'Rachel Reeves will launch an initiative next week with 20 of the UK’s largest pension funds to encourage easier investment in Britain in a move to replicate Canada’s so-called ‘Maple 8’ model.
The Sterling 20 initiative will try to make it more seamless for pension funds to back British infrastructure and growth projects, and stems from the chancellor’s desire to mimic Canada’s powerful pension investment model.'
It's ironic to advocate for more dynamic pension funds and use of capital accordingly given the current votership of the Conservative Party being primarily composed of, well, pensioners. Would they be happy with more risk being placed on their pensions?
Likewise your argument to the effect of 'cut red tape' is often red tape that came post 2008, or nimbyism, much of it brought in during the 2010s.
As a young married professional I hope and pray for a Conservative party that shows itself to be economically serious again because at its heart it is currently favourable to nimby pensioners. I'll believe the dynamism you want to advocate when your party can speak to working professionals who are generating said capital seriously.
Short termism is the rule of the day 🇬🇧🇬🇧
China is not our friend. Never has been. Never will be.
You really should be shouting from the rooftops. The UK now is just a fire sale & our children & grandchildren will be inheriting nothing!
If so much risk capital is required, why are boards constantly announcing share buy-backs?
Ultimately its mass replacement migration that will destroy the West.
In fact... I recall Rachel Reeves going sort of in this direction anyway with pensions? No least having them invest at least 5% into British stock?
Found this article from 6 hours ago:
https://www.ft.com/content/0abeb9e6-30e8-4d95-8b14-ae93cb22f0d4
'Rachel Reeves will launch an initiative next week with 20 of the UK’s largest pension funds to encourage easier investment in Britain in a move to replicate Canada’s so-called ‘Maple 8’ model.
The Sterling 20 initiative will try to make it more seamless for pension funds to back British infrastructure and growth projects, and stems from the chancellor’s desire to mimic Canada’s powerful pension investment model.'
It's ironic to advocate for more dynamic pension funds and use of capital accordingly given the current votership of the Conservative Party being primarily composed of, well, pensioners. Would they be happy with more risk being placed on their pensions?
Likewise your argument to the effect of 'cut red tape' is often red tape that came post 2008, or nimbyism, much of it brought in during the 2010s.
As a young married professional I hope and pray for a Conservative party that shows itself to be economically serious again because at its heart it is currently favourable to nimby pensioners. I'll believe the dynamism you want to advocate when your party can speak to working professionals who are generating said capital seriously.