I’m conscious that I may have come over a bit Richard Littlejohn last week, ranting on about Brussels and that holiday pay legislation. Sorry about that. I don’t want you to think I’m some kind of rabid Little Englander, because I’m really not. I’m also not very political, at least not in the sense that all these oddballs at the party conferences seem to be. It just tends to wind me up when politicians start confiscating more of my profits, or interfering in the way I run my business (any entrepreneur worth her salt has to spend a certain proportion of their time whinging about red tape – it’s the law).

But while generally speaking I prefer the Government to leave me in peace, I’m not from the ‘all change is bad’ school of thought. For instance, this week I was talking to an entrepreneur buddy about that High Court ruling on the retirement age last Friday (apparently it’s still ok to boot people out at 65). He was very pleased about this, because he reckons it’d be a major hassle for businesses if the rules were changed, and he’s keen to use the current set-up to usher one of his old-stagers out the door next year. He thinks the rule works perfectly well, and can’t see why the Government should want to review it.

Now I’m quite looking forward to retirement, as I suspect most people are – leisurely pub lunches, walks in the park, a spot of crown green bowls; maybe living in a house with my other retired friends swapping hilarious repartee, like The Golden Girls. And to be frank, if I’m still having to work by the time I’m in my 60s, something will have gone very wrong with my life plan (in which selling my business for a small fortune and retiring to a fabulous beach somewhere figures prominently).

But the way I see it, the retirement age was set when people didn’t tend to live much beyond their 60s. Now we’re quite likely to live another 20 years or so (especially women), so it makes complete sense to change it. Apart from anything else, the alternative is that those still in work will have to shell out a fortune in taxes to keep all these golden girls in clover, and as discussed, that doesn’t really work for me.

Still, what do I know, I’m not an economist. But one thing I am sure about is that relying on the retirement age for workforce planning is pretty limp. If the person can’t do the job, improve their performance or manage them out. If they can, why would you want them to leave? This friend of mine argues that it’s cheaper and less hassle just to wait until this guy hits 65 next year, but I think he’s being a bit weedy.

So later retirement is fine by me. See, I’m not really an anti-Government reactionary.