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.

How are you working that out? I suspect you're comparing the new state pension with the old state pension. Most people over 70 are on the old state pension which is considerably lower.

The government of the day SHOULD have written to ALL women who were in the age range to be affected by this, and exlained exactly what those women needed to do in order to mitigate their own situation.

They did not.

There was a fair amount in the press, but people will have just read that the state pension age was going up and thought oh well, nothing I can do about that.

I am beyond livid, and have been since the day I found out I have to pay 7 more years of NI contributions, and in return, get 7 years less in state pension paid to me.

Those affected should be recompensed for the government having failed in their duty to inform them of what the effect of the changes was going to be.

I didn't say that they gave maternity pay above statutory and given that I wasn't talking about myself not sure why you are saying that I was "privileged" My point is that it isn't the case that all women in the WASPI group were sacked when pregnant and that no one got maternity pay. I agree that things are better now than they were then regarding maternity leave but other things are worse for younger people.

I am a WASPI woman.
I most definitely was informed about the first gradual rise in the state pension for women born between 1950 and 1955.
I had a personal letter years ago with my new retirement date on it.
I was not affected by the jump from retiring at 65 to 66. I don't think people had much notice of that. It applied to men too.
I don't have much sympathy with the people wanting compensation, I think there are other priorities.
Re the winter fuel payment-there were some very wealthy people getting it but I think the people who are only just over the threshold for pension credit will notice a difference. Its making me careful with the heating.
I don't object strongly to what the government have done so far but if they further target pensions in any way they will create a disincentive for people on modest incomes to join private pension schemes.

I worked for the local council in the early 70's and, when I became pregnant a few years later, was encouraged to leave at 20 weeks (in case it was too much for me) and my job was not held open. I reapplied 10 years later and got a similar job but was asked at interview 'who will look after your children when they are poorly?' and, even worse, told I wasn't eligible to join the council's v generous pension scheme as I had had brain surgery 3 years before. That was in the mid 80's. But i did see the publicity telling me that my working years would increase so feel the recent judgement is correct.

Maternity pay started in 1979 and that was the beginning of maternity rights.
Some WASPI women will have been sacked for becoming pregnant-some will have benefitted from changes in the law.
Child care was difficult to find and after school and breakfast clubs didn't exist, some people opted for part time work which reduced private pension pots but wouldnt affect the state pension.

Is it everybody you think should retire at 60 or just you? If the former, how should it be funded in a country with an aging population and a younger generation struggling to put a roof over their heads? If the latter, why?

...and yes, most people born before 1954 are on the old state pension which is lower so the rises aren't as great for them as stated.

I wonder why I got a detailed and clear personal letter while others did not. It seems odd.

Exactly! The entitled attitude and selfishness of some women on here is breath-taking!

Depends when you got it. I got one in 1996, not in 2011.

I am a WASPI woman, only just (by date of birth).
I honestly never expected a pay out, and given the state of the nation's finances, things like education, NHS, social care and so on are far more important for our national finances.

It is true that the move of retirement date wasn't communicated properly. The change first came in the 1990s somewhere; I never knew at the time. I was in the late stages of a difficult marriage and family situation and had more going on. We had no TV at the time, nor newspapers. There was no social media discussing this sort of thing then, so I truly had no idea.

I carried on thinking I would retire at 60 years....I'd grown up all my life knowing that. But by the time I was divorced, helped the children get over it and moved a couple of jobs to set myself up in life, I became aware things had changed. That must have been somewhere around 2010. I was quite surprised but still didn't fully understand the implications until a few more years had passed by. Those that say we "must have known", well, there were those of us who didn't.

However, would it have made any difference? To me, no. I had neither the wherewithal nor the resources so I couldn't have changed anything. For others, I guess they might have done things differently if they'd known soon enough.

