50s women

I agree, Doodledog, it’s frustrating when all women of the same age are lumped together as WASPIs, whatever their views on the pension age. It’s just lazy journalism.

Sorry, I must have got the fees wrong. I am sure that I was asked for a monthly fee, but this was a while ago, and may have been to join a local group.

I agree that it is maddening that the groups are not working together, and that this may well be delaying progress, as it is obvious that governments will use the differences against all of us.

I was put off WASPI by the bickering, and the rather superior tone of some of their social media posts, but wish them well. My post was to point out that the name WASPI refers to a specific group that does not represent all women who believe that the pension changes were wrong, and certainly should not be used to describe all 50s born women. I know you aren't doing that; but many people do, including reporters and newsreaders.

The phrase 'so-called WASPI women' makes me want to scream, as they do not speak for me, or for many other women who have been affected by the loss of six years of pension.

They do distance themselves, and have made it absolutely clear that they do not speak for other groups, because their aims are different. WASPI accept that equalisation of the pension ages was inevitable. They don’t ask for it to be reversed.

The WASPI membership fee is nothing like £20 a month!

It’s £25 a year, £15 for those on benefits, is voluntary, and goes towards the cost of running the campaign. It’s not obligatory by any means. I’ve been on all the London demos and met many WASPI women there who can’t afford to pay it but are still very much part of the campaign.

Yes, there was a period of infighting amongst the WASPI leadership last year which was extremely frustrating for members. But throughout that time the work continued. We kept on lobbying our MPs, raising the profile of the cause and writing our staged letters of complaints of maladministration.

After many months I had actually got to the final stage of having my case referred for independent review at the end of 2018. Two weeks later the BackTo60 court case was announced and it was immediately put on hold, along with all the others.

Before the judicial review, the Parliamentary Ombudsman had reached the stage of a “proposal to investigate” maladministration, thanks to the WASPI letter writing campaign. They’re now saying they’re accepting no more new claims of maladministration and are deciding what to do about the ongoing ones.

We’re hoping we’re not right back to the drawing board.

The BackTo60 members presumably want just what their title says, but WASPI is a completely different group.

It is, and unfortunately the name WASPI is now being used as a generic for every woman caught in the pension trap.

WASPI does not speak for all the groups out there, and has probably delayed any settlement because of ego clashes and infighting.

It has the distinct advantage over groups like We Paid In, You Pay Out, and Back to 60 that it has a catchy name that sticks in the mind; but it has its own 'ask' which is to get a 'bridging' pension for women between the pension age they were promised and the one that has been imposed (not a full pension).

They charge for membership (about £20 a month, I think), which sets them apart from the groups who represent women who are in real poverty because of the change, and they specifically distance themselves from the other groups who are fighting for 50s born women.

The BackTo60 members presumably want just what their title says, but WASPI is a completely different group.

WASPI have never asked for the pension age to be reversed. As I posted earlier, they are campaigning for a form of bridging payment to help the women worst affected by the changes. They fully accept that equalisation of the pension age had to happen, but disagree with the way it has been done.

We fought for equality, not for equality apart from the bits we don’t like! I don’t get state pension until I’m 67 (first age group who have to wait this long)

When I read posts like this I often wonder who the "We" is that they refer to. I am in the same bracket as the poster in this quote but I can assure you I never fought for any equality. I cant say as I was old enough when any of this fighting was going on to be a part of it.

In 1974 when the equal pay act started I was a child in school. When the pension age of women was raised to 65 in line with men, I was a teenager.

No, I didnt fight for any of this. I had it imposed upon me by those who did. In fact I am not sure I would have wanted it.

Another thing I disagree with is the WASPI claim to go back to 60 - nice that it was, I would have settled ( and would they have been more successful?) if the request had been for women born in the 1950's to have their pension ages returned to 65? Thus removing the main bugbear here, which is for most the newer rise in pension age to 66 and 67 with little notice.

I am finding now, as I move into my 60's, that I really am too old to work but cannot retire because of that last change which was thrown on us so suddenly.

But I still say, I did not fight for any equality. So please stop saying "We" the few who did.

