I'll probably get shot for saying this, but I'm not overly convinced that anyone is really 'to blame' for not foreseeing this.

Pensions are linked to all sorts of economically driven factors, and any one of them - or a combination of them - can contribute to the value of them being driven up or down. The "credit crunch" was predicted - in that it was widely reported that ordinary people would struggle to repay the debt they got themselves into, but ANYONE could have told you that! Can anyone, though, honestly say that accurately predicted the wider economic crash, the length of the recession, or how badly everything was going to turn out. I very much doubt it. No one has a crystal ball.

Now, I don't know the answer to this as I've never personally directly worked for the council or the government, but when you start your employment and are "invited" to contribute towards your pension, are you not TOLD that the value could vary? Are you not given 'expected performance', worst case scenario, or exceptional performance figures, and told that the pension performance is dependent on various factors? If not, why the hell not?

Armed forces are next for the great pensions shafting, but they can't strike.



What they can do is contribute individually to a pension like the rest of the country and not get it for free

It is part of their salary package just the same as mine in the private sector, and to think both are non-contributory is blinkered at best.

Average armed forces payment last year was £8,693. I am not entirely convinced this figure means anything, since some will serve short periods and leave with small pensions, others will serve their full career.

I know a Squadron Leader who did 30 years, his pension is around £20K p/a,

When you consider his final leaving salary was around £60K, you might think this pension is not fantastic compared to what some in the public sector get.

I'm not convinced your pension should be in any way reflective of your final salary. Why should it? It should be reflective of what you have paid into it (which I understand forms part of the beef the strikers had)

What if you get a series of great big massive eff off promotions in your final five years, doubling your pay in that time?

In any case, my grandma, who is 92 and retains all her marbles, came up with a valid, if not entirely politically correct point. Pensions might be lower than salaries, but you get concessions on pretty much everything (travel, council tax, TV license, for instance), and you should have paid off your mortgage (if you rent, you will receive Housing Allowance), so you don't NEED as much money to live on, particularly when you get a lump sum on retirement in addition the monthly payment you get.

That, of course, is not to suggest that the £100 a week state pension is anything like enough to live on of course, before anyone trots that one out.

Grandma Robinson makes a good point. We should all surrender those parts of our income we don't need. Perhaps her grandson will do us the honour of being the first to do so?

Politicians of all hues have known about this for at least a couple of generations but have done nothing about it because its an issue that until now has always existed well outside of the current term of parliament.

Nothing will be done about state pensions until the current generation of workers under the age of 40 find that they haven't got one and have to start living under bushes on roundabouts, and because you can't have a polling card if you live under a bush on a roundabout then politicians still won't care anyway.

Where did I say that? Come on.

What I'm saying - and it's more clear in my edited post - that you shouldn't in theory need a pension equal to what your final salary is.

Do I expect to earn the same money retired as I do working? No.

The only bit of your last couple of posts that I agree with with is "Thatcher destroyed the mining industry".
You have shifted from "Unions" to "over-strong unions" to try to stand your case up a bit ... but just what you mean by "over" strong is known only to you.
German unions are very strong indeed, which is why the sensible Germans have long since invited them into the process rather than trying to smash them.
And guess what? ... it works.

Your logic is like saying that, as all Collies are dogs, therefore all dogs are Collies?

Incidentally, just to be clear, in case you are wondering ... I have not been a member of a union since I resigned my membership 40-plus years ago ... and am content to criticise them where it is warranted.

Fair, if dramatic, point, but consider this.

Our grandparents invariably did something to save us from the Germans. Also, private pensions didn't really exist, and people were unlikely to live very long past retirement age anyway. Therefore, the state pension was affordable and appropriate.

Nowadays, however, we're all educated (or should be), and therefore in my opinion at least, there is no excuse for not doing at least SOMETHING to ensure your retirement isn't spent freezing and living on lentils. It's not hard to set a pension up, and if you start one early enough, you'll get a reasonable whack out of it when you've stopped working.

Say you retire at 65 and are expected to live until 70, it's one thing making a pot of, say £100,000 last for 5 years. However if you're now expected to live for another 15 years beyond retirement, you either have to make that £100,000 last 15 years, or find another £200,000 to give you the same money per month.

Where do you suggest that extra money comes from?