Waspi women

Well he's getting my vote. I always maintained whoever righted this gross injustice to my generation of women, I would vote for, We have all been treat appallingly & ignored, it is time to rectify this gross maladministration

Solange Your post above is excellent! Commentators and politicians on the media at the moment seem to be avoiding the issue of the huge corporations that don't pay tax - this is a scandal! It is well known, so why isn't it being confronted? Likewise your points about the NHS already being 'privatised' in some ways should be raised openly. And finally - of course we should regard higher taxation wisely spent as a potential benefit, as in Scandinavia. It is totally illogical to complain about lack of funding for the NHS, police, social care etc while at the same time protesting if it is suggested that tax rates should go up.

It was an attack on women and men too, they had to work another year till 66,by the tories and their bed mates ,lib dems.It was a dark period in our history,the bank crisis 08
was blamed. How many billions were found to prop them up?have things changed for the bankers? no.Watch film documentaries like 'big short' and 'inside job' Its an outrage and disgrace,how many female politicians work till 66? or male ones for that matter?

From the garden tax maybe?

Would be great if it happened. There has been very little mention of the withdrawal of the portion of widow/widowers pension for the remaining partner. A lot of women in the eras when mothers stayed at home when they had children have a reduced pension. They could though rely on having a portion of partners state pension on their death helping to make up for the loss of their own. This has stopped so widows who had stayed at home to raise children are now being penalised too.

WASPI women have been promised so much, so many times, by so many people that I no longer believe any of them. All of the parties are desperate for your vote and they'll promise anything to get it. But I doubt that any of them will actually deliver.

According to Ann Widdecombe, the Tory government wanted a longer transition period, but under E.U. law this was not possible.
www.facebook.com/BreakingBrexitNews/videos/837183313404628/ (3.30>)

I believe you, Maisie, but the LP need to convince the public of it!

They've had years in opposition to do so.

Good stuff, growstuff One day someone might listen...

I'll leave this here, a little bit off topic but trying to dispel the myth of Labour profligacy which is being trotted out on this thread:

By several measures–public sector debt, public sector borrowing, macro-economic stability, and the value of wages and salaries–successive Tory governments have not only failed to perform better than their Labour counterparts, they have often performed worse. The simple reason is that they disinvest in the real economy in favour of financial markets and give proportional tax breaks to the richest. Yet, despite the facts, Labour’s critics continue to peddle the line that economic Conservatism is the only viable option. Check the facts before swallowing the dogma.

www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/economics/debunking-the-myth-that-tories-are-better-than-labour-with-the-economy/19/11/

The equality change from 60 to 65 was reasonable, given that women live longer than men and most women now work. There was plenty of notice and a 5-year taper period - I was born in 1954 and due to get my pension a couple of months before I was 65. I thought everybody knew about the change, and was stunned to find that a significant number of women didn't. The notice period for the change from 65 to 66 was shorter, and I don't think it was fair to apply it to women who'd been in the original 5-year taper period - I now won't get my pension until I'm nearly 66. However, I do think it's reasonable to increase pension age, given that people now have much longer healthier lifespans on average. Labour's promise to stop the pension age rising further just seems daft.

So for all those who spit DM venom over this. It is not an election pledge. Both the government and the opposition would have to prepare a scheme to redress the loss of these women if, and in case, they won their appeal in the high court.

The Labour Party has decided that these women did all they were supposed to do, paying in and expecting the then retirement age and were not properly informed of the changes. They believe it is right and proper that they are compensated. This will be spread over five years.

The government, on the other hand, admitted in court that, within the Department of Work and Pensions, they knew that the women had not been properly informed. The then Governments defence was that a legislation does not have to he fair and there is no responsibility placed upon the government to notify people individually. Labour does not consider that to be a good enough defence for a government to use.

It is expensive. It was an entitlement not a benefit that was changed and only a proportion of the population paid, decided only on when you happened to be born.

I think you have to decide whether you want a government that uses unscrupulous, possibly fraudulent, and deceptive methods or one that tries to right the wrongs.

The way the WASPI women have been treated is disgraceful. Yes the age of retirement should be the same for men and women, but it would have been reasonable to introduce the change gradually without penalising women of a certain age. Perhaps it would have been good if they had chosen to lower men's retirement age and have them meet in the middle around 62 or 63.

Equalisation of state pension age could have been made to 62.5 for everyone at no extra cost; this was just a way to claw back some money. Now it's policy is trying to divide women in their fifties according to the Guardian where women born before April 1955 will get £100 a week, but it will be tapered for women up to April 1960. Government policy is now to give ten years warning of any changes , this was not done for fifties women, therefore they should reinstate state pension and reimburse them! I am having to wait an additional six years which is worth over £40k! There are over three million of us and just think of how much money many of us have saved the government through not needing childcare vouchers and care of other family members !

Yes, Labour COULD afford it Granmaz. I feel as though I'm knocking my head against a brick wall here. For a start, many women would have to pay income tax on the whole amount; others like Riggie would have it reduced by benefits received during the relevant period.

Secondly, it would increase GDP, which would stimulate jobs and increase the amount the Treasury could tax.

It really isn't like finding £58bn stuffed down the back of the sofa and throwing it all into a black hole. It's about allowing a certain group of the population to have money at their disposal for the time before they spend it. It's about giving those people choice about how the money is spent rather than somebody else.

I'm a WASPI. But will believe it when I see it, if Labour get in. But we are being promised an awful lot pre election.

Granmaz no government of any colour has any money. All money is already coming out of our pockets and (often to a lesser extent ) those of businesses.

More debt for the national purse but probably justified in this case since the contributions were there in the first place.

Who's John Macdonald? Is he anything to do with the Macdonald who had a farm?

John Macdonald has said it hasn’t been costed

Ive had carers allowance so even if it does happen I'm not holding my breath for me as you can't have both.

easybee,How old are you ?A lot of women myself included worked all there lives after leaving school had careers in banks,civil service had minimal maternity leave looked after the home cared for elderly parents and generally met themselves com ing back.I worked full time for almost 40 years ,wasn't able to afford holidays for many years because of paying household bills.I wasn't aware of the change State pension age and even if I had have been did not have the extra money to save for this.Your comments seem a bit harsh and I would like to have your comments on how we could have handled this situation better ?

When you think about it, the Lib Dem’s in coalition cheated both the students AND the pensioners.

Jo Swinson said ‘sorry’ the other night on QT but that doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

Labour proposes to ‘right this historic wrong’

The Tories are saying nowt to either group.

Hmm.

Don’t be fooled ladies, there is no way if labour get in, they will be able to afford to pay out billions in compensation, the money will come from some other source and its bound to be our pockets!

The idea that we'll be heading for some kind of Armageddon if Labour gets into government is just laughable.
Just like the idea we will be heading for financial ruin after Brexit.
I rather think however that a Labour government will cause more problems than Brexit.

It's the lack of notice and time to prepare that's the trouble. So wrong.