WASPIs in the news again

[Foss62]

Labour (yet again) seem to have been caught out by making silly promises when in opposition, but at least to me it seems hard to work out why the WASPI case is seen as morally different from any of the other state pension changes?

For most of the 44 years I worked, I understood that I would get my state pension at 65. I am not particularly upset that I will now have to wait until 67, as I understand the arguments about increasing longevity etc. The equality argument is an even stronger one, and these changes were telegraphed many years before they were to come into effect.

What do others think?

[Rufus Stone]

It was the most absurd compensation award in human history.

[Richard-D]

I think it should force a review into pensionable age and equality. I believe that due to women having a longer expectant lifespan than men and on average men doing all the physical jobs (more likely to have knackered back and knees etc) there would need to be a rebalance.

Maybe the threat of genuine equality would fix the situation.

[bad company]

Richard-D said:

I think it should force a review into pensionable age and equality. I believe that due to women having a longer expectant lifespan than men and on average men doing all the physical jobs (more likely to have knackered back and knees etc) there would need to be a rebalance.

Maybe the threat of genuine equality would fix the situation.

That’ll be a popular opinion. Have you mentioned it to your Mrs?

[Richard-D]

bad company said:

That’ll be a popular opinion. Have you mentioned it to your Mrs?

And the MIL. It's true, makes me chuckle to see people doing mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. There's a case for saying that an older woman is less likely to be able to look after herself than an older man. Nobody's ever mentioned that, they're always too astonished at the thought of genuine equality.

[Hants PHer]

It seems to me that there's two issues here.

Firstly, whether the WASPI women have a case for compensation. My view is that they don't. The changes were announced 15 years before they took effect. Some WASPI's seem to believe that someone from the DWP should have knocked on their doors and explained it to each of them in person. Apparently the communication wasn't sufficient. I disagree with both the WASPI's and the Ombudsman, whose conclusion that compensation was merited I find baffling.

Secondly, Labour's behaviour on this issue. In a nutshell it goes like this: "Vote Labour, because we think think it's scandalous that you haven't been compensated. We will right that wrong." But later: "Thanks for voting Labour, ladies. But you're not getting a penny in compensation. Tough times, you see, and anyway we're too busy arranging pay rises for train drivers and doctors. See ya, suckers!"

[E63eeeeee...]

Foss62 said:

Labour (yet again) seem to have been caught out by making silly promises when in opposition, but at least to me it seems hard to work out why the WASPI case is seen as morally different from any of the other state pension changes?

For most of the 44 years I worked, I understood that I would get my state pension at 65. I am not particularly upset that I will now have to wait until 67, as I understand the arguments about increasing longevity etc. The equality argument is an even stronger one, and these changes were telegraphed many years before they were to come into effect.

What do others think?

Afaict Labour didn't make any promises on it. It was in their manifesto for the previous two elections in 2017 and 2019 but wasn't in 2024. The Tories hadn't committed to it either, for what that's worth.

There's no real fairness argument against equalising the pension age, so the only "injustice" was that some of them weren't aware of it soon enough. Given there are almost certainly better ways of supporting poor pensioners than giving £10bn mostly to a lot of comfortably-off people, and a lot of better things you can do with £10bn generally, I can certainly see the logic in the decision.

[bitchstewie]

Hants PHer said:

It seems to me that there's two issues here.

Firstly, whether the WASPI women have a case for compensation. My view is that they don't. The changes were announced 15 years before they took effect. Some WASPI's seem to believe that someone from the DWP should have knocked on their doors and explained it to each of them in person. Apparently the communication wasn't sufficient. I disagree with both the WASPI's and the Ombudsman, whose conclusion that compensation was merited I find baffling.

Secondly, Labour's behaviour on this issue. In a nutshell it goes like this: "Vote Labour, because we think think it's scandalous that you haven't been compensated. We will right that wrong." But later: "Thanks for voting Labour, ladies. But you're not getting a penny in compensation. Tough times, you see, and anyway we're too busy arranging pay rises for train drivers and doctors. See ya, suckers!"

Seems a fair take on it to me though I wouldn't claim to know enough about it to be able to say I disagree with the Ombudsman.

[Shooter McGavin]

Rachel Reeves on the BBC lunchtime news being pictured literally holding an "I support the WASPIs!" banner when in opposition, only to then stand in front of camera as Chancellor saying "sorry, compo not happening" was incredibly cringeworthy and indeed tells you everything you need to know about politicians of any flavour.

She's also got the oddest voice and monotone delivery I've ever heard, a PR person's disaster. I know it's fashionable to knock her on here but crikey, as a centrist who voted for Labour she doesn't half make it a struggle to see her appeal.

[272BHP]

For once I agree with Starmer - we can't afford it.

[Dog Star]

Rufus Stone said:

It was the most absurd compensation award in human history.

I actually don’t care. They pontificated about it. They got all righteous about it.

And they lied.

