Yes, exactly. They just prove yet again what a bunch of disingenuous frauds they are. Willing to say anything to curry favour. Totally vile, the lot of them.
At last a common sense appraisal of this campaign. Labours problem is of their own making by toadying up to the campaign for purely electoral reasons, both in 2019 (offering them a £59 billion bung) and 2024 with any number of photo opportunities.
I am 72 and would have been included in this payment if it had gone ahead but I'm far more concerned about my working children in their forties trying to make ends meet. They simply can't afford to bankroll this payment.
No offense but in an age of equality, women shouldn't be complaining about missing out on pension payments when men were forced to retire years and years later. How is that fair?
What you're forgetting though, Jim is that during this period women were paid less for doing the same job as men and were not allowed to join private pension schemes purely on the basis of gender. Receiving five years of state pension at least went some way to redressing this imbalance at that time.
What equality is this Jim? In the seventies I was denied an interview for a job and told, 'We don't take women' Remember many of these women lived through many unequal times.
@@ellie.l6585 'and were not allowed to join private pension schemes purely on the basis of gender' Sorry but this is nonsense. My mother (who has now passed away), was born in 1944, she entered the workforce in the 1960s, she had a private pension that she contributed to from the start of her career to the end of her career.
@@glostergloster6945 I'm very pleased for your mother but that clearly wasn't the experience of everyone during those years. Many ladies have been interviewed about this issue and have described this experience. I'm sure you're not suggesting that they're being untruthful. Plus, read Margaret's comment above. Because your mother was thankfully treated fairly and equally isn't a reason to doubt the experience of others.
as a 24 year old male I knew about this is 2005 when I wasn't managing a pension. Its unfathomable that the recipients would not be aware that their pensions were changing bearing in mind it was announced even ten years prior to that. And in any event they haven't lost any money.
So why did Labour go along with them? Perception is everything and Labour are increasingly being viewed as dishonest and incompetent (kickbacks, winter fuel payments and now WASPI duplicity).
@@TheSupersomerset ill judged political posturing.. Winter fuel payment is fine. They should have removed it from everyone. We shouldn't be subsidising a broken market we should be fixing it
Of course they lost money - tens of thousands in lost pensions for some. If someone decided to halve your salary would you still say you’ve not ‘lost’ any money ?
@stephenjudge7531 they didn’t lose a single penny. The date is correct there was no loss. Personal mismanagement and/naivety is the only thing that’s happened. And as a taxpayer I don’t think it’s right to pay for that.
The waspi women should cancel netflix, buy less coffee and stop going on holidays. Ive been told by women of this exact demographic that that is the magic solution to finacial problmes.
@bg1616 and their own character is entitlement and ignorance. If you retire without bothering tk check when you get your pension, that is entirely on you. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. We don't get a personalised letter everything a new act of parliament creates new laws. How you can avoid learning your pension age is changing, when you have 20 years notice is beyond me. These women are just lazy and entitled boomers.
I would like to thank Rachel Cunliffe for doing this video. I didn't realize the perspective she presented here from other UK media. I hope she gets a media award for her professionalism. 😊
Rachel is spot on here. Labour MPs were foolish to be photographed with WASPI campaigners even if they didn't actually promise to compensate them. However effectively the changes in state pension age were communicated or not, it's ultimately the responsibility of the individual to plan one's own retirement and check the current eligibility requirements for the state pension or any other payments from the state. I don't see why women who simply assumed the state pension age wouldn't change (either to equalise with that of men or to reflect the increase in life expectancy) should in effect be compensated for ignorance. In fact, the bigger mystery is why it took 25 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 to legislate for equalisation of state pension age, a process that didn't complete until 2018.
Women live longer than men. To start paying women pensions 5 years earlier than men is bananas. It is like getting a pension for life at 65 when you live to 85-90 instead of 75 and expect the same level of pensions and/or pension fund payments duriing your work life. The basic maths does not add up. The only way it could work is if women gets lower pensions than men based on the same income. Given that women earn less than men to start with that whould be a low pension for sure...
The State pension (in its current form) was introduced in 1948, a very different age. The universal pension was geared to married couples who got £2 2s and single people (largely men) on £1 6s per week. At the time, married women were ineligible and in fact it was common and legal practice to refuse to hire married women and sack those that married later as they were expected to have children. There was no equal pay. The whole point of the pension was not a 'comfortable retirement' but to lift people out of absolute poverty. If men died before statutory retirement age (which was more common than not) it was to ensure women who would have had little or no independent income did not starve. And people wish for 'the good old days'.
@@tulyar57However work was mostly manual and life expectancy was shorter. Men received their pensions 5 years later and then most of them died earlier than women. That's the greater injustice by far, I wonder what the compensation bill for that would be if men pressed a claim?
@@ctid107 The point I am making is that it was never designed to be 'equal'. Men were expected to work and women, stay at home and raise families. Single women earned much less. It only started to change with the Equal Pay Act in 1970 and that meant women's pension age would eventually rise to meet men's not the other way round. State pensions were a relative pittance anyway but, sadly, was most elderly people's only income.
Life expectancy for men is 4 years shorter. To be ‘equal’ men should be able to get pension from 64 and women 68 - giving both 15 years retirement on average.
This whole thatcherite boomer thing of 'ive paid my taxes, I demand a personalised financial response from the government at the expense of everyone else', honestly its mainly annoying cause someone far younger than them has to repeatedly explain what NI and taxes actually are to someone who we're told is wise and experienced.
Labour definitely on the right side on this issue. It is totally unjust to demand younger workers (anyone under 50 really) to pay waspi women for a pension they're never going to get themselves. Im in my late 30s and I'd be incredibly surprised if the retirement age was less than 70 by the time I get there. So why should I pay compensation to people who are upset aboit not getting to retire at 60? They're still getting a minimum of 4 more years than my cohort will get.
As a man why should women retire earlier given they live longer and usually do less manual work doesn’t this rise in pension age not actually give the equality that was needed and are we not as individuals responsible for planning for our retirement just as we are responsible for checking for traffic when we cross the road?
How is it that the tax payer can't afford to put right a flawed system but can afford to pay the fines for the water companies, their dividends, directors bonuses, Starmer's constant flight costs, MP's second home heating bills to the tune of several thousand plus other assorted perks for the politicians, etc etc etc and that is before the promises that Labour made to the Waspi women and then reneged on as soon as they got into power.
Then Labour shouldn't have made promises and campaigned heavily for WASPI compensations. To me, this is about trust and truth and as Govt have handed foreign lands Billions and Billions one can understand why WASPI ladies feel betrayed
@irenecoulson3079 Agreed the Labour luminaries should not have aligned themselves with the WASPI women. But I constantly feel betrayed by governments and their decisions but I don't ask for compensation. It's a mite self entitled to be honest.
@@irenecoulson3079 The promises were made in the manifesto of a Corbyn led Labour Party and we all remember what happened at that election. The last manifesto made no mention of it.
The women born in 1950 got their pension only 1 or 2 years. later - those born after 1955 were affected the most as those pensions were put back by 6 years.
@@susancollins3015 But did you know of the changes and if not why not? This issue is not about any injustice it is about whether people were suitably informed.
Waspi women are a minority of women and many are from a cohort who took care of elderly relatives for years and as soon as they got their pensions at 66 they lost their very tiny carers allowance. On top of this women of this age were so often underpaid compared to men especially in so called lowly jobs. It is no wonder many of them feel cheated. Some have had to use any savings on care. I feel you are not looking at the bigger picture. Describing the campaign as “ridiculous” is so narrow minded. Many individuals of this generation did not receive the “housing boom”. This comment portrays a lack of understanding from a highly privileged position.
The Parliamentary Ombudsmen said they should be compensated. They might as well not have an Ombudsman if he is just routinely ignored. Labour appear to think lying to the public is acceptable behaviour. Get rid.
