Reform might be intent on crashing the economy, our society and even country, but it seems that the people of the UK want that to happen. This was from yesterday, but I missed it then:
Figures compare to the general election.
This is really not looking good. Labour's incompetence might be very costly.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As Brexit was a protest vote and Trump was a protest vote, now Reform is the protest vote.
Brexit was a protest vote that has done untold damage to the country.
As will the vote for Reform, if it happens.
Labour have been going for circa 6 months – into a 5 year stretch after 14 years of nonesense. They have made a poor start & thus it is time to ditch the neo-liberal baggage. The cabinet line-up is weak and Starmer needs to chuck out a bunch of them. I am unconvinced he has the will to do that (which is odd given his inclination to go after those of a left-wing persuasion).
The Trump regime will be a disaster and hopefully, deForm supporters will as a consequence have the wind taken out of their sails.
I can’t stand the reform party and you couldn’t even pay me cold hard cash, to vote in favour of them. But let’s not be blind here.
Nadine Dorries made it clear and I quote: “The donors have spoken”. That should leave people with zero doubt, that the electorate has essentially zero say in how the government is run.
This is the bit where everyone seems to have become blinded. When we had our last election, those donors migrated from the Tories, to the ‘Tories with a red tie’ party.
I told all of my friends that they were voting for the exact same thing, as they’ve just voted out. My reddit comments were down voted to oblivion for stating this shrewd observation. Yet here we are with more of the same and constant back peddaling, by red Tories that nuked the working class long ago.
It may seem cynical what I’m saying, but the exact same arguments I’d made against Brexit and changing the voting system happened. I don’t like this voting system one little bit, but I don’t trust the majority of our electorate to make, solid, educated decisions politically speaking either. And guess what? I’m betting, that in 5 years time? I’ll be correct…. Yet again.
Monetary illiterate UK voters thrashing around for solutions to the nation’s decline. Why on Earth would they think that Reform’s monetary system understanding will reverse this decline. The useless mainstream media have nothing to say on this!
Centre left vs far right just about balances. However Ed Davey has grandiosely ruled out coalition last week, as did Labour previously. Under FPTP we could be in trouble. The May elections could see Reform gaining power in councils. Our local Reform chaps (all white middle aged) were shown to be openly racist and misogynist in public events, although many of our local centre right (Tory and Independent) are emphatically neither. This does not bode well.
Wanted. A Sir Galahad to search and destroy the ultimate sacred relic of neoliberal monetary policy; The Full Funding Rule. (Call it the Holy Grail 2.0). Until this national groupthink is put down, UK governments are never going to unleash the spending power of its own sovereign fiat currency.
MS Copilot came up with some sources.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-11836-6_5?form=MG0AV3 .
And this years DMO Report https://www.dmo.gov.uk/media/4kihuxsy/drmr2425.pdf .
The is no doubt about the guilty party? https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/nigel-lawson-boom-bust-budget-chancellor-nigella-b1072239.html
The guilty party goes further back to Anthony Barber in the early 1970’s initiating the fifty odd year house price bubble in the UK by relaxing lending restrictions on the banks:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Barber
Wasn’t there a competition and credit control Act c.1971 which was repealed after two years? As I recall it set up ‘shadow banking’ which caused inflation esp. in property. In 1970 I bought a house for about five thousand and sold it in 1973 for £10,800. My salary didn’t double.
There was a massive banking crisis in the early 70s, for this reason. A lot of very odd banks failed as a result.
Look I totally agree with that view – Labour are sleepwalking to defeat just like Biden’s Democrats.
But the other side of the coin is that you cannot ignore the lying at scale that the public are enduring at this moment in time either and the corrupt money behind it. Labour’s failure to set the world alight funnels people towards bad actors.
You speak of people wanting this.
Do they really? People do not purposefully make life harder for themselves. BREXIT proved that – and people are even denied the opportunity to have buyers remorse because the fear is that a lesson will be learnt and our Establishment will not be in favour of the public learning anything because that will make them accountable won’t it and mean that they won’t get away with it next time? And they won’t be having that will they?
I think what people want is an answer to their problems.
I really do wish there were more people who questioned things but that is not the case.
