I could explain /exactly/ how annual contributions are calculated in accounting terms – but again, you’re near enough right that it’d be v. v. dull and almost entirely pointless.

The size of fund needed to provide fortieths benefits, index linked, even from age 60 is enormous, and £29,000 doesn’t figure anywhere. Put it this way; Joe Average (male, non-smoking) would get a pension income of about £5600 a year from a fund of £100,000 at age 60, assuming he didn’t want any frilly bits like index linking, guaranteed increases and so on. To get an income of £29,000, do the arithmetic – fund of £518,000 – and you can double that, at least, if you want index linking.

So, at a million quid a pop, that’s oohhhhh, what? A billion at least, given former MPs and present incumbents? WTF does £20 million come from?

A couple of years ago, the average pension fund for males in the private sector was £25,000.

So begging the obvious question – are they worth it? (Errr, no) – what do the figures given actually mean? That Parliament can report the annual cost of the liability as opposed to the total liability into the future?

Apologies if I have indeed missed something obvious but I’ve learned the hard way that journalists and figures to do with pensions and finance generally aren’t to be trusted.

Turning into a pendant here: that should be MPs’ pay as more than one of them want to have more of our money. Oh and the word is publicly. Sorry.