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.

[caringcarer]

At the time it was in every newspaper for weeks, in the radio and on the TV news a lot of coverage via the media. Most women of this age agree they knew about pension age changes. At the time it was huge. I fail to understand how any women could not have known unless they lived off grid. No individual letters were sent out to the women who would be affected. The Ombudsman's recommendation was that a blanket payment of between £1k-3k be paid to all WASPI women. Labour have just announced no money will be paid out at all. It would have cost the taxpayer up to £10.5 billion pounds on top of the huge amount of my ney it has cost to review it for several years. It is money that the government just don't have. Assuming lessons have been learned and any future changes will see DWP send out letters to any individuals who it will directly affect. The only worry is that it sets a precedent of ignoring what the Ombudsman's recommendations.

If this were affecting men it would be paid without question and we all know it.

Or will people feel that the government is able to make tough yet sensible financial decisions? I don't want a government that can be bullied into giving away money we don't have at the expense of all of our futures.

Err it did , certainly the second phase.

You would have had to have had your head buried in a ton of concrete to not have been aware of the changes to pensions. It's willful ignorance.

They're politicians!

You'd be an idiot believe or trust anything that any of them say.

But, because governments didn't follow a clear and correct notification process, you can make nebulous arguments all you wish about what people "should" have known and those arguments will forever remain speculation and what-I-reckon-ry. Which is poor basis for liability and compensation decisions.

Having to work for six years isn't a small matter. Demanding that people do it is a huge ask, and any government that requires this from its citizens should do so in straightforward unambiguous terms directly to each citizen concerned.

You haven't lost anything. You can't lose what you were not entitled to in the first place.

An amazing amount of women claimed they didn't know when the waspi campaign started and they realised they could get some money.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Absolutely 6 years is a big ask. Awful!

As every man from 1908 to today will tell you.

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.

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.??

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

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,?

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.

Thanks @BIossomtoes

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.

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.

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

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

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

Try understanding the argument.