Financial nuts and sledgehammers

Inflation is falling. That's good news after the Bank of England keeps telling us we're spending too much and using interest rate rises to batter anyone with a non-fixed rate mortgage.
I phrase it that way, because people who don't have a mortgage at all, who've already paid for their house, are way better off, with lots of opportunities for cash savings. People who got a fixed rate mortgage early enough are ok too. But if you have a mortgage at a discounted rate (if it's not discounted you need to renegotiate) then all these interest rises have been costing you.
Thing is, are the people with variable rate mortgages the same people spending money on credit cards and going into debt? Are these the same people having such an impact on inflation? And can we trust the inflation figures anyway, as they've been so tinkered with over the years for political ends?
My point is, if you want to stop people spending, then increasing the base lending rate isn't necessarily going to change it. Those with the fewest debts will continue to spend, while those with debts bear a greater burden. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people with debts to spend the additional amount they're having to pay to meet a rise on a personal investment instead? 20% of the population isn't saving any money at all, let alone investing it seriously. If we don't save, we'll always be in debt. No way out of it.
Wouldn't a more "outside the box" approach be to increase the amount of tax relief on pensions? So if you pay into a pension you get some more money from the government, rather than just paying it all back into a chain of banks? This encourages better personal financial practice and stops people spending frivolously.
Ok, it's no panacea, as the wealthier will continue to be better placed to take advantage. But it is an improvement on money going back into banks and people falling into heavier debt.
By the way, it's Credit Awareness Week this week, if you're interested.