WASPI Women Denied Compensation

[AuroraSaab]

How much notice would be regarded as "reasonable" I wonder? Would every person affected have to receive a written communication (recorded delivery?) informing them of the change.

I think the Waspi women were given false expectations that no government was ever going to fulfil, ie full recompense. It was a commitment no party would ever follow through on simply because of the amount of money involved, but it suited Labour to attach themselves to the cause. It was a vote winner they knew they would never have to budget for. Just another example to add to the list of why politicians have lost the trust of the electorate.

As to 'Why didn't they check?'. Lots of people aren't financially savvy or knowledgeable about things like benefits or pensions. They just assumed it would all be just as before. Not everybody follows the news or reads about things online either. A lot of people don't realise you can buy extra pension years if you haven't made full contributions, for example. It's quite complicated but Money Saving Expert has good info on it.

 

[Psamathe]

It’s terrible politics.
But unless Labour had it in their manifesto, then it wasn’t official policy.

Starmer has (yet again) come across as say anything to get a vote. Newsnight last night played a radio interview Starmer made on the subject and now he looks a real fool.

And the argument that "it would be a burden on taxpayers" beggars belief. If that's their thinking, abandon the triple lock, abandon paying any pensions (less "burden on taxpayer"), abandon all social services (again, less "burden on taxpayers), etc.

I seperate the case for compensation (which I don't fully understand) with the unbelievable stupidity of out Ministers (incl. Starmer) saying one thing, doing another, U-turning on previous statements. I suspect in their few months of power they've already made enough committed enemies who'll never vote Labour again that Ms Badenoch is even looking like a viable PM.

Edit: And Mr Starmer's statements doubling down are phrased unwisely in that he's left himself no route to adjust plans to do anything. True that his not being so black and white would open hopes for those campaigning but given all those prominent Labour (Prime) Ministers who have been so clear about their support that, whatever one's personal views about the compensation justification, Labour all now look like complete hypocrites, complete loss of credibility. He's yet again created a lose/lose situation for himself.

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

If it is reasonable to expect individual notification of any change which affects a person's income, does Government have to give written, personal notification of changes in income tax levels, benefits (including Winter Fuel Allowance), etc, in an agreed notice period,

Government has always been very inconsistent about what they notify me about (either that or Royal Mail is very unreliable). I was surprised when I did get a written notification letter about the changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Yet don't get anything about income tax threshold or rate changes even when those changes move me from a "no Self-Assessment necessary" into a "get fined if you don't complete a self-assessment".

Through life I believe we all have periodic dealings with the Government so if we are paying any attention we'll be fully aware that you check and investigate rather that sit and wait for outcomes. Hence my not understanding how those WASPI campaigners seeking compensation were not checking with DWP prior to retirement multiple times about how much and when (ie "will the plans I made 1 year ago still work ...")

With DWP I tend to check over the phone and have always been very surprised at how quickly I've been answered and how helpful they have been; checked multiple times over the years leading to retirement. One phone call I happened to mention "I appreciate I can do much" to which they replied "last year you couldn't but we are into a new tax year so now you can ..." which increased my New State Pension by a very worthwhile amount.

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

Government has always been very inconsistent about what they notify me about (either that or Royal Mail is very unreliable). I was surprised when I did get a written notification letter about the changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Yet don't get anything about income tax threshold or rate changes even when those changes move me from a "no Self-Assessment necessary" into a "get fined if you don't complete a self-assessment".

Through life I believe we all have periodic dealings with the Government so if we are paying any attention we'll be fully aware that you check and investigate rather that sit and wait for outcomes. Hence my not understanding how those WASPI campaigners seeking compensation were not checking with DWP prior to retirement multiple times about how much and when (ie "will the plans I made 1 year ago still work ...")

With DWP I tend to check over the phone and have always been very surprised at how quickly I've been answered and how helpful they have been; checked multiple times over the years leading to retirement. One phone call I happened to mention "I appreciate I can do much" to which they replied "last year you couldn't but we are into a new tax year so now you can ..." which increased my New State Pension by a very worthwhile amount.

Ian

Like you, I fail to understand the justification for compensation.

 

[monkers]

The same political trick is being used against the rights of WASPI women as the rights of trans women - the numbers game. To paraphrase the same paradox, 'they are too few to matter, and too many for us to uphold their rights'.

Replies not required thanks.

 

[Psamathe]

The same political trick is being used against the rights of WASPI women as the rights of trans women - the numbers game. To paraphrase the same paradox, 'they are too few to matter, and too many for us to uphold their rights'.

Replies not required thanks.

(Sorry, replying anyway).
I think it's a multi-issue aspect. I can see Labour considering it's not large numbers so not large numbers of votes lost and long time until they need those votes anyway and by then they can find other promises to make and assume the electorate is gullible enough to sucker the new promises up.

But it's getting a lot of publicity and a lot of replays of interviews by those same Labour politicians from pre-election and not long ago strongly declaring the opposite to their current stance. And I think that is gaining traction even with those unconvinced by the compensation case. For many the sound bite that's staying with them is senior Labour politicians lying, deceiving, etc.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

(Sorry, replying anyway).
I think it's a multi-issue aspect. I can see Labour considering it's not large numbers so not large numbers of votes lost and long time until they need those votes anyway and by then they can find other promises to make and assume the electorate is gullible enough to sucker the new promises up.

