Why do Labour want to gamble your pension on the financial markets?
The Chancellor will order pension funds to be consolidated into 'megafunds', which must manage £25 billion in assets by 2030 and have some of this invested in UK firms.
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
Daily Mirror
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
UK issued ominous warning of 'enemies at our door' as PM unveils defence plan
The Prime Minister said the long-awaited strategic defence review would make the UK 'safer and stronger, a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' amid Russian threats Britain will move to "war-fighting readiness" and every citizen must play their part, Keir Starmer said as he unveiled a battle plan for the nation's defence. The Prime Minister said the long-awaited strategic defence review (SDR) would make the UK "safer and stronger, a battle-ready, armour-clad nation" amid Russian threats in the air, at sea and online. Speaking at a BAE Systems' shipyard in Govan, in Glasgow, Mr Starmer said the front line "is here" - with threats facing the UK "more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable" than any time since the Cold War. In an ominous warning, Lord Robertson, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review, said Britain's enemies "are at our door". "Cyber attacks, assassinations, election interference, disinformation campaigns" are all activities that are already happening," he told LBC. The Labour ex-Defence Secretary said: "Our enemies are at our door. They're already there. And when you've got a question about welfare or warfare, you know, what happens if a cyber attack stops our hospitals from working? What if it turns our power off? "What happens if it stops the cars, the police cars in the street? These things are real and alive. And some cases are actually happening today." He warned: "Tomorrow's war could be much nastier, much crueller, much more brutal." His warning came as the PM faces questions over how his defence commitments would be funded after he refused to spell out when his ambition to ramp up defence spending to at least 3% of GDP would be met. The PM promised in February to hike the amount the country spends on defence to 2.5% of economic output by 2027 - with an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. But NATO chief Mark Rutte has already said that allies need to spend considerably more than 3%. Paul Johnson, from the respected IFS think-tank, said: "Bluntly, it really does seem to me that the only choice that is available, if we're going to go through all of those things, is some really quite chunky tax increases to pay for it." Lord Dannatt, former head of the British Army, said that vague commitments to defence spending "does not cut the mustard". He told Times Radio: "It's a little bit like saying in 1938 to Adolf Hitler, please don't attack us till 1946, because we're not going to be ready. Well, frankly, if we'd behaved like that, we wouldn't be speaking English this morning, would we?" The government has accepted all 62 recommendations in the review, which include building extra attack submarines, six new munitions factories, £15billion on nuclear warheads and thousands of new long-range weapons. The plans will help the army become "10 times more lethal", with greater use of AI and drones. The armed forces will move to "war-fighting readiness" and cash will be ploughed into defence to create jobs across the country. But the SDR laid bare how the military had been hollowed out under the Tories. It found that the armed forces were not currently fit to fight Russia or China, with inadequate weapons stockpiles, recruitment issues and problems with morale. The PM said Britain must prepare for war if it wants to avoid it. He said: "Every part of society, every citizen of this country, has a role to play because we have to recognise that things have changed. In the world of today, the front line, if you like, is here. "The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War. We face war in Europe, new nuclear risks, daily cyber attacks, growing Russian aggression in our waters, menacing our skies. "Their reckless actions driving up the cost of living here at home, creating economic pain and hitting working people the hardest. A new era in the threats we face, demands a new era for defence and security, not just to survive in this new world but to lead." Mr Starmer said he was "100% confident" that the blueprint can be paid for. Defence Secretary John Healey, who last week said he expected to hit the target by 2034, last night told MPs: 'I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament." But questions have been raised about a recruitment and retention crisis on the frontline. Mr Healey said the SDR will mark an end to an era of "hollowing out" of the armed forces. He told MPs he wants to see the British Army rise to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers in the next Parliament - 2029 to 2034. He told MPs: 'For too long our army has been asked to do more with less. We inherited a long-run recruitment crisis, 14 Tory years of cuts to full-time troops. "Reversing this decline will take time, but we are acting to stem the loss now and aiming to increase the British Army to at least 76,000 full time soldiers in the next Parliament. For the first time in a generation, we are a Government who want the number of regular soldiers to rise." Mr Healey was challenged by MP Zarah Sultana over how the Government was finding money for defence at the same time as 'slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners'. 'The first duty of any government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe,' he replied. 'We invest in defence in order to deter and prevent a war that brings such extreme human and economic costs. 'If we can't defend the country, where will we be with an NHS without power, with submarine cables that mean data doesn't work? Strong national security is fundamental to a stable economy, a strong society.'
