Controlling the costs of Public Sector Pensions

The introduction of a simplified Pension System would also solve the problem of skyrocketing Public Sector Pension costs.
The abolishment of pension provision by the employer (and controlled by him) would take the decision about the pension out of political control. After all, the employer does not provide us with our groceries or our housing?
If there is a political majority in favour of a certain amount of state provision the most efficient solution would be a 'Citizen Pension' payable to everyone who is above a certain age.
Additional provision would be made by each person out of his income. There could be provision to give every one an earmarked account in which he would hold his pension pot. Extra relief for hardship could be dealt with by a carefully controlled scheme that prevents abuse by those who wilfully neglect to make provision for old age.

Stop Meddling by Politicians!

That would be our main recommendation for the reform of the pension system in most countries. Most distortions are caused by the arbitrary introduction of piecemeal legislation and tax rules that were intended to favour one or the other political constituency close to the party in power at the time.
It seems to be accepted without further questioning that the citizen should rely on the state for his income in the later part of life. The more the citizen are believing this doctrine, the more the power of the politicians increases and they have little real motive to stop this trend.

One Share, One Vote?

It sounds more than reasonable to apply this formula to the realm of corporate governance. After all, what is seen as the best (or maybe least bad) system of government in the political field, should also be the most appropriate form of shareholder representation.
Never mind that even in politics this principle is only a rough guide to the reality. Various intended and unintended checks and balances exist and lead to a situation where the principle is undermined.
In our opinion, calls by the Association of British Insurers or the EC for the introduction of unified share voting rules should be scrutinised carefully. The founding fathers of the US constitution were deeply suspicious of unfettered democracy and maybe shareholders would be better served if the voting structure in public companies is designed as carefully as the constitution of the United States.
We are certainly not in favour of giving groups of shareholders (often founding families or other controlling owners) different voting rights. But more research is necessary and may well lead to the conclusion that the limitation of voting rights is well-suited to force all stakeholders to focus on the long-term well-being of the enterprise.
Some recent corporate controversies - Deutsche Boerse, Newcorp or Rentokil, to name just the most prominent ones - would have developed differently if there would have been different voting arrangements.