The Pubic accounts commitee (PAC) observed that officials appear to want to formulate policy re Public Sector Pensions on public pereception rather than a judgement of affordability.
The Govt. started out with an argument on affordability and had to withdraw it and is now going with 'fairness'. Even they don't say its unaffordable (unstainable meaning something else in this case I suspect).
The GDP projection is an argument in favour of it remaining affordable and sustainable. Capot, I understand that there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and later but one can't really look at a graph from a report commissioned by officials and state the opposite of what it shows and then give that as the basis of an argument. If the graph shows what it shows then it can't be cited as a basis of unaffordability. Yes, the Pound note cost might increase but the % GDP cost is predicted as falling as a result of reforms in 2005.
It seems to be it's all about choices and that the choice is that whilst it is affordable now, the decision is to choose not to provide it in the future. A choice that finds favour with those in the private sector whose pension provision has been eroded by tax raids and contribution holidays. Just because it (reduced pension provision) has happened elsewhere does not seem to me to be a fair argument for wishing it on others.
In the final analysis it seems that this is an argument of sentiment over statistical facts. And bettter brains than me seem to agree.
Ted
Last edited by teddybear44; 1st Dec 2011 at 16:52.