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.

Who said it’d be fantastic? 🤷‍♀️
But no one credible is saying that the budget hasn’t resulted in lower growth and slower base rate cuts. And with Q4 growth numbers revised to 0% already the actual, when it’s published, is likely to be negative. With Q1 almost always worse that Q4…

I agree with this.

As someone just a bit younger than the WASPIs I know this was common knowledge and discussed by people of my age and people older than us.

Anyone who chose to never chat to people, listen to radio, TV, or read papers ever, are unlikely to be the people who would have done anything different if they had known.

Well, I"m older than your mother, and I cannot recall a time when washboards and cooking over an open fire were anywhere near mainstream. My mother did both, but she was born in the 1920s, and was among the rural poor.

Laundry was more time-consuming in the 50s, with a single purpose washing machine and a separate wringer or a spin dryer. There were no microwaves, not everyone had a fridge, deep freezes were very rare. There were no supermarkets, although more traders delivered. But it wasn't quite as dire as you suggest.

I said it didn't routinely happen. That is not the same as saying it never happened.

But you said it never happened in the 80s. 🤷‍♀️

Oh yes, the economy would be fantastic if the Tories were still in power. 😂

It still happens today but doesn't mean it is routine.

I was - or rather it was dressed up as resigned (under duress) and that was in the 80's

Yes, so as pp have said, it’s ageism and sexism!

Who is "they"? Are you assuming that everyone who disagrees with WASPI women receiving compensation is a net beneficiary and all the people who agree with compensation are net contributors,?

Just because they aren't paid a good salary for it, it doesn't mean they are worth less to society than you.

I didn’t say that, but they shouldn’t make out they don’t want to see their taxes, going to help others, when they themselves aren’t paying net tax. It’s hypocrisy!

Public education and medical providers would probably make a fair bit more money if they didn't work under a monopsony employer.

I've got a lot of sympathy for higher-rate net contributors being squeezed but most of the WASPI campaigners seem to be claiming it's a poverty/welfare issue rather than a principled objection to redistributory systems. That would probably be the focus of a MASPI campaign

Not every contribution is financial. Many of the financial "net beneficiaries " are the ones providing education, medical care and other services. Just because they aren't paid a good salary for it, it doesn't mean they are worth less to society than you.

Many pay for private education, medical care and pensions. They don’t need to leave the country - they could just decide instead of working 80 hours a week, which goes in higher rate income tax, and when they die, they can’t even leave it to their children, because it puts them into inheritance tax; they’ll just work 35 hours a week like everyone else!

If the tax take from them was halved, where would that leave the net beneficiaries? Where would that leave patients in the NHS if doctors withdrew their good will and stuck to a 35 hour week?

It’s basic human psychology that the rich need to get some universal benefits from the welfare state; and the government should know this!

How do higher rate tax payers get no share in the system? Do they not use any public services? How are they going to refuse to pay? Leave the country?

it’s a ridiculous concept when people are struggling to pay their bills and feed their kids.

It is a ridiculous concept, because those people are most likely to be net beneficiaries of the welfare state, not net contributors! It’s not their problem! They expect the higher rate taxpayers to subsidise them, yet they are moaning about other people getting a bit more share of the cake! What happens if one day, the higher rate taxpayers revolt and refuse to pay into a system, that they get no share in?

As for life expectancy being less - study the diet under rationing in WW2, that’s how to live longer along with the more physical work in those days. People aren’t living as long due to lifestyle choices! Medical care now is way better than it was in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s!

A handful of people didn’t know and the young people of our country are expected to be taxed to provide a sum for everyone of the same age - a blanket payment for each person “just in case” they weren’t aware.

it’s a ridiculous concept when people are struggling to pay their bills and feed their kids. Of course there is no help for the young, who are just expected to carry for the burden of the older generation, fund their care and pay their NHS bills - despite the fact they themselves will be unlikely to live as long or gain as much fromthe government ever in their lifetime.

I can’t believe people support this bull with a straight face.

I'm well aware that the Pope is fallible. Like the Ombudsman he's human.

Judges are fallible too (they're human as well). That's why we have the ability to appeal to a higher court. Several times.

Anyway, here's what the Ombudsman has to say about their powers:
It is extremely rare that an organisation we investigate does not accept and act on our recommendations. But we have no legal powers to make them do this. When an organisation does not follow our recommendations, we can present a report to Parliament so it can act to protect citizens’ rights.

So lobby your MP. As an elected representative they have the final say. They'll also have to consider constituents who feel differently of course...

Clearly a lot of people disagree with the decision of the ombudsman. People appeal judges decisions. I'm not sure if there s a process for appealing the decisions of ombudsman and would we want to pay for it anyway?

Interesting, I did not say the Ombudsman was infallible but merely an expert... and if this is how you feel, then what is the point of the Ombudsman or indeed the judicial system?

Still, if you want to chat about the reasons for the declaration of papal infallibility, have at me, at least then my Convent education and my mother's job as the Parish Priest's housekeeper will not have been in vain. Mind you, she retired at 80...

This absolutely was not communicated clearly to the age cohort concerned. Yes, it was announced when the decision was made to equalise pension ages (I think in 1980s), announced again when the timeframes were accelerated (mid 1990s). It was known by some (the more financially literate, generally with more assets) but there was no real publicity campaign for something that was announced years before it took effect. There should have been regular TV ad campaigns talking about it (in the style of the Pensionwise ads or Pension Credit uptake ads) as well as multiple mailshots to all females born between 1953 and 1960. It should have been highlighted for several years - people needed a decent amount of time to redo their plans, some realised they were affected just months in advance of turning 60.

I worked in DWP when the first lot were affected. I cannot tell you how many women I spoke to were aghast and disbelieving they were not getting their state pension at 60. Many had planned retiring and taking their works pension expecting RP to kick in also or had no works pension, working in low paying jobs.

He's an Ombudsman, not the Pope. His words are not sacrosanct.

Not full time once the kids are in school though. Laundry now involves sticking it in a machine and pressing a button. You aren't having to scrub clothes against a washboard and wring them through a mangle. You're not cooking over an open fire (and cleaning up the soot). You aren't scouring the step with a donkey stone every week. Household chores don't take anything like the time they used to. My mother (born late fifties) worked a three day week until she retired. Yes, some of that time involved cleaning and laundry. It also involved going swimming, lunch out with her sisters, watching TV, suduko etc.

Chores for one household are not a full-time job by a long way.

The current PM, along with Reeves, Rayner and Cooper, publicly pledged his support for those women. The footage of him saying it in 2022 is freely available. Fervent Labour supporter though I am, it’s not a good look to not even say “Really sorry, wish we could pay out but there’s no money”. I’m not going to hold it against him but thousands of women will.

Where I have I said they lied? I was actually referring the photo of Rachel Reeves (2019?) with the banner supporting them, and her statement last week that we couldn’t afford it. I don’t disagree that we can’t afford it - but she didn’t care about the cost when (a) she was in opposition and (b) not even shadow chancellor, never mind chancellor. So what she said then and now are different.

But she’s not alone. The tories are making a noise about it now, though we all know if they were still in power they wouldn’t be paying them either. Albeit, growth would be higher, interest rates lower and a recession wouldn’t be looming ;)