To think Rachel Reeves patronised the public with her rhetoric on cash ISAs?!

Yeah but the alternative is basically slow decline of our public services .. but I guess that's what the British public deserves at this point..

Abolishing the triple lock would be electoral suicide and make the WFA appear akin to a chimpanzee’s tea party, as you infer.

Labour know this, of course.

@MyNameIsX Similarly, with the proposed change to ISA’s - irrespective of whether its the right investment decision for the investor and/or offers the best returns.

I didn't see anything in the proposals suggesting she was limiting S&S ISAs to be UK only equities.

The real problem is that the public do not seem to understand that you can't have European public services with American levels of tax.

The fact is that we do need to raise taxes to have decent public services, especially after 15 years of the Tories squeezing the public sector

The question is where those taxes should fall. The ridiculously histrionic reaction to the winter fuel payment shows how difficult this is.

I do think this government has not shown the leadership it should have done - they should have gone a lot further and scrapped the triple lock on pensions but they didn't have the guts.

Oh ok

Exactly, she's not hidden the fact that she wants to increase investment. So I'm not sure why you would feel lied to. As PP says, it's possible to have more than one reason behind a policy.

I voted Labour and I think that Reeves is totally out of her depth as chancellor and is in fact a danger to the economy.

It has been one disastrous idea after another under her 'leadership'.

Starmer needs to get rid of her.

It probably is in their interests, unless those savings are short term. Keeping your money in cash savings is a sure fire way to have it eroded by inflation over the long run. Investing is riskier in the short run but safer in the long run, because it’s more likely to beat inflation. If you’re saving for 20+ years then, with some exceptions, a cash ISA is probably a really bad idea.

The point is this.

Reeves is being disingenuous (again). The real reason she wants to ‘reform’ pensions, is to create mega funds, which will be compelled to invest a certain percentage of their capital in UK infrastructure projects etc. Similarly, with the proposed change to ISA’s - irrespective of whether its the right investment decision for the investor and/or offers the best returns.

I have been cutting my exposure to UK equities, and will continue to do so, given the utter horlicks Labour are making with the economy.

Incidentally, it is also possible for more than one reason to support a policy change.

So it is possible to support cutting the Cash ISA limit because it would direct more money into investment and boost the economy and because it would likely result in better returns for people and therefore overall increases in wealth in the country (with attendant economic benefits).

The claim that Reeves stated reason for exploring this was a lie is nonsense.

I read the OP. But I'm not clear on what you think her 'real' reason is for the ISA proposal.

Purely a tax take assuming that people won't go into S&S ISAs and more into taxable cash savings? She wants people to invest in UK companies to grow the economy? An evil plan to unnerve people who don't like any risk in their portfolios?

Everyone seems to ignore that tax benefits like this are designed to shift behaviour. They're not designed because there is some inherent necessity that your income from interest earned on your savings should be subject to less tax than your income from work, or pensions, or self-employment. It was designed to encourage people to save. Lots of good reasons to do so at the time.

There's a reasonable argument that the necessary shifts in behaviour now is to encourage more people to invest - less money sitting around in bank accounts and more being used to fund business activity to create jobs and generate growth.

I'm not 100% convinced that this is necessarily the right way to achieve that, but getting more money invested in the economy is absolutely the right thing to be aiming for.

And I'd rather have a Chancellor who explores how best to do that but sells it in a 'patronising' way than a Chancellor who has no ideas at all on boosting investment.

What do you believe she is lying or pretending about?

Watch the waterworks increase when Starmer fails to confirm her tenure.

That’s self-pity, but OK, weakness if you wish.

It’s not self-pity.

It’s weakness.

I don’t recall seeing Gordon Brown or George Osborne crying in Parliament. Because, whether you agreed with their policies or not, they weren’t weak.

Fair enough.

I judge the person on their actions and their behaviour - I have seen enough of Reeves to have formed a firm opinion - a negative one.

What is worrying is that she is considered a moderate - hence the reaction in the bond markets following her sobbing episode. Who or what replaces her could be worse.

What Reeves isn’t taking into account, is that whilst her healthy public sector pension is not invested in equities, those of us in DC schemes are already heavily exposed to equities via our pension schemes. I do not want or need, anymore exposure to equities as I already have about £500k via my pension pot. I don’t want my pension and my savings invested in one asset. She, and the rest of her public sector mates, would be well advised to take on some equity exposure - I’d rather stick my cash under a mattress than take on anymore risk.

YES.

@AlastheDaffodils ‘Make better decisions’ for whom? It’s probably not in individual households’ interests to take more risk with savings.

Why, because she became emotional in parliament?

Well, she’s evidently into self-pity already.