Tonight:
5°c
The only question about the plan by the shadow chancellor George Osborne to raise the pensions age is: what took him so long?
Life expectancy is rising; children born now have a very good chance of living to be 100. And women die later than men.
So it makes complete sense for the Tories to promise to expedite the Government's plan to raise the retirement age to 66 by 2026 and to 68 by 2046.
Indeed, were the Tories to gain power, the move would only take effect in 2016; it should be introduced as soon as possible.
It would save £13 billion a year from the deficit to fund a more generous pension provision for older people, which at present is woefully inadequate.
Moreover, the retirement age should be the same for both sexes, as it has been in Ireland for decades.
Theresa May, the shadow work and pensions secretary, says the party is considering this move. Women live longer; there is no very good reason why they should retire earlier.
For some people, the prospect of working for an extra year, or two, or three, is dispiriting.
Others, who derive much of their sense of identity and their friendships from their work, will feel relief that they are not being pushed into retirement at 65.
Either way, longer lifespans mean that the period of retirement will not be much reduced.
The Tories are, however, in a state of high dudgeon that the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, is stealing some of their limelight during conference week with his own announcement of a freeze on public sector pay for top civil servants.
Rather, the party should be congratulating Mr Darling on his sound common sense and reassuring him that the Tories would follow suit. There is no scope for public sector pay rises given the scale of the deficit. And civil servants enjoy greater job security than in the private sector.
But the real area where savings must be made is in inordinately generous public sector pensions provision, which constitutes a colossal burden on the public purse far into the future.
The Government is to blame for giving way to union demands for unaffordable pensions; it is a problem that the Tories, if they win, will have to address.
Runway questions
The Tories would not proceed with a third runway at Heathrow if they win power, according to the shadow transport secretary, Julian Brazier.
Instead, the party wants to increase capacity at regional airports and introduce high speed rail links between London and other cities.
This puts the party at odds with the airport owner BAA, whose spokesman insists that business loses £1 billion every year a runway is not built.
Obviously, Heathrow is the gateway to London and current levels of capacity are probably unsustainable. It must be a gold-standard airport and the Tories should recognise that.
But BAA needs to answer the obvious objection that about 30 per cent of passengers at present are simply transferring to other flights, which means that the amount they bring to London is the price of a coffee.
As for the Tories, they should be thinking about how Gatwick could be meeting some of the needs of tourist passengers without itself expanding.
They need also to show how they will pay for their high speed rail links, given spending constraints; the real need is to upgrade existing rail links, with the building of longer platforms and the provision of bigger trains.
Scrapping plans for a third runway will enhance the party's green credentials; but the priority must be that London remain a welcome, accessible destination for foreign business.
Drink and be merry
The unofficial ban on the visible consumption of champagne at the Tory party conference has been breached - first by Alan Duncan, then by David Cameron at a party.
It's not going to exercise many voters, so long as the stuff is drunk in moderation and preferably not by men in Bullingdon-style evening dress. The Tories can afford to relax.
Reader views (3)
We will all still be unemployed at the age of 65-66, it's just that we won't be getting any state pension; that's been stolen by the bankers. He'll have to pay us unemployment benefit instead.
- Dom, London, 06/10/2009 17:44
Report abuse
I was very lucky to have an employer who let me work beyond retirement age (fortunately I have skills that are difficult to replace) - I'm 70 soon, and will retire on my 70th birthday. I still have my health and for me, working has kept me bright, alert and much younger in outlook than my contemporaries. The money has been very useful as well, since the Brown one ruined my pension scheme!
- Josie, London, UK, 06/10/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Absolutely right on retirement ages - though 70 or even 75 would have been a better suggestion.
But, and it's a big one: we need legislation to stop ageism in the workplace. Too many people are effectively retired in their late 40s or early 50s, by managements bent on hiring younger and cheaper staff. Certainly as far as the average employer is concerned, staff who are older than 35 are all washed up.
Tax kick backs for employers who favour oldsters? I don't know, but we need to do something.
- John Phillips, london, 06/10/2009 12:45
Report abuse