Isn’t the issue not whether compensation is merited but rather the hypocrisy of saying one thing/ lying while out of govt. and the reneging when in Govt?
Well they didn't. Most of the quotes date back to before the 2019 election. A few may be later. But there was no commitment in the 2024 manifesto, and when the ombudsman published her report ahead of the election, Labour avoided endorsing it. And that lack of commitment was reported at the time.
Well DD, the definitions of hypocrisy, lying and fiscal prudence, have changed in the last 14 years, and if you’re in any doubt I refer you to the utterances of Boris Johnson, who for example engaged the services of one of the countries foremost legal experts (and expensive ) to defend himself for lying to parliament…..and then ran away , like Cameron, to write his memoirs. I’ll stick with Rachel Cunliffe’s explanation…..in fact it’s worth a second listen !!
@@DD-tn1um I don't see much similarity. Nick Clegg didn't avoid giving an opinion on tuition fees. He gave very specific promises, including in the 2010 manifesto, which he then broke.
State pension is a lifelong contract between government and citizen. Therefore it is incorrect to change conditions within this period. Increasing eligibility age, for example, should only be allowed to apply to people born on or after the day the legislative change was passed. Secondly, I will laud the day when someone finally challenges neoliberal mantra that the government "can't afford" these things. Governments can raise taxes and borrow. It is about priorities, not impossibilities. It is also an illusion to think that money compensating WASPIs would be lost to the economy. An economy is effectively closed. Much of additional funds apportioned to WASPIs would almost certainly flow back into the economy. It is not, therefore, a "cost" but rather redistribution - and exactly what currently required in the UK: increase tax on wealthy to compensate WASPIs redistributes unproductive, top-end accumulated wealth to inject into productive economic activity. Don't understand why the government doesn't say: bring it on!
I'm just within the affected age group, and even I think that the whole thing is rather ridiculous. Some of my peers really do need to wind their necks in and stop expecting everyone else to pick up the pieces if they haven't bothered to properly inform themselves! The thing that annoys me even more is the way that all this is sadly adding to a negative perception of the government. With Mad Boy Musk starting to sub the UK far right we really need more upset like a hole in the head.
This is the first accurate sensible assessment of the Waspi situation. I worked in Social Security finance have read the relevant papers including the somewhat misguided Ombudsman’s report and describing the campaign as ridiculous is spot on. The women did have 15 years to adjust. Also their claim for loss of pension was dismissed by the high court as long ago as 2019. The issue picked up on in the Ombudsman’s report was in relation to individual notifications and this wasn’t and still isn’t normal practice for benefit changes. There are other factors not least the wider extremely expensive ramifications but these are complex issues. This whole thing is media inspired with the help of Conservative incompetence and Labour stupidity. It should have knocked on the head years ago.
The reason the official parliamentary report recommended compensation is because the DWP failed to notify affected people when the retirement age for them changed. They relied on those people being informed by the media, or having the necessary hindsight to check that it hadn’t changed.
Rachel is 100% right. The Waspi women are in an unfortunate situation but mainly due to their lack of financial / general awareness. And Starmer and Labour have been disingenuous for sure. And should be held to account. Hopefully its a lesson for all opposition to not promise the moon while in opposition
>> due to their lack of financial / general awareness. The DWP failed to tell them. The ombudsman made that perfectly clear. They have the right to be compensated.
@@thomaspowell2043 But the govt says 90% of the women knew and they got 15 years of notice to put their plans in place. In general the financial literacy is quite poor in society as the very mention of pensions puts off young people and by the time they realise they have wasted a lot of time and benefits of compounding
@@ravindra7791 Of course the government says that. So what? The government says a lot of things that arent true. You really believe everything the government says? The ombudsman says otherwise. I know who I'm more inclined to believe. John McDonnel agreed they should be compensated and pledged the money to do it bacn in 2019. Why shouldn't he not be believed over Thief Starmer?
Part of the controversy is the WASPI women seem to have a misconception of what Ombudsman recommended. It's just redress for maladministration for sending out information late in the mid 2000's. Not redress for the change itself, so there's no huge payment individually, but it is large burden to the taxpayer if the whole cohort is paid up to £2k for something that was in the news years before.
Whether their grievance is legitimate or not isn't the issue here. This is about Starmer's credibility and whether he's trustworthy. He's demonstrated that he'll say anything to gain power. This, the winter fuel payment and the farmers' land grab are going to be Labour's Poll Tax. They've upset so many people, they aren't coming back from the hole they've dug themselves into.
The legitimacy of the grievance is absolutely the issue. Starmer's credibility - given the general contempt for politicians, to which the Tories have contributed massively - is trivial. One would cost the taxpayer billions, the other is a Daily Mail headline. There is no "farmer's land grab", merely the re-introduction of Inheritance Tax for farmers, and at half the rate other wealthy people - if they fail to manage their assets cleverly - have to pay. A married couple, who own a farm, can claim up to £5 million in exemptions, and then their heirs pay 20% on the rest. Do you have over £5 million in assets? I haven't and neither have most people. If this leads to those, like Clarkson, who look at farmland as a tax dodge, selling up, all the better. Maybe the inflated price of land will fall and new and younger farmers will have a chance.
@@realhorrorshow8547 It's normal for people to hold different views on issues. Some applaud hard work and building a legacy to hand down, others are bitter and envious. Choose your team I guess? Starmer, Reeves, Cooper and Rayner used those Waspi women as political props and indicated that they would support their cause. Whilst I agree that Conservative leaders have been wholly untrustworthy, that in no way excuses the leader this government sinking to the same depths. And no, I most certainly did not vote for May, Johnson or Sunak, so my opinion isn't driven by party loyalty.
Now that I know all the facts I can't believe they think they deserve anything, but then surely Labour knew it was nonsense when they supported it in opposition. Obviously it's all political games but it's not like it was unfathomable that it would be them having to make the decision to pay out or not. If they had said at that time that it's not justifiable alongside the conservatives I feel like it would have put this issue to bed long ago and now we wouldn't have the fallout. Seems similar to the pledge against tax rises in the run up to the election - they made an active political choice to cash in on votes hoping they could weather the response when they backed out. Would it have been better just to be honest and realistic with the electorate? It's hard to know if they would have won, especially in the manner that they did, had they been upfront about these issues. What does that say about us as an electorate though if we just vote for the people telling us what we want to hear?
nope. no one gets elected on honesty and reality especially today with the rise of algorithms creating echo chambers of misinformation. Tell me one government that has ever been elected by stating reality? The plan is always to do what needs to be said to get into to office then us members of the general public have to hope they'll do something to help us. whoever gets in, it'll always be an unknown outcome. They all blame each other and never take accountability. It's no wonder people are so disillusioned with politics.
Also don’t forget if they can do this to older women, they can do it to YOU too, maybe not financial but the deceit is an indicator of where our democracy is at.
I am 66 and I knew the rise to 65 for many years, the only issue is the move to 66 - 67 some women got very little warning. I am single never married kids etc. So I was prepared. WASPI women I thought a lot of it was a con!
When EU nationals had to register before 30th of June 2021, the Gov only sent letter 30 days before. If your passport was not valid, you could not use the website or the app but had to ask for paper form. But they refused to send it, unless they were given proof from embassy that it would not be possible to get new ID before thr deadline. They already had people's email, phone number, why it must be only letter? What's about sending text message where you would need to reply back to confirm you read it. And email as well. Nothing changed since Windrush and they wanted many as many people as possible to missed the deadline.
It wasn’t just about when women realised this was happening. There was little time for some to earn enough to make up the difference especially when many women worked part time because of other responsibilities. More women did not work outside the home in this generation. Also women had much lower wages than men historically which affected women more in this age group. Older women are an easy target in my opinion.
