I watched last night's Panorama, which asked the question 'Is Britain Broke?'
The argument was:
- We're old.
- We're unhealthy.
- We need more benefits because we have mental health issues.
- We're going to be at war.
And:
- We can't borrow, because the markets won't permit it.
- There is no room to tax the wealthy more (from Paul Johnson, ex the Institute for Fiscal Studies, now an Oxford don).
- Interest costs are out of control.
So:
- Ordinary people will have to pay more tax.
But they noted:
- Real wage rises have not happened despite growth in the UK over the last two decades, constraining the capacity to tax most people more.
No one joined the dots, which were all over my screen. Those dots were:
- If there has been growth but wages have not gone up, someone must have benefited enormously. They have. They are:
- Companies, of all sizes, all of whom underpay tax, given the benefits they get from the state.
- Rentiers of all sorts are winning hands down, including quite literally landlords and banks, but others as well, especially when exploiting brands.
- Wealth is massively under-taxed, as the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 shows.
- Polluters are under-taxed.
- The BBC needs to stop using the household analogy and also needs to recognise:
- 30% of the UK's national debt is still owned by the government.
- In that case, 30% of interest paid is also being paid to the government.
- The government can create whatever money it likes if there are resources to be put to use.
- It can repeat QE if necessary to deal with shocks.
- QE need never be reversed, meaning QT, which has been massively increasing returns to banks whilst impoverishing households, is wholly unnecessary.
What this means then, is that:
- The UK's financial architecture, which is designed to meet the needs of the rentier, the banker, the wealthy, and those who exploit, needs to be transformed.
- We need to rebuild with a productive economy.
- That requires leadership from the state.
- Money is no constraint on this happening.
- If consumption must be constrained, it is the excess consumption of the wealthy that has to be constrained by far the most.
None of this was mentioned, of course.
This programme was a total failure. It did not ask the right questions. The BBC produced guidelines on economics broadcasting a while ago. I suspect this programme breached many of them. As a result, it got nowhere near finding any useful answers to the question it posed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Isn’t it nice when the elite have their faithfull little lapdog (the BBC) doing their dirty work for them.
The ‘stunning ‘ conclusion that it’s the poorest in society who have to pick up the slack is the key to all this.
The biggest take away from this post for me is this:
‘(from Paul Johnson, ex the Institute for Fiscal Studies, now an Oxford don).’
Really?! If that is so, then this a totally corrupt situation we have at one of our highest seats of learning.
Agreed
Oxford is elite? Maybe for science and the like, but it is a dump as far as the PPE effluence it pours out into our political waters is concerned. Indeed, how appropriate that it sits on the Thames, and might thus perhaps consider a merger with Thames Water!
@Bill,
Is Cambridge any better??? LOL!
Gary Stevenson, ex-city trader, YT advocate for taxing the rich more fairly and LSE Graduate, got his Economics Master’s from Oxford, and his conclusion was that the Economic academics at both institutions were completely out of touch with reality when it came to the real economy and the lived experiences of the masses.
For anyone who wants to comment on the programme here is the email address: panorama.reply@bbc.co.uk
If you haven’t seen it, it’s on iPlayer. Just make sure there aren’t any heavy objects close by if you decide to watch it, otherwise you might need a new TV.
My wife turned the TV off when I started swearing at it! So I didn’t see it all, but I can imagine…
I have complained previously to the BBC about their misleading content on economics. Usually to no avail although I did manage to get them to change a misleading online headline (after the damage was done).
I used to be a fan of the BBC and worked for them for some years. They seem to have lost their way. Sadly, at least as regards economics, the BBC is not fit for purpose. đ
It seems the BBC has been well infiltrated by the zionist right-wingers so maybe the completely biased economics- often also on display in the Today programme.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-really-to-130590458?utm_campaign=patron_engagement&utm_source=post_link&post_id=130590458&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJyZWRpc19rZXkiOiJpYTI6ZGUwOTQ4NmMtYTViZS00MmQ3LTg3NDAtNjVhY2M4OWE2ZjIzIiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTMwNTkwNDU4LCJwYXRyb25faWQiOjE0NjYyMDQxOH0.ZektH1MUMZzPdr3MPnyQbuTbngZIL5477-icrfLt-Yc&utm_id=b8320bfd-2100-4686-95e8-784216cc109e&utm_medium=email
The establishment ensures that Panorama broadcasts the appropriate message.
Sooooo pleased we gave up our TV license several years ago. Our reason for giving it up was BBC bias and disinformation. We don’t watch any TV now … and I don’t miss it one bit. There are other ways to inform oneself, this blog being one of them (thanks Richard).
I need television for information
Not broke but definitely borked.
So much BBC ‘journalism’ these days is untrustworthy, mainly due to its practice of omitting vital information for the purpose of simplifying what can sometimes be very difficult subjects.
The poorest in society need to pull themsleves up by their bootlaces and work 8 days a week while the clueless BBC and people who have sold out to the dictates of the global marketplace tell us the ultra rich are having a very hard time;as they are being glorified.
Thank you Richard, and other people commenting regarding this awful âjournalismâ. I was watching it as well in disbelief, especially when the IFS chap started saying the working class/middle class needed to pay more tax and/or accept we canât have the public services that the population of the 1950s-1970s had. It was straight from the neoliberal book 101. No mention that wealth inequality has risen massively since 2008 – but apparently these people canât be taxed more??? BBC is a JOKE. I am also disappointed is Ros Atkins, I thought he was better⌠Maybe he is just naive? Hard to believe though.
