Now here’s the terrifying bit. She’s doing it with your pension pot.

Reeves is right to go for growth. Heaven knows we need it, after the damage she’s done.

Her tax-and-spend autumn Budget choked off growth almost overnight. Now her “jobs tax” is boosting unemployment and causing chaos.

Still, credit where it’s due. Reeves appears to have learned something.

Rather than banging on about who she plans to tax next, she’s scrambling to find ways to grow the economy instead.

Which is where your pension comes in.

Reeves has just persuaded 17 of the UK’s biggest pension providers to sign a pledge under the so-called Mansion House Accord. They’ve agreed to pump £25billion into UK projects such as social housing, clean energy and infrastructure by 2030.

In total, at least 10% of the defined contribution pension funds they hold will go into unlisted businesses.

Around 5% of that is earmarked for the UK, with the rest targeting overseas opportunities. That takes the total to a punchy £50billion.

On the face of it, that sounds great. The UK urgently needs investment, and this could help reverse the long trend of our pensions favouring overseas assets over domestic ones.

Reeves says this shows our pensions are now “ready to back Britain”.

As always when she speaks, there’s a catch.

These patriotic investments are being made with the hard-earned savings from ordinary workers’ pension pots.

If these bets don’t pay off, ordinary retirees will take the hit.

The likes of Aegon, Aviva, Legal & General, M&G, Phoenix and Royal London have all signed up. Reeves says it this will “unlock billions” for vital infrastructure and “exciting” start-ups.

And the public seems on board too. A Cushon survey found most savers want their pensions invested in productive UK assets that boost retirement standards.

But that’s a loaded question. Of course we’d all like higher retirement incomes, but what if these investments fail?

Unlisted businesses, clean energy, infrastructure and private equity may be exciting, but they’re ultra-high risk.

Returns are far from guaranteed.

Are pension firms doing this because it makes financial sense, or to keep the Chancellor happy? Their number one duty is to deliver returns for savers, not win political favour. This risks crossing a dangerous line.

Now here’s the really worrying bit.

The Treasury is basing its numbers on a growth rate of 17% a year. Even the Labour-backing Guardian newspaper called this “adventurous arithmetic”.

If I spotted an investment offering that kind of return, I’d call Action Fraud.

Then there’s the issue of where the money’s going.

The Association of British Insurers backs the move, but warns the government needs to build a proper pipeline of investment opportunities.

Are we really relying on the Treasury to pick the right projects? That didn’t work in the 1970s. The only difference is that today it’s using pensioners’ money.

Labour has a terrible track record of destroying the value of workplace pensions, starting with Gordon Brown’s notorious stealth tax raid in 1997.

By the time we know whether this one has backfired too, Reeves will be long gone.

There is, at least, one holdout. Scottish Widows, owned by Lloyds Banking Group, has refused to sign. CEO Chirantan Barua says investment decisions should be based on returns, not geography. He’s right.

He’s also stating the obvious. That’s his primary duty to pension scheme members.

Reeves is crossing a dangerous line. And so far, only one company has had the nerve to say no.

Would you trust Reeves with your workplace pension? I’m afraid you just did.