Tom Richmond: Coalition can prove its worth over pensions

If George Osborne, the Chancellor, had criticised the costs of "gold-plated" public sector pensions, as the Liberal Democrat leader did so eloquently, there would have been howls of derision about Tory cuts.

Yet the fact that Mr Clegg, the Sheffield Hallam MP, admitted the system was "unfair" on private sector workers – and that his comments were broadly welcomed – gives the Government the opportunity, and legitimacy, to tackle this issue.

This is an opportunity that must not be spurned, given the Office for Budget Responsibility's disclosure that the annual cost to the taxpayer of funding public sector pensions will more than double over the next five years to 4,000 per household.

No wonder many can't afford to plan for their own retirement when their hard-earned money is having to top up the pension pots of richly paid public servants (I accept there is a clear difference between their entitlements and those of lowly-paid council workers).

It is why much rests on Osborne's shoulders next Tuesday when he delivers the coalition's emergency Budget. Labour is not in a position to deliver lectures about borrowing levels being lower than forecast – 155bn, compared to the predicted 166bn a year ago, is hardly a vindication of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's approach.

The challenge for Osborne is to be statesmanlike and explain why issues not covered in these figures, like pensions, are the reason why the Government must accelerate its programme of cuts and efficiency.

He must also avoid unnecessary spats, like the late disclosure of a Commons speech to Darling that was in contravention of Parliamentary courtesies.

Budgets are always political occasions. But, in this instance, Osborne and his cohorts need to resist the temptation to score cheap points – we all know that Labour bankrupted the nation – and show how the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are governing together in the national interest on issues like pensions.

HAVING bent the rules to enable Diane Abbott to take her place in the Labour leadership contest, the other candidates are, inadvertently, causing problems for themselves later in the year.

Assuming that the firebrand Left-winger does not win, she is, nevertheless, expected to perform reasonably well to merit a place in the Labour Shadow Cabinet.

Although regarded as lazy, Abbott has the media experience – as a regular BBC pundit – to engage with the party membership. Her personality will contrast favourably with the four men in grey suits who she is opposing. And, while some perceive Abbott to be a "token" woman candidate, there are those who believe she will finish third because of her Left-wing views.

Yet, why should she be given a job? She's already been a MP for 23 years after becoming Britain's first black female MP in 1987. Neil Kinnock, John Smith. Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown all believed she was not Ministerial material.

As Shadow Housing Minister John Healey wrote in this newspaper on Wednesday: "She will definitely liven up debate but most Labour MPs have seen more of her on late night TV than at late night votes in the House of Commons, certainly when support for her own government was needed."

However, there will be much angst among Labour's Sisterhood if Abbott is overlooked for a job. Will David Miliband, the Shadow Foreign Secretary who nominated Abbott to ensure that she secured the requisite support of 33 MPs, regret his generosity of spirit if becomes leader? Yes, he will.

IT always perplexes me when the House of Commons overlooks people who are ideally suited for particular roles.

Take Newark MP Patrick Mercer, a much decorated former soldier whose military experience and know-how is backed up by an independent mind. He would have been an ideal chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee. Yet this counted for nothing when MPs elected Old Etonian James Arbuthnot – a barrister – to the role. It does not make sense, especially when one considers the extent to which military leaders obfuscate in a language of their own in order to wrongfoot their political inquisitors.

SHEFFIELD Heeley MP Meg Munn's intervention on the issue of school detention offers a useful insight into how this Government will be different to Labour's rule.

She wanted to know why the Government was introducing "no notice" detention – in other words an errant child is ordered to stay behind at the end of the school day – and whether it is "compatible with good child safeguarding procedures".

Yet I think many will agree with Schools Minister Nick Gibb who said in response: "It is not a prescriptive matter requiring schools not to give 24 hours' notice for detentions: it merely enables them to do that if they wish."

Detentions worked in the past as a means to introduce discipline; they can do so again.

EVEN though the BBC has deployed masses of minions to South Africa for a four-week safari – sorry, to cover the football's World Cup – it was a listener to Radio Five Live who confirmed the seriousness of Ledley King's injury.

While Auntie's so-called experts pontificated on whether the defender's chances of playing in last night's match, this contributor – a physiotherapist – rendered the BBC's finest redundant when he pointed out that King's abductor strain would see him sidelined until the end of the tournament. If only the same could be said about all the also-rans in the BBC contingent who have a lot to say about, frankly, nothing.

[email protected]