Raising the age of the state pension makes perfect sense

The Government’s proposal to raise the age at which people qualify for a state pension produced predictable responses. But none of them seemed to want to recognise the elephant sitting in the room.

In 1948, when the welfare state was effectively born, the retirement age was 60 for women and 65 for men, and the average life expectancy was 71 and 66 respectively.

Today average life expectancy for women is 81 and for men 77. That is a huge difference. If you combine this with extended good health and the abolition of any compulsory retirement age, you can see that later life looks totally different today from that envisaged in 1948.

People now have choices. For many reasons, not the least of which will be economic, people will choose to work beyond the current and future state retirement ages, maybe with a different employer, maybe part-time. Perhaps people will take later-life gap years. There will also be people unable to work for reasons of ill health, but that will require a different form of support.

All of this makes the recent commentary on pension ages by politicians and the media completely meaningless because it is based on the 1948 premise. The debate now needs to be around what form any future state provided support for later life should look like. Younger people today deserve to be able to look forward to a decent period of healthy retirement. Right now it looks bleak, with nobody addressing the real issues.

Bernard Cudd
Address supplied

Your article titled Ten female presenters ‘set to sue public broadcaster over gender pay gap’ reflects the situation women face worldwide.

Research by ActionAid shows that women in developing countries could be $9 (£6.9 trillion) trillion better off if their pay and access to paid work were equal to that of men. Whenever they can, these women fight for this change too.

In Cambodia, women garment workers have conducted nationwide strikes in exasperation of years of low pay. The gender wage gap in the country more than doubled between 2004 and 2009, for example. Several companies have since expressed their willingness to support a living wage but the figure is paltry in comparison to those higher up the chain.

We must ensure women’s work is valued and rewarded fairly. It is a key factor in fighting poverty and driving prosperity and goes hand in hand with sustainable business and economic returns.

Sarah Carson, senior women’s rights campaign manager, ActionAid UK
London EC1R

It’s been two years since Cecil, one of Zimbabwe’s best-known lions, was callously snuffed out by a trophy hunter. Yet the global condemnation of his death didn’t diminish hunters’ thirst for blood, and Xanda, Cecil’s 6-year-old son, has become the latest victim of this cruel “sport”.

Majestic wild animals will continue being slaughtered to boost hunters’ egos and perverse sense of “fun” as long as wildlife slayers with something to prove can ship heads, tails, and skins back home. More than 40 airlines have banned shipment of these grisly trophies, and Peta is calling on all others join them.

Jennifer White, Peta
London N1

“£1.1m [wasted] in defending the Article 50 Court case” was one of yesterday’s sneaked-out announcements.

Has anyone estimated just how much the Brexit debacle has cost so far? Not just in tax-payer money (maybe calculated in how many nurses it would have trained), but as a massive distraction of resources and time taken from other things. Like running the country.

Surely it is time to admit we got it massively wrong. We weren’t ready, we still aren’t ready, and we need to stop this Yes Minister episode now and end the damage and waste.

Then announce another referendum in 10 years, this time properly thought-through with both possible results prepared for and a two-thirds majority required so the losing side don’t whinge on afterwards.

Paul Keeble
Manchester

When I watch a TV programme, I do it because of the content of the programme, not because of the personality or ability of the presenter.

Sadly, in a high proportion of cases, the quality of the presenter’s performance, possibly following stage instructions, appals me so much that I turn off. Why does the BBC keep them so long, with annual increments to their high salaries?

I imagine that many could nominate lots of people who would be prepared to do the job at a lower salary for a shorter period without seeking stardom.

Ian Turnbull
Cumbria

The “talented” – be they media presenters, sports stars or banking chief executives – apparently are mainly motivated by higher and higher remuneration packages and are talented at securing them and usually at hiding them.

Might we not prefer people who are not so motivated and not so talented, but who have a sense of fairness and who would feel ashamed at receiving such vast sums compared with those of nurses, carers, cleaners and teachers?

Peter Cave
London W1

The answer to unequal salaries seems to be to pay men less, as the BBC suggest. This is totally illogical; surely it is to pay women the same as men for doing the same job.

Equal pay should mean women getting paid more, not men less just to equalise injustice.

Gary Martin
London E17