As every reputable advice site in the UK states, 'You are advised to seek professional advice before making any pension decisions'. Clearly, the WASPI Women failed to do so and now expect HMG to reward them for their carelessness.
@@tompage8674 Apparently the 10 billion pounds of compensation was going to paid paid out over several years with the highest individual payment being just less than £3,000. In the Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24, the Home Office had an approved budget of £2 billion for asylum support and resettlement for 2024-25, which is £3.4 billion less than it spent in 2023-24. So in effect the UK spent 5.4 billion pounds in one year on asylum claims in 2023-24. I don't know if those costs include free health care such as doctors visits, dentists etc. Whereas the most of us have to pay in some part for dental treatment.
Don't often find myself agreeing with the government. But this is the correct decision. All the information was available. During my working life time the pension age went up by 2 years. Do I have claim?
I think for some there is a feeling of being done twice. First with the loss of winter fuel and then this. Whether the WASPI women deserved it sort of doesn't matter at this point. When people campaign with you, act like they're on your side, and make promises to give you money, it is always going to feel like a betrayal.
I would like to know what jobs these woman were doing. I would be classed as a WASPI woman. I was notified initially that my pension age would rise to 65 then it went up to 66 and I was notified. All the women I worked with were aware as some came under the phased retirement age depending on their date of birth. You are also able to check your pension age via the DWP. Many workplace pensions also raised the age at which you could take early retirement. I wonder if these women chose to not pay a full NI stamp were not working or on benefits. The real pension losers are those on the old state pension many who are men who would have retired at 65 and worked more years than many women but are on a much lower state pension
"Many workplace pensions also raised the age at which you could take early retirement"........Many? I don't think a company can change it's rules on pensions already built up without members approval. Unlike the change of state pension date that was brought in.
The main retirement age change was announced 15 years earlier, but subsequent accelerations of the announced schedule were made with much less warning.
I think the acceleration of the change which became very rapid and the increase in the age to 66/67 has contributed to difficilties for many of the 10% who really didn't realise, more likely to be more vulnerable, less well educated women. Within family and friends, when elder sisters were happily retiring at 60, the added years to wait came as a huge shock for some. They had no reason to imagine they needed to check tgeir pension age. Everything around them in their family and friends was reinforcing the expectation of the age old norm to retire at 60. I think some of these individuals deserve individual assessment and have experienced genuine hardship just as is happening for pensioners whose income fakls not far above the threshold for pension credit and winter fuel allowance.
Yes, I think that's what the panel didn't address (unless my concentration just lapsed): in 2011 the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government sped up the increase in women's pension age beyond the timetable that had previously been announced.
@@rp1692 brought forward and also accelerated the change. I don't recall exactly which year but that would be about right since those born in 1950 would be reaching 60 in 2010..
Thank goodness for a sensible voice. It is ridiculous. We have all had our pension age extended. Also, many of those complaining will have final salary pensions.
Remember Waspi women would have received one pension contribution year for every year they received child benefits up to the childs age of 12 , plus added years if they were a carer . Unfortunately the Country has stalled moneys dried up . The root of the problems lies as usual with George Osborne accelerating pension reforms.
The problem is not knowing what you will receive at retirement and when it will be paid. This also stems from the fact that when we pay NI contributions which are compulsory and are not for your own pension but to be paid out for current pension withdrawals: This being as a result of the government not holding your contributions in a Sovereign wealth fund in your name for this purpose. Where will your pensions come from when you reach retirement age ? Especially with a shrinking working population. When you pay for a personal pension where contributions are invested in funds & equity. This is linked to stock share prices and dividends received from such investments. You can vary the payments to meet your expectations. Therefore, you know, at any time, how much your pension is worth and how much you can draw on retirement.
It's only right that they're compensated. For Starmer to call their claim "ridiculous" is an insult to them, and to the whole country really. Everyone has the right in a democracy to make a case, and for him to bat it away like that is worrying. Any one of us could be in a situation of any description, and we'd all be angry if he called what we were saying "ridiculous". Starmer is a seriously problematic, worrying PM. We need to keep our eyes open with this guy in the hot seat.
The real problem is hypocrisy - all those MPs who sucked up to, and promised WASPI women and now have betrayed them. Why did Labour not say this before?
I need to correct a incorrect fact, I was given 3 months notice for the second pension change and it was 10 years notice not 15 years. The women who are affected did not get any of the benefit of the pensioners pre 1951. I understand the government problem at present, it just the malice I don't like.
Yeah it is ridiculous, I'm a young person, I work hard and I will basically never be able to retire, why should I have to pay so much so they can retire when I will never be able to do the same?
The majority of women born in the 50’s were able to understand what was happening with the increasing age for pension entitlement and adjust their pension planning accordingly. The WASPI women should be embarrassed at highlighting their ignorance but they aren’t. I’m a man born in the 50’s and my entitlement to winter fuel allowance rose in step with the increase in pension age so my original entitlement age of 60 became 65. Using waspi logic I’m owed £1k for the 5 years payments I missed.
It shows Labours incompetence and inability to verify feasibility, cause, and effect. It doesn't inspire confidence in their policies when very clearly they aren't capable of thinking things through to this extent.
Women in their 50s and 60s stop working for many reasons other than having enough money to live on. Clearly you have no idea of the toll caring for an elderly or sick person takes, Rachel. It can be all consuming physically mentally and emotionally and this burden is more likely to fall on women. Caring for oneself often comes a very poor second. If you understood this, you would see why checking dates should but doesn't always happen.
At the end of the day I also find it hard to believe that anyone did not know that the pension age was rising, and the discrimination in favour of women was also coming to an end. I agree it should have been sent in a letter at some stage but it was so widely spoken of that it was impossible to understand otherwise.
The other big problem for Labour on this issue, is they used the official recommendation when settling the pay disputes with various unions, but then fail to follow the official recommendation in this case. Which just reminds the voters, that Labour are saying there is money for train drivers for example, but not for winter fuel payments or compensation for pension faults. This is just the start of Kier Starmers plan to grow the size of the public sector and control the lives of people even more. But as Thatcher said, “The problem with Socialism, is they run out of other peoples money!”.
I found it quite funny at the time that so many women complained. I thought women had been arguing for decades to be on an equal footing with men, and when it happened, they complained. In other words they want the good parts, not the bad. Typical! But this issue for me is about, honesty, integrity and honour. Old fashion, I know! The current front bench have all lied their way into government. That’s fine, now we know you don’t value honesty and integrity. Your word is worthless and you will say anything. As a group, you are untrustworthy, dishonest liars. Now I know.
Jesus. Was the free university education, cheap housing and affordable childcare not enough for this generation? They now want compensation for not being organised enough with their own pensions and choosing to retire too early? The entitlement and greed of the older generations at the expense of their own tax-paying children and grandchildren is a national disgrace.
This woman is wrong about how pensions work. You have to pay NI for 35 years to get the full state pension so it matters what you pay in. Back in 1995, very few people had internet so the women could hardly do a gov.uk search! It is the fact that they were not informed by the authorities that is the injustice not the fact that the pension age is now equal albeit unjustly high. And Angela Rayner said in 2022 that Labour would compensate these women after their pension was "stolen." Another broken promise.
Keir Starmers excuse claims the majority of those people affected were informed, I can definitely say my wife didn't receive a letter, my wife and I had £50k stolen from us.
@@macroman54 Opposition always oppose the government in order to win votes, regardless of the policy. Taxes pay for public services. It is impossible to pay for better services with lower taxes. This is a very simple principle. Labour = higher taxes, higher public funding/services. They will never admit to raising taxes in their manifesto because it would lose them votes, but they need to do it in order to increase public sector funding. Conservative = lower taxes, lower public funding/services. They will never admit to cutting public spending in their manifesto because that would lose them votes, but they cannot achieve lower taxes without it. So do politicians avoid admitting to things which are unpopular? Every single one of them does.
