Snapshot of _Waspi women threaten not to vote after being let down by Labour and Tories_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/waspi-woman-threaten-not-vote-let-down-labour-tories-3108938) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/waspi-woman-threaten-not-vote-let-down-labour-tories-3108938)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many of these 3.8M women genuinely didn't realise that the state pension age had risen until the last minute?
A lot claim to have been caught out by it, but the cynic in my thinks that most of them knew about it in advance but they just don't like it, and they're chancing their arm.
They're never going to receive the tens of thousands of pounds compemsation some of them seem to think they're entitled to. The money just isn't there.
It's amongst the least sympathetic groups you could form.
The name isn't even accurate either. They are advocating for state pension inequality, not equality.
> How many of these 3.8M women genuinely didn't realise that the state pension age had risen until the last minute?
Almost none, and even the few that genuinely didn't know aren't the government's problem. It's not the government's job to guarantee that you plan your retirement properly, it's your job. They didn't change the retirement age at the last minute, and didn't hide or disguise that they'd changed it. This was public knowledge *for decades* before any of those impacted reached the old retirement age.
Doing it incompetently doesn't entitle you to demand free money.
They didn’t write to everyone? I wasn’t written to about my pension age rising? And won’t be when it does again (I’m 40) - it was all over the MSM as if as a self absorbed child picked it up, no way that the population didn’t.
The DWP identified that its information campaign wasn’t reaching everyone affected and that writing to individuals (alongside other methods) could rectify this, then didn’t do so.
It’s all very well saying that people should have known, but there was an issue on the government side.
Not the governments fault people ignore the message. If it’s reported in the news, newspapers and other media when announced. It’s not their fault people don’t listen.
You don’t waste time and resources to tell people individually when you can broadcast to the masses the same message. Do you have any idea how ineffective and costly sending a letter to everyone whenever any new policy comes in would be?
I bet if they had been sent letters they’d have binned them and be now complaining they didn’t get a phone call
I don’t *think* the DWP was ever considering writing to everyone affected, just the groups they’d identified as having missed the message. You’d be better off reading the report, it breaks down what happened.
And people engaged enough to do surveys are not the type of people who would miss the message?
Also asking “did you know we changed your retirement age to 90?” Is itself a way to inform them…
I'm aware of what the authors of the report think, and I don't agree with them, because as I said:
> It's not the government's job to guarantee that you plan your retirement properly, it's your job.
I don't care if the government did or did not tell even a single soul. They didn't do it last minute, and they didn't hide the changes from people. Anyone who made even a half-assed effort to plan their retirement would've known about the change.
Anyone that failed, *for decades*, to realise this change had happened has been failed by their own ignorance and incompetence, not by the government.
You'll note that neither the Tories nor Labour, in their manifesto, signal agreement either. Labour doesn't even mention it and the Tories only say they'll "consider the findings."
In your opinion. In my opinion, as long as they publish the changes in good time, they've done their duty.
Do you expect letters through your door every time the government makes any legal changes that might apply to you? If you do, I imagine you're continually enraged, because they don't do this.
In the opinion of the report, which is more authoritative than either of our opinions, the DWP did not inform those affected by the change in the pension age properly.
It’s not unusual for the government to write to individuals or households to inform them of changes which may affect them. I received a letter this year telling me my council tax was going up, for example.
That's great for them, do you think we're compelled to agree with every report written by anyone in the employ of the government?
It's fairly clear neither the Tories nor Labour agree with the report anyway, they both just avoid talking about it, which is a politician's way of saying no.
I think you should accept the findings of fact in the report unless you have a good reason not to, yes. Whether you accept its recommendations or not is another matter.
I'm a male in my mid 40s, I know the pension age has increased multiple times since I've planned and replanned retirement but I've never received any letters about it. If I ignore the news for the next 20 odd years, should I be able to claim?
I'm one of the COVID excluded, it cost me personally about £50k and now I have no savings safety net (although we did keep the house luckily). I really should be more sympathetic to the WASPIs, but I just don't quite see how they have a claim other than a claim of ignorance. I'm really on a fence on this one.
Central government didn’t sent you that letter. Local council does.
Government policy changes are reported and not hidden. You need to define what you mean when you say “properly”, what is the proper way you would expect? Because announcing it, newspapers and news reporting it and probably your employer telling you should be enough.
