George Trefgarne notes that Gordon Brwon seems to be talking about compulsory pensions…and he then points out why this may be a bad idea:

But the more I think about it, the more worried I am
about compulsion (the word alone is enough to put you off). For we’ve
already got a compulsory pension scheme. It is called National
Insurance. Employers and employees already have to contribute about a
tenth of salaries into the official National Insurance Fund. Except,
the National Insurance Fund exists only as an accounting device at HM
Revenue & Customs. There is no fund in any true sense and, over the
years, National Insurance has degenerated into another tax. The scheme
is also vastly over-promised and some future government is bound to rat
on paying out to pensioners.

That is the trouble
with coercion. If the Government can force us to hand over money, even
if it is not actually a tax by name, it will soon develop many of the
characteristics of one. There is not very much we can do if the
authorities change the rules, misappropriate the funds, or invest them
poorly in its own bonds (which is where the balances of the National
Insurance go). The other country, apart from Australia, with a
compulsory pension scheme is Chile and the system there has been beset
by several scandals about overcharging by fund managers and poor
investment performance. Evidently, being compelled to do something and
being a customer are fundamentally at odds.

I think he’s a little harsh on the Chilean example but on his major point he might be correct. Why wouldn’t it become just another tax? Or if some of the more economically illiterate of the left were elected, why wouldn’t there be rules limiting investments? Perhaps to domestic companies, perhaps on ethical grounds?