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.

I'm of the age wehre I'm due to get my state pension at 67 but fully aware that this isn't guaranteed.

But people never get individual letters of notice for the things I mentioned, new taxes, benefits being removed etc. The budget can change overnight and people’s plans have to change which can cost them money (having to pull out of a house purchase because of stamp duty etc)

I think the waspi claim was ridiculous when the NHS and schools are in need of more money. It was very well advertised and talked about at the time.

So the view of the Ombudsman, you know the impartial expert, counts for nowt?

I don’t think it was wrong of the government to say no to compensation. What was wrong was them lying time after time about it, they should have been honest from the start that they wouldn’t approve it.

One could take the view that the Ombudsman found that 90% of people affected did know, and that spending £10 billion because of minority (only 10%) is wildly disproportionate. Particularly as it’s not at all clear that the 10% would have done anything different. After all, if they couldn’t be bothered to keep abreast of the situation, how likely is it they’d have actually done anything if they had been told?

I agree, but it’s another example of a government saying one thing in opposition and another in power. Which, because it’s much easier to be in opposition, all parties do.

They didn't lie about it though. They didn't support compensation in their 2024 election manifesto and what they said years ago with a different leader is irrelevant.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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?

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...

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.

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!

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?

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!

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.

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

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!

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,?

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