The truth about Francis Maude's pension...

[malakadoush]

So apparently the public sector have 'gold plated pensions'.

It would appear that, actually, MP's are referring to themselves.

Did you know that MP's pensions have been excluded from the current review and they won't have to pay additional contributions like the rest of the public sector.

And just in case anyone has missed this:

"Last week ministers tried to raise a scare about the alleged cost of the day of action. The fantasy figure they came up with was £500m. Even were it true, you would have to multiply it 248 times to get to the minimum calculation of the sum taxpayers have lost bailing out the banks: £124bn. That is why the "all in it together" rhetoric has attracted such ridicule. And there is no respect in which it is less true than pension provision. Cabinet members Francis Maude and Eric Pickles can look forward to more than £43,000 a year in retirement at the taxpayers' expense ? about £37,000 a year more than the dinner ladies they are now asking to pay more to get less. For those striking it is a very different picture. They are victims of the elite policy of taking money from the taxpayer to give it to the bankers and then plugging the budget gap at the expense of some of the poorest."

I think it's unfair to single out one recipient of the MPs pension scheme for particular opprobrium.

That should be directed at those (ie the previous administration) who set up the current deal.

MPs are not in the current review - yet - but the current lot have at least started to talk about similar changes for MPs to those being considered for elsewhere in the public sector. OK, we have to wait to see what if anything will come of it, but it's more than anyone else has attempted to do.

BBC article quoting Cameron calling for changes to the scheme.

Interesting take Edith - but simply not true the Hutton Review was commissioned in June 2010 - which was after the Coalition came into power.

So not the previous administration at all - this administration.

Don't you find it slightly suspicious that he didn't call for MP's to be included in the original review?

But instead waited over a year - which happened to be when things were hotting up around the changes they are trying to impose on the rest of the public sector.

The current terms were set up under the old administration. Hutton recommend change and the administration which came in in 2010 has said it intends to act on them. This administration is gripping what the previous one failed to do.

There are other public service pensions (notably Armed Forces) which are also being dealt with separately. It doesn't mean they are not up for change.

Until we see proposals, we won't know obviously how the alterations compare. But at least the discourse from the current administration is moving in the right direction, and the intention to impose similar reforms has been clearly stated.

Hear, hear. Great OP.

As always - 'we're all in this together'.

Ho ho ho.

Well DURRRR

Everyone knows about MPs pensions don't they? They are ENORMOUSLY generous. Quelle surprise - they set the rules innit.

So that makes it OK?

They should have begun amendments 2005-07ish when there were changes for new entrants to other public pension schemes.

At least changes are afoot now.

Edith - the civil service 'classic' final salary pension scheme was closed to new entrants in 2002 not 2005.

Of course it doesn't make it OK. It's shocking.

I'm just surprised anyone is surprised.

Not being surprised doesn't mean that it shouldn't be highlighted.

It is a very clear example of what 'we're all in it together actually means'.

MP pension scheme is a separate entity to other public sector pension schemes. Civil servants at different levels, ,local government, NHS different levels, teachers, etc etc all different deals

MP deal is super cushty

Shocker.

MPs vote on their own pension terms and salaries. So recommendations can be made but if they're vote against by MPs, they won't happen.

Has nothing to do with "the previous administration" - MPs remuneration isn't set by government at all.

The failure to amend in line with other public services pensions did occur under the last administration, who were squarely responsible for putting forward the proposals on which MPs vote.

The last administration did diddly squat to amend in line with the changes in the 00s they imposed elsewhere.

I think it is a good thing that this administration is taking a different view.

Here's a linkto an article about steps to make major changes, and the management of the scheme has been changed to IPSA in a step which removes MPs ability to vote on their own pensions.

Quite a lot going on under this government, if you look.

IPSA was set up under Labour?

IPSa was set up in 2009, but it was the current administration which extended its remit to include pensions. Those who are concerned about MPs behaving at fat cats would welcome the initiatives that the current administration is taking on this issue which had not been tackled in during the reforms of the 00s.

Yes I remember Cameron telling IPSA to "get a grip"

All his public statements on this have been in that direction. It's good this is happening at last.

Sorry but I'm not giving any government credit for the changes to IPSA. I think that's a bit simplistic and naive quite frankly. They've been pushed into it by circumstances. Most MPs (and that includes government ones) will not be happy with the changes.

I still remember Cameron claiming for his wisteria to be pruned FFS. They all have an attitude that they deserve better remuneration, forgetting they're public servants. Luckily they got exposed - but if you think they'd have done anything if they hadn't been found out, well I can only laugh.

Labour started it because they had to, and the Tories had to carry it on. No way could they have let it drop so they went with the recommendations made under Labour.

I meant the change to IPSA to cover MPs pensions (not expenses, a separate issue not alluded to in OP).

That change happened in October this year, indubitably under this administration.

Which was recommended under Labour? Unless
I've misread the article you linked too.

I think you have misread. The move to IPSA was not a Labour plan.

The last administration did nothing to rein in MPs pensions, and one of the earliest things this administration did (in June 2009) was to cancel the palm to increase the taxpayer contribution to MPs pensions.

The proposals are not yet a done deal, so it might not come off. But there has been a hell of a lot more action under the coalition, and I'm pleased to see steps finally being taken.

Oh!!! Really?

Do you mean Francis Maude as in the same mp who brought a flat near his home and then rented his home and got the flat paid for on expenses?!

Do you mean the Francis Maude who has profited personnaly from sub prime mortgagaes? do you mean francis maude, the one who banged on about 'poor single mums trying to work' during the last strike? whilst his party simultaneously have done nothing but make lone parents lives harder and ever more cash strapped since they got into power?

Really?

Of course it's ok to talk about how much pension he will get-he seems to think it's ok to sit in judgement of normal hardworking people, while screwing us all over at the same time.

he is nothing more than a thief or crook.