The other thing that is annoying is that I have worked hard in many part time jobs and only received half stamp in some instances but if I had stayed at home and claimed benefits I would have a full stamp paid for me how unfair is that , I just hope something can be sorted out to bring the age back down

My thoughts are that we had a agreement that when we reached 60 we would retire and that if this was a private pension we would report this to the FCA, I have still to be informed that my pension age has changed and I am only aware because of the Waspi group, I hear Poland ladies have had their pension age reduced to 60 from 65 and the Gents stays the same at 65 as they now have funding from all the EU money they receive, As people have said previously Good old Boris is now keeping quiet isnt he

Of course as a recently turned 60 year old I'm not happy about an almost 7 year wait. I'm fortunate to have a modest private pension,and had intended to work at least another 3 /4 years but running my own very physical business,plus helping with some of the GCs childcare and a very frail ,elderly mum to visit daily I just couldn't carry on.However I do appreciate as in my mum's case -97 - and an aunt's case -92 that paying out pensions to that age, with an increasingly elderly population,is unsustainable.
It's hard not to feel resentful,much as I love them,knowing they both retired at 60 with years of leisure ahead of them.Neither had elderly relatives to care for. And I don't think they appreciate how squeezed a lot of the Waspi women are.But times,and demographics have changed and it won't get any easier for my DDs so accept it I must.Reluctantly .

I was told back in the ‘80’s to make sure I had a pension in place as I would not be able to rely on the state pension like people could in the past. I contracted out at the time, but think I have been contracted back in at some point!
I can’t understand the pension system so I trust my advisor implicitly.
What I do know is that at 53 I can’t see myself working this hard for another 13 years!!
I am making plans to get rid of all my debts over the next few years in the hope I can retire at 60 with my private pension then my state pension at 66.
I am not happy about it but what else can the government do, we don’t have a ‘magic money tree’ and we are all too healthy for our own good.
We have to suck it up I am afraid.

None of it is remotely fair but at least I'm not in the position of some women who are trapped in an abusive partnership with a mysoginistic idiot who tells them that as they are financially dependent on a man they had better do as they're told.....I do know someone that this happened to, unfortunately.

What a world! But for all the sh*t we've had to put up with I won't be coming back in the Next Life as a man......

Chewbacca well said on your post about women in the 50's being totally unequal to men in terms of jobs, childcare etc.

Yes, I turned 60 four days before DH turned 65, so we always assumed we’d retire the same week. I’m lucky in that I have a partner and a local government pension, so we could still do so, and help our DC with childcare as we always planned to. I’ll get my state pension when I’m 66.

As I said, I’m lucky to have the local government pension. I didn’t consciously plan ahead and don’t pat myself on the back for making proper provision. I’m just so grateful that the job I did came with the pension that has turned out to be so much more important than I ever thought it would be.

I’m very sorry for women who haven’t been so fortunate and have had to change their retirement plans at short notice and work so much longer, often at unsuitable and minimum wage jobs, often while struggling to care for parents/partners/grandchildren at the same time.

I’m a WASPI member and will continue to demonstrate, write my letters and chase up my MP to try to get some sort of redress for the damage that’s been done.

Something that I think people are missing, is that the pension age difference meant that retired couples had more time together. On average, men marry women slightly younger than they are, and women live a bit longer than men. This meant that if the average couple retired when the woman was 60 and the man 65, it would be at roughly the same time, so they would have time together in retirement.

Women will now be retiring at 66 or 67, so if their husbands are 5 years older they will be in their 70s with less time to live.

I am not convinced that there is not enough money to keep the status quo. The UK is still the 6th richest country in the world. I think that this is yet another example of the public buying the line that we are broke - we aren't.

If the rich were taxed properly there would be more in the coffers, and there would be no need for people who have worked for over 35 years to be relying on foodbanks and benefits.

I feel sorry for the people who are having to wait for their pensions, but I think the first part was fair.

It was the 1995 Pension Act that raised the pension age for women gradually over 10 years starting in April 2010 until March 2020. So that was 15 years notice with a gradual raise over 10 years. That bit I think was fair, it needed equality.

What I don't think is fair and is outrageous is the EXTRA years added on without a thought or any notice. I will say also that this has hit men as well, who wants to work on a building site until 68?.

In respect of the contracted out contributions , this is really not unfair. I will explain. If you were enrolled in certain pension schemes , primarily local, central government, NHS then you qualified for a generous final salary scheme , the contributions made by you to that scheme were also tax free. So you did not make additional contributions via NI to the sate pension as you were in line for a fairly good scheme with your employer. Your employer ,by law, had to take a reduced NI contribution from you; there was no choice in this matter.
So , in actual fact you and I didn't pay full NI but were compensated by being in a fairly generous ( to my way of thinking at least) final salary scheme. The local government scheme changed in , I think, 2016 so NI contributions are the same and there is no contracted out element. I think the revised local government pension is also not so generous.
The way to look at it is that you get additional pension from your employer which will compensate you , in may cases more than adequately, for not getting the full state pension. My husband , for example will be very much better for being in the local government scheme . So will I when I get my state pension, even if it is later than I hoped.