And as it got pushed back, I don’t understand the argument about poor planning. Surely they have longer to plan now?
Even senior tories have no sympathy.
Eg William Hague: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sorry-waspi-women-we-gave-you-fair-warning-3sqml7x6t
There’s simply no argument.
I remember my aunt specifically mentioning it - that her retirement would be something like 62 and 6 months vs 60, back in the early 90s. It clearly was mentioned somewhere - and my aunt would have been around 40 at the time.
It's hard to tell, but the [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication-0) has found that the DWP didn't give women affected by the changes adequate individual notice.
I think the issue has become somewhat obfuscated and that the WASPI group has come to be characterised as nothing more than chancers, but there *is* a genuine grievance hiding in there.
Fair enough, I personally don't know a single woman in this age range (including my own mum, aunts, etc) who was in any way, shape, or form caught out by the changes or who feels they're entitled to any significant compensation for it.
Perhaps that's why I personally have so little sympathy for their cause. To me it seems you have to be pretty disengaged to have not realised, literally for decades, what your own retirement age is, and you have to have a pretty significant sense of entitlement to demand the levels of compensation some of them seem to be after for the audacity of being expected to work as long as everyone else.
The main issue highlighted in the report is that, by 2004, the DWP knew that its information campaign wasn't reaching all of the people affected by the pension age changes but did not alter the campaign to attempt to reach these people. It seems likely that some people didn't know that their retirement age had changed as a result.
Whether it was a lot of people and whether it caused them significant financial loss is another issue entirely, but the DWP did make a mistake.
To be generous, that’s not really the affected women’s problem to solve.
I’m sure you could make a case for the Post Office compensation being unaffordable, for example, but that doesn’t make the subpostmasters’ argument invalid.
>To be generous, that’s not really the affected women’s problem to solve.
>I’m sure you could make a case for the Post Office compensation being unaffordable, for example, but that doesn’t make the subpostmasters’ argument invalid.
That's a really, really poor analogy. The subpostmasters are being compensated for the extremely serious wrong done to them by the state:
>[Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal), with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. Other subpostmasters were prosecuted but not convicted, forced to cover shortfalls caused by Horizon with their own money, or had their contracts terminated. The court cases, criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods and homes, debts, and bankruptcies led to stress, illness, family breakdowns and at least four suicides.
In contrast the Waspi women want to be compensated for the government allegedly not having done enough to notify them about the equalisation of the state pension age between men and women, despite the change having been announced decades in advance.
The government didn’t ‘allegedly’ not do enough to inform the Waspi women, it didn’t do enough to inform them.
Whether they deserve compensation is for others to decide, but unless you don’t accept the findings of the report into the issue we know that the DWP made mistakes.
In any situation whatsoever one can always say with hindsight that some mistakes were made. The government cannot spend infinite effort and money on public information campaigns to reach every last person. There was plenty of publicity and plenty of time. Like it says on the tin, the Pensions Act 1995 was passed in 1995, after the European Court of Justice ruled that discrimination between men and women in terms of pension age was unlawful. The government announced in 1995 that it would start implementing the change in 2010, fifteen years later. I know there was plenty of publicity given to the change, because, as a woman a little too young to qualify, I saw plenty of it. I got bored of hearing about it. There comes a time when people have to take responsibility for themselves.
I’m beginning to see why the Waspi women are frustrated.
There’s proof that the government did not do enough to inform people affected by the change that it was going to happen, proof which I have linked to, and you’re still placing the blame entirely on the women. Why?
What's the definition of "did not do enough" being used here though? If it's anything other than "obviously they didn't, because some women didn't hear about it" then colour me unimpressed. Some people just can't be helped, and it's not the government's fault if they missed every single one of the announcements made over a period of decades.
I'm not "blaming" them as if they did an evil act. I'm fairly sympathetic to them - we all mess up sometimes - but they don't have a case for compensation. I note, as pointed out by /u/Saltypeon, that the report's conclusion was a good deal more limited than you imply:
>172 The maladministration led to a delay in DWP writing directly to women about changes in State Pension age. If the maladministration had not happened, DWP would have begun writing to affected women by December 2006 at the latest, 28 months earlier than it did (in April 2009). We say this bearing in mind that it took DWP 16 months to issue letters from when it decided to send them using CIS in December 2007, and it is possible using a different database could have enabled letters to be issued sooner than December 2006.
