Funding the Future

What is it about Reform?

Reform is rising because trust in politics has collapsed. Economic insecurity, failing public services, unaffordable housing, insecure work and a loss of belonging have created the conditions in which Reform can thrive.
In this video, I argue that Reform is not the cause of Britain’s problems; it is a symptom of much deeper failures that have been building for decades.
I explain why so many people have lost faith in Labour, the Conservatives, government institutions and the political establishment as a whole.
I look at the role played by austerity, deindustrialisation, stagnant wages, housing shortages, declining public services and the growing sense that mainstream politics no longer understands the lives of ordinary people.
The video also explores why immigration has become such a powerful political issue, and why it is often acting as a proxy for wider anxieties about insecurity, identity, opportunity and control. Simply dismissing or attacking Reform voters will not solve these problems. Understanding why people are angry is essential if an alternative is to be created.
Most importantly, I set out what that alternative might look like. I argue for a politics of care based on security, dignity, health, housing, opportunity and democratic participation. Drawing on modern monetary theory and resulting policies of full employment, I explain why governments have far more capacity to act than neoliberal economics suggests, and why rebuilding hope is the only effective response to the politics of grievance.
If Reform is to be challenged, the conditions that created it must be changed. This video explains how that might happen, and why the future of British politics may depend upon it.

What if national debt = national savings?

What if the national debt is not a burden at all?
What if it is simply the nation’s savings? 
Any sensible analysis shows that this so-called debt is no such thing: it's just a massive savings bank operation.
That sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. In fact, understanding this point changes almost everything about how we think about government finance, public spending, austerity and economic policy.
In this video, I explain why every pound of government debt is also somebody else’s financial asset. I show why government bonds are not like household debt, why they function as savings accounts with the state, and why the financial system depends upon them. Pension funds, insurance companies, banks and many of the world’s largest investors all rely on UK government bonds as a safe place to hold wealth.
I also explain why governments that issue their own currency are fundamentally different from households, why the UK government cannot run out of pounds, and why the idea that Britain must one day “pay off the national debt” makes little economic sense. The national debt exists because people and institutions want somewhere secure to save their money, and the government has a duty to accept those savings. 
Along the way, I challenge some of the most common myths in economics.
Are bond markets really in control of governments?
Do bond vigilantes dictate public policy?
Does rising government debt automatically create a crisis?
Or have politicians, economists and commentators misunderstood the role that government bonds actually play in a modern economy?
The answers matter because misunderstanding government debt has helped justify decades of unnecessary austerity, underinvestment, and fear about public spending. If we get the nature of government bonds wrong, we get much of economic policy wrong as well.
If the national debt is actually national savings, then the debate about government finance needs to start in a very different place.

Why are the rich still partying?

Oil prices are under threat. Food supplies are becoming more fragile. Critical raw materials are under strain. The risk of a major economic shock is growing by the day.
Yet stock markets remain close to record highs.
Why?
In this video, I explore the strange disconnect between financial markets and economic reality. The FTSE 100 and S&P 500 continue to rise despite mounting geopolitical risks, growing pressure on energy supplies, concerns about fertiliser production, and warnings that supply chains could be seriously disrupted.
I suggest there are three reasons why this is happening.
First, pension funds and life assurance companies continue to pour money into stock markets because that is what they have been trained to do. Institutional habits create a constant flow of money into shares, regardless of whether those shares are realistically valued. There will be a heavy price to pay for this. 
Second, markets are behaving irrationally. We have seen this before. The dotcom bubble and the financial crisis of 2008 both followed periods when investors convinced themselves that prices could only ever rise. Today, AI speculation appears to be creating a similar mood of market exuberance.
Third, the ultra-wealthy live in a world detached from everyday experience. Rising food prices, energy bills and housing costs do not affect them in the same way that they affect most people. As long as asset prices keep rising, they have little reason to question what is happening.
I also discuss the growing risks hidden within the shadow banking system, the lessons we should have learned from 2008, and why governments should already be preparing for the possibility of another financial crisis.
Most importantly, I ask what should happen if another bailout becomes necessary. Should taxpayers once again rescue private institutions with nothing in return? Or should public support come with public ownership?
The wealthy may still be celebrating, but every financial party eventually ends. The real question is who controls what happens when it does.
 