To add to Rachel from Customer Complaints, above, here’s Crayons…

https://youtu.be/VeRg_L9FCmo?si=YkM5NSRYWzabwHHs

[chrispmartha]

Hants PHer said:

Secondly, Labour's behaviour on this issue. In a nutshell it goes like this: "Vote Labour, because we think think it's scandalous that you haven't been compensated. We will right that wrong." But later: "Thanks for voting Labour, ladies. But you're not getting a penny in compensation. Tough times, you see, and anyway we're too busy arranging pay rises for train drivers and doctors. See ya, suckers!"

I think it's a PR disaster for Labour but they as in the current iteration of Labour didn't make this promise this time around.

They are in a no win situation because had they paid them the same people moaning about them now would be moaning about doing something that wasn't in their manifesto.

the country is in a very different place to the 2019 election and Id agree that we simply cannot afford it now.

[Randy Winkman]

Richard-D said:

bad company said:

That’ll be a popular opinion. Have you mentioned it to your Mrs?

And the MIL. It's true, makes me chuckle to see people doing mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. There's a case for saying that an older woman is less likely to be able to look after herself than an older man. Nobody's ever mentioned that, they're always too astonished at the thought of genuine equality.

There can never be genuine equality for women born in the 50s (and possibly for decades after that) because they were all expected to stay at home to bring up kids and/or do poorly paid part time work. They therefore earned way less private pension than most men.

[Richard-D]

Randy Winkman said:

There can never be genuine equality for women born in the 50s (and possibly for decades after that) because they were all expected to stay at home to bring up kids and/or do poorly paid part time work. They therefore earned way less private pension than most men.

Yeah, that's fair actually. Becoming less relevant though.

[E63eeeeee...]

Randy Winkman said:

Richard-D said:

bad company said:

That’ll be a popular opinion. Have you mentioned it to your Mrs?

And the MIL. It's true, makes me chuckle to see people doing mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. There's a case for saying that an older woman is less likely to be able to look after herself than an older man. Nobody's ever mentioned that, they're always too astonished at the thought of genuine equality.

There can never be genuine equality for women born in the 50s (and possibly for decades after that) because they were all expected to stay at home to bring up kids and/or do poorly paid part time work. They therefore earned way less private pension than most men.

I'm not sure I buy this as a blanket statement. If I look across the dozen or so couples of this generation in my extended family, without exception the women had full time jobs and plenty of them did better than their other halves. I can see that argument for the previous generation but if you were born in the 50s you entered the workforce in the late 70s or the 80s, well after the pill and women's lib. Add in the whole housing costs thing and there's even less reason for special treatment.

[Countdown]

E63eeeeee... said:

Afaict Labour didn't make any promises on it. It was in their manifesto for the previous two elections in 2017 and 2019 but wasn't in 2024. The Tories hadn't committed to it either, for what that's worth.

There's no real fairness argument against equalising the pension age, so the only "injustice" was that some of them weren't aware of it soon enough. Given there are almost certainly better ways of supporting poor pensioners than giving £10bn mostly to a lot of comfortably-off people, and a lot of better things you can do with £10bn generally, I can certainly see the logic in the decision.

Well put.

However I'm sure we'll see some olympic-level hypocrisy from Tory supporters about "Labour murdering pensioners who can barely afford to eat"

[S600BSB]

E63eeeeee... said:

Afaict Labour didn't make any promises on it. It was in their manifesto for the previous two elections in 2017 and 2019 but wasn't in 2024. The Tories hadn't committed to it either, for what that's worth.

There's no real fairness argument against equalising the pension age, so the only "injustice" was that some of them weren't aware of it soon enough. Given there are almost certainly better ways of supporting poor pensioners than giving £10bn mostly to a lot of comfortably-off people, and a lot of better things you can do with £10bn generally, I can certainly see the logic in the decision.

Agree.

[asfault]

Rufus Stone said:

It was the most absurd compensation award in human history.

personally i think canteen food prepers getting payouts because they are not paid the same as refuse collectors is more rediculous.

[272BHP]

asfault said:

personally i think canteen food prepers getting payouts because they are not paid the same as refuse collectors is more rediculous.

Yep, can't believe that one got through.

£760M? everybody suffers.

[Randy Winkman]

E63eeeeee... said:

Randy Winkman said:

Richard-D said:

bad company said:

That’ll be a popular opinion. Have you mentioned it to your Mrs?

And the MIL. It's true, makes me chuckle to see people doing mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. There's a case for saying that an older woman is less likely to be able to look after herself than an older man. Nobody's ever mentioned that, they're always too astonished at the thought of genuine equality.

There can never be genuine equality for women born in the 50s (and possibly for decades after that) because they were all expected to stay at home to bring up kids and/or do poorly paid part time work. They therefore earned way less private pension than most men.

I'm not sure I buy this as a blanket statement. If I look across the dozen or so couples of this generation in my extended family, without exception the women had full time jobs and plenty of them did better than their other halves. I can see that argument for the previous generation but if you were born in the 50s you entered the workforce in the late 70s or the 80s, well after the pill and women's lib. Add in the whole housing costs thing and there's even less reason for special treatment.

With respect to you I'm not sure your extended family matters much in all this.