I suppose we could have said if Reeves and Bell had not flagged investment ambitions for our pension schemes that a nice safe strategy of corporate bonds and gilts would have done.

But it seems that she wants “pension” schemes to invest long-term (not sell up to insurers) and she seems to be thinking of longer term strategies looking to meet the ambitions of those looking to live longer than retirement age.

Dunkley and Parker are at the dashboard of the FT and a jolly good go they have at the subject.

A deal to be signed next month would see pension funds agree to allocate 10 per cent of their assets to private funds by the end of the decade, with half in the UK.

But industry executives say the Treasury has warned them it may mandate the requirement if pension funds fail to hit the new targets. “We have our arms shoved up behind our backs,” said one pensions executive.

There are plenty of options available to Government to stick arms behind the backs and Parker and Dunkley have some fun exploring them

The first step, expected on May 6, will see Reeves and pension fund bosses agree voluntary targets — dubbed the “Mansion House Compact II” — intended to see more funds allocated to private markets, including in the UK.

But Reeves and pensions minister Torsten Bell are also conducting a separate pensions review that will explore whether to introduce new legal powers through the Pensions Schemes Bill this summer.

Pension fund bosses doubt whether ministers would ever resort to using the law to tell them where to invest, arguing that it would cut across their fiduciary duty to get the best possible return for savers.

But they believe that other measures such as league tables or “naming and shaming” could be used by ministers.

The FT duo allow Jeremy Hunt to explain that his successor could not just put up the percentage of UK private market assets invested by 2030 but also leave the door open for future mandation.

There follows the usual blustering from pension fund executives appalled at having to do something beyond their expertise .

One pension fund executive said that legally mandating the level would “open a can of worms”, adding: “How can we explain to savers we are putting money into assets which have been proven, over a period of time, to deliver a lower return?”

“I think there will be a ‘sword of Damocles approach to encourage greater efforts,” said another industry executive.

“The new target will be voluntary but you could create a mechanism in legislation that would allow them to make it mandatory.”

There is of course a better way of viewing this. We could remember what happened to British pensions when they did invest in UK equities. They prospered.

Let’s think back to the period 1970-2000 which included some nasty moments (1987 anyone?). We were warned off that strategy by the mark to market brigade who would have nothing to do with investment and everything to do with risk reduction.

Rather than using a “sword of Damocles” , the Government could remind these pension executives that their pension history was based on doing exactly what this Government is calling them to go back to. There may not be so many publicly quoted equities but the private market is thriving.

Come on guys – “GET REAL”!