>173 It follows that affected women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes. For women who were not aware of the changes, the opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost.
The report concludes that they had 28 months less *individual* notice than they should have had. Even if one accepts that conclusion completely, they still had more than a decade of notice in which to take action.
The Waspi women do have a case for compensation, which is laid out in Part F of the report (pp.85–91). Whether you agree with the case is another matter, but it's clear one exists. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, which makes me unsympathetic to the Waspi cause.
Where I *am* sympathetic is in acknowledging that the government, not just the women, is at least partially at fault for the situation.
She completely missed the initial announcement in 1995?
Or the ratification in 2008?
Or was it the reframe in 2012?
The campaigning in 2016?
Or the election in 2017?
Or ........
Probably the same women who are fine with my retirement age being put upto 68 because we just can't afford it. Same women who were fine with the tripling of student loans because we cant afford it and the same women who thinks people who can't afford houses just need to work harder like they had to.
Sympathy levels - zero
I don't think they have a case and suspect the vast majority of them are chancing their arm, but how have you determined that they likely believe any of the other stuff you're suggesting?
I didn't realise the names of each of these women and their ballot papers had been made public. Or were you just lazily assuming that all people of a certain age voted the same way and with the deliberate intention of making it difficult for you others to buy a home, retire earlier, etc?
Apologies for assuming they voted the same way as the majority of their generation. Not sorry that I don't care anyway.
It's about time things stopped going the way of their generation at everybody else's expense.
The damning report...
> it would have written to affected women to tell them about changes to their State Pension age by, at the latest, December 2006. This is 28 months earlier than DWP actually wrote to them. It follows that these women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes than they got. The opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost.
28 months late..then article talks about a person now....16 years later who is 66. So she had her letter in 2008, but didn't bother reading it? 16 years' notice for Ms Smith isn't enough...moronic.
Funny that they’re complaining about their retirement age going up but mens is still higher and they don’t live for as long…
Feel there are much bigger issues to be resolved first. No doubt a good proportion of them are Tory voters so please don’t vote 😂
It's funny how the local council's have to refund the women who it was deemed didn't get paid equal wages to the men,but no mention of refunds for men who suffered sexism on pension ages.
>As if any of these money grabbing boomers would be doing anything but voting Tory anyway
I bet some of them voted Labour in the 2019 election after Jeremy Corbyn promised them £58 *billion*.
>[Jeremy Corbyn says UK has 'moral debt' to women hit by pension changes](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-pension-changes-labour-waspi-debt-a9217541.html)
>Jeremy Corbyn has said the UK has a “moral debt” to women hit by the controversial increase to the state pension age.
>Labour this week pledged to spend £58bn reimbursing women who lost out on years of state pension payments after their retirement age was raised.
Yeah, he came out with it in a really random way. Labour had made a big deal of how carefully costed their manifesto was and then Corbyn suddenly announced this new pledge of £58 billion that nobody had mentioned before. If I remember rightly, it was after someone in the studio audience had asked him about it during one of the TV debates.
Yeah he agreed without knowing the fuck he was doing. It wasn’t even in their manifesto.
Dude just wants everyone to be happy and get along and have whatever they ask for.
As soon as he said he would never use trident he was done.
Snapshot of _Waspi women threaten not to vote after being let down by Labour and Tories_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/waspi-woman-threaten-not-vote-let-down-labour-tories-3108938) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/waspi-woman-threaten-not-vote-let-down-labour-tories-3108938) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many of these 3.8M women genuinely didn't realise that the state pension age had risen until the last minute? A lot claim to have been caught out by it, but the cynic in my thinks that most of them knew about it in advance but they just don't like it, and they're chancing their arm. They're never going to receive the tens of thousands of pounds compemsation some of them seem to think they're entitled to. The money just isn't there.
It's amongst the least sympathetic groups you could form. The name isn't even accurate either. They are advocating for state pension inequality, not equality.
