Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

hyubh

Silvertabby wrote: »

I suppose Harold Wilson must have thought that would be a vote loser, and so left if for the Tories to sort out. Now, where have we heard that before !

So it was the last-but-one Labour PM's fault that Margaret Thatcher ignored it during her time in office too, despite finding time to enact sweeping changes to occupational and private pensions in the late 80s...?

jem16

merrydance wrote: »

If the court decides for, you will get all monies back! I was born in 1956

Looks like you've been led up the garden path by BT60.

Even if they win the JR, it will not give you your money back as the JR has no mechanism for that.

BT60 is hoping for a Discrimination verdict so that they can then attempt to use an EU treaty called CEDAW to attempt to get the money. This is why they are pushing their EDM in the hope that the Government would take notice and agree to use a Temporary Special Measure to give them full restitution plus compensation plus damages. At a cost of £181bn upwards, the Government is not going to do this and even if it does it would be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny.

BT60 thinks it's just going to be a walk in the park to get this through but it will be far from that.

merrydance wrote: »

If you want to know the ins and outs of it all I suggest you goggle Back to 60'S campaign, it goes on for pages. Too much to quote on here. Quite interesting reading though. If it was so simplistic it would never have got to court.

if I wanted to know anything BT60 is the last place I would go for information. Even MPs are now tweeting to say what BT60 are saying about EDMs is completely wrong

Linton

Silvertabby wrote: »

In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension ages should have been included in the 1975 sex equality legislation. That way, the increases could have been spread out over a much longer period.

I suppose Harold Wilson must have thought that would be a vote loser, and so left if for the Tories to sort out. Now, where have we heard that before !

The equalisation of state pension ages came about because of European legal pressure in the 1990s, not because the Tories wanted to "sort things out". Given the political option I doubt John Major would have done anything either. No-one, particularly women, at the time saw it as a great issue that needed to be resolved.

JezR

The first parliamentary discussion I can find that at least considers re-equalisation of the pension age is in the late 1950s, in the context of the introduction of graduated pensions. In the end a kind of gender-based fudge was applied to Grad contributions and pay-out, which has only unwound alongside the decades later increase in women's SPA.

Mortgagefreeman

jem16 wrote: »

Even MPs are now tweeting to say what BT60 are saying about EDMs is completely wrong

One of them being the Primary ‘sponsor’ of the EDM

The role of an EDM is to highlight an issue and to put on record a specific event or campaign.

They are not a mechanism to legislation nor will they change the outcome of a court case. If your MP has not signed it does not mean that they are not supportive of the campaign.

Silvertabby

“ I suppose Harold Wilson must have thought that would be a vote loser, and so left if for the Tories to sort out. Now, where have we heard that before !
Originally posted by Silvertabby

hyubh wrote: »

So it was the last-but-one Labour PM's fault that Margaret Thatcher ignored it during her time in office too, despite finding time to enact sweeping changes to occupational and private pensions in the late 80s...?

To be fair, sonething this unpopular couldn't just be thrown in as a '..and another thing..' especially as there was no natural link between the re-equalisation of State pension ages and the changes to private/occupational pensions.

Having missed the obvious/most logical choice of including the issue in the 1975 sex equality legislation, the opportunity didn't present itself again until the EU equality directives of the early 1990s. Hence the announcement of the re-equalisation of State pension ages in the 1993 (Tory) budget.

Silvertabby

“ In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension ages should have been included in the 1975 sex equality legislation. That way, the increases could have been spread out over a much longer period.

I suppose Harold Wilson must have thought that would be a vote loser, and so left if for the Tories to sort out. Now, where have we heard that before !
Originally posted by Silvertabby

Linton wrote: »

The equalisation of state pension ages came about because of European legal pressure in the 1990s, not because the Tories wanted to "sort things out". Given the political option I doubt John Major would have done anything either. No-one, particularly women, at the time saw it as a great issue that needed to be resolved.

You are right - I'm just saying that if Harold Wilson had included the re-equalisation of State pension ages in 1975 legislation, then we wouldn't be having all this fuss now. After all, it would have been announced as 'good news - a huge step forward towards equalitity of the sexes, including the re-equalisation of pension rights'. I can't see how any women could claim to know about their new rights, whilst claiming to be ignorant of the future pension changes.

No government would have just thrown the issue into the ring without a good reason and, having ignored the ideal opportunity in 1975, the next chance didn't arise until the EU directive of the early 1990s. Hence the announcement of the actual changes in the 1993 (Tory) budget.

Unfortunately, we are now in the position whereby certain individuals are blaming the 'nasty Tories' for 'robbing them' of 6 years of pension rights, which wouldn't be the case if Harold hadn't done a slopey.

hyubh

Silvertabby wrote: »

To be fair, something this unpopular couldn't just be thrown in as a '..and another thing..' especially as there was no natural link between the re-equalisation of State pension ages and the changes to private/occupational pensions.

Part of the overall agenda was part-privatisation of social security, so a focus on the ideological side leaves little connection indeed. However, one of the mechanisms for this was increasing the attractiveness of contracting out to companies, alongside the more famous extension of contracting out to individuals. While the rules around GMPs were altered, sex-specific accrual rates and normal pension ages for GMP were not. The resulting mess is only really starting to be systematically tackled now (for private sector schemes, you can't blame nSP for creating a GMP equalisation problem, it was there as soon as the Barber judgement hit in 1990).

Terron

Silvertabby wrote: »

In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension ages should have been included in the 1975 sex equality legislation. That way, the increases could have been spread out over a much longer period.

A delay of several decades made sense, since pensions are built up across a working life. Starting the increases after 35 years was not unreasonable. 15 years was plenty f notice. I doubt that longer would have made much difference.

badmemory

As a woman with a longer life expectancy than a man, I was just grateful that I didn't have to work longer. We wanted equality (well I certainly did anyway) we should not complain when we get it. Women who deny all knowledge of the increase in age are just plain embarassing.


My aunt (always a shining example) was always embarassed to have to ask my father to guarantee her mortgage even though she earned more than him & he had a family to keep. Do we really want to go back to that? I certainly don't. But this is the direction this sort of action is leading to. Playing the poor little woman card is a definite no no in my book & this is what they are doing.


Yes, being a wife who moved around the country in support of her then husband (even though I also worked all the time) did leave me with a smaller income in retirement than I would have had, that was the choice I made at the time - no mention of pension sharing back then or I would be in clover.