Even people working for the DWP didn’t understand the changes as they we’re offering women NI refunds on NI contributions over 30 years even though the new qualifying rules meant you needed 35 years of NI contributions to qualify for the full state pension.
Shouldnt the discussion be with pensioners from the 50s. And those relatjves who lost loved ones before they were even able to reach pensiion age at 66. Mere observation. Im sure your point of view is well aired.
I could never understand why women could retire on full pension at 60, but men at 65, when the "fair sex" then went on to live ±8 years longer than the other one. Equalisation of pension ages is one of the best things that the feminist movement has ever achieved. Anything else is discrimination.
What is the point of an Ombudsman if even our own government can ignore them? For me, the fact that Labour are doing this is the problem. It appears Labour are not being fair.
@@Darren-i1w It’s true that life isn’t fair, but I hope my government will act fairly, in accordance with the authorities that they have put in place. Now, any organisation told by the O to recoup customers can say ‘No, you didn’t’. They’d probably be sanctioned by the government. Who can sanction the government?
Wasn't the New Statesman's position before the election that compensation should be paid? I wonder what changed... Also more generally Ombudsman rulings are neutrally assessed and should be legally binding to the government, as they are for other Ombudsman schemes.
Labour are doing the right things but ultimately paying for not having the courage to support them before they were voted into office. The biggest and most legitimate criticism against Starmer is that he is far too comfortable with lying.
Starmer and Co said they would seek justice for the Waspi women before the election. Starmer the human rights lawyer seems to choose which human rights are more of his concern, such as defending illegal immigrants and billing legal aid fees. Starmer is getting all lawyers a bad name or is he just exposing their double standards?
Glad to see that Waspi women were not being attentive enough and nissed that bit about pension changes. Anyone apporachi g retiremement age should hecking up on any proposed changes that would sffect theier retirement plans.
Poor communication from govetnment and the DWP is hardly a new thing it was always grossly unfair thst because you are female your state retirement age was 5 years earlier than men why the chose not to even up at 62 or 63 was pretty dumb i thought. Should I complain that mymlife expectancy is less than a woman i should retire earlier on that basis or be paid a higher rate as i wont get as muvh out of it? Its pretty much all about money and the cost to the Govetnment hence no payments.
I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic with women demanding compensation when they previously stood to unfairly benefit over men via a lower pension age. If you want feminism to be taken seriously you have to accept financial responsibility and burden in society goes both ways. Just as men's burden to be more involved in child care and unpaid work should be greater. Maybe there are nuances to the issue I'm not seeing, but it seems more like a bad situation where there is no easy right answer and right now we're all struggling and having to make sacrifices. Boomers have to deal with it, if they want to get salty we can have a real conversation about the absurdity of modern student debt too.
I knew about it and I'm a bloke so how can you claim that you didn't know? Utter crap. I've lost out to the tune of two years of pension but I have no claim to not knowing, it was well communicated at that time and I've kept abreast of the situation. Women wanted equality and they have it now, what is the problem?
How exactly does one ‘check’ their state pension age. Government website says mine is 67, but as said on podcast, no one believes this. I’m 50 and have a clear retirement plan, but government could just change age again.
You have a clear retirement plan - isn't that exactly the problem? These women had no plan at all and claim the rug was taken from underneat them, despite 15 years of warning.
@@brianferguson7840 Trouble is, it wasn't 'announced'. They were not written to. A small notification was printed in the back of the Financial Times, to give the government the excuse that it had been 'publicly announced', simply to save money (about £1 million in admin and stamps, apparently).
I cannot stand Starmer, but this weak Nation of: "We want handouts", that we seem to have turned into, is really getting on my nerves and he is quite right not to give into all of it.
Rachel, I listen to you regularly with respect and interest. However, to hear you casually dismiss a cohort of women with so much disrespect beggars belief from someone whom I’d always assumed holds feminist views. To be clear I am not a WASPI, never sought nor expected compensation but feel compelled to reply that you have absolutely NO IDEA what life was like for a married women in the 70’s - we did not ‘choose’ to stay at home, we had to. By the time I was able to start my own full time career (part time work at that time did not offer sickness/holiday or pension rights), I was in my 40’s - you airily mention that I had 15 years to arrange a better pension pot (had we indeed been given notice of the change, which we weren’t). My personal circumstances meant that I would have to have started from scratch, which was totally unaffordable. I could go on but suffice to say I’m very disappointed in your lack of compassion and stereotyping of a bunch of women who fought very hard for many of the rights you take for granted today. Not least because you appear to have invited a lot of misogynistic comment here. If you’d like to get some first-hand real-life knowledge of older women’s existence please do get in touch, I’d love to discuss it further with you.
women complaining about existential equality and pay gap forgot about the generous early their retirement pay off... can now slum it with everyone else now at 67... work to the bone.
so compensate the men like me who have to work extra years to retirement or better still take money of women because they had an unfair advantage of five extra years earlier and years of getting it after I would have a fixed term to retirement money so say 60 to 70 or 65 to 75 that would have worked
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Problem is - I didn’t hear Starmer, Rayner, Kendall et al say that the waspi campaign was ‘ridiculous’ when they stood with the campaigners.
Labour hypocrisy? You'll be arguing the pope is a Catholic next.
The problem Angus is that you don’t wear the kilt in your home !!
No party in government can ever deliver all the things it wanted to do in opposition. Especially when the public purse strings are so tight.
Yes, exactly. They just prove yet again what a bunch of disingenuous frauds they are. Willing to say anything to curry favour. Totally vile, the lot of them.
Excuse making@@gibbonsdp
At last a common sense appraisal of this campaign. Labours problem is of their own making by toadying up to the campaign for purely electoral reasons, both in 2019 (offering them a £59 billion bung) and 2024 with any number of photo opportunities.
When they raised the men's retirement age, did we demand £10bn in compensation?
Good point , and starmer is right, I’m sick of all these pay outs ..
@@vincelicata5880if Starmer is right , why did he say he was going to compensate them when he wasn’t in government ?
As our life expectancy is less, we don't draw as much pension on average, surely we should be compensated for that a nice lump sum at 67 ? 😊
@HariSingh96K he didn't... Corbin did but he's in even in the party now.
@ yes but Kier took photos with them and protested alongside them…
I am 72 and would have been included in this payment if it had gone ahead but I'm far more concerned about my working children in their forties trying to make ends meet. They simply can't afford to bankroll this payment.
They can if they stop sending it abroad
No offense but in an age of equality, women shouldn't be complaining about missing out on pension payments when men were forced to retire years and years later. How is that fair?
What you're forgetting though, Jim is that during this period women were paid less for doing the same job as men and were not allowed to join private pension schemes purely on the basis of gender. Receiving five years of state pension at least went some way to redressing this imbalance at that time.
What equality is this Jim? In the seventies I was denied an interview for a job and told, 'We don't take women' Remember many of these women lived through many unequal times.
@@ellie.l6585 'and were not allowed to join private pension schemes purely on the basis of gender' Sorry but this is nonsense. My mother (who has now passed away), was born in 1944, she entered the workforce in the 1960s, she had a private pension that she contributed to from the start of her career to the end of her career.
@@glostergloster6945 I'm very pleased for your mother but that clearly wasn't the experience of everyone during those years. Many ladies have been interviewed about this issue and have described this experience. I'm sure you're not suggesting that they're being untruthful. Plus, read Margaret's comment above. Because your mother was thankfully treated fairly and equally isn't a reason to doubt the experience of others.
as a 24 year old male I knew about this is 2005 when I wasn't managing a pension. Its unfathomable that the recipients would not be aware that their pensions were changing bearing in mind it was announced even ten years prior to that. And in any event they haven't lost any money.