The EU: should we go back?

Brexit failed. Britain is poorer as a result, trade is harder, investment is weaker, and many of the promises made during the referendum campaign never materialised. The evidence increasingly suggests that the UK economy is smaller than it would otherwise have been, while businesses, universities, scientists, artists and musicians all face barriers that did not previously exist.
As a result, Labour is quietly moving back towards Europe. Keir Starmer talks about closer ties and a reset in relations, and many people now assume that rejoining the European Union is only a matter of time. But is that really the right answer?
This video asks a question that very few politicians are willing to discuss honestly. What would rejoining the EU actually mean? Would it solve Britain’s problems, or would it create new ones? What would happen if the UK was expected to move towards membership of the euro? What would that mean for monetary sovereignty, fiscal policy, democracy and the ability of governments to respond to economic crises?
I argue that Brexit failed, but I also argue that the EU is not without serious flaws. Its fiscal rules, democratic weaknesses, and commitment to neoliberal economic thinking create real problems for member states. That means Britain needs to think carefully before assuming that full EU membership is the only alternative to Brexit.
There may be another way. Countries such as Norway and Switzerland have developed different relationships with Europe that provide access, cooperation and economic integration without requiring full political integration. Could a Norwegian-style arrangement through EFTA and the EEA provide a better route for Britain?
This video explores the options and asks what kind of relationship with Europe would best serve Britain’s future. The answer is not as simple as either Brexit supporters or EU enthusiasts would like to suggest.

What matters: food or free markets?

Most people think the next economic crisis will begin when shortages become obvious and prices start soaring.
I disagree.
The battle over the next economic crisis has already begun, and what worries me most is not the shortages themselves. It is the growing resistance to doing anything effective about them.
After appearing on BBC Radio Five Live to discuss Rachel Reeves’ proposed food price cap, I came away convinced that many people still believe markets can solve every problem. Faced with shortages of food, fuel or energy, their answer remains the same: let competition work, let prices rise and let markets adjust.
But what happens when people cannot afford those prices?
Markets can ration food by price. They can ration fuel by price. They can ration energy by price. What they cannot do is guarantee that everyone gets access to essential goods when shortages emerge.
That is the issue we need to confront.
In this video, I explain why I think Britain faces the risk of a genuine supply crisis, why free-market dogma could make that crisis much worse, and why the opposition to intervention is already organising itself. Calls for rationing, market support, public provision or emergency government action are already being dismissed as socialist or statist.
The real question is simple. When shortages arrive, should access to food, fuel and energy depend upon the ability to pay, or should the government act to ensure everyone gets what they need?
I argue that food, fuel and energy must be treated as public goods in a crisis. The alternative is rising hardship, growing anger and potentially serious social unrest.
The crisis may still be ahead of us.
The fight over how we respond to it has already begun.

Are we ready for the crash?

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not just another geopolitical shock. It is the beginning of a physical supply crisis that could transform the British economy and everyday life.
Oil, gas, fertiliser and food supplies are all under threat. This is not a banking crisis like 2008, and it is not a pandemic like 2020. This time, the problem is scarcity itself.
In this video, I explain why inflation caused by shortages cannot be solved with interest rate rises, why the Bank of England is going to use the wrong tools in this crisis unless it's told not to, and why rationing, price controls, and direct government intervention in the economy may become unavoidable.
I look at what this could mean for fuel prices, food supplies, mortgages, unemployment, social care, housing and the wider economy.
I also explain why banks could once again require public rescue, why governments may need to support strategic industries directly, and why conventional neoliberal assumptions may no longer work in conditions like these.
This is not an argument for panic. It is an argument for preparedness. Markets alone cannot manage a crisis created by shortages of essential goods. If governments fail to plan now, the social and economic consequences could be severe.
That's why wartime lessons from the past matter again. Rationing and price controls worked in WWII, and they might be needed now, when fairness will be essential to maintaining public trust during a period of major disruption.
The question is no longer whether the UK can afford to respond as I suggest is necessary. The question is whether it has the political courage to do so, because the real risk in this crisis is not that the government runs out of money. It is that it fails to use the powers it already has before events begin to spiral out of control.

