Funding the Future

Governments aren't like households

Politicians keep telling us the government must “live within its means” like a household. That idea is wrong. It is also dangerous.
In this video, I explain why a currency-issuing government is fundamentally different from a household, how money is actually created, why deficits create private surpluses, and how the household budget myth has justified austerity, weakened public services, and cut social security in the UK since 2010.
We need honest economics, not myths that limit democratic ambition. Real limits are resources, skills, energy, and environmental capacity, not money.
Understanding this is essential if we want an economy based on care, not the politics of destruction.

Is the NHS captured?

Medicine sits where fear meets trust, and Big Pharma - the companies that make up the Medical Industrial Complex - know that.
In this video, I explain how the 1910 Flexner Report, written in the USA at the peak of an era of toxic capitalism, reshaped medicine, why big pharmaceutical companies gained power as a result, and how the NHS is now at risk of becoming a profit gernation machine rather than a care system.
This is not about denying science. It is about asking who benefits from today’s model of healthcare and why prevention, public health and social care are being sidelined.
We need a politics of care, not a politics of profit.

Why are people angry?

People in the UK are angry, and they have good reasons. Stagnant wages, housing costs, collapsing public services and growing inequality are real. But the far-right exploits that anger instead of solving it.
In this video, I explain:
- The real economic causes of anger
- How neoliberal austerity created insecurity
- Why migrants are scapegoated
- Why a politics of care is the real solution
This is Funding the Future in practice – an economics of hope, not hate.

What would expelling 2 million people cost?

What would actually happen if the UK deported two million people in three years, as Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain political party proposes?
In this video, I look at the real economics and not the slogans.
- NHS staffing and social care would collapse
- Construction and food supply would face massive disruption
- We'd have falling GDP and tax revenues
- And there would be rising inflation, and austerity
This is not immigration policy. It is economic self-harm driven by a politics of hate.
A politics of care offers a real alternative: investment in social care, strengthening social security, training workers, taxing wealth fairly, and rebuilding the capacity Britain actually needs.

Does limited liability protect the rich?

Limited liability is treated as harmless legal plumbing, but it is one of the most powerful privileges granted to wealth in the UK and around the world. In this Funding the Future conversation with Professor Dan Plesch, we explore how corporate law shields shareholders from responsibility, fuels secrecy and tax abuse, and distorts democracy.
We explain where limited liability came from, why it now protects inequality, and what reforms could restore balance between corporations and society.
This matters for tax justice, corporate accountability and the politics of care.

Are we going to be a racist state?

Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain paper on mass deportations is not just about migration, although that is its toxic superficial focus. It is also about power, law, and the kind of state we want to live in.
In this video, I explain why his proposals would require dismantling human rights law, rewriting the UK constitution, and creating a politics of hate that harms everyone and not just the millions of migrants he wants to expel from this country.
My suggestion is that we choose something else: a politics of care, investment, and social security that protects everyone's well-being.
This is about the UK’s future. What state do we want? Lowe's dystopian state of hate, or one where everyone can flourish?
 

“Woke” is not an insult

“Woke” once meant awareness of injustice. Now it is used to mock compassion. This video explains how culture-war language protects wealth and power, and why reclaiming the language of care matters for democracy and economic justice.

Neoliberalism is the politics of destruction

In this video, I explain why neoliberalism is not a mistake but a system built to shift power from people to corporations. This politics of destruction delivers an economics of failure with underfunded public services, rising inequality and shrinking democracy. I also explain why fiscal rules like those promoted by Rachel Reeves reinforce this failure, and why a politics of care offers the best real alternative.

Corruption is built into neoliberalism

I recently recorded another Funding the Future podcast with John Christensen, with whom I have discussed tax justice and corruption for more than twenty-five years. We set out to talk about why corruption is suddenly back in the headlines. We concluded that corruption has not suddenly appeared. It has been embedded in our economic system for decades.
In this conversation we discuss:
• Why trust in banks, governments and corporations has collapsed since 2008
• How tax havens, secrecy jurisdictions and professional enablers make corruption routine
• Why the UK and the USA sit at the centre of global financial secrecy
• How sectoral balances explain the UK’s dependence on foreign money flowing into the City of London
• Why corruption indices often ignore the real sources of global illicit finance
• The role of think tanks, lobbying and political capture
• What reforms could work – country-by-country reporting, ending investor-state dispute systems, and restoring democratic accountability
Corruption is not just about bribery. It is about power, secrecy and rules written for the benefit of the wealthy. If we want a politics of care and an economy that works for people, we must tackle systemic corruption honestly.

Are we being conspired against?

Conspiracies exist. But they are not secret meetings in dark rooms.
They are systems of coordinated power operating in plain sight.
States pursue power. Corporations shape regulation. Finance influences policy. Big tech lobbies governments. Trade rules protect capital. Electoral systems entrench incumbents.
This is not fantasy. It is political economy.
In this video, I explain the difference between conspiracy theories and structural conspiracies: the coordination of wealth and power against ordinary people.
I look at regulatory capture, media concentration, first-past-the-post, tax havens, lobbying, and the idea of managed consent.
And I note the real danger is not paranoia. It is passivity. Democracy only survives if it is defended.