So why did Labour go along with them? Perception is everything and Labour are increasingly being viewed as dishonest and incompetent (kickbacks, winter fuel payments and now WASPI duplicity).
@@TheSupersomerset ill judged political posturing.. Winter fuel payment is fine. They should have removed it from everyone. We shouldn't be subsidising a broken market we should be fixing it
Of course they lost money - tens of thousands in lost pensions for some. If someone decided to halve your salary would you still say you’ve not ‘lost’ any money ?
@stephenjudge7531 they didn’t lose a single penny. The date is correct there was no loss. Personal mismanagement and/naivety is the only thing that’s happened. And as a taxpayer I don’t think it’s right to pay for that.
@susancollins3015 if someone spoke to you in such a patronising manner you might be inclined to call them sexist...
Please make the entire podcast episode on why the Waspi campaign is ridiculous, I would enjoy it very much.
Why?
The waspi women should cancel netflix, buy less coffee and stop going on holidays. Ive been told by women of this exact demographic that that is the magic solution to finacial problmes.
Dont forget avocadoes, they need to stop eating avocadoes
@glostergloster6945 😂 , well made ...funny thing is given the incremental increase in the pensions the numbers might just add up
Proper laughed at this 😂
Don't group them up as one entity. There are individuals within with own character and outlooks
@bg1616 and their own character is entitlement and ignorance. If you retire without bothering tk check when you get your pension, that is entirely on you. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. We don't get a personalised letter everything a new act of parliament creates new laws. How you can avoid learning your pension age is changing, when you have 20 years notice is beyond me. These women are just lazy and entitled boomers.
Totally agree and I am one of the women affected.
Well said Audrey, I've lost my winter fuel allowance and I agree with the decision.
I would like to thank Rachel Cunliffe for doing this video. I didn't realize the perspective she presented here from other UK media. I hope she gets a media award for her professionalism. 😊
It's about women being accountable - it's not a popular view. State pensions are akin to a ponzi scheme, ths isn't new.
Rachel is spot on here. Labour MPs were foolish to be photographed with WASPI campaigners even if they didn't actually promise to compensate them.
However effectively the changes in state pension age were communicated or not, it's ultimately the responsibility of the individual to plan one's own retirement and check the current eligibility requirements for the state pension or any other payments from the state. I don't see why women who simply assumed the state pension age wouldn't change (either to equalise with that of men or to reflect the increase in life expectancy) should in effect be compensated for ignorance. In fact, the bigger mystery is why it took 25 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 to legislate for equalisation of state pension age, a process that didn't complete until 2018.
Women live longer than men. To start paying women pensions 5 years earlier than men is bananas. It is like getting a pension for life at 65 when you live to 85-90 instead of 75 and expect the same level of pensions and/or pension fund payments duriing your work life. The basic maths does not add up. The only way it could work is if women gets lower pensions than men based on the same income. Given that women earn less than men to start with that whould be a low pension for sure...
The State pension (in its current form) was introduced in 1948, a very different age. The universal pension was geared to married couples who got £2 2s and single people (largely men) on £1 6s per week. At the time, married women were ineligible and in fact it was common and legal practice to refuse to hire married women and sack those that married later as they were expected to have children. There was no equal pay. The whole point of the pension was not a 'comfortable retirement' but to lift people out of absolute poverty. If men died before statutory retirement age (which was more common than not) it was to ensure women who would have had little or no independent income did not starve. And people wish for 'the good old days'.
@@tulyar57However work was mostly manual and life expectancy was shorter. Men received their pensions 5 years later and then most of them died earlier than women. That's the greater injustice by far, I wonder what the compensation bill for that would be if men pressed a claim?
@@ctid107 The point I am making is that it was never designed to be 'equal'. Men were expected to work and women, stay at home and raise families. Single women earned much less. It only started to change with the Equal Pay Act in 1970 and that meant women's pension age would eventually rise to meet men's not the other way round. State pensions were a relative pittance anyway but, sadly, was most elderly people's only income.
@@tulyar57If it was never designed to be equal, then why is the institutionalised sexist treatment of men not the bigger issue?
Life expectancy for men is 4 years shorter. To be ‘equal’ men should be able to get pension from 64 and women 68 - giving both 15 years retirement on average.
This whole thatcherite boomer thing of 'ive paid my taxes, I demand a personalised financial response from the government at the expense of everyone else', honestly its mainly annoying cause someone far younger than them has to repeatedly explain what NI and taxes actually are to someone who we're told is wise and experienced.
Rachel cunliffe right on the mark. Utterly brilliant.
Have to completely agree with the young lady on this podcast makes very cogent points
Thank you for talking straight about an unjustified greivance that the media is using, yet again, as an excuse to criticise Labour.
Exactly
Labour definitely on the right side on this issue. It is totally unjust to demand younger workers (anyone under 50 really) to pay waspi women for a pension they're never going to get themselves.
Im in my late 30s and I'd be incredibly surprised if the retirement age was less than 70 by the time I get there. So why should I pay compensation to people who are upset aboit not getting to retire at 60? They're still getting a minimum of 4 more years than my cohort will get.
Yes. I completely agree. People born in the 1950s have had a far easier ride than every decade since.
Maybe they should have told them that instead of posing for pictures with them?
@@Glass_Eye that's a fair point.
They were stringing them along labour would do anything to get power they lied there way into power.need to stop using our money abroad
The government can withdraw the state pension at any time if it is deemed it can't afford it. It always was a benefit.
As a man why should women retire earlier given they live longer and usually do less manual work doesn’t this rise in pension age not actually give the equality that was needed and are we not as individuals responsible for planning for our retirement just as we are responsible for checking for traffic when we cross the road?
How is it that the tax payer can't afford to put right a flawed system but can afford to pay the fines for the water companies, their dividends, directors bonuses, Starmer's constant flight costs, MP's second home heating bills to the tune of several thousand plus other assorted perks for the politicians, etc etc etc and that is before the promises that Labour made to the Waspi women and then reneged on as soon as they got into power.
My Mother, born in 1950, knew back in the 90s that she would have to work longer than those born before 1950. So I feel no sympathy.
Then Labour shouldn't have made promises and campaigned heavily for WASPI compensations. To me, this is about trust and truth and as Govt have handed foreign lands Billions and Billions one can understand why WASPI ladies feel betrayed
@irenecoulson3079 Agreed the Labour luminaries should not have aligned themselves with the WASPI women. But I constantly feel betrayed by governments and their decisions but I don't ask for compensation. It's a mite self entitled to be honest.
@@irenecoulson3079 The promises were made in the manifesto of a Corbyn led Labour Party and we all remember what happened at that election. The last manifesto made no mention of it.
The women born in 1950 got their pension only 1 or 2 years. later - those born after 1955 were affected the most as those pensions were put back by 6 years.
@@susancollins3015 But did you know of the changes and if not why not? This issue is not about any injustice it is about whether people were suitably informed.
rachel nails every point in this whole video 👏
Waspi women are a minority of women and many are from a cohort who took care of elderly relatives for years and as soon as they got their pensions at 66 they lost their very tiny carers allowance. On top of this women of this age were so often underpaid compared to men especially in so called lowly jobs. It is no wonder many of them feel cheated. Some have had to use any savings on care. I feel you are not looking at the bigger picture. Describing the campaign as “ridiculous” is so narrow minded. Many individuals of this generation did not receive the “housing boom”. This comment portrays a lack of understanding from a highly privileged position.
Women (quite rightly) wanted equality. Now they've got it, at least in terms of state pension provision. So quit whining.
The Parliamentary Ombudsmen said they should be compensated. They might as well not have an Ombudsman if he is just routinely ignored.
Labour appear to think lying to the public is acceptable behaviour.
Get rid.
Isn’t the issue not whether compensation is merited but rather the hypocrisy of saying one thing/ lying while out of govt. and the reneging when in Govt?
