Why do Labour want to gamble your pension on the financial markets?
The UK Government insists that the interests of savers 'are at the heart of our pension reforms' – but would you bet the house on the British economy if you had it your way?
The Government's reasons for reforming the system are straightforward and, most experts will tell you, compelling. Pension funds are huge pots of money which are relatively unproductive.
They are invested in safe bets like government bonds, which provide slow and steady returns; perfect for retirement planning.
The question the Treasury has dared to ask is this: What if they were really put to work? Instead of coasting along, they could ride the high seas of the private markets.
This is, as the Government helpfully pointed out in its press release about the new reforms, a way of generating better pay-outs for pensioners when retirement comes around. It also frees up huge pools of capital to be invested into British businesses, which will hopefully boost the economy and give the Government some breathing room in its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket.
But you needn't be Gordon Gekko to work out that high reward is usually accompanied by higher risks.
By encouraging pension funds into the opaque and volatile world of private investment, the Government is straightforwardly putting people's life savings at the mercy of the market's vagaries.
READ MORE: Experts warn Labour's pension reforms pose 'high risks' for savers
Think of the 2008 financial crash. Mortgages were sold to people who couldn't afford them and investors packaged them as profitable financial products for speculation.
For a time, it was fantastic. It fuelled economic growth and made homeowners out of Americans who would otherwise have been priced out of the market.
But when the boom turned to bust – as it always must – the consequences were more painful as the speculation was not based on abstract capital but the roofs over people's heads.
The last Labour government suffered from an overconfidence in the power of financial markets. Remember Gordon Brown (below) hailing the end of boom and bust?
(Image: PA)
It appears Labour continue to suffer from the same malaise.
Add to this other risks. By directing the pensions of British workers to be invested into the British economy, the Government is telling funds to put all their eggs in one basket, breaking the most elementary rule of investing.
If the economy tanks, the funds tied up in these companies suffer and pensioners take a double hit. Now they're in a recession and the value of their pension has tanked.
Elsewhere, there are whispers that by encouraging pension funds to invest in private markets, pension funds may divest from the bond market in large enough numbers to bring up interest rates.
This could lead to businesses struggling to borrow money – the key problem these reforms are intended to address.
The question is this: Would you trust Rachel Reeves with your pension? Perhaps ask her for a close look at her CV before answering that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
28 minutes ago
- STV News
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender
A campaign group which won a legal victory on the definition of gender is taking action against the Scottish Government over policies it says are 'inconsistent' with the ruling. For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Glasgow Times
28 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Racing calls one-day strike over proposed betting tax rise
The four scheduled fixtures at Carlisle, Uttoxeter, Lingfield and Kempton will not take place after agreements between the owners of the courses and the British Horseracing Authority, making it the first time the sport has voluntarily refused to race in modern history. The BHA set up the 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign in response to proposals to replace the existing three-tax structure of online gambling duties with a single tax, with fears the current 15 per cent duty on racing could be increased to the 21 per cent levied on games of chance. Lingfield will not stage racing on September 10 (John Walton/PA) Brant Dunshea, chief executive at the British Horseracing Authority, said: 'We have decided to take the unprecedented decision to cancel our planned racing fixtures on September 10 to highlight to Government the serious consequences of the Treasury's tax proposals which threaten the very future of our sport. 'British racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country. 'This is the first time that British racing has chosen not to race due to Government proposals. We haven't taken this decision lightly but in doing so we are urging the Government to rethink this tax proposal to protect the future of our sport which is a cherished part of Britain's heritage and culture. 'Our message to Government is clear: axe the racing tax and back British racing.' The four tracks involved are operated by the Jockey Club and the Arena Racing Company, with both backing the move. Carlisle racecourse is also involved in the strike (Tim Goode/PA) Jim Mullen, CEO at the Jockey Club, said: 'We hope this pause for reflection will enable the Government to truly understand the economic impact of horseracing and its cultural significance to communities across the UK, as well as the world-class racing festivals we host. 'After this period of reflection, we hope the full implications will be understood, and we can prevent the irreparable damage that threatens a sport the nation is, and should be, proud of.' Martin Cruddace, CEO at ARC, added: 'We have always been taxed and regulated differently, and it is imperative for our future that we continue to be so. 'If the Government wants Britain to be a world leader in online casino and a world pauper in a sport at the heart of its culture, then tax harmonisation will achieve that aim.' While the four meetings will be rescheduled, Paul Johnson, chief executive of the National Trainers Federation, underlined the 'sacrifice' in calling a halt to the sport for a day. He said: 'Cancelling fixtures is a huge sacrifice by racing and should serve as a stark reminder to the Government of the impact its tax raid will have on our sport. 'Thousands of jobs are at stake alongside the loss of millions of pounds to the British economy.'
Glasgow Times
28 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Rail campaigners say potential 5.5% fares rise would be ‘ripping off' passengers
July's Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation – which is often used to determine increases in the cost of train travel – will be announced on Wednesday. The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6% hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5%, which means fares could jump by 5.5%. Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, told the PA news agency 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He said: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.' Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71% of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. 'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. About 45% of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments. A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