This is it exactly. Make promises for a campaign that was unrealistic in the first place, garner the kudos and votes, then discard when and as you see fit. Labour swept in on a wave of anti-Tory sentiment but they are very foolish if they think they are going to transform the country enough in 4 years that people won't remember these u turns at the next election.

 

[monkers]

(Sorry, replying anyway).
I think it's a multi-issue aspect. I can see Labour considering it's not large numbers so not large numbers of votes lost and long time until they need those votes anyway and by then they can find other promises to make and assume the electorate is gullible enough to sucker the new promises up.

But it's getting a lot of publicity and a lot of replays of interviews by those same Labour politicians from pre-election and not long ago strongly declaring the opposite to their current stance. And I think that is gaining traction even with those unconvinced by the compensation case. For many the sound bite that's staying with them is senior Labour politicians lying, deceiving, etc.

Ian

The big two are just two cheeks of the same arse. When one cheek gets to look too shitty, the public elect to lick the cleaner looking side.

We live under a system where we elect sock puppets on behalf of a plutocracy rather than any possibility of electing a government that will act in the interests of the people. Farage is a shitty arse who offers the chance to kiss the ring instead of a cheek; he is even more in thrall to foreign billionaires that British ones.

In the USA religion and politicians compete in the same swamp more than they do here. Both are agents for fear. Both promise free willl if you are already a citizen so long as you ain't queer.

The party that promises to work to remove fear and promise freedom is the most favourable with the electorate, but least electable because superstition always overwhelms truth. It's our own fault we are instinctively cowards.

Otherwise as noted by many, it's easy to make promises that you know you can't keep when you don't have a cat in hell's chance of being elected. Note Johnson as reported after the never-end- dumb, ''fark we don't even have a plan''.

The WASPI women didn't stand a chance.

Tax the rich.

 

[Mr Celine]

Ombudsman recommends compensation for them after the way they were treated - Government refuse to pay the compensation for the issue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

Liz Kendall in u turn from her position supporting the women when she was in opposition https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/liz-kendalls-waspi-women-u-turn/

Another situation where Government have- not got their messaging right

If ignorance of the law is not a valid defence should ignorance of the law give a right to compensation?

 

[Mr Celine]

Does the Government actually have (or did they have) a list of those affected and their postal address, Email or Mobile number

No they didn't. As far as I recall NINOs held on the DWPs Department Central Index had a name, date of birth and last known address. Unless benefits were in payment the address was not kept up to date. They didn't have phone numbers or email addresses.

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting Guardian report quoting one of the WASPI campaigners

Simpson took early retirement in 2009, when she was 55, from her job in local government. She wanted to help her daughter get on in her career by taking on childcare responsibilities. “Because I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed I’d be getting my pension at 60,” she said. “I draw up a spreadsheet for how to make my lump sum last five years, then signed on the dotted line.”
(from https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ews-on-decision-not-to-compensate-waspi-women)

What I can't understand is how for such a major life changing decision (ie retiring before you have your pension) such a major financial decision is based on "I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed ..."; particularly when actually checking takes literally just a few minutes and the cost of a (normally free) phone call.

And just referring to "Government compensating" sort of hides that in reality it's everybody else's money going to pay the compensation ie all of us pay for "I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed ...".

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

Interesting Guardian report quoting one of the WASPI campaigners

What I can't understand is how for such a major life changing decision (ie retiring before you have your pension) such a major financial decision is based on "I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed ..."; particularly when actually checking takes literally just a few minutes and the cost of a (normally free) phone call.

And just referring to "Government compensating" sort of hides that in reality it's everybody else's money going to pay the compensation ie all of us pay for "I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed ...".

Ian

Steady on old chap, you are dangerously near to suggesting that people accept some personal responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Bazzer]

What I can't understand is how for such a major life changing decision (ie retiring before you have your pension) such a major financial decision is based on "I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed ..."; particularly when actually checking takes literally just a few minutes and the cost of a (normally free) phone call.

Ian

It is even quicker than that.
https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

Edit to add: The system even informs you about buying additional years.
And IIRC, Martin Lewis took numerous opportunities to tell people about about a government concession extending the period years could be bought if you retired from employment before your state pension was payable.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Labour committed to do stuff for the WASPI women prior to 2019 and specifically in the manifesto for that year's election.

If they've subsequently decided that paying them, even on the much smaller scale envisioned by the Parliamentary Ombo, then to me that to me is perfectly honest politics. Trying to say it is not and referencing archive pictures from 2019 seems to me to be where the dishonesty is.

It's also worth pointing out that the cohort who might get £10billion are not all of those affected by the change of age. It's a relatively small subset affected when the timescale for equalisation and that of moving the general age to 66 and then 77 and to whom government failed to reach out in whatever way it could and who got unreasonably short notice.

As to my black hole point I was simple trying to put a label/scale on the number. I don't think the Tories had the slightest intention of paying it either.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Women I know were well aware of the pension changes, but I was willing to believe this might be due the demographic I inhabit.
After reading this

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/public...-department-work-and-pensions-communication-0

I can only conclude that those who were taken by surprise by this changes were quite wilful in their ignorance.