Well they didn't. Most of the quotes date back to before the 2019 election. A few may be later. But there was no commitment in the 2024 manifesto, and when the ombudsman published her report ahead of the election, Labour avoided endorsing it. And that lack of commitment was reported at the time.
Why not watch the clip before commenting? That's also what they're talking about.
Well DD, the definitions of hypocrisy, lying and fiscal prudence, have changed in the last 14 years, and if you’re in any doubt I refer you to the utterances of Boris Johnson, who for example engaged the services of one of the countries foremost legal experts (and expensive ) to defend himself for lying to parliament…..and then ran away , like Cameron, to write his memoirs.
I’ll stick with Rachel Cunliffe’s explanation…..in fact it’s worth a second listen !!
@@rp1692 “avoided endorsing” doesnt cut it. It doesnt matter what you or I think. The British people arent stupid and dont like liars. Ask Nick Clegg.
@@DD-tn1um I don't see much similarity. Nick Clegg didn't avoid giving an opinion on tuition fees. He gave very specific promises, including in the 2010 manifesto, which he then broke.
State pension is a lifelong contract between government and citizen. Therefore it is incorrect to change conditions within this period. Increasing eligibility age, for example, should only be allowed to apply to people born on or after the day the legislative change was passed. Secondly, I will laud the day when someone finally challenges neoliberal mantra that the government "can't afford" these things. Governments can raise taxes and borrow. It is about priorities, not impossibilities. It is also an illusion to think that money compensating WASPIs would be lost to the economy. An economy is effectively closed. Much of additional funds apportioned to WASPIs would almost certainly flow back into the economy. It is not, therefore, a "cost" but rather redistribution - and exactly what currently required in the UK: increase tax on wealthy to compensate WASPIs redistributes unproductive, top-end accumulated wealth to inject into productive economic activity. Don't understand why the government doesn't say: bring it on!
I'm just within the affected age group, and even I think that the whole thing is rather ridiculous. Some of my peers really do need to wind their necks in and stop expecting everyone else to pick up the pieces if they haven't bothered to properly inform themselves! The thing that annoys me even more is the way that all this is sadly adding to a negative perception of the government. With Mad Boy Musk starting to sub the UK far right we really need more upset like a hole in the head.
This is the first accurate sensible assessment of the Waspi situation. I worked in Social Security finance have read the relevant papers including the somewhat misguided Ombudsman’s report and describing the campaign as ridiculous is spot on. The women did have 15 years to adjust. Also their claim for loss of pension was dismissed by the high court as long ago as 2019. The issue picked up on in the Ombudsman’s report was in relation to individual notifications and this wasn’t and still isn’t normal practice for benefit changes. There are other factors not least the wider extremely expensive ramifications but these are complex issues. This whole thing is media inspired with the help of Conservative incompetence and Labour stupidity. It should have knocked on the head years ago.
The reason the official parliamentary report recommended compensation is because the DWP failed to notify affected people when the retirement age for them changed. They relied on those people being informed by the media, or having the necessary hindsight to check that it hadn’t changed.
Rachel is 100% right. The Waspi women are in an unfortunate situation but mainly due to their lack of financial / general awareness. And Starmer and Labour have been disingenuous for sure. And should be held to account. Hopefully its a lesson for all opposition to not promise the moon while in opposition
>> due to their lack of financial / general awareness.
The DWP failed to tell them. The ombudsman made that perfectly clear. They have the right to be compensated.
@@thomaspowell2043 But the govt says 90% of the women knew and they got 15 years of notice to put their plans in place. In general the financial literacy is quite poor in society as the very mention of pensions puts off young people and by the time they realise they have wasted a lot of time and benefits of compounding
@@ravindra7791 Of course the government says that. So what? The government says a lot of things that arent true. You really believe everything the government says? The ombudsman says otherwise. I know who I'm more inclined to believe. John McDonnel agreed they should be compensated and pledged the money to do it bacn in 2019. Why shouldn't he not be believed over Thief Starmer?
Part of the controversy is the WASPI women seem to have a misconception of what Ombudsman recommended. It's just redress for maladministration for sending out information late in the mid 2000's. Not redress for the change itself, so there's no huge payment individually, but it is large burden to the taxpayer if the whole cohort is paid up to £2k for something that was in the news years before.
Whether their grievance is legitimate or not isn't the issue here. This is about Starmer's credibility and whether he's trustworthy.
He's demonstrated that he'll say anything to gain power.
This, the winter fuel payment and the farmers' land grab are going to be Labour's Poll Tax. They've upset so many people, they aren't coming back from the hole they've dug themselves into.
The legitimacy of the grievance is absolutely the issue. Starmer's credibility - given the general contempt for politicians, to which the Tories have contributed massively - is trivial. One would cost the taxpayer billions, the other is a Daily Mail headline.
There is no "farmer's land grab", merely the re-introduction of Inheritance Tax for farmers, and at half the rate other wealthy people - if they fail to manage their assets cleverly - have to pay. A married couple, who own a farm, can claim up to £5 million in exemptions, and then their heirs pay 20% on the rest. Do you have over £5 million in assets? I haven't and neither have most people. If this leads to those, like Clarkson, who look at farmland as a tax dodge, selling up, all the better. Maybe the inflated price of land will fall and new and younger farmers will have a chance.
@@realhorrorshow8547 It's normal for people to hold different views on issues. Some applaud hard work and building a legacy to hand down, others are bitter and envious. Choose your team I guess?
Starmer, Reeves, Cooper and Rayner used those Waspi women as political props and indicated that they would support their cause.
Whilst I agree that Conservative leaders have been wholly untrustworthy, that in no way excuses the leader this government sinking to the same depths.
And no, I most certainly did not vote for May, Johnson or Sunak, so my opinion isn't driven by party loyalty.
Now that I know all the facts I can't believe they think they deserve anything, but then surely Labour knew it was nonsense when they supported it in opposition. Obviously it's all political games but it's not like it was unfathomable that it would be them having to make the decision to pay out or not. If they had said at that time that it's not justifiable alongside the conservatives I feel like it would have put this issue to bed long ago and now we wouldn't have the fallout.
Seems similar to the pledge against tax rises in the run up to the election - they made an active political choice to cash in on votes hoping they could weather the response when they backed out. Would it have been better just to be honest and realistic with the electorate? It's hard to know if they would have won, especially in the manner that they did, had they been upfront about these issues. What does that say about us as an electorate though if we just vote for the people telling us what we want to hear?
nope. no one gets elected on honesty and reality especially today with the rise of algorithms creating echo chambers of misinformation. Tell me one government that has ever been elected by stating reality? The plan is always to do what needs to be said to get into to office then us members of the general public have to hope they'll do something to help us. whoever gets in, it'll always be an unknown outcome. They all blame each other and never take accountability. It's no wonder people are so disillusioned with politics.
Really good segment. I like how one presenter pushed back (politely) on the other. Let us make up our own minds.
Also don’t forget if they can do this to older women, they can do it to YOU too, maybe not financial but the deceit is an indicator of where our democracy is at.
Well said Rachel. Spot on.
Waspi led up the garden path by rich ones with private pensions..
Hear hear Rachel! Well said. So sick of these grasping Boomers.
3:20 textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme
The claim isn't the point. The point is Labour's front bench at the time supporting the campaign. Is this not another dose of bloody hypocrisy.
I am 66 and I knew the rise to 65 for many years, the only issue is the move to 66 - 67 some women got very little warning. I am single never married kids etc. So I was prepared. WASPI women I thought a lot of it was a con!
When EU nationals had to register before 30th of June 2021, the Gov only sent letter 30 days before.
If your passport was not valid, you could not use the website or the app but had to ask for paper form.
But they refused to send it, unless they were given proof from embassy that it would not be possible to get new ID before thr deadline.
