Our local MP David Laws received a letter from me early December asking for him to sign the early day motion supporting the pensions deal. He never even bothered to reply. No surprise there. What has surprised me is this comment which I missed at the time in the Independent.
"It is also time to reform public sector pensions to make them both fair and affordable."
I assume that reforming to make them affordable isn't going to make them more generous.
Maybe David Laws ought to be looking closer to home, When he was working for Barclays Bank, he enjoyed a pension scheme that was both more generous than either the Local Government (LGPS) or NHS pension schemes but also cost less to the employee. When they later closed the scheme to new employees Barclays did not force existing employees to switch schemes as Laws insists should happen to public sector workers. But when he joined Parliament, he hit the jackpot.
For David Laws, he doesn't have to wait until he's 60 for a pension like in the NHS, or follow the rule of 85 as the current rule is in the LGPS but when his age and years service add up to 80, in other words David Laws can retire when he's 57. Not only that, but while NHS and LGPS staff have an accrual rate of 1/80th and Barclays used to have 1/60th, MPs have an accrual rate of 1/40th. So Lucky Laws can not only retire three years earlier than a nurse can, but his pension has grown twice as fast.
Ah, but maybe he's principled and fought against such a generous provision for himself and his colleagues? No, when the change from an accrual rate of 1/50th to 1/40th took place in 2001, soon after Laws was first elected, the majority of Lib Dems and the majority of Labour MPs opposed the change which was passed due to the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs. What did Lucky Laws vote? He didn't bother to turn up.
What gives him the right to attack pensions for hard working public servants when he wallows in a pension that is far more generous? Maybe because he's a hypocrite?
No comments:
Post a Comment