> How many of these 3.8M women genuinely didn't realise that the state pension age had risen until the last minute? Almost none, and even the few that genuinely didn't know aren't the government's problem. It's not the government's job to guarantee that you plan your retirement properly, it's your job. They didn't change the retirement age at the last minute, and didn't hide or disguise that they'd changed it. This was public knowledge *for decades* before any of those impacted reached the old retirement age. Doing it incompetently doesn't entitle you to demand free money.
The government (specifically the DWP) didn’t attempt to inform all those affected by the change properly, according to the report into the issue.
They didn’t write to everyone? I wasn’t written to about my pension age rising? And won’t be when it does again (I’m 40) - it was all over the MSM as if as a self absorbed child picked it up, no way that the population didn’t.
The DWP identified that its information campaign wasn’t reaching everyone affected and that writing to individuals (alongside other methods) could rectify this, then didn’t do so. It’s all very well saying that people should have known, but there was an issue on the government side.
Not the governments fault people ignore the message. If it’s reported in the news, newspapers and other media when announced. It’s not their fault people don’t listen. You don’t waste time and resources to tell people individually when you can broadcast to the masses the same message. Do you have any idea how ineffective and costly sending a letter to everyone whenever any new policy comes in would be? I bet if they had been sent letters they’d have binned them and be now complaining they didn’t get a phone call
I don’t *think* the DWP was ever considering writing to everyone affected, just the groups they’d identified as having missed the message. You’d be better off reading the report, it breaks down what happened.
How can they know who missed the message? 👀
They carry out surveys and stuff. As I say, the report probably explains it better than I can
And people engaged enough to do surveys are not the type of people who would miss the message? Also asking “did you know we changed your retirement age to 90?” Is itself a way to inform them…
I'm aware of what the authors of the report think, and I don't agree with them, because as I said: > It's not the government's job to guarantee that you plan your retirement properly, it's your job. I don't care if the government did or did not tell even a single soul. They didn't do it last minute, and they didn't hide the changes from people. Anyone who made even a half-assed effort to plan their retirement would've known about the change. Anyone that failed, *for decades*, to realise this change had happened has been failed by their own ignorance and incompetence, not by the government. You'll note that neither the Tories nor Labour, in their manifesto, signal agreement either. Labour doesn't even mention it and the Tories only say they'll "consider the findings."
It was the government’s job to inform people of the changes so that they could plan for them, and it did not do so adequately.
In your opinion. In my opinion, as long as they publish the changes in good time, they've done their duty. Do you expect letters through your door every time the government makes any legal changes that might apply to you? If you do, I imagine you're continually enraged, because they don't do this.
In the opinion of the report, which is more authoritative than either of our opinions, the DWP did not inform those affected by the change in the pension age properly. It’s not unusual for the government to write to individuals or households to inform them of changes which may affect them. I received a letter this year telling me my council tax was going up, for example.
That's great for them, do you think we're compelled to agree with every report written by anyone in the employ of the government? It's fairly clear neither the Tories nor Labour agree with the report anyway, they both just avoid talking about it, which is a politician's way of saying no.
I think you should accept the findings of fact in the report unless you have a good reason not to, yes. Whether you accept its recommendations or not is another matter.
I'm a male in my mid 40s, I know the pension age has increased multiple times since I've planned and replanned retirement but I've never received any letters about it. If I ignore the news for the next 20 odd years, should I be able to claim? I'm one of the COVID excluded, it cost me personally about £50k and now I have no savings safety net (although we did keep the house luckily). I really should be more sympathetic to the WASPIs, but I just don't quite see how they have a claim other than a claim of ignorance. I'm really on a fence on this one.
Central government didn’t sent you that letter. Local council does. Government policy changes are reported and not hidden. You need to define what you mean when you say “properly”, what is the proper way you would expect? Because announcing it, newspapers and news reporting it and probably your employer telling you should be enough. And as it got pushed back, I don’t understand the argument about poor planning. Surely they have longer to plan now?
I think that reading the report would do more to inform you about what happened than a comment from me.
Even senior tories have no sympathy. Eg William Hague: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sorry-waspi-women-we-gave-you-fair-warning-3sqml7x6t There’s simply no argument.
They have the capability to organise this movement, but not check their post.
These boomers are already scrounging enough off the state without being given any more free cash
I remember my aunt specifically mentioning it - that her retirement would be something like 62 and 6 months vs 60, back in the early 90s. It clearly was mentioned somewhere - and my aunt would have been around 40 at the time.