They already had people's email, phone number, why it must be only letter?
What's about sending text message where you would need to reply back to confirm you read it.
And email as well.
Nothing changed since Windrush and they wanted many as many people as possible to missed the deadline.
It wasn’t just about when women realised this was happening. There was little time for some to earn enough to make up the difference especially when many women worked part time because of other responsibilities. More women did not work outside the home in this generation. Also women had much lower wages than men historically which affected women more in this age group. Older women are an easy target in my opinion.
Odd that it is ridiculous for people to expect that a Ombudsman's recommendation should be implemented 😮
It is odd isnt it? 6 years tonwork costing an absolute fortune and it was dismissed!
As every reputable advice site in the UK states, 'You are advised to seek professional advice before making any pension decisions'. Clearly, the WASPI Women failed to do so and now expect HMG to reward them for their carelessness.
Doh..............................WASPI women were expecting Starmer and Co. to do what they were promised.
So well said Rachel.
Illegal migration costs 4 times as much each year not just a one off payment ,yet the tax payers can afford this.
Do you have proof of that?
Illegal migration probably costs about £20 a year. It’s a rounding error
@@tompage8674 Apparently the 10 billion pounds of compensation was going to paid paid out over several years with the highest individual payment being just less than £3,000.
In the Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24, the Home Office had an approved budget of £2 billion for asylum support and resettlement for 2024-25, which is £3.4 billion less than it spent in 2023-24.
So in effect the UK spent 5.4 billion pounds in one year on asylum claims in 2023-24.
I don't know if those costs include free health care such as doctors visits, dentists etc. Whereas the most of us have to pay in some part for dental treatment.
Ah so one ridiculous payment justifies another? Give over.
Don't often find myself agreeing with the government. But this is the correct decision. All the information was available. During my working life time the pension age went up by 2 years. Do I have claim?
I think for some there is a feeling of being done twice. First with the loss of winter fuel and then this.
Whether the WASPI women deserved it sort of doesn't matter at this point. When people campaign with you, act like they're on your side, and make promises to give you money, it is always going to feel like a betrayal.
These aren't poor people. If they were, they'd still be eligible for winter fuel payment.
I would like to know what jobs these woman were doing. I would be classed as a WASPI woman. I was notified initially that my pension age would rise to 65 then it went up to 66 and I was notified. All the women I worked with were aware as some came under the phased retirement age depending on their date of birth. You are also able to check your pension age via the DWP. Many workplace pensions also raised the age at which you could take early retirement. I wonder if these women chose to not pay a full NI stamp were not working or on benefits. The real pension losers are those on the old state pension many who are men who would have retired at 65 and worked more years than many women but are on a much lower state pension
"Many workplace pensions also raised the age at which you could take early retirement"........Many? I don't think a company can change it's rules on pensions already built up without members approval. Unlike the change of state pension date that was brought in.
Rachel is 100% correct, thank you for making the argument
The main retirement age change was announced 15 years earlier, but subsequent accelerations of the announced schedule were made with much less warning.
I think the acceleration of the change which became very rapid and the increase in the age to 66/67 has contributed to difficilties for many of the 10% who really didn't realise, more likely to be more vulnerable, less well educated women. Within family and friends, when elder sisters were happily retiring at 60, the added years to wait came as a huge shock for some. They had no reason to imagine they needed to check tgeir pension age. Everything around them in their family and friends was reinforcing the expectation of the age old norm to retire at 60. I think some of these individuals deserve individual assessment and have experienced genuine hardship just as is happening for pensioners whose income fakls not far above the threshold for pension credit and winter fuel allowance.
Yes, I think that's what the panel didn't address (unless my concentration just lapsed): in 2011 the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government sped up the increase in women's pension age beyond the timetable that had previously been announced.
@@rp1692 brought forward and also accelerated the change. I don't recall exactly which year but that would be about right since those born in 1950 would be reaching 60 in 2010..
Good on you Rachel!
Thank goodness for a sensible voice. It is ridiculous. We have all had our pension age extended. Also, many of those complaining will have final salary pensions.
Remember Waspi women would have received one pension contribution year for every year they received child benefits up to the childs age of 12 , plus added years if they were a carer . Unfortunately the Country has stalled moneys dried up . The root of the problems lies as usual with George Osborne accelerating pension reforms.
The problem is not knowing what you will receive at retirement and when it will be paid.
This also stems from the fact that when we pay NI contributions which are compulsory and are not for your own pension but to be paid out for current pension withdrawals: This being as a result of the government not holding your contributions in a Sovereign wealth fund in your name for this purpose.
Where will your pensions come from when you reach retirement age ? Especially with a shrinking working population.
When you pay for a personal pension where contributions are invested in funds & equity. This is linked to stock share prices and dividends received from such investments. You can vary the payments to meet your expectations.
Therefore, you know, at any time, how much your pension is worth and how much you can draw on retirement.
It's only right that they're compensated. For Starmer to call their claim "ridiculous" is an insult to them, and to the whole country really. Everyone has the right in a democracy to make a case, and for him to bat it away like that is worrying. Any one of us could be in a situation of any description, and we'd all be angry if he called what we were saying "ridiculous".
Starmer is a seriously problematic, worrying PM. We need to keep our eyes open with this guy in the hot seat.
Young person green eye moster
The real problem is hypocrisy - all those MPs who sucked up to, and promised WASPI women and now have betrayed them. Why did Labour not say this before?
I worked 44yrs then to be told to work another 6 was a tough blow especially doing a carers job I'll be needing one now😢
I need to correct a incorrect fact, I was given 3 months notice for the second pension change and it was 10 years notice not 15 years. The women who are affected did not get any of the benefit of the pensioners pre 1951. I understand the government problem at present, it just the malice I don't like.
Yeah it is ridiculous, I'm a young person, I work hard and I will basically never be able to retire, why should I have to pay so much so they can retire when I will never be able to do the same?
The majority of women born in the 50’s were able to understand what was happening with the increasing age for pension entitlement and adjust their pension planning accordingly. The WASPI women should be embarrassed at highlighting their ignorance but they aren’t. I’m a man born in the 50’s and my entitlement to winter fuel allowance rose in step with the increase in pension age so my original entitlement age of 60 became 65. Using waspi logic I’m owed £1k for the 5 years payments I missed.
It shows Labours incompetence and inability to verify feasibility, cause, and effect. It doesn't inspire confidence in their policies when very clearly they aren't capable of thinking things through to this extent.
Women in their 50s and 60s stop working for many reasons other than having enough money to live on. Clearly you have no idea of the toll caring for an elderly or sick person takes, Rachel. It can be all consuming physically mentally and emotionally and this burden is more likely to fall on women. Caring for oneself often comes a very poor second. If you understood this, you would see why checking dates should but doesn't always happen.
... for 15 years!?
At the end of the day I also find it hard to believe that anyone did not know that the pension age was rising, and the discrimination in favour of women was also coming to an end. I agree it should have been sent in a letter at some stage but it was so widely spoken of that it was impossible to understand otherwise.
An apology for not writing is more than sufficient.
The other big problem for Labour on this issue, is they used the official recommendation when settling the pay disputes with various unions, but then fail to follow the official recommendation in this case. Which just reminds the voters, that Labour are saying there is money for train drivers for example, but not for winter fuel payments or compensation for pension faults.
This is just the start of Kier Starmers plan to grow the size of the public sector and control the lives of people even more.
But as Thatcher said, “The problem with Socialism, is they run out of other peoples money!”.
I found it quite funny at the time that so many women complained. I thought women had been arguing for decades to be on an equal footing with men, and when it happened, they complained. In other words they want the good parts, not the bad. Typical! But this issue for me is about, honesty, integrity and honour. Old fashion, I know! The current front bench have all lied their way into government. That’s fine, now we know you don’t value honesty and integrity. Your word is worthless and you will say anything. As a group, you are untrustworthy, dishonest liars. Now I know.
