The figures in this Daily Mail article, partly (I think not wholly) based on this Lib Dem release, are absurd.
First, pensioners do not "now receive less than in 1950" - they receive, if you believe the numbers (and they seem reasonable) a smaller proportion of the average wage. We might - I do - think it should be higher, but we shouldn't pretend it actually means a smaller amount of money.
Second, their conversions to today's money should hae alarm bells ringing. Can it really be true that the average wage, apparently 7.08 pounds a week in 1950, is equivalent to 499 pounds a week today, only slightly less than the current average wage of 549 pounds a week? Of course it isn't, even allowing for a smaller % of people in the labour force (and hence higher wages for those who were). In fact the correct figure is that 7 pounds a week is equivalent to 165 pounds a week today, and the pension of 1950 equivalent to about 31 pounds a week, less than half today's level.
