UK - Election 2015

[ceptimus]

Yes, I know some people have more than one job. But if you want to represent the public as an MP, you should be putting all your energy into that - if you're not prepared to give up any other jobs or directorships you hold then too bad - don't try to be an MP.

MP pensions and compensation when they retire or otherwise lose their job are out of proportion to regular jobs - after serving just one five year term (maybe even less if something unusual happens) they shouldn't expect huge redundancy hand-outs and extravagant pensions.

Under my scheme, MPs would be paid plenty without any other perks - we could begin by working out the total currently paid to MPs in salary, expenses and other perks combined, add 50% to that and then divide by the number of MPs. That would be then new salary. So MPs couldn't complain that they were earning less than at present (on average) - but they would then be expected to make their own arrangements for pensions, living away from home, normal travel within the UK and so on. I accept that ministers who have to travel to foreign countries on government business would have their flights and accommodation covered by additional expenses - or that when parliament agrees that extra security or similar is needed then that would be paid out of the public purse.

The price for this salary increase would be that MPs would have to give up other sources of income while in office, and agree to a close scrutiny of any jobs they may take when they are no longer MPs. If they're not prepared to sign up to that, then it shows, in my opinion, that they're not really interested in serving the public and are engaged in politics merely in an effort to line their own pockets.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, I know some people have more than one job. But if you want to represent the public as an MP, you should be putting all your energy into that - if you're not prepared to give up any other jobs or directorships you hold then too bad - don't try to be an MP.

I have some sympathy with the gist of your proposals here, but this part at least doesn't seem right. Wiki:

MPs will normally receive a pension of either 1/40th or 1/50th of their final pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service depending on the contribution rate they will have chosen. Members who made contributions of 13.75% of their salary gain an accrual rate of 1/40th.[5] According to a 2009 report in the Daily Mail, state contributions for MPs are more than four times higher than the average paid out by companies for final-salary schemes, however they are not significantly more generous than most public sector pensions.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, I know some people have more than one job. But if you want to represent the public as an MP, you should be putting all your energy into that -

Why? Makes no sense. You might want to represent the public but only put some of your energy into it.

It's like you're advocating nunneries or something.

 

[ceptimus]

Given the choice between two similar candidates, one who wants to devote all his time to the MP job, and a second who wants to carry on his job as a dentist and only devote 50% of his time to the MP job, which one should I vote for?

Or more realistically, if my prospective MP is a director of a tobacco company and also serves on the board of an oil company, should I trust her to make decisions that will benefit me and my fellow constituents? Or is it more likely that she wants to lobby in favour of policies that benefit oil and tobacco companies?

 

[Information Analyst]

Okay so that's what, two percent of the population spoken for. what's everyone else going to do?

"You want fries with that?"

 

[Information Analyst]

Whittering on about deficits and surpluses shows that you understand none of this yet. I recommend you desist trying to argue over it.

Well, if that's the case, maybe you're just spectacularly bad at explaining to us mere mortals who this issues actually affect far more than you?

 

[Information Analyst]

Except that public pensions are ringfenced.

Technically yess, although it has been pointed out the way that the money can still be used in the meantime, which really confirms the basic principle.

There is not much in this discussion that you are correct about.

It really much be such a trial for you, being so bloody smart.

 

[Information Analyst]

Increased life expectancy is correlated with higher health care costs per person, not lower.

Wow! Smart girl totally misses the point. Try re-reading my post until you get it.

[Snip strange example of violent agreement]

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] who this issues actually affect [ . . . ]

Inter-generational unfairness (avoidable inequality of contribution / benefit ratio over time) is not a function of funding ratio, or by implication of whether pension schemes are funded or PAYG. It is not about rich versus poor, or public versus private, or any of the dimensions that your tunnel vision is seemingly unable to escape. You want my position to be about something other than what it is. That is your issue not mine. Enough information has been given for you to understand what it is about.

 

[Francesca R]

Technically yess [sic]

Thank you.

 

[The Don]

Given the choice between two similar candidates, one who wants to devote all his time to the MP job, and a second who wants to carry on his job as a dentist and only devote 50% of his time to the MP job, which one should I vote for?

If someone can get all of the job done in 50% of the time then why not ? Personally I'd suggest that 50% of the time is not enough to be an effective local MP but that's just a personal view, 75% of their time to a MP job may be enough if they are effective and have good staff.

One of my old MPs would have been disorganised and useless if she had 200% of her time to spend on constituency matters. Someone who was organised and effective would be been able to get through her workload in a few hours each week IMO.

Or more realistically, if my prospective MP is a director of a tobacco company and also serves on the board of an oil company, should I trust her to make decisions that will benefit me and my fellow constituents? Or is it more likely that she wants to lobby in favour of policies that benefit oil and tobacco companies?

