Stuart Kirk used to be a fund manager, now- like Toby Nangle – he has switched to being a commentator. While Toby is a teacher, Stuart is a polemicist against the laziness he sees in his former profession.

In this article he argues that Government may not be much good at making investment decisions but he’s not against them taking powers to finance Britain, he writes of a

“reserve power” that would allow the government to set binding targets if pension funds drag their feet. Again, I’m not as fussed about this as the House of Lords seems to be. Having a tenth of one’s portfolio in private assets is hardly extreme.

There are many in Bracken House who do not tolerate this on principle and I’m sure that Stuart Kirk gets a few angry looks from colleagues. He is in his early fifties and he’s hardly a lover of pensions.

Here in the UK, we can withdraw a quarter of our pension tax-free upon turning 55. That age is rising to 57 soon, though, and it turns out I had the wrong date.

I’m actually on the right side of the line and can plunder my pension in August next year.

Everyone should if they can, otherwise the money will vanish in inheritance taxes or some other ruse that Britain’s skint government devises.

Pensions may be tax-efficient for savers the world over, but they are, by definition, long-run vehicles and frankly, anything can happen.

You get his gist. He is a representative of a group who aren’t going to be pushed about in pensions any longer than they need to be, this faction will be off with the money doing whatever they like without Government intervention.

I doubt whether most voters have a clue that soon a portion of their savings will be coerced into ropey private assets or used to finance net zero targets. Of course, it’s financial repression.

But then again so are taxes, regulation, quantitative easing, inflation and a whole host of other tricks governments use to fleece us. To be honest, I’m amazed our gigantic pension pots have been left alone for so long.

Of course I do not agree with Stuart , but I enjoy reading him a lot more than the nonsense being pumped out by the high minded zealots who argue for fiduciary perfection. When I pointed out that Baroness Altman had been arguing until recently that Government represented the tax-payers who offer up to £70bn a year for us to use pensions and deserved a slice of the action. Helen Whately described her to me as a “cross bencher” Wikipedia says

She was appointed to the House of Lords following the 2015 general election as a Conservative, but describes her work both before and after the election as being politically independent, championing ordinary people and social justice.

Here is the Stuart Kirk that I read his articles for, the fund manager who bites the hand that feeds him, without any attempt to hide it!

It’s obviously wrong that private assets can be cajoled into funding state priorities.Politicians also have a terrible record at allocating capital.

In practice, however, is it that bad? Most pension trustees are rubbish investors too, in my experience.

Every one of the corporate pension plans I’ve been a member of during my career had woeful performance. Mostly from being overly conservative.

Plus, as someone with almost a third of their pension in UK equities, I would be delighted if a trillion-pound savings pool had to increase its allocation from about 5 per cent now to 10 per cent, say.

I prefer the journalist and former fund manager taking the piss out of the trustees and their current fund managers. I prefer the Ros Altmann who argues that the tax-payer is entitled to some of the £40-70bn he subsidises pension with, invested in his or her country.

This puerile argument between a Labour Government and everybody else will be over soon.  I can give publicity to Helen Whately’s latest high-minded twaddle because we are all on the last lap of her and her mate’s virtue grab

You cannot read it – it’s too small? Well here is is enlarged by me to make your weekend a little brighter (not)!

Well you can make of this letter what you like.  You can make of Start Kirk what you like. The bottom line is that Rachel Reeves and Torsten Bell have all the cards in their hands and unless the Conservatives find a way to crash the whole Pension Schemes Bill, we will have “reserve powers” as Rachel Reeves promised from day one of the Mansion House Reforms.

Let’s be sure that the ABI won’t state their position on politics except when it is quite the opposition to what they say in public. This is what he said to me when I called the ABI as undermining reform.

Stuart Kirk won’t be that bothered, he’ll have his tax-free cash and the rest of his money will  find its way into Kirk’s self-investment when he can find his way out of his Scottish Widows GPP.

This of course means nothing at all to the ordinary person for whom this article will be of no interest whatsoever! I’m on the side of the ordinary man, I’ll sell FT on CDC one day!