Mick F wrote:... They left it all to the media. ... ...
That's what I was hinting at above.
This didn't affect us personally but I was certainly aware of the general thrust of what was happening, even though I couldn't have given any details. But that's because I don't restrict my sources of info to people agreeing with me in pubs.
It's pretty harsh. Years ago, I remember listening to something on the radio when the late Barbara Castle was explaining how the state pension was originally devised. Obviously, it assumed a male breadwinner with a housewife who either didn't work outside the household or didn't do much. The different retirement ages were based on the then statistical mode, so that if a woman did have paid employment, she could retire at the same time as her husband. The theme of the programme was that those assumptions did not take account of social changes.
In defence of those who - with hindsight - got it wrong in the early post-war years, they were replacing the Poor Law provision for the majority of the working class: if you didn't die in harness, have a stay-at-home daughter to look after you in old age or face the workhouse.