this stuff. The state pension is a state benefit not a pension and it is your responsibility to check your eligibilty”

Afraid I agree. I’m not due my pension for another 7 years but I check the website at least a couple of times each year. It’s not difficult and I would be pretty cross with a Government that communicated every single change to legislation by letter. Complete waste of money.

I can’t see the Onbudsman’s recommendation of £1-£3k massively changing anyone’s circumstances either, tbh.

Oh you sweet summer child.
I was sacked for exactly that in the 90s.i know plenty of women it happened to in the 80s. We have contact/support groups.
The difference is that in the 80s/90s we have the law on our side.

Women currently in their 60s weren't routinely sacked for being pregnant. That may have happened in the 1950s but not the 1980!!

If an Ombudsman makes a decision in any industry in the favour of the applicant, I thought that the defendant who has lost the case must do what the Ombudsman has recommended. They can't just shrug their shoulders. Why should it be any different for the British government?

Poor women of pension age were often in those groups in their younger lives. Every properly disagregated set of stats I've seen over the last couple of decades shows older single women in the groups most likely to be living in poverty.

Its not that surprising. Women currently in their 60s, especially later 60s and above were routinely discriminated against in the workplace, sacked for being pregnant or even on marriage, blocked from educational opportunities and barred from workplace pension schemes. It entirely to be expected that women who then find themselves single in older age will struggle when all they have is the state pension (if that) and its one of the lowest in Europe.

The reason the Ombudsman ruled in their favour was serious maladministration. This cohort of women were subject to very late change in retirement date, many were not informed and if they went to check with DWP were given incorrect information. I'm not a WASPI, I'm on a generation boundary so several years younger but I was also getting the wrong information from DWP until just a few years back as were a sizeable number of my friends.

Of course not all women in this age group will suffer hardship - there are plenty of "I'm alright Jacks" who were able to develop professional careers and access the associated pensions or who benefit from their DHs' contributions/pensions. But we also know that "they are all rich boomers" is bollocks and that the top 30% in this age group are doing nicely (especially the men) but those women in the bottom third in younger years are the very people affected by this change in old age.

As with the WFA change - it hurts those already poor more than anyone else and is glossed over by fudging everyone into one demographic, superficially doing ok. Kendall and Starmer were both stalwart supporters of these women (and pensioners) in opposition but seem to regard older single women as an easy target.

Personally I didn't vote Labour to see them targeting the bottom 30% in any age group, including boomers.

And, after 30 years of hard work, she wanted to relax.

I started a part time job at 16, I've already worked for 33 years, should I be able to claim the state pension at 49 then?

God, this. I also started working at 16 and I anticipate that by the time I get to state pension age, it'll be mid-70s. Which means I'll have been working for nearly 60 years without any breaks. Double what that lady had worked by the time she "wanted to relax".

My mum is a WASPI woman and retired at 55 having worked for 8 years during her life. She admits that she knew all about the changes but nonetheless was very excited about the idea of getting some compensation, despite having a household income higher than mine. That I'll be paying for it and working over 6 times longer than she did is of no interest to her whatsoever. I know not all WASPI women are like this, but it's difficult to stomach all the same.

You could go on for ever with that argument. Younger people could say that older generations benefited from house prices they could only dream of.

Try understanding the argument.

My post is relevant because to say you didnt understand, didnt know etc is not a reason to then get paid something!

I have no sympathy. My retirement age is 68, I've worked my whole life. It is what it is.

Sterling is a fiat currency, the government can spend whatever it likes . The rest of your post is relevant how?

Thing is the youth are living on broken promises. They have nothing to aim for. Many won't ne able to afford a house. The contract is broken. Retirement is creeping to 67.
It will seem unfair to the youth who have not lived in cheap fuel and house prices.

Generations will be poorer than the previous.

So I can understand why they have little sympathy.

Torys did nothing for 14 years, none of them called for it when Johnson et al were In office.

Starmer blaming is stupid. Though can agree he looks a bit silly campaigning for it with Corbyn. Though they were currently elected on different promises.

Thanks @BIossomtoes

It’s not difficult. I’ll use me as an illustration. My pension age was moved to 61 and a couple of months in 1996 when I was 43. I accepted it without question, it wasn’t much and it was a long way off. In 2011 it moved to 64 and three months, I was 59 then and suddenly all my plans were thrown up in the air. Many women had even less notice in 2011 than I did. It’s the notice that’s the issue - and the grossly unfair and bonkers transition arrangements.

Obviously everyone can understand that finding out that you were not going to receive the pension when you thought you were isn't great but what financial difference did the shorter notice make?And why do you feel that current working tax payers who not only were uninvolved in the decision but are even worse off with regard to retirement give you money for it,?

And you benefit from equality legislation those women could only dream of.

Whats confusing me is some women are saying everyone must have known the state pension age was changing yet the problem seems to be some women had no notice.??

The government did say that for 20 years to the victims of the blood scandals. Huge numbers of people died without receiving any compensation or acknowledgement. It was only the public inquiry showing the depth of government complicity and cover up that changed the position.

Absolutely 6 years is a big ask. Awful!

As every man from 1908 to today will tell you.

Im embarrassed as despite being late 50s and semi intelligent (so i thought) im unsure what this is all about. Can anyone briefly tell me?

It’s not about knowing or not knowing. For many women it’s the lack of notice about the most impactful changes in 2011, those were made just as hundreds of thousands of women were about to reach retirement age. If you’re going to criticise a campaign group at least take the trouble to understand what their grievance is.

I am 66 years old and was affected by the change. I was well aware of the situation and women who I know were also aware. You would have had to be living on an isolated island as a hermit not to know. I actually agree that state pension age should be the same for all people.

But you realise it would not be "the government" paying this compensation. It would be the rest of us - who have no work not just an additional 6 years, but 8 (so far). I hardly think that's an appropriate ask in the current climate, and if the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't either.