What we are seeing is a failure of leadership by our leaders who are being undermined not only by their own incompetence and lack of principle but by people who are not afraid to lead from the shadows, who have no problem with identifying their sovereignty and exerting power.
Instead of serous politics we have a market based polity and we all know that the reality of markets is asymmetries of information that can be exploited by asymmetries of capital power and market position. Markets are really just areas for monopolists to operate in and help themselves.
We kid ourselves that markets are anything else these days and therefore everything is to be marketable and treated in this way – especially when we want change that changes the balance of power. The logic of the market will simply snuff that out.
There are answers to bad rule. They permeate human history.
Jonathan Pie’s latest video is a wonderful rant against the lying liars – avoid if you can’t cope with a few cusses!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R19bBpUw-U
Thanks. I particularly like “Morally bankrupt cockroach” – aka Musk. I propose to use MBC as code for Musk in the future.
I wouldn’t agree with your conclusion that people want the economy to crash. My own view would be that people’s voting intentions don’t tell us much at all, since it says nothing about someone’s knowledge, understanding, or the range of reasons why someone might vote a particular way (not including strategic voting). Since most people seem to believe that the economy is separate to govt/politics, and that govts tax this thing called economy to fund spending, they more than likely don’t believe that govt really holds sway over the economy in quite the way it does, and that the economy is a separate, primary entity. They may also be inclined to believe the “analysis” of economic presenters in the media, of think tanks, of govt itself (the black hole, the maxed out credit card and other guff). In some sense the voter is right, there is incompetence and poor decision making, but maybe not for the reasons they may think. However, I don’t believe the voting intentions show that people want a crashed economy, maybe it shows wishful thinking (but when does it ever not show that?), its too blunt a measure to read into with any confidence. They’re making the wrong choices, sure, but the range of options is dire in the first place. The greens are about the best (in my view), but if they found themselves in office, we’d probably see the same litany of broken promises, jam tomorrow. My view would be that voting shows faith in a system that will never deliver, because giving up power, which is the purpose of voting, is, in the main, not a good idea. It leaves one in the position, say, of wanting a publicly funded NHS, and helplessly watching it being handed over to the private sector.
Yesterday I posted an extract from a 2014 paper by Eric Tymoigne (“Modern Money Theory and Interrelations between the Treasury and the Central Bank: The Case of the United States”) in which he tells us a central insight of MMT is that contrary to Neoliberal thinking, for example that of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, running a government deficit is always an equilibrium position. Tymoigne uses the Massachusetts Bay Colonies to illustrate this central insight about money creation needing a government deficit equilibrium position. In this early individual state monetary history of the United States there was no central bank, no primary market, and no debt limit. The state money creation was called “bills of credit.” Today where the individual American states have united the main source of government money comes from the central bank key-stroking the money into existence on a computer although a small amount is created in physical form as bank notes and coins.
“… as long as the private sector desires to have a net accumulation of bills, there is no need to retire all of them through taxation in order to maintain their value; a government deficit is an equilibrium position … . Private economic agents desired to hold bills for other purposes than the payment of tax liabilities, namely daily expenses, private debt settlements, and precautionary savings.”
Page 5:-
https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_788.pdf
The take-away for Neoliberals from this Massachusetts Bay Colonies newly formed state creation of money example is that trying to balance the government’s books is medium to long term going to result in less economic demand and therefore lower economic growth! Two reasons for this. Firstly, the above needs or desires of the non-government or private sector remain in place but satisfying them has to take place within the context of a new equilibrium of less money in circulation. Secondly, as we know from the 2007/2008 Great Financial Crash the reaction to Bill Clinton running a government surplus was for households to substantially increase private licenced bank debt.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7584/CBP-7584.pdf
In a general context the following 2013 post by J D Alt in New Economic Perspectives needs to be born in mind:-
“It’s pretty obvious that as we create more and more of … REAL goods and services, we’re going to need more and more dollars in our money-lake—otherwise, one of two things will occur: (a) the dollar value of everything we own will begin to fall precipitously (deflation) because the same number of dollars has to be allocated to more and more stuff; or (b) we’ll have to begin producing FEWER real goods and services to keep prices aligned with the amount of money in the lake. This is called “shooting yourself in the foot,” although it would be more accurate to infer the aim is directed considerably higher.”