Short answer it that it depends. A benefit of having a well-connected MP is that they are well connected. My local MP is reasonably well connected on the telecoms side of things and so was able to put wheels in motion to get some of our broadband issues resolved. Without those connections I may have still been dealing with the call centre in India instead of dealing directly with the CEO's office.

Your local MP in any case likely owes more allegiance to their party than the local constituents so it's not like they don't have to deal with conflicts of interest on a regular basis.

 

[The Don]

Yes, I know some people have more than one job. But if you want to represent the public as an MP, you should be putting all your energy into that - if you're not prepared to give up any other jobs or directorships you hold then too bad - don't try to be an MP.

MP pensions and compensation when they retire or otherwise lose their job are out of proportion to regular jobs - after serving just one five year term (maybe even less if something unusual happens) they shouldn't expect huge redundancy hand-outs and extravagant pensions.

The problem I have with this is that you've forced them to burn their bridges professionally in order to become an MP in the first place and then you're not giving them an adequate readjustment period afterwards. Unless you have a super-safe seat then the only people attracted to politics will be those for whom it can be a hobby or those who have corporate or union patronage

Under my scheme, MPs would be paid plenty without any other perks - we could begin by working out the total currently paid to MPs in salary, expenses and other perks combined, add 50% to that and then divide by the number of MPs. That would be then new salary. So MPs couldn't complain that they were earning less than at present (on average) - but they would then be expected to make their own arrangements for pensions, living away from home, normal travel within the UK and so on. I accept that ministers who have to travel to foreign countries on government business would have their flights and accommodation covered by additional expenses - or that when parliament agrees that extra security or similar is needed then that would be paid out of the public purse.

That's fine for London-based MPs who don't need to maintain a second residence and who can commute to and from their constituency by tube but not so good for those MPs who would be expected live up in London for part of the week and then go back to their constituencies at the weekend and deal with local constituency business.

It'd be fine for MPs in relatively compact urban constituencies where they can get about quickly by public transport but not so good for those in rural constituencies where they, and their staff, have to drive tens of thousands of miles annually to look after their constituents.

The price for this salary increase would be that MPs would have to give up other sources of income while in office, and agree to a close scrutiny of any jobs they may take when they are no longer MPs. If they're not prepared to sign up to that, then it shows, in my opinion, that they're not really interested in serving the public and are engaged in politics merely in an effort to line their own pockets.

 

[Francesca R]

Under my scheme, MPs would be paid plenty without any other perks - we could begin by working out the total currently paid to MPs in salary, expenses and other perks combined, add 50% to that and then divide by the number of MPs. That would be then new salary.

That is some kind of "universal benefit" for MPs which--when they have variable costs--falls foul of the same inefficiencies (waste of money) and unfairness (some win some lose, and not for a "good reason") as has been raised about universal benefits in general.

I accept that ministers who have to travel to foreign countries on government business would have their flights and accommodation covered by additional expenses

Shouldn't one also accept that the MP for Orkney-Shetland has greater travel/lodging costs than the one for City-Westminster?

The price for this salary increase would be that MPs would have to give up other sources of income while in office, and agree to a close scrutiny of any jobs they may take when they are no longer MPs. If they're not prepared to sign up to that, then it shows, in my opinion, that they're not really interested in serving the public and are engaged in politics merely in an effort to line their own pockets.

I understand the desire to completely remove the possibility of conflicts of interest, but this is very difficult to do and might be more costly than its benefit. Also just because there are potential conflicts of interest that does not mean they will be abused.

 

[Aber]

Given the choice between two similar candidates, one who wants to devote all his time to the MP job, and a second who wants to carry on his job as a dentist and only devote 50% of his time to the MP job, which one should I vote for?

Depends what you think an MPs principal job is:
- solving constituents problems with state and other bodies
- contributing to law-making
- representing the views of their constituents
- getting re-elected

My preference is for as many MPs as possible having contact with the real world outside the Westminster bubble - having an outside part-time role is a good way of achieving this.

 

[Information Analyst]

Inter-generational unfairness (avoidable inequality of contribution / benefit ratio over time) is not a function of funding ratio, or by implication of whether pension schemes are funded or PAYG. It is not about rich versus poor, or public versus private, or any of the dimensions that your tunnel vision is seemingly unable to escape. You want my position to be about something other than what it is. That is your issue not mine. Enough information has been given for you to understand what it is about.

