Pensions: Does Government have an ulterior motive?

To be honest, I never really questioned this. I swallowed the line that pensions had to be brought under control and just thought that doctors were not flavour of the month because of the opposition to the Health Bill. However, it has been pointed out to me that there might be a more sinister motive for this.

Sinister? That is a strong word. How can it be sinister? Let me put a case to you: NHS pensions are a good deal; nobody disputes that. For years, they have been taken into account when negotiating salaries, because doctors realise that they are a real benefit. We are not unreasonable; we have accepted that we should bear any further costs. So why is the Government doing this?

Is it even faintly possible that there is an ulterior motive? Well, having thought about it, YES! Private companies do not want to be saddled with good pensions for staff they are taking on. Indeed, that might be a real disincentive to the private sector. So, in a world where the Government is trying to get more private sector involvement in health, it is conceivable that said government might wish to reduce said pension burden. I don't wish to be a conspiracy theorist, but suddenly I am wondering how much of this battle is actually to do with the privatisation of the NHS. The pension pot is healthy. There was a tough but fair negotiation in 2008. Why would the government re-open this issue if it did not have an ulterior motive? Please let me know if you know the answer.