I would urge every woman to get in touch with the pensions dept and get a quote of what your pension will eventually be in writing. I have to wait until I am 66 before I get a pension and I was shocked to find out the despite paying in for almost 35 years I will not qualify for the full state pension. My employer contracted us out for a number of years which ,I didn't realise, has in effect, reduced my entitlement. Thank goodness for my works pension. I asked how much I would need to pay to qualify for the new pension and it was thousands of pounds. Yes I am mad about it. Never claimed a penny in benefits, never had any children and yet penalised for being born in the 50's.

It’s never a good sign when people refer to women as ‘females’. It says a lot about their attitude to the female sex.

JenniferEccles if you really think that everyone who hasn’t ‘made provision for themselves’ had the opportunity to do so, I suggest you leave your ivory tower and look around you.

I am semi- retired, and have an occupational pension, but I will have to wait another six years for my State Pension.

My last employer had a gender pay gap of 20%. When I started working (different occupation) the Equal Pay Act had just been passed, and my employer changed the job titles of the young men coming into the company, so they could pay them more (same entry qualifications and the job had previously had the same title). Not only that, but the men were sent on training courses etc, so they went on to be managers, while the women stayed in the office (so had less chance to pay into a pension).

I left, and changed my career path entirely, but that sort of thing was widespread, and coupled with childcare responsibilities etc, meant that many women were unable to pay enough into a pension to ‘provide for themselves’. Women (and men) working for minimum wage can’t do so either.

What does irritate me is that women who have worked, paid tax, NI, childcare costs etc have to wait years for their pensions, whilst those who could afford not to work had their NI paid by the state, often for decades.

It’s always benefit claimants who are blamed when this subject comes up, but middle class women who choose not to work get a good deal too.

Chewbacca perhaps you misread my post? I said I knew many woman who paid into a pension fund. I wasn’t one of them. I had NO childcare. I had to go out to work evenings when my husband came home from work! If not that I had to work night shifts, then come home so my husband could go to work and I could look after our children. At one stage I was working 3 part time jobs (no pension provision), sometimes going from one job to the next! My husband and I hardly saw each other until he had to give up work because of severe ill health.

It was only then I retrained and had a decent career and started putting in to a personal pension. However, I was intelligent enough to realise things couldn’t continue the way they were and there wasn’t sufficient money in the Country to continue to pay state pensions the way it was. Wasn’t a large leap to see that women (wanting equality with men) might be one way for governments to cut back!!

My personal pension is worth about £300 per month!! However I have worked my arse off to save money, so I have something to supplement this pittance, until I get my state pension at 67, or perhaps even later! We didn’t have holidays abroad (my dh has never been on a plane), or even often at home and neither of us has a passport. You have to decide what’s important, now or later!

So Chewbacca it isn’t a case of “I’m alright Jack.” I just struggle to think that there were so many females who didn’t consider what was going to happen with equality and how easy it would be for any Government to justify that you wanted equality so you can have the bad as well as the good!!

I am a member of my local Waspi group who have been challenging the changes to our pensions for the last 3 years. We are all devastated by the result of the Judicial Review but we won't give up, I feel certain an appeal will be lodged. Unfortunately I think the government can do what they like - our NI contributions have been spent on other things by successive governments and although they seem to find money for all sorts of things at the drop of a hat, they are not willing to find it for us. We have been badly let down and if we had paid into private pensions schemes who changed the goalposts it would have been seen as illegal. I speak as someone who was widowed in my 30s, have brought up my daughter alone, working part-time when she was young so I could give her stability, and am now almost 65, helping to look after grandchildren, looking after my 91 year old dad in between and still working part-time. Like others I will have worked for 50 years by the time I receive my State Pension, earning no extra for this, due to receive less than some because employment with my local Council advised me to contract out for several years. I am angry and frustrated beyond words at the way we have been treated, and at the £45,000 I have lost by this action.

I think it's a case of, "I'm alright Jack, so the rest of you must have been negligent/stupid/careless/spendthrifts" Gillybob. Tough luck to those of raising our children single handedly, without childcare for school holidays/after school or in low paid part time work that had no pension schemes to join.

How presuming of you that we were all able to “make proper provision for ourselves” after all we all have very different circumstances .

Then lucky you for having employment that paid you enough to put into a pension scheme chucky; many thousands of us weren't. We worked in shops, cleaning jobs, as dinner ladies or other low paid employment; often part time because we had no access to child care to enable us to follow a career.
And that's what made the playing field unequal with men. Level that out retrospectively and I'll happily agree with you that we should have parity with men.

Chewbacca I do know of these concerns. I also know many women older than me who continued to work during having and bringing up their family (and they put in to their works pension)!

My point is women were not happy with the way things were (totally reasonably so) and the quest for equality has been going on for rather a long time. Did they seriously think that they would get their equality without there being some major drawbacks, regarding where they were positively discriminated with regard to men?