It's a free ticket in the compo-face lottery. If you don't care about looking like a scrounger there's no reason not to roll the dice.
> It's a free ticket in the compo-face lottery. Love this line. I'm stealing it. 🤣
It's hard to tell, but the [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication-0) has found that the DWP didn't give women affected by the changes adequate individual notice. I think the issue has become somewhat obfuscated and that the WASPI group has come to be characterised as nothing more than chancers, but there *is* a genuine grievance hiding in there.
Fair enough, I personally don't know a single woman in this age range (including my own mum, aunts, etc) who was in any way, shape, or form caught out by the changes or who feels they're entitled to any significant compensation for it. Perhaps that's why I personally have so little sympathy for their cause. To me it seems you have to be pretty disengaged to have not realised, literally for decades, what your own retirement age is, and you have to have a pretty significant sense of entitlement to demand the levels of compensation some of them seem to be after for the audacity of being expected to work as long as everyone else.
The main issue highlighted in the report is that, by 2004, the DWP knew that its information campaign wasn't reaching all of the people affected by the pension age changes but did not alter the campaign to attempt to reach these people. It seems likely that some people didn't know that their retirement age had changed as a result. Whether it was a lot of people and whether it caused them significant financial loss is another issue entirely, but the DWP did make a mistake.
There seems to be genuine mistakes, but their demands are so unaffordable it'll disrupt the economy
To be generous, that’s not really the affected women’s problem to solve. I’m sure you could make a case for the Post Office compensation being unaffordable, for example, but that doesn’t make the subpostmasters’ argument invalid.
>To be generous, that’s not really the affected women’s problem to solve. >I’m sure you could make a case for the Post Office compensation being unaffordable, for example, but that doesn’t make the subpostmasters’ argument invalid. That's a really, really poor analogy. The subpostmasters are being compensated for the extremely serious wrong done to them by the state: >[Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal), with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. Other subpostmasters were prosecuted but not convicted, forced to cover shortfalls caused by Horizon with their own money, or had their contracts terminated. The court cases, criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods and homes, debts, and bankruptcies led to stress, illness, family breakdowns and at least four suicides. In contrast the Waspi women want to be compensated for the government allegedly not having done enough to notify them about the equalisation of the state pension age between men and women, despite the change having been announced decades in advance.
The government didn’t ‘allegedly’ not do enough to inform the Waspi women, it didn’t do enough to inform them. Whether they deserve compensation is for others to decide, but unless you don’t accept the findings of the report into the issue we know that the DWP made mistakes.
In any situation whatsoever one can always say with hindsight that some mistakes were made. The government cannot spend infinite effort and money on public information campaigns to reach every last person. There was plenty of publicity and plenty of time. Like it says on the tin, the Pensions Act 1995 was passed in 1995, after the European Court of Justice ruled that discrimination between men and women in terms of pension age was unlawful. The government announced in 1995 that it would start implementing the change in 2010, fifteen years later. I know there was plenty of publicity given to the change, because, as a woman a little too young to qualify, I saw plenty of it. I got bored of hearing about it. There comes a time when people have to take responsibility for themselves.
I’m beginning to see why the Waspi women are frustrated. There’s proof that the government did not do enough to inform people affected by the change that it was going to happen, proof which I have linked to, and you’re still placing the blame entirely on the women. Why?
What's the definition of "did not do enough" being used here though? If it's anything other than "obviously they didn't, because some women didn't hear about it" then colour me unimpressed. Some people just can't be helped, and it's not the government's fault if they missed every single one of the announcements made over a period of decades.
Reading the report would do more to inform you about what happened than a comment from me, I think.
I'm not "blaming" them as if they did an evil act. I'm fairly sympathetic to them - we all mess up sometimes - but they don't have a case for compensation. I note, as pointed out by /u/Saltypeon, that the report's conclusion was a good deal more limited than you imply: >172 The maladministration led to a delay in DWP writing directly to women about changes in State Pension age. If the maladministration had not happened, DWP would have begun writing to affected women by December 2006 at the latest, 28 months earlier than it did (in April 2009). We say this bearing in mind that it took DWP 16 months to issue letters from when it decided to send them using CIS in December 2007, and it is possible using a different database could have enabled letters to be issued sooner than December 2006. >173 It follows that affected women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes. For women who were not aware of the changes, the opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost. The report concludes that they had 28 months less *individual* notice than they should have had. Even if one accepts that conclusion completely, they still had more than a decade of notice in which to take action.
