They are not civil servants, not part of the public sector employees who, of course, are fully entitled to employer sponsored superannuation.

Any MPs who want to draw their taxpayer-backed, index-linked, final salary scheme can leave Parliament.

This has two benefits. Firstly, the liabilities are covered. Second, Parliament than has the moral authority to do this across the public sector and draw a finite line under our future liabilities.

Whilst the Kinnocks exemplify the British taxpayer funded benefits of a guaranteed, lucrative pension for ‘Hailing Brussels’, the savings on British MP’s pensions will make no difference to the economic meltdown Blair created (abolition of clause 4).

It may well, however, deter the serious minded from a career in ‘British politics’. It’s a contradiction in terms to save taxpayers’ money on our MP’s, whilst the government makes no attempt to cut the vast sums compliantly handed to the EU.

No less than 8,000 Labour employees recently confirmed they do not know what their role is – taxpayer funded, of course.

The party line is blatantly obvious – undermine ALL MP’s and Parliament – ‘Hail Brussels’ & Federal Europe – taxpayer funded ‘gravy train’ for ‘yes men’.

Now, why would this deter anyone from becoming an MP? He or she could accrue benefits in the same way from all employments over their working life and if not already doen so concentrate them in one scheme at NRA to buy an income.

What’s the problem with that?

The knock on benefit will be a dramatic increase in the savings rate and that will help provide pools free capital to be accessed by private business. What’s not to like?

This is born out of a need to reduce risk for a fund however, those that propose banning investment into Equities don’t understand risk reduction. If by being too cautious you reduce growth too low you increase the risk of loosing the value of your investment against inflation. I’ll put aside the devastating effect it would have on the economy anyway.

There are ways of targeting a growth level above inflation by say taking short positions and clearing those at the end of the day. This means in a crash scenario the following day you have freedom to change portfolio decisions. In conjunction with other parts to the portfolio risk reduction can be done without banning investment in equities by pension funds.

In the private sector stopping new entrants to the defined benefit scheme is a common first step. It’s also common that it can be followed by stopping further accrual for the existing members. However, existing MP’s could be saved this second cut for a while. The Election could see a sizeable number leave as MP’s which may have a positive affect on the deficit in the short term (going on John’s proposal). However, running a defined benefit scheme on a diminishing and ageing number of existing members could prove impossible in the longer term.

Good to hear from an MP that sees that this is a change that is needed. It is needed also in the Civil Service and so is necessary if MP’s want to force that change on the CS.

Then perhaps we could cancel Gordon Brown’s pension altogether. It would only be fair, given how he has raped and pillaged private pension schemes.

The other obvious thing to do is for MPs to contribute more from their own income.

I know someone who currently is contributing 25% of their pretax salary in order to build a pension fund.

That fund is incidently likely to be destroyed by the governments economic policies.

What is your opinion of the sanctions in the leglislation being rushed through by Gordon Browns government relaing to MPs fiddling their expenses.

Why should an MP who may have committed fraud be given a lighter maximum sentence under these proposals ( 1 year ) than say an ordinary individual who may have committed fraud and be subjecct a sentence of up to five years?

Do you agree this is another instance of the Government ‘spinning’ the story to appear to be doing something but in actual fact they are introducing more leinent sentences for their particular group or faction?

Reply: one of the many issues we need to ask about next week when the draft Bill is before the House.