There is a crisis of confidence, not in policy but politicians and the speech from Rachel Reeves on 15th July (Tuesday) is about restoring confidence in her and her team, first and foremost.

If she has a big pension issue to deal with, it is the U-turn on winter fuel payments and not the second part of the pension bill which may or may not be delivered this parliament. What will be delivered at the Manion House is a lot of incentives to the City to invest in equities and growth and a move away from pensions’ 20 year infatuation with risk-reduction.

This may have some political value but it doesn’t cut much ice with the FT readership, this seems typical of “comments” 

So she intends to make senior managers personally responsible for their failings. Which is welcomed, but then she is also making them invest private pensions in risky U.K. companies, in which they would rather not invest. Perhaps politicians should also be held personally accountable!! I also hope the lessons of the 2008 crash are not forgotten, and the sound regulation implemented is not thrown away in her desperation to produce results.

This I fear is the tough task ahead of her, Alastair King’s expression is remarked on as is the Chancellor’s claims to have a grip on the economy.

There are many commentators on this blog with a Scottish ancestry but I suspect that here the difference between concerns about immediate cashflow (fuel et al) and long-term investment issues divides. Speak to those who fall behind John Hamilton’s motto “100% invested, 100% secure” and there should be agreement that Reeves is looking more to the next few decades than the remaining years of this parliament.

The firm grip on investment may not be liked by those who stand by the fiduciary principles of trusteeship but there is a consistency about Reeves on this. While Hunt was keen to propose the Accord , he was unable to get the City to take investment in the UK seriously. There are still outposts of hostility to long-term investment in the UK, such as Lloyds Bank, will they try to bring Reeves down – I hope not.

The Mansion House speech looks to have moved on from a speech on how we can afford to increase pension contributions to Australian levels (a very weak view of how people get paid pensions in this country). We have decided, with the Pension Schemes Bill, to focus on value for money and turning pots to pensions.

Simply jacking up mandated AE contributions by employers looks to me an unlikely way forward for this Government. As one commentator reminded me over the weekend

Ugh

“Jacking up pension contributions to Australian levels”

I hate that.  Our contributions are already much higher. Which is why the OECD projects average UK earners pension net replacement rate to be around 54% of their earnings and Australia about 32% – for current new entrants to the labour market.

The Labour market is not where the pension adequacy issue is at its most acute.

There are many millions of people who are either self-employed or unpaid (look at the numbers caring for family – especially elderly family).  Pensions as welfare may not be high on the agenda of the pension industry but  it is higher on the Treasury’s.

I look forward to tomorrow (Tuesday) night. As well as Reeves’ determination to improve her reputation and make it easier for decisions to be taken around growth, I hope we will see the Lord Mayor looking a little less grumpy than he did in November.