The Waspi women do have a case for compensation, which is laid out in Part F of the report (pp.85–91). Whether you agree with the case is another matter, but it's clear one exists. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, which makes me unsympathetic to the Waspi cause. Where I *am* sympathetic is in acknowledging that the government, not just the women, is at least partially at fault for the situation.
My mum found out three months before she was due to retire Who the hell is downvoting that? You guys are ridiculous
She completely missed the initial announcement in 1995? Or the ratification in 2008? Or was it the reframe in 2012? The campaigning in 2016? Or the election in 2017? Or ........
Yes
Probably the same women who are fine with my retirement age being put upto 68 because we just can't afford it. Same women who were fine with the tripling of student loans because we cant afford it and the same women who thinks people who can't afford houses just need to work harder like they had to. Sympathy levels - zero
I don't think they have a case and suspect the vast majority of them are chancing their arm, but how have you determined that they likely believe any of the other stuff you're suggesting?
Look at their voting record
I didn't realise the names of each of these women and their ballot papers had been made public. Or were you just lazily assuming that all people of a certain age voted the same way and with the deliberate intention of making it difficult for you others to buy a home, retire earlier, etc?
Apologies for assuming they voted the same way as the majority of their generation. Not sorry that I don't care anyway. It's about time things stopped going the way of their generation at everybody else's expense.
The damning report... > it would have written to affected women to tell them about changes to their State Pension age by, at the latest, December 2006. This is 28 months earlier than DWP actually wrote to them. It follows that these women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes than they got. The opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost. 28 months late..then article talks about a person now....16 years later who is 66. So she had her letter in 2008, but didn't bother reading it? 16 years' notice for Ms Smith isn't enough...moronic.
Oh noooo not boomers refusing to vote. What a tragedy for society oh noooo....
Funny that they’re complaining about their retirement age going up but mens is still higher and they don’t live for as long… Feel there are much bigger issues to be resolved first. No doubt a good proportion of them are Tory voters so please don’t vote 😂
It's funny how the local council's have to refund the women who it was deemed didn't get paid equal wages to the men,but no mention of refunds for men who suffered sexism on pension ages.
ok, then we can stop listening to them then.
I'm not sure labour would care that much if a bunch of oap tory voters threaten to stay at home
Hell hath no fury like a person losing their undeserved privilege.
As if any of these money grabbing boomers would be doing anything but voting Tory anyway
>As if any of these money grabbing boomers would be doing anything but voting Tory anyway I bet some of them voted Labour in the 2019 election after Jeremy Corbyn promised them £58 *billion*. >[Jeremy Corbyn says UK has 'moral debt' to women hit by pension changes](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-pension-changes-labour-waspi-debt-a9217541.html) >Jeremy Corbyn has said the UK has a “moral debt” to women hit by the controversial increase to the state pension age. >Labour this week pledged to spend £58bn reimbursing women who lost out on years of state pension payments after their retirement age was raised.
Corbyn is the idiot who made them think they have a case.
Yeah, he came out with it in a really random way. Labour had made a big deal of how carefully costed their manifesto was and then Corbyn suddenly announced this new pledge of £58 billion that nobody had mentioned before. If I remember rightly, it was after someone in the studio audience had asked him about it during one of the TV debates.
Yeah he agreed without knowing the fuck he was doing. It wasn’t even in their manifesto. Dude just wants everyone to be happy and get along and have whatever they ask for. As soon as he said he would never use trident he was done.
That’s because Corbyn is an idiot, it’s not any more complicated than that.
Any party that tries to get the votes of people in this campaign deserves to lose every seat they have.
The most stupid and clueless boomers not voting is not a loss
Nobody should not vote. If you really don’t want to give anyone your endorsement then spoil your ballot. At least then you’ve still had your say.
These are the ones pushing *for* pension inequality, right?
Who cares if they got let down some of them won’t even be around in a year or 2 so let’s not waste resources with people with 1 foot in the grave