Govt considering u-turn on WASPI compensation

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-to-reconsider-whether-to-give-compensation-to-waspi-women-13468696

Oh God no 😖😖😖😖

I'm a late Gen X-er and even five years later DH and I would have found it so much harder to get on the property ladder than we did - and we were relatively late for our cohort (I'm an immigrant who didn't come here until my mid-20s, DH had other stuff going on).

Meanwhile, those who bought even five years before we did are in a radically different financial position - people who were able to buy a flat in London on a reasonably normal early career professional salary in their early to mid 20s have been able to convert that into housing wealth DH and I can only dream of, just as our semi in the suburbs is a pipe dream for those who were in an analogous financial situation five or ten years after us, so despite the fact we've not "kept up" with our peers we have plenty to be grateful for.

It's possible to have empathy for those who have faced a harder time while still recognising that others had it easier!

No I don't enjoy subsidising various other random people so stop bringing them up. But that doesn't mean I want to use any savings on WASPI women. I'd like a break for myself...

No I will bring up whatever I like, it's an open forum

Aaaah there it is
"A break for myself"

But somehow it's wrong if someone else wants a break?

Absolutely agree with this but many women in that group didnt have it easier because of the attitudes, social /financial and political attitude to women at the time .

It's pointless though, they don't want to listen cos greedy Boomers

I mean, I'd refer again to my final paragraph. It cuts both ways.

I largely defer to my WASPI-aged MIL on the WASPI issue.

I would like to keep my own money for myself, i.e. be taxed less.

I am not asking for anyone else to give me their money for me to live on.

Pipe dream though...!

How many times do I have to explain? The Parliamentary ombudsmen found against the DWP, and recommended that a small amount of compensation was due because women had not been properly informed of changes to their pensions.( I'm completely aware that you don't agree with that, but you are not, happily, in a position to change that ruling). The ruling was that there had been maladministration.

The case was due to go to judicial review, and surprise surprise the government decided to take another look at it, presumably because they were concerned that the amount of compensation suggested might be increased. I had no idea whether the judicial review will now be dropped, it will be interesting to see how this develops, and I suppose the government might offer some cash to stop it, although I won't hold my breath.

I must say for someone who was so keen to call people greedy and entitled early on in the thread you seem very keen to hold on to your own cash.

Yes,I agree but the empathy only points one way on threads like this, you have someone born in 1992 assuming that all Boomer woman had it easy despite, you know, not actually being there and being completely ignorant as to basic issues affecting women at the time.
Issues that those women fought against so that women of today don't experience them.

Granted there are other issues now...

I agree some of the vitriol has been a bit much. But I think the WASPI campaign has had a big part in exacerbating this and its own downfall.

I don't think any Government did anything legally wrong but if a campaign had focused on individuals who suffered disproportionate hardship as a result of pension equalisation then there would probably have been broad sympathy.

Instead we have a situation where if you are a working age person, from your perspective you may not be able to afford a decent home or family, you are being taxed ever more to cover a £140 billion cost for a level of pension you will never get, £100 billion a year to repay debt racked up to pay for things that didn't really benefit you and ever spiralling NHS and social care costs whilst Government spending that directly benefits you day to day is being cut to the bone.

Then one day in swaggers a campaign group making ridiculous maximalist demands like Dr Evil demanding a hundred majillion bajillion dollars most of which benefits people who had plenty of notice, were fully aware of the changes and will still get vastly better retirement provision than you. I think most of us would go "sodding Boomers" in that situation.

Wanting to 'hold onto my own cash' really isn't anything like expecting everyone else to give me some of theirs though is it? And actually its not that i want to hold onto my own. Id just rather see it go pretty much anywhere except to the waspi women.
If any of that group are in genuine hardship then if course, just like any other group, im happy for my taxes to go on supporting them. But otherwise id much rather the government spent my money on younger people's (of which im not one btw) issues. Education, higher education, childrens services and housing, please.

Fair enough

I focus on the actual Waspi group though
Shame their issues have been lost
The hangers on wont get anything so zero idea why they are doing it

What is "the actual WASPI group" in your definition?

The very small group of women affected by the 2011 acceleration.

I don't really think you understand what happens in a democracy. You don't get to decide how your individual tax is spent. There are many things that tax is spent on that I would rather it weren't, but I believe in democracy and accept that the government of the day gets to spend tax receipts as they see fit. If you don't like their choices the civilised thing to do is vote for a less bad option when you get the chance, and in the meantime don't take to social media to insult individual groups.

Particularly unpleasant to single out a group of women as the target for your vituperation.

That poster has previously said that she is a 70 year old higher tax payer so obviously not struggling or in hardship and very reluctant for her taxes to pay for free childcare:

'Well by that token we, as higher rate tax paying 70 year olds shouldn't be funding a pay out for childcare for working families with two incomes.'

Expressing a preference about how one's taxes are spent is allowed in a democracy. Why the personal insults?

Everyone on this thread is "taking to social media" to express our opinions on a topical issue, which is allowed.

Yes you're right. Nice.

I just said that there are many things I would rather my taxes weren't spent on, but in a democracy I accept that the government gets to choose .I have categorically never said that I hope that any particular group 'doesn't get a penny'.

Don't accuse me of saying things that I haven't it really doesn't help your argument.

And if you want to say I have insulted anyone you'll have to quote it.

This isn't quite right. The PHSO didn't really endorse either the DWP position nor the WASPI one (and, strictly speaking, it doesn't make "rulings"). One could perhaps argue it was closer to the DWP position because it rejected the idea that there was any duty to take steps to notify people affected by the changes or give any particular amount of notice. It's recommendation was based on a fairly narrow view over an operational failure over the sending of some letters.

For the courts to order redress WASPI would have to demonstrate that the government did something legally wrong and that loss or harm directly arose from that. If you accept the PHSO evidence, which establishes that the government didn't have to send letters and that in any case the letters didn't matter because nobody really read them even when they received them, neither of these things are true. So next month's court proceedings can't just be a rerun of the PHSO views.

As for the reconsideration, chances are all that has happened is that some external counsel preparing for the JR has advised that DWP SoS should have actively considered some document they didn't and this failure to do so could mean a 20 to 40% chance of successful procedural challenge. But a bit of performative "reconsideration" would mean they are fine. In any case, while it may be embarrassing, losing a procedural challenge doesn't necessarily mean the decision has to change.

I’m pleased they reconsidered!

Can’t Find a new thread on this?

I'm so angry with these women. It is so selfish and entitled and they are taking up so much time and resources. There are literally hundreds of better places to spend that money but they are like a dog with a bone- they just will not drop it out of principle. I would be furious if labour u turn because I can't believe anyone other than they very small number of waspi women who campaign actually want them to get a pay out.

i wish they had put their time and tenacity into helping people in their age group who are genuinely in hardship into claiming benefits they are entitled to, or helping them get jobs. It’s so complicated to find , apply for jobs these days, getting the right interview clothes you feel good in and then completing all the digital ID checks etc

Nobody in their age group is employable. They’re all state pensioners.

Of course some of them are employable. The youngest in the group are only 65. If thats too old to work then how comes the rest of us have to work till 68?
Honestly its a piss take. Even the name of their group is a joke. They're not 'against' state pension inequality. Its what theyre actively demanding!!

Try getting a job when you’re 65 and see how you get on @Sexentric.