Funding the Future

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.
 

What happens when superpowers can’t win wars?

Three of the world's most powerful militaries are simultaneously stuck in conflicts they cannot win.
 
Russia has not defeated Ukraine after four years. America has not forced Iran to surrender after three months. Israel has not destroyed Hamas after two and a half years.
 
This is not a run of bad luck. It is a pattern, and it is telling us something devastating about the assumptions that now drive UK defence policy.
The three failing wars — and what each one proves:
Russia invaded Ukraine and expected victory in days and got years of war, catastrophic casualties, massive equipment losses, and an economy permanently distorted, with Ukraine still undefeated.
The USA attacked Iran to supposedly eliminate its nuclear capability on 28 February 2026; three months later, Iran's government is intact, its military is intact, its population has not surrendered, and the Strait of Hormuz is closed.
Israel invaded Gaza in October 2023. Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, genocide and ethnic cleansing have happened, and yet Hamas is not destroyed, there is no functioning administration, and there is no peace, nor any sign of when it might be achieved.
What the pattern tells us:
Military superiority no longer translates into political victory.
The post-war military-industrial complex that was built on the assumption that overwhelming force would produce military resolutions to conflict is failing in real time.
Every one of these conflicts has increased instability, and not reducing it.
The UK is now committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence, with no coherent explanation of what political outcomes that spending is supposed to achieve.
What actually works and what the UK should be promoting is something quite different:
Diplomacy, international law, and multilateral institutions have delivered durable peace where military force has not.
The post-war European settlement, built on economic integration and institution building, not rearmament, is the model that worked
Patient negotiation and the politics of care are not weaknesses; they are now the only approaches to conflict resolution with an evidence base.
The UK is sleepwalking into a 3% GDP defence commitment at the precise moment three superpower militaries are demonstrating that military spending does not win wars. This video asks the question Westminster refuses to ask: what is it actually for?

Trump does not care

Donald Trump may accidentally have told the truth this week. He openly admitted that he was not thinking about the financial well-being of ordinary Americans when deciding his policy on Iran. That matters because it reveals something fundamental about both Trump and the system that created him.
In this video, I explore why Trump’s government increasingly looks like a government of billionaires for billionaires, detached from the economic reality facing ordinary people. Rising food prices, fuel costs, inflation, shortages and supply chain failures are becoming real pressures across the world, and yet those at the top appear indifferent to the consequences.
I argue that this is not simply about Trump as an individual. It is about the endgame of neoliberalism itself. A political and economic system built to transfer wealth upwards is now failing economically, politically, socially and even militarily. The warning signs are everywhere: disrupted trade, shortages, financial instability, rising insecurity and growing public anger.
The question now is what comes next. Can politics based on care, security and well-being replace a model built on extraction and inequality before the damage becomes irreversible?