Central banks failed on inflation

Central banks claim they defeated inflation by raising interest rates. The evidence suggests otherwise.
In this video, I look at seven major economies, including the UK, USA, Eurozone, Canada and Australia, and show why inflation was largely driven by supply shocks, not excess demand.
I also explain why inflation was already falling before many interest rate rises had been completed, why higher rates may now themselves be feeding inflationary pressure, and why the social costs of these policies have fallen hardest on working people.
The result is a serious challenge to the entire theory behind modern central banking.
This video also asks whether so-called independent central banks are really independent at all, when they all reacted in almost exactly the same way to the inflation crisis of 2021 and 2022.
The evidence suggests central banks reacted too late, used the wrong tools for the wrong problem, and may now be trapping economies in a cycle of structurally high interest rates and persistent inflation.
So, has the whole model failed?

Burnham’s economics will not work

Andy Burnham says he wants to break with the failed neoliberal economics that have damaged Britain for decades. He talks about public ownership, reindustrialisation, regional investment and rebuilding public services. But does his programme actually deliver any of those things?
In this video I look in detail at what Burnham is really proposing, and whether it amounts to genuine economic change or simply a softer version of the same failed system.
I argue that Burnham’s model of “public ownership” often looks remarkably similar to the regulatory framework that already failed in the water industry. Thames Water, sewage dumping, dividend extraction and infrastructure collapse all happened under systems of public regulation combined with private ownership.
At the same time, Burnham says he would still obey Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules. That means accepting the same Treasury constraints that have blocked serious public investment for decades.
So can you really challenge neoliberalism while reassuring the bond markets, protecting fiscal rules and refusing to confront the power of finance?
This video examines the contradictions at the heart of Burnham’s programme and asks whether Labour still has any real alternative to the economic model that created Britain’s current crisis.

Britain’s hidden second government

Who really governs Britain?
In this video, I explore the hidden political power of the City of London Corporation and the offshore finance network linked to it.
Most people have heard of the City of London, but very few understand that it operates under a unique constitutional structure unlike anything else in the UK.
Businesses vote in its elections. It has its own police force. It enjoys extraordinary political access. And it acts globally on behalf of finance capital.
I argue that the City lies at the centre of the global tax haven system connecting London to Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the British Virgin Islands, and more. Together, these places create a network designed to protect wealth from taxation, regulation, and democratic accountability.
This matters because governments increasingly behave as though the financial sector has veto power over democratic choice. Policies are shaped around “market confidence” rather than public well-being.
I also discuss the reforms required if democracy is to regain control over finance, including transparency, beneficial ownership registers, public reporting, sanctions on secrecy jurisdictions, and the abolition of corporate voting rights within the City itself.
The question is simple: should finance govern democracy, or should democracy govern finance?

Inheritance tax is grossly unfair

The Financial Times has published remarkable data on inheritance tax in the UK. Just five London parliamentary constituencies paid more inheritance tax than the whole of Scotland and Wales combined. Ten London seats paid more than the entire north of England over five years.
But the FT then drew the wrong conclusion.
This video explains why the real story is not that Britain depends on wealthy Londoners to fund the state. A currency-issuing government does not depend on the rich for money. Instead, the data reveals something much bigger and more important, which is the catastrophic consequences of the concentration of wealth in London and the long-term failure of UK regional economic policy.
I explain what tax is actually for, why inheritance tax is meant to redistribute wealth, and why the UK economy has become so distorted that entire regions have been systematically left behind.
This is a story about inequality, financial power, failed neoliberal economics and the political choices that created modern Britain.
The real question is not whether the government can afford to, or should, tax wealth. It is about why wealth has been allowed to become so concentrated in the first place.
If you want to understand inheritance tax, inequality, the role of the Financial Times in the wealth tax debate, and why Britain’s economy increasingly works only for a wealthy minority, this video explains the bigger picture.