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/02/real-dollars-and-funny-money.html
Much to agree with
You guys are still making the basic error of judging Starmer by Labour standards!!
He’s as Tory as the last lot!
I amnot sure who that was aimed at, but it certainly suggests you have not enough of this blog if it was me or the leading commentators.
It was intended as a joke and certsinly not a dig but you know the adage ‘never a truer word than one spoken in jest’.
I firmly believe Starmer is not a labour man.
No idea what he is, other than totally clueless.
This is precisely the time when ‘public service boadcasters’ should step up to the plate. That young people seem to think the only alternative to Tory/SatarmerLabour is ultra right Reform must be, at least in part, that they have not understood there is a coherent alternative – that we have the money, that we could revive public services , could grow the economy, could reduce / eliminate poverty, homelessness etc – and offer some hope for the future.
But instead @BBC is renouncing it PSB role – just following Daily Mail narrative – platforming Farage , showing no interest in asking and/or showing whether there is a perfectly viable but opposite narrative to Reform .
@BBC breaks its editorial guidelines every day – yet another failing institution, helping to lead us into the abyss.
For three years in the previous decade I worked part time at a nationally ranked state grammar. The students in the mixed 6th form told me they NEVER looked to the MSM for objective news. At that time they watched Al Jazeera and the soon-to-be-banned RT. These students are on their way now to be top line professionals. At the academy I now work at, the majority of students don’t watch ANY news sources, merely TikTok and their social media. They are staggeringly uninformed compared to the grammar. However, their teachers are also in part staggeringly uninformed politically and economically. I thought I was limited in my understanding of the latter and have been helped by this blog. My colleagues in the main are however, and persuading them otherwise is very hard work.
I meet many seriously indifferent teachers in the sense they pay no attention to the world that shares the fortunes of their students.
Thank you, Richard.
I’m glad that you have posted this and the posts about Reeves.
Over Christmas I was in contact with a friend at the FT. I have known the journalist for a decade. Said journalist’s spouse is of Mauritian immigrant parentage, like me.
Said journalist was part of the FT team that interviewed Labour HQ and No 10 staff for a feature that was published just before Christmas. In that feature, McSweeney’s allies blamed Sue Gray for the lack of preparation for office and settled other scores.
As the FT and other media need to be inside the loop, the journalists did not publish all of what they heard. For example, Labour will not be outflanked from the right by Reform and looks forward to and even relishes the idea of fighting on Reform’s turf. This means promoting Starmer’s term as DPP and his crack down on terrorists and rioters, a euphemism for non-whites and successes that will played up in the MSM, and ensuring Ed Miliband does not succeed, even if that means he has has to go, as net zero is felt to be at odds with hero voter aspirations.
My friend was alarmed as they and their spouse, wedded since covid, would like to start a family and any resulting children will be mixed. I explained that’s why my parents and I are hoping to leave the country next year and some, but not all, ethnic minority acquaintances are planning, too, “quiet quitting and not being prepared to be scapegoated by Starmer.
With regard to Reeves, having taken in part in workshops involving the City and the then shadow Treasury and Business teams, any growth is a happy accident. Big Finance’s aims are to minimise friction on activity, maximise profit and take over what’s left of the British state. Labour is naive to think otherwise. In any case, the incentives are for Labour to deliver for its donors. Winning in 2029 means delivering for the British people, but they don’t matter as they have no money to reward Labour politicians and apparatchiks.
Depressing, all noted, and thanks.
First, this is not a “car crash moment” – it is not 1992 (leaving ERM) of 2022 (gilt sell off)… but something has to give.
“Squaring the circle” of better services, no tax rises and the fiscal rule requires us to believe that growth and reform can do the heavy lifting… it can’t.
So, either we have service cuts, tax rises or a larger deficit (whether funded by gilt issuance or new money)…. all of which were ruled out in the last election; tax and deficit explicitly, public services implicitly (that was the whole thrust of the campaign – improve services).
Reeves is wedded to the tax and deficit corners of this triangle so MUST push for spending cuts. Starmer is not – or should not be. He needs to say that the situation has changed and new policies are need… and then throw Reeves under the bus.
