Change is difficult to take on board and there are people in their mid thirties who have only known Conservative Government. For them the publication of the Conservative’s 76 page manifesto is important. They pour over the small print worrying about the drift to self-employment that might follow the abolition of national insurance, the fudginess of statements over our relationship with the EU legal system, the lack of a position on AE contribution thresholds but as Chris Mason writes in his BBC column
a framing is emerging from the Tories which acknowledges maximising Conservative support may be about minimising a Labour victory, not preventing it.
This advert sums up the paucity of purpose of the Conservative’s current campaign
I am off to the PLSA’s Local Authority Conference today, jumping into a car for the first time in six months because it is stuck out in the middle of nowhere. No doubt there will be a debate on the just transition, while my partner’s car sits waiting to take me home tonight. It will be interesting to know what the mood music of those who take decisions on our largest funded pension scheme are thinking.
Yesterday I was with a grandee. A regulator and senior lawyer who is openly supporting the Labour party. He told me that while banking and insurance were generally in regulatory good shape. pensions regulation needed a radical change. We discussed the unnecessary harm to DB pensions from a fallacious accounting system. the lack of support to the poorest from the auto-enrolment system, the need for change. This wasn’t a politician speaking but someone who had worked his life as a self-employed entrepreneur.
We talked of those who could make a difference going forward. We spoke of Sarah Smart and Nigel Wilson, of the FCA and TPR, we spoke as if new things would be possible as you do when genuine change is afoot.
For while we must remember the genuine efforts of individuals within the three Conservative Governments under the many Conservative leaders, we need to recognise that change is needed.
So what of LGPS?
Last year I reported on an optimism of spirit in the LGPS , not to be found in pensions. I expect that optimism to persist. I hope to hear how LGPS, whose asset base has not been undermined by the LDI disaster, is approaching using its strong funding position. Will it ease the pressure on councils to contribute , will it give members easier terms of accrual, or will it find ways to invest its healthy surplus to meet the local needs that cannot be met by cash-strapped sponsors?
How are plans progressing to consolidate the 98 funds around the handful of pools? Are the needs of those working for the funds to preserve self determination (and their jobs) , prevailing over the potential economies of scale from a having a single fund to rival Calpers?
Are local communities looking to their local authority pension schemes for funding, or is the link between pension and investment in levelling up, still a top-down thing?
I come at this with fresh eyes and a fresh pen, keen to know.
Because, jaded as this election is, it does bring the prospect of something new and with it a change from the endless round of consultations that have led us nowhere.
No doubt we will have new consultations from Labour as they try to find a constructive way forward, but anything must be better than the dead end that the Conservative Party Manifesto is for any kind of ambition for the British pension system.
Compare the current tone with elections past. This from 2017.
2017 version