But a pay out? No, I am not 'owed' compensation because I didn't know, even though individual letters would have been helpful. Nor can the nation afford it, as I have said. It isn't all bad though, changes to pension amounts (the 'new' state pension) and the triple lock have been helpful to people like me, and I can actually afford to live on my state pension amount. That does balance it out.

What I do think is problematic is the support shown by Labour MPs for WASPI women during opposition, but now going back on their word. That really looks bad and won't be received well. The general public do understand that times change, and will accept genuine apologies and a full explanation; what they aren't so happy about is hypocrisy.

Although they have to wait longer, women often get a much higher annual income on the new state pension brought in in 2016. They get £11,500 rather than £8,814 per year. Many women will actually be much better off under the new system.

But relatively easy to get a council house in the 1970s and buying a house was much more affordable than today too. I don't think life has been so much harder on average for women born in the 50s and 60s compared with younger women and you are not going to get sympathy because your retirement age was increased at short notice especially as it will still be lower then their retirement age will be.

Surely the issue here is not whether you agree that the WASPI women should be compensated or not.

IMO the bigger issues are that:

(a) the current government has ignored the ombudsman's decision, which sets a bad precedent; and

(b) Starmer was saying as recently as summer 2022 that it was disgraceful and that he was fully supportive of the WASPI campaign (as were many Labour MPs) but now he has completely backtracked. It's almost like he said anything that the public wanted to hear, just to get elected. What else will it turn out that Labour have misled us on?

I don't think life has been so much harder on average for women born in the 50s and 60s

Given that through your numerous posts you’ve displayed a fair degree of ignorance about what life was like for those women I think we can probably discount your opinion.

I was born in the 60s myself so not actually ignorant thanks. I just have a different opinion to you. I'm not saying life was easy for everyone but it isn't for young people today either.

Ignoring the Ombudsman decision isn't wise but the Ombudsman did say that 90% were informed correctly, so why then has he suggested a flat rate payment to everyone?

This leads onto Starmer et al, they didn't know what the Ombudsman was going to say, hence from their POV, the change of mind, is that the facts changed....

It also wasn't in their manifesto, so what are you holding them too?

My problem is that an independent body has found maladministration. And this has just been disregarded. I worry that this sets somewhat of a dangerous precedent.

Also, - a number of high profile members of the current government have made statements previously supporting the WASPI women’s position. Then, once elected the government has seemingly changed position. I’m not affected but I’m concerned by a number of actions by the current government.

What facts changed? Starmer supported Waspi women, the Ombudsman decided in their favour… what changed ?

I think this would be accurate if we were talking about women in their 80s, but my mum is 67 and her generation is not as you described - maybe some of her eldest sisters (81) would fit this description.

I agree Marmite.
I (and obviously many of my friends) am / are in our 60s and don't recognise this at all.

most women did not stay in education past 16, few had careers and those that did often had massive interuptions in their working lives due to parental responsibilities. They didn't get to worry about the cost of nursery or how many free hours they could get and when they got them, because there were few nurseries and no free hours at all. If I am brutally honest, educated, thinking working class women were pretty rare. The normal expectation was leave school, work for a few years, court, marry and have babies (preferably in that order, but often not). News was something that many men and women paid scant attention to - the big stories, yes, but being "well informed" wasn't often an agenda item. And thinking about pensions was like the far distant future anyway.

This is a class thing, not an age thing.

Yes, I know MN doesn't like the word 'class' so substitute 'cultural' or 'socio-economic' or whatever you prefer.

Starmer, Reeves etc believed compensation was due when they were in opposition, the ombudsman agreed. Neither the case nor the principle has changed.

Nations finances have changed though.

Then why not be transparent? We all know there’s no money for anything so be clear that’s the reason, Liz Kendall was offered a get out clause by one of the Labour backbenchers yesterday and didn’t take it. I’m enough of a cynic not to have expected any money but Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and Kendall all purported to support the WASPI cause. Just say it’s a just cause but there’s no money, ffs.