Jesus. Was the free university education, cheap housing and affordable childcare not enough for this generation? They now want compensation for not being organised enough with their own pensions and choosing to retire too early? The entitlement and greed of the older generations at the expense of their own tax-paying children and grandchildren is a national disgrace.
This woman is wrong about how pensions work. You have to pay NI for 35 years to get the full state pension so it matters what you pay in. Back in 1995, very few people had internet so the women could hardly do a gov.uk search! It is the fact that they were not informed by the authorities that is the injustice not the fact that the pension age is now equal albeit unjustly high. And Angela Rayner said in 2022 that Labour would compensate these women after their pension was "stolen." Another broken promise.
Thank you, at last some actual sense from media on the topic. This whole campaign has been stupid and Starmer was right to dismiss it.
Keir Starmers excuse claims the majority of those people affected were informed, I can definitely say my wife didn't receive a letter, my wife and I had £50k stolen from us.
It’s gonna get harder and harder to defend Labour in power - they are a professional opposition party.
They are a bunch of effing liars, mind you no different than the Tories.
@@macroman54 Opposition always oppose the government in order to win votes, regardless of the policy.
Taxes pay for public services. It is impossible to pay for better services with lower taxes. This is a very simple principle.
Labour = higher taxes, higher public funding/services. They will never admit to raising taxes in their manifesto because it would lose them votes, but they need to do it in order to increase public sector funding.
Conservative = lower taxes, lower public funding/services. They will never admit to cutting public spending in their manifesto because that would lose them votes, but they cannot achieve lower taxes without it.
So do politicians avoid admitting to things which are unpopular? Every single one of them does.
Conclusion: Starmer, Rayner, Reeves etc. are disingenuous.
Even people working for the DWP didn’t understand the changes as they we’re offering women NI refunds on NI contributions over 30 years even though the new qualifying rules meant you needed 35 years of NI contributions to qualify for the full state pension.
Shouldnt the discussion be with pensioners from the 50s. And those relatjves who lost loved ones before they were even able to reach pensiion age at 66. Mere observation. Im sure your point of view is well aired.
I could never understand why women could retire on full pension at 60, but men at 65, when the "fair sex" then went on to live ±8 years longer than the other one. Equalisation of pension ages is one of the best things that the feminist movement has ever achieved. Anything else is discrimination.
What is the point of an Ombudsman if even our own government can ignore them? For me, the fact that Labour are doing this is the problem. It appears Labour are not being fair.
Life isn't fair, the poor dont pay their share of taxes, is this fair on decent people
Life isn't fair, the poor dont pay their share of taxes, is this fair on decent people
@@Darren-i1w It’s true that life isn’t fair, but I hope my government will act fairly, in accordance with the authorities that they have put in place. Now, any organisation told by the O to recoup customers can say ‘No, you didn’t’. They’d probably be sanctioned by the government. Who can sanction the government?
Wasn't the New Statesman's position before the election that compensation should be paid? I wonder what changed...
Also more generally Ombudsman rulings are neutrally assessed and should be legally binding to the government, as they are for other Ombudsman schemes.
I don't know. But Rachel Cunliffe might be giving us her own view rather than the editorial line.
Surely it’s good thing that they have people with a range of views at the New Statesman
Labour are doing the right things but ultimately paying for not having the courage to support them before they were voted into office. The biggest and most legitimate criticism against Starmer is that he is far too comfortable with lying.
Two years what could we do not everyone has the ability to get good jobs you. Blessed with brains I am blessed with empathy
It seems every week Labour makes more enemies. 😮
That’s irrelevant. If you promise something in a public role, you should be honourable enough to deliver it.
No.
Starmer and Co said they would seek justice for the Waspi women before the election.
Starmer the human rights lawyer seems to choose which human rights are more of his concern, such as defending illegal immigrants and billing legal aid fees. Starmer is getting all lawyers a bad name or is he just exposing their double standards?
Glad to see that Waspi women were not being attentive enough and nissed that bit about pension changes. Anyone apporachi g retiremement age should hecking up on any proposed changes that would sffect theier retirement plans.
Poor communication from govetnment and the DWP is hardly a new thing it was always grossly unfair thst because you are female your state retirement age was 5 years earlier than men why the chose not to even up at 62 or 63 was pretty dumb i thought.
Should I complain that mymlife expectancy is less than a woman i should retire earlier on that basis or be paid a higher rate as i wont get as muvh out of it?
Its pretty much all about money and the cost to the Govetnment hence no payments.
I get it.
But compensation, really?
I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic with women demanding compensation when they previously stood to unfairly benefit over men via a lower pension age. If you want feminism to be taken seriously you have to accept financial responsibility and burden in society goes both ways. Just as men's burden to be more involved in child care and unpaid work should be greater.
Maybe there are nuances to the issue I'm not seeing, but it seems more like a bad situation where there is no easy right answer and right now we're all struggling and having to make sacrifices. Boomers have to deal with it, if they want to get salty we can have a real conversation about the absurdity of modern student debt too.
I knew about it and I'm a bloke so how can you claim that you didn't know? Utter crap. I've lost out to the tune of two years of pension but I have no claim to not knowing, it was well communicated at that time and I've kept abreast of the situation.
Women wanted equality and they have it now, what is the problem?
How exactly does one ‘check’ their state pension age. Government website says mine is 67, but as said on podcast, no one believes this. I’m 50 and have a clear retirement plan, but government could just change age again.
You have a clear retirement plan - isn't that exactly the problem? These women had no plan at all and claim the rug was taken from underneat them, despite 15 years of warning.
@@user-gu1un7pb7k
25 years actually. It was announced in 1994
@@brianferguson7840 Trouble is, it wasn't 'announced'. They were not written to. A small notification was printed in the back of the Financial Times, to give the government the excuse that it had been 'publicly announced', simply to save money (about £1 million in admin and stamps, apparently).
Whats the PM's view on the taxpayers being able to afford the payments to all the countries involved in the slave trade all those years ago?
I cannot stand Starmer, but this weak Nation of: "We want handouts", that we seem to have turned into, is really getting on my nerves and he is quite right not to give into all of it.
Rachel, I listen to you regularly with respect and interest. However, to hear you casually dismiss a cohort of women with so much disrespect beggars belief from someone whom I’d always assumed holds feminist views. To be clear I am not a WASPI, never sought nor expected compensation but feel compelled to reply that you have absolutely NO IDEA what life was like for a married women in the 70’s - we did not ‘choose’ to stay at home, we had to. By the time I was able to start my own full time career (part time work at that time did not offer sickness/holiday or pension rights), I was in my 40’s - you airily mention that I had 15 years to arrange a better pension pot (had we indeed been given notice of the change, which we weren’t). My personal circumstances meant that I would have to have started from scratch, which was totally unaffordable. I could go on but suffice to say I’m very disappointed in your lack of compassion and stereotyping of a bunch of women who fought very hard for many of the rights you take for granted today. Not least because you appear to have invited a lot of misogynistic comment here. If you’d like to get some first-hand real-life knowledge of older women’s existence please do get in touch, I’d love to discuss it further with you.
women complaining about existential equality and pay gap forgot about the generous early their retirement pay off... can now slum it with everyone else now at 67... work to the bone.
Doesn't she know that the parliamentary ombudsman ruled that the Waspi women should be compensated? She's talking a lot of uninformed rubbish.
Absolutely hilarious. Biggest client journalist they get on here
Kind of agree with her, but she has deep private school energy.
Private/occupational pension splitting on divorce anyone? Doh!
so compensate the men like me who have to work extra years to retirement or better still take money of women because they had an unfair advantage of five extra years earlier and years of getting it after I would have a fixed term to retirement money so say 60 to 70 or 65 to 75 that would have worked