Huawei P10 review
Welcome to the real world!
DEMANDS? He must be serious then
A Conservative Party spokesman added: "On the specific matter of final salary schemes what is needed is a decision - not another review."
But not to come into effect, I suspect, until he has retired.
Cannot see the view of a Tory spokesman carrying that much weight with him, though!
Quite right too.
If you're going to stop them topping up their pensions by asking questions in Parliament it stands to reason they're going to need an increase.
What? You think this is about reducing MPs' pensions?
What a novel idea.
It's a proposal that is likely to evoke a reaction from most of our politicians that it would be like turkeys voting in favour of Christmas.
In 2004 an MP's pension after 26 years was £38.000.00, in 2006 it had risen to £40.000.00 per year, to get this there had to be over £1.2 million in his pension fund.
I believe it is now in the region of about £48.000.00 per year, not bad when they can debate over the old age pension if it's right to give some one another £2 a week.
Since before 2004 there has been review after review about their pensions and guess what, it's still the good old, gold plated setup.
If you can be bothered to go through it heres a link to pay/pensions all sorts to do with MP's
They are playing around the edges. There are around 600 MP's and the cost is manageable if not agreeable to the public at large. It does need changing, but in the context of the entire public sector pension costs, it's a drop in the ocean.
The entire public sector pension benefits need reviewing and bringing into line with what the private sector, who after all create the wealth, can afford.
I read the other day of a council leader who, following a disagreement with the council, was retirng after only 7 years service. He was in his early fifties and was to receive a pension that would have cost several million pounds if purchased by an ordinary citizen in the private sector. How can this benefit be accumulated in just 7 years service?
looking at such things from a proper perspective.
Members of Parliament, whether we like it or, are the people who develop the legislation that largely governs the conduct of our lives. they are as important to the future prosperity of our country as any group of people, and far more important than many. if we have any sense whatsoever we should be interested in attracting the best possible talent into politics, and into parliament. People who stand for parliament do so for a variety of reasons, and you can be sure that the least important of these is not remuneration - if the pay and pension package isn't right many of the best people simply won't bother - they'll go off and work in some other field.
Compare the MPs pension figure of £48,000 quoted by carver with, say, that of a Police Inspector. The Inspector retires at age 52 on a typical salary of £45,000 and gets a pension of £30,000. A major general in the army can expect to retire at 65 after a full 40 years service with a pension of £58,000 and a tax free lump sum of £175,000.
Police inspectors and Major generals in the army do responsible jobs, but so do members of parliament, and the MPs have very little job security - their positions are only secure until the next General Election. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't look carefully at how these people are remunerated, just that we should do so in context, and without the drama and emotive comment that seems to accompany every discussion about politicians. They are as necessary to the functioning of our society as bus drivers, the armed forces,lawyers,nurses, or road sweepers.
Given that MPs legislate for the pensions others in the community receive and that many earnings related pensions have been curtailed as a result of the this legislation in recent times, perhaps the pensions of MPs should be placed on a similar footing to industry.
I accept that military and quasi-military pensions would be difficult to place in this category but those of civilians are not and hence a `pension pot` could be owned in common with other self employed and directly employed persons.
In this way there is a stimulus for MPs to `get it right` and not damage pensions in general. After all if they do something which penalises others, why should they be exempt from the effects themselves.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.