I just posted this thread on Twitter:
I am not sure what else there is to say about today's massively confusing commentary from Rachel Reeves. I would love to find some sense in it. I cannot.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The skeleton of your headline is evergreen:
If the sector with heavy government intervention has failed the UK why does the Chancellor of the day want to give it more money?
It’s like the person with the perfect gambling system messaging home from Monte Carlo, “System going well, please send more money to fund my next staking pot”.
A caring and thinking person has to only look at what happened to private pension pots in the immediate aftermath of the 2007/2008 GFC to realise that Rachel Reeves is low on critical thinking skills and not very caring either about people who reach retirement age. No doubt her boss has very good civil service pensions not to worry too much either!
Dear Rachel,
I have some niggles with your pension pot plans.
I thought that private companies just needed the ” economic right culture” to succeed.
If the private sector is so good why does the financial services sector need a UK public subsidy of £79bn a year to succeed?
Would it not be better to restrict the charges that the financial sector will charge, seriously increase the percentage that companies contribute to employee pensions?
I do not see how a possible increase in a personal pension pot of up to £11k is seen as a big number.
Sorry, but how are the workers going to increase pension contributions unless they get rather large pay rises?
Somehow I don’t think that the Bank of England and the City will approve of pay rises.
I maybe wrong but the City has never been interested in infrastructure unless they get a guaranteed return, which means that the UK State is on the hook.
Finger crossed.
I have a feeling that the City will celebrate Reeves, seeing in her another Thatcher, one who readily can be conned into unleashing their most base behaviours. We should probably prepare for Big Bang 2 with the same eventual consequences too.
Will Hutton is predicting this in the Observer today
What is wrong with these people who believe anything but the state might work when it is clear that they cannot?