Labour Party/government Watch

[clv101]

Worth remembering this was a Tory policy in 1995 to move women from 60 to 65 by 2020, then a Tory/LibDem policy to accelerate it to 2018. Proper communication was the responsibility of those governments - this isn't really a Labour mess but they get the blame?

[BritDownUnder]

Worth remembering this was a Tory policy in 1995 to move women from 60 to 65 by 2020, then a Tory/LibDem policy to accelerate it to 2018. Proper communication was the responsibility of those governments - this isn't really a Labour mess but they get the blame?

Wasn't it actually the result of a man taking the UK to the European Court so he could get his bus pass at the age of 60 like women and they found in his favour and hence the government of the day had to equalise the pension age as a result of the ruling?

[clv101]

Maybe so, but the responsibility of communication falls to the government whose policy it was - that wasn't Labour as far as I know.

[BritDownUnder]

Maybe so, but the responsibility of communication falls to the government whose policy it was - that wasn't Labour as far as I know.

It was pretty well communicated I think. I heard about it in the late 1990s. Not Labour policy as you say. I suppose Labour could have brought the retirement age to 60 for men to equalise things and bankrupted the nation a little bit earlier.

As a senior Actuary described National Insurance to me in the late 1990s. One of the worst scams perpetrated by the government on the British people.

[UndercoverElephant]

My sympathy for the Waspi women is very limited. At the end of the day they are complaining because they were given insufficient notice about the ending of a system which profoundly discriminated against men. There was no good reason why women should have ever retired earlier than men. Most of them are also of a generation which had it relatively easy compared to the people who they are expecting to fund their compensation.

As usual Labour has not handled it well, because they aren't willing to actually explain the above reasoning. You might think that at some point Starmer will realise that they cannot win the next election by being as neutral and inoffensive as possible, but I'm not holding my breath. They need to give people a positive reason to vote for them, and they appear to be completely incapable of this, because it goes against everything Starmer has done since he took over. "Vote for Change! The change is that everything will stay the same, just not quite as bad."

[Potemkin Villager]

Now the Lord of Darkness chosen as ambassador to the US! I have to say he and Trump do really deserve each other
and he will probably undiplomatically shoot his mouth off sooner rather than later.