The Government wants pension companies to allocate more of your retirement savings to private equity, infrastructure projects, and so-called “growth assets”.

They say it will boost the economy and deliver better long-term returns.

But let’s be honest about what is really happening here.

Politicians are trying to steer ordinary people’s pension money into areas they want funded. And if it goes wrong, it won’t be ministers paying the price. It will be you.

Your pension is supposed to exist for one reason only: to provide you with the best possible retirement outcome. It should not be used as a political tool.

And yet that is exactly the direction we are heading in.

We Have Seen This Movie Before

We are constantly told that private markets and infrastructure investing are “the future”. But many supposedly sophisticated investments have ended disastrously.

Look at:

• HS2 – projected costs exploded from around £37bn to well over £100bn, while large sections were scrapped
• Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) – years late and billions over budget.
• Britishvolt – a heavily promoted UK battery project that collapsed before delivering promises.
• EDF/Hinkley Point C – years delayed and costs repeatedly escalating.
• The Garden Bridge Project – £50m spent on a London bridge that was never built.
• WeWork – once valued at $47 billion before imploding.
• Greensill Capital – heavily backed by institutions before failing almost overnight.
• Neil Woodford’s Patient Capital fund – sold as a long-term investment success story before investors became trapped in illiquid holdings.
• Peloton – huge private investor enthusiasm before value destruction and mass layoffs after the post-COVID crash.
• Countless “green” and infrastructure projects that burned through billions with little return.

These investments often sound exciting at the beginning:

• “transformational”
• “innovative”
• “Nation-building”
• “long-term opportunity”

Then reality arrives like a punch in the face.

Costs explode. Returns disappoint. Liquidity disappears. Investors are trapped.

Meanwhile, the people who promoted the investments have already moved on.

Does anyone seriously believe politicians suddenly possess a special talent for investment management?

Because that is effectively what they are now asking pension savers to trust them with.

Even more worrying is the quiet co-operation from parts of the pension industry itself.

Many pension providers (including Aviva, Legal & General, Nest, The People’s Pension, to name but a few) appear increasingly willing to follow the Government’s agenda rather than challenge it. But pension firms do not exist to please ministers. Their duty is to protect their clients.

Some providers are still putting investment logic ahead of political pressure. Scottish Widows, for example, refused to sign the Mansion House Accord and chose global diversification over Government-directed investing.

Pension providers have a fiduciary duty to act in clients’ best interests — not to support Government industrial policy.

Most Savers Won’t Even Realise It’s Happening

The new rules affect “default funds” – the workplace pension funds millions of people are automatically placed into.

Most workers never actively choose these investments.

They simply trust the system.

That trust is now being eroded.

If higher-risk, illiquid investments underperform over the next 10 or 20 years, there will be no politician reimbursing your pension pot. Meanwhile, politicians themselves enjoy taxpayer-backed defined benefit pension schemes, insulated from the investment risks being pushed onto ordinary savers.

No minister will write you a cheque.

No Government department will accept responsibility for lower retirement incomes.

At Chatfield, we believe pension investments should be driven by clients’ financial interests – not political priorities.

As a result, we will be reviewing the default investment funds used within our clients’ workplace pensions and auto-enrolment schemes to ensure they remain appropriate, diversified, and aligned with clients’ long-term interests.

Where we believe pension providers are drifting toward politically influenced investment strategies, we will challenge this and discuss alternative options.

Most importantly, we want clients to understand that they are not powerless.

You do not have to remain invested in a default fund simply because your pension provider placed you there automatically.

Savers Need to Push Back

This is not about being against investment or economic growth.

It is about protecting the principle that your pension belongs to you – not the Government.

If you are uncomfortable with this direction of travel, review your pension arrangements. Ask questions. Understand what your pension is invested in. Challenge providers who appear more interested in political alignment than client outcomes.

Because once Governments discover they can direct pension capital toward their own priorities, they rarely stop voluntarily.

And history shows ordinary savers usually discover the risks far too late.