Food Banks and Poverty- was Nye right?

I agree with your points about change Doodledog. That's why I don't think there should be a kneejerk reaction. It needs to be phased in long-term - perhaps 30 or so years.

Yes, it needs to be a long-term change in order to be fair.

I don't think that it's about greed, though. Things like this are about what is fair. Lots of women did not know about the changes (regardless of whether or not you did) and have had their lives ruined.

Asking for the pension that was always expected at 60 (for 50s born women who were discriminated against for much of their working lives) is not unreasonable or greedy, IMO. It is a claim based on the expectation of being able to trust in a system that the vast majority of the women concerned had believed in and complied with for decades.

Sorry growstuff i couldn't have made myself clear.

I too bought with a 100% mortgage at 3 times my salary. This was 1988, just before prices started to rise. I had to find another £10k to make the place habitable, which I did through remortgaging to the grand total of £35k.

That house is now also worth ten times what I paid. I couldn't afford it now on an average local salary.

But again, in those days, it wasn't possible to rent somewhere nice. So swings and roundabouts, really.

But the first change was announced in 1995. I don't think everybody can expect a personal notification when changes are made in a budget. Nevertheless, I think the last change, which affected men and women was unfair. Initially, I was interested in WASPI because I'm one of the first women will be increased to 66. Then I looked into it all more closely. There was some discussion about what the claim should be in the early days and the organisation split at one stage. The new organisers went for broke as a deliberate policy. Most of them are quite wealthy women with their own pensions and/or husbands. They ignored calls from the poorer women to concentrate on the needs of the least well-off.

I bought at about the same time - 1986. The point I was making is that interest rates aren't that important if prices are low and affordable. Of course it matters if rates increase suddenly and you're stuck with a property you've already bought, but not if you're starting out.

There is a couple called the Wilsons who invested in property in a really big way.

They weren’t particularly high earners, maths teachers I believe , but they could see the potential and ended up with hundreds of buy to let properties and are now of course multi millionaires

There was a tv documentary about them a year or so ago.

The point I was making is that prices are high today BECAUSE interest rates have been historically low for so long.

So mortgage payments themselves are more affordable; however prices are so high that multiples of salaries cannot match them as easily.

I'd need to earn about £70k to afford my house it I were buying it now (that's on the basis of borrowing 3xsalary which was standard practice at the time.).

I understand what you are saying, growstuff - I just don't agree on the principle.

Value judgements about what is 'quite well-off' are insidious, and lead to all sorts of unfair and unjust outcomes. People make plans based on what they are led to expect, and to change that without notice is wrong, as is to make retrospective decisions about who is entitled to something that everyone has paid for.

If someone had planned to spend their twilight years in a yurt eating sausages, that is their right, and their needs are no more or less important than those of anyone else. As for whether they have husbands - that is irrelevant if they have paid into a pension in their own right!

The over-riding principle is that a decision was made to save billions by cutting the pensions of a group of women who had entered the workplace at a time when sex-discrimination was legal, and continued in various forms over the years. A further decision was made not to contact these women and let them know of the changes. some (including you) became aware of the changes, but others did not, and it is not for anyone else to decide whether or not they 'should have' done anything - the onus, IMO was on those making the changes to make them known.

By definition, the women were paying NI - a note could therefore have been attached to a p45, or there are other ways that they could have been told that were not limited to articles in newspapers that many of them did not read.

I believe a note (actually many of them) was attached to payslips. I didn't follow politics as closely as I do now, but I really did know and I don't know anybody of my age who wasn't aware of the changes I remember having many a grumbling conversation about it.

The WASPI argument seems to be based on a claim that "we paid for it" - sorry, but not everybody did.

They made a deliberate choice to claim for full compensation rather than alleviating the problems which some women are facing. As I have said repeatedly, the most damaging change over the last few years has been the change to eligibility for Working Tax Credit for the over 60s, but it didn't fit with the WASPI agenda to campaign for a reversal.

Jennifer, did their property empire make them happy at all? Just wondering.

They don't seem like very nice people.

*Their buy-to-let empire has made them multimillionaires, but the Wilsons have become infamous for their strict rules on who they will allow to live in homes they own.

In the past they have refused to take people on zero-hours contracts, single parents, and those on benefits.

Mr Wilson insists the landlord is in charge. "Basically, we have got two types of tenants - those who agree with me and ex-tenants."*

Actually, it doesn't really matter whether we agree or not. It's doubtful the WASPI women will get any compensation. Shame, because if Labour had won the election, I would have been over £32k better off! :-(

They 're not very keen on people who cook curries either (because of the smell) - not that they're racist or anything.