Edinburgh Reporter
35 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Dramatic cut in parking spaces on new housing estates in Midlothian
Parking spaces on new housing estates and other developments in Midlothian are set to be dramatically cut in a bid to crackdown on private car use. New parking standards for developers in the county reduce the number of visitor spaces required in new residential site from one for every two houses to no more than one for every 20 homes. And they will reduce the number of spaces for users of new sports facilities with golf courses to be told they can have no more than two spaces per hole and any stadium built with over 1500 capacity allowed no more than one space for every 150 seats. A report due to go before Midlothian Council's planning committee next week for agreement says the new standards have been influenced by the Scottish Government's goal of reducing private car use. It says previous policy which advised developers the minimum number of spaces required for housing will be replaced with new rules setting out the maximum allowed. It will reduce the number of visitor spaces at residential estates to just five per cent of the number of homes – one in 20 – in towns with rural developments allowed up to 10 per cent. The report says: 'A consequence of the proposed new parking standards is that provision of car parking will be reduced across new developments, including in new residential developments. 'The parking standard will apply across a whole development; it will therefore be incumbent on those developing proposals to accommodate the parking standards within the design of the whole development.' As well as reducing the number of visitor parking spaces allowed, the new standards also require that 10 per cent of those provided have an electric charger in place, however to qualify for that in towns the development would have to have at least 200 new homes built. The report says the new parking standards were put through a 'targeted consultation' which involved community councils, Homes for Scotland and internal sections of the council. They cover new build larger stadiums which face a change of one parking space for every 15 seats to one for every 150 seats swimming pools being allowed a maximum of one space per 25 square metres when it used to be a minimum of one every 10 square metres and golf courses reduced from two and a half spaces per hole to two spaces. Minimum cycle parking places and EV charger spaces will also be introduced across all new developments. Councillors will be asked to agree to the new standards next week. By Marie Sharp Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Two activists convicted of harassing justice minister over Israel-Hamas conflict
They had filmed a confrontation with Ms Davies-Jones, a justice minister, who had been campaigning in the village of Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the lead-up to the general election, on June 26 last year. Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring found both defendants guilty of harassment and sentenced them to a conditional discharge and fine. Giving evidence during the trial, Ms Davies-Jones told the court she was 'terrified' after being confronted by the two activists. As she made her way to the campaign meeting place, she saw Behit and Ahmed with leaflets describing her as a 'full-blown supporter of this genocide' – referring to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Ms Davies-Jones said: 'They asked me about the ceasefire and why I had abstained. I clarified I hadn't abstained, I wasn't in the country, I was paired in that vote. 'It was escalating in terms of passion and intensity. We walked off in the opposite direction. We felt scared and intimidated, and we wanted to leave the situation. 'I had a number of young members with me. They already felt uncomfortable, I didn't want them to feel more at risk. 'They began to follow us. They were shouting and bellowing down the street at us – 'why do you support genocide, why are you murdering babies, Alex Davies-Jones, do you support genocide?'' Alex Davies-Jones is the Labour MP for Pontypridd (Roger Harris/UK Parliament/PA) Later in the day, Behit and Ahmed put posters on the Labour office in Pontypridd – the base of Ms Davies-Jones' campaign for the general election – that referred to politicians 'enabling genocide'. They also placed stickers in black capital letters reading 'Alex Davies-Jones how many murdered children is too many?' on the office and a poster reading 'Alex Davies-Jones supports genocide' on a bus stop, while a video of the confrontation was uploaded onto social media describing Ms Davies-Jones as racist. Asked about how their actions made her feel, the politician, who was first elected as MP for Pontypridd in 2019, told the court: 'I was terrified. 'I was worried because of the risk to my team and supporters, and my reputation given it was the general election and what that would mean.' Sentencing, Mr Goldspring told Ahmed and Behit: 'This was part of a deliberate and sustained campaign targeting the complainant. 'This course of conduct was clearly designed to cause alarm and distress to her and she did experience alarm and distress. She stopped canvassing. 'It was not reasonable and it was oppressive.' The judge said the defendants did have rights to freedom of speech but this case went 'beyond the boundaries' of this protection and was 'beyond robust scrutiny or political process'. He sentenced Ahmed, a final year architecture student at Cardiff University with no previous convictions, to a 12-month conditional discharge. Behit, who has a conviction relating to a protest in Cardiff last year, received an 18-month conditional discharge. Ayeshah Behit received an 18-month conditional discharge (Claire Hayhurst/PA) They were both ordered to pay £650 costs and a £26 court surcharge, at a rate of £20 per month. Mr Goldspring added: 'I would love to say you are remorseful. I suspect you are not. 'I suspect your views will be held until something happens very differently in that area of the world.' Ahmed, giving evidence, said she and Behit lived in Treforest and had wanted to raise awareness of Ms Davies-Jones' actions on Palestine ahead of the election. She said the defendants, both of Treforest, had planned to hand out and post leaflets that afternoon when they saw their MP coming towards them. Ahmed said: 'I was genuinely really surprised when I saw her. I've lived in Treforest for a couple of years, I've never seen her. 'It was like seeing a celebrity almost, like a unicorn in the wild.' Ahmed said the action taken against Ms Davies-Jones 'wasn't really about her, it was about Palestine'. Behit told the court: 'She was running for MP and where I lived there were posters everywhere. It was constant, everywhere you looked was pro-Alex. 'My intention was to show a different perspective, to get people to do their own research. It was never about Alex as a person. 'Part of her job as an MP is having people look at her policies, her opinions and how she voted.' Speaking outside court, Behit confirmed that both defendants would appeal against their convictions.