It’s the only way for Labour to keep control.
Agreed
As a sample the following article strongly suggests that giving the Labour government under Starmer much credence to affect the change the country badly needs largely amounts to whistling in the wind!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/ministers-to-appeal-against-river-pollution-ruling-won-by-yorkshire-anglers
Staggering…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/no-10-blocks-beaver-release-plan-tory-legacy
Another one here – it is just ridiculous that Johnson’s Tories (I know it was Carrie and not Johnson himself, but still) were far more environmentally aware than present-day Labour. How on earth can beavers be Tory legacy?
Bizarre
Here’s one thing you can do sign a petition to have Rachel Reeves removed for faking her CV:-
https://www.change.org/p/calls-for-reeves-s-resignation-or-fired-over-false-job-claim-allegations
I doubt anyone really wants to crash the economy. Certainly, from Richard’s post yesterday, Reform have no understanding of how the economy works and if they implemented their crazy policies they would crash it. And I very much doubt the electorate want to crash the economy either. Sadly we’re awash with disinformation from all sides (https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=62292), so people don’t know what is true and what is not.
What is an elector to do? They know that the Conservatives crashed the economy over the past decade. So they voted them out. Now they can see Labour adopting the same economic policies and crashing the economy (Reeves sounds much like Osborne to me). So what might the electorate do at next election? Well I doubt they will have forgiven the Tories. But they’ll want Labour out if they persist with their current policies. They see there is another party. “If both Tories and Labour crash the economy let’s try the new lot”, they might say. “Surely it can’t be worse” (yes it can). Given their lack of understanding, unsurprising with all the lies and misinformation, they might just vote Reform in.
The problem is that no party seems to have the understanding and policies to run the economy competently.
Optimistically, I hope the Labour party are forced to see the error of their ways, if only for fear of Reform. I hope they adopt more sensible policies. It is always hard to backtrack but they have time.
Your penultimate paragraph says it all
From what I (as an interested, yet financially unqualified person) see as a much larger picture of where the motivation for western economies is buried, found this article very interesting.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/13/business/enshittification-internet-meta-nightcap/index.html
I saw several years ago how the German dental industry was quietly taken over by private wealth. I understand this has recently become the same fate for high-end private housing, at least in the US.
It would appear that the rentier takover is in full blood. It’s not clear to me how this could be stopped, let alone reversed without a significant “event”, whatever that might be.
Just my $0.02
Here is a piece on Private Equity (takeover titans / corporate raiders) so beloved by LINO (Labour in Name Only) have done in the USA:
How private equity conquered America takeover titans corporate raiders – Chris Hedges talking with Gretchen Morgenson, author of These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America, :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shv9g-4xXww
Referring back to the start of this blog and the polling figures…the need for a PR voting system is just so vital. If we go into the next election with FPTP, Labour (LINO) will have failed the whole country. That I think is an understatement. Compare with Trudeau’s present regrets. Do Starmer and co care? I’ve no idea. I campaign a lot with/for Make Votes Matter…talks in schools and elsewhere, street stalls, enabling local groups’ set up. It’s not difficult to see a Con/Reform party with 34% …as now…of the vote and a working majority. For me raising awareness of voting reform is so necessary…the defence of the status quo by the right wing media, Tufton Street and Tories will be full of obfuscation, lies, misinformation, gas lighting, scaremongering …and the unaware electorate will be easily swayed.
Going by the sneering posts on social media, Starmerites seem to have no understanding of fiat currency, taxation, the size of national expenditure, the relevance of Gaza to people’s attitudes, the international problems that will be raised by Trump……and my local Labour MP Robertson follows in the footsteps of his predecessor Fabricant, in parroting party PR.
I see that the Left are starting to organise themselves into a Party called Collective.
Details at https://we-are-collective.org/
The main organisers for a new Collective Party appear to be The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition:-
https://www.tusc.org.uk/
Perhaps worthwhile contacting Clive Heemskerk at cliveheemskerk@socialistparty.org.uk to see if an MMT perspective is emerging yet as a core basis for Collective’s anti-austerity stance. A guest post might be in order.
Sadly the phrase “tax the rich to save the NHS” suggests a lack of understanding of the MMT lens, but there is time to change that