Thanks for clarifying JenniferEccles. Not everyone has the opportunity but you had and had the good sense to go for it.
I dont know your background Growstuff, but it sounds like you had some bad luck. I'm glad you have a good landlord.
Sorry can't read or add anything further to the thread. Energys gone . ( very limited -ME/CFS)

growstuff

No, the WASPI agenda was/is to campaign to get a bridging pension for those who lost out by tens of thousands of pounds. Tax credits are a different aganda, and I don't see how one campaign group can cover everything.

Also, it really doesn't matter how repeatedly you say something. The fact remains that a lot of women were not aware of the changes, and made choices (eg to take redundancy) based on the fact that they thought that they would get a pension at 60. You can deny this as often as you like, but it won't alter the facts.

HMRC, who have my records going back over 40 years, have no record of a letter or any form of notification sent to me - I asked for information under FOI. I was aware of the changes, but cannot remember how I found out, and wanted to see whether the claims made by some women that everyone had been informed were true. They are not. Many other women who also support Back to 60 did the same and not one of us got a letter any different from mine.

Actually, it doesn't really matter whether we agree or not. It's doubtful the WASPI women will get any compensation. Shame, because if Labour had won the election, I would have been over £32k better off! :-(

On that we do agree .

inkycog as private landlords, the Wilsons are perfectly entitled to let to anyone they like.

Those tenants are likely to be people who are at the least risk of defaulting.

So while it may not be particularly public-spirited of them, they are unlikely to want to rent to those on zero-hour contracts, on UC perhaps or anyone else they see as a risk.

Private landlords are not charities.

Yes but they sound like vile, racist, money worshipping, cold hearted people. Apart from that , they are totally suitable to be held up as what we should aspire to.

Thank you for telling me private landlords aren't charities, it would have been so easy to confuse the 2.

So have you read a couple of sentences about someone and judged them on that, inkcog?
Or do you know this couple personally to pronounce them vile, racist, money worshipping and coldhearted?

Just wondering if you know them.

You can’t possibly know that Inky so it’s just you making assumptions.
Anyone who lets property will want reliable tenants.

No, it wasn't Doodledog. It was to get full compensation for those whose pensions had been delayed. If it had been for some kind of compromise, such as a bridging pension or something based on bringing forward Pension Credit, I would have supported WASPI. The movement split between those who wanted a compromise settlement and those who wanted full compensation for the lost pensions. I just could not support the more extreme demand.

Believe you me, I would have loved £32k, which was what the Labour Party was promising me. It would have been life-changing, but I could never have justified it. It wouldn't have been fair and was unrealistic.

oldgimmer I'm a private tenant and I honestly have struck lucky. My landlord is a lovely old chap, who bought this house with his pension pot as an investment. I've lived here five years. He's done everything he should have as a landlord and I've been a perfect tenant.

HOWEVER, if he were to die (which he will one day) or want to sell, I'd be in real trouble. I don't have the income to satisfy the current requirements of all local letting agents. The Wilsons wouldn't let to me. What should I do? Sometimes I think about it and have to stop myself because it seriously depresses me.

Doodledog I have a letter which was sent to me in 2011. I'm a hoarder, so have just about every bit of paper everyone has ever sent me. I also have payslips from 1995 warning me about changes to my SPA.

annep1 I'm not going to write my full life story, but, yes, I've had an awful lot of bad luck. I'm living proof that success and security are extremely precarious. I can't be bitter about it all because it would serve no purpose, but I'm still fragile and will fight like a mother hen for those who don't deserve to be treated as they are. Fortunately, I have the intelligence, education and experience to make a difference sometimes.

Sorry to hear about your ME. I've seen from friends how debilitating it is. Take care!

I know something of the Wilsons. I know they wouldn't let their properties out to non white people.

How do they know that a zero hours worker or a person receiving benefit is not a fit tenant?

I think they are greedy people.

So yes, cold hearted, racist and money worshipping.

In November 2019 Fergus Wilson was convicted of using racially aggravated words and behaviour, after being caught on camera abusing a Slovakian traffic warden.

in 2017 a court ruled his ban on "coloured" tenants was unlawful. His complaint centered around "curry smells" left by Asian tenants

On 7 January 2017 Fergus Wilson announced that he would no longer accept victims of domestic abuse

Just incase you still think he is some sort of hero......

Councillor for the Park Farm ward, Jim Wedgbury, said he was "disgusted" by Mr Wilson's comments and added "he is an outrageous landlord who treats his tenants appallingly".