It's more that you seem keen to get rid of something that presumably does not affect you personally, and clearly have no empathy for those who it would affect. You have said you think public sector unfunded schemes should be ruled illegal and abolished, but haven't offered any meaningful alternative. Effectively you want to replace uncertainty for individuals with uncertainty. If you have a suggestion of a way of matching or bettering the pension I've been paying into for decades, then I'm very keen to hear it.

 

[Francesca R]

You have said you think public sector unfunded schemes should be ruled illegal and abolished, but haven't offered any meaningful alternative.

Quite untrue:

Replaced with contingent benefits that share the risks properly between generations and between retirees and taxpers around longevity, fertility, real interest rates, investment returns and insurance security, since you ask.

The last government's Hutton-inspired reforms did very little of this, used a smoke-and-mirrors change of switching the inflation indexing to lower costs, and concentrated on the obvious vote winner of keeping promises already made to existing scheme members. They cut back projected costs and did very little for inter-generational equality

If you have a suggestion of a way of matching or bettering the pension I've been paying into for decades, then I'm very keen to hear it.

You seem keen to ignore it, or don't understand it, and to lob in irrelevant barbs about empathy, and speculation about (also irrelevant) personal circumstance. I could say that you have no empathy for current workers locked out of the level of benefits enjoyed by their predecessors while simultaneously paying higher contributions than those predecessors did.

 

[Information Analyst]

Quite untrue:

Like I said, replacing certainty with uncertainty.

You seem keen to ignore it, or don't understand it, and to lob in irrelevant barbs about empathy, and speculation about (also irrelevant) personal circumstance.

Sorry that you think that, but my personal circumstances are very much relevant to me. Other people have here have laid their cards on the table, you haven't. Obviously nobody is obliged to, but when you're the one condemning something others will have to rely on in old age, one can't help but speculate that maybe it's because you won't be. Turkeys and Christmas, and all.

I could say that you have no empathy for current workers locked out of the level of benefits enjoyed by their predecessors while simultaneously paying higher contributions than those predecessors did.

On the contrary, I think it's pretty crap for them, and it strikes me that it's building up a whole heap of trouble for the future.

 

[Francesca R]

Like I said, replacing certainty with uncertainty.

Actually you made a typo in what you said but I understood it to mean certainty with uncertainty. With defined benefits the pensioner is immunised against these risks and they are unfairly all borne by future generations. That is inequitable. The risks should be shared in a way that does not differentiate simply by year of birth, since nobody selected their year of birth.

On the contrary, I think it's pretty crap for them, and it strikes me that it's building up a whole heap of trouble for the future.

You could have fooled me, your interest seems to be in honouring past promises as paramount and casting aside whether that is inter-generationally inequitable. Perhaps because you think you are one of the lucky ones. If that (self interest) is the reason I would disregard it.

 

[Information Analyst]

Actually you made a typo in what you said but I understood it to mean certainty with uncertainty.

So I did - my bad, but I meant replacing certainty with uncertainty.

With defined benefits the pensioner is immunised against these risks and they are unfairly all borne by future generations. That is inequitable. The risks should be shared in a way that does not differentiate simply by year of birth, since nobody selected their year of birth.

It seems your main concern is that a defined benefits scheme pays out what was promised, even if it's more than you think can be justified. By the same token, though, it wouldn't pay out more if whatever's funding it is doing better than expected. Swings and roundabouts, surely?

You could have fooled me, your interest seems to be in honouring past promises as paramount and casting aside whether that is inter-generationally inequitable. Perhaps because you think you are one of the lucky ones. If that (self interest) is the reason I would disregard it.

Like I said previously, my pension as it stands now will eventually pay the equivalent of £8,000 (the recent average NHS Pension payout, IIRC) and £16,000 - probably more likely at the lower end than the upper. "Lucky" is obviously relative.

 

[Francesca R]

It seems your main concern is that a defined benefits scheme pays out what was promised, even if it's more than you think can be justified. By the same token, though, it wouldn't pay out more if whatever's funding it is doing better than expected. Swings and roundabouts, surely?

No not "swings and roundabouts" and not it all comes out in the wash either. Increasing longevity has not been cyclical, neither has been decreasing fertility. There is not much evidence that (falling) real interest rates, which affect the annuity value of savings, are mean reverting either. Investment returns (over and above real rates) might be but the cycles are something like once a generation, so due to chance you could experience all swings or all roundabouts. And investment returns are not part of the deal for PAYG pensions anyway. Moreover no future pensioner can hedge these risks. They can only be made to be equitably shared by the scheme operation itself.

As above all four of these variables have changed such that they favoured older generations at the expense of younger generations at the same time. Because older generations were systematically immunised against all of them through the design of DB pensions and younger generations were systematically exposed to all of them by the same design

Your swings and roundabouts assumption is a grossly erroneous hand wave.