SP #112
"I think...that there needs to be a root and branch rethink in the UK on how pensions are funded as clearly the current system is far from adequate in the UK"
I think you'll find the rethink has already happened. For the past 15 years companies have been closing defined benefit pension schemes to new entrants, reducing benefits (eg linking to average as opposed to final pay) etc. Contributions to defined contribution pensions (ie those where the member takes all the investment risk) now exceed contributions to defined benefit schemes. There is no likelihood of any return to DB schemes. They are just too expensive.
I agree with your second point. Unfortunately it's not possible to have a grown up debate about pension provision, but that's primarily the fault of politicians who have exceptionally good pension provision, courtesy of taxpayers, and don't want to engage in debate knowing it will immediately focus on their pensions and the £750 billion of unfunded public sector liabilities that UK taxpayers are already on the hook for.
Finally, I know from previous posts that you feel "the government" (ie taxpayers) ought to cover pension scheme liabilities. Presumably you see this as a salvation for BA with its scheme deficit. Unfortunately you, personally, would almost certainly lose money if the government took your approach. Why? Well I think we can assume they'd have to treat all schemes similarly. BA's pensions are about 10-15% underfunded, or £3 billion in absolute terms. It was announced this week that the BT pension scheme, the largest in the UK, is 43% underfunded, which I reckon is somewhere between £45-50 billion in absolute terms. You'd have to pay your share of tax to cough up the £45 billion in return for receiving your share of £3 billion. It's not a good deal for anyone at BA, I'd suggest.