No mention of other alternatives to neoliberalism as usual! Problem is, most people will believe this drivel and accept the shite from the establishment!
Also, who are the west exactly fighting in this âwarâ? From where I am standing, the western governments have shafted their own population since the 1970s+ (neoliberalism), we donât need to worry about an external threat like Russia when you have governments like ours! And good luck convincing the public to back this war due to the former! What they going to do if people refuse? Send us to non-existent prisons lol?!
Note: Working class for me means people who need to work to survive (i.e., no/low savings, no other sources of income apart from labour and live pay check to pay check). Middle class for me means you can survive without a job for a short period (e.g., 6 months) utilising other income such as rent income etc.
Thanks
I think that definition of working class might not hold up so well these days. A working class tradesman like a plumber or electrician or builder might be quite well paid but a university graduate in the first job might be much less well paid and have their student loan to pay off at the same time. The lines between working class and middle class in terms of pay alone have blurred quite a lot.
So?
Was it ever all about income?
Power was always the issue.
I was responding to Daily Listener’s last paragraph, where they gave their definition of working class vs. middle class based on pay. I was pointing out that this definition does not hold up these days. And spending power does matter if it allows you to have more influence and buy more assets.
I see you got a name check from Polly Toynbee this morning, on this question. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/03/rachel-reeves-think-big-labour-battle-ready-britain-defence-fund
At least she must have read the Taxing Wealth Report.
The programme didn’t mention at all that in the1970s the higher rates of tax for those on significant salaries. We currently have a 40% tax rate for those earning. ÂŁ50,271-ÂŁ125,140. In the 1970s the tax rate for highest earners was 83%!!!
Think of all those millionaires paying half the tax of what they would have done 50 years ago. Not a single mention of this on the programme. Why? Quite simply the BBC don’t want people thinking that tax should be massively increased on the wealthy in society you pay for better public services. Utterly shameful and deceitful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance
I tried to find those economic guidelines but no luck so far. The economy is either not important enough to make it to the list, or perhaps it is that there is felt to be absolutely no disagreement about macro-economics, you just stick on Paul Johnson, tell us that taxes finance public spending, and that we’re almost broke? Job done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/thematic-review-taxation-public-spending-govt-borrowing-debt.pdf
Thx!
I’m getting so sick of this blatant head-in-the-sand approach to taxing the wealthy! It’s the elephant in the room that seems really obvious to me and many more these days, I’m glad to see.
I think it was one of your YouTube videos where you pointed out that after World War 2, the powers that be knew they couldn’t tax the average British citizen more as they had already sacrificed so much during the war. So that only left the rich. I really hope this message spreads far and wide and the wealthy end up paying their ‘fair’ share.
Probably wasting my time but I have sent a letter of complaint to the BBC about the programme. Nothing ventured, nothing gained….pity Ros Atkin and his team at Panorama didn’t venture further from the roadside verge when they “set out to find the truth……”
Thanks
As ever thank you RM.
Ministry of Truth, itâs just sad and depressing when you are witnessing the consequence’s of these lies.
Itâs been a long day in frontline services, the sun is setting but thank god at least weâve got you fighting our corner, and telling the truth.
If there has been growth but wages have not gone up, someone must have benefited enormously. They have. They are:
at the simplest level
the wealthy, who Paul Johnson claims can’t be taxed more
The BBC is fully subscribed to neoliberal economics, and it fully accepts its Macro- household analogy, it considers these to be facts. If they are facts, then there is no requirement for them to question them or offer an alternative view to them. The only discussion required by the BBC on economic matters is therefore within that context.
It is clear then what has to change, the BBC needs to informed and encouraged to take on board that different economic perspectives exist and actually, overall, a majority of economists probably either do not fully subscribe, or do not subscribe at all, to Neoliberal economics.
Same old neo-liberal story we have been hearing since Thatcher and Raegan. The poor are poor and it is their fault. Lets privatise everything that will make things better. This is the legacy of that whole era and ideology.
Nothing is the responsibility of the state and you need to deal with your circumstances. Funny how this aligns with the right and alt-rights ideology. Pick yourself up, make your own life, government is a problem, regulations are hindrance and the free market is the answer etc.
This is not an issue of accumulation this is an issue of unequal distribution and due to selling our assets, paying over the price.
If nothing changes, each and every generation after us is less and less likely to be able to even afford a home. The system is broken and needs fixed. The issue is wealth, finance and its influence within and control over the political sphere.
If you read “Naked Economics” there is a part about interest groups and it explains why the USA government pay a subsidy to mohair farmers, there are a few of them and the subsidy means a lot to them but the overall cost to everyone else is limited so they are not particularly bothered or motivated.
Meaning that interest group has considerable and disproportionate influence, as it is essentially a political no-brainer to do what they want, you will guarantee their votes but won’t likely sacrifice others. If you take it away they will be organised and motivated to fight it, the same isn’t true on the other side of that equation.
Now imagine that same idea and principle but apply it to the wealthy, rich and powerful.
I confess that I am struggling to find the argument here.
There are plenty of authoritative voices making the counterarguments (like our blogger here), and the BBC can’t be missing them by accident. It is not to be trusted, and its veneer of neutrality makes it as dangerous as overt propaganda vehicles like the Daily Mail.
Maybe I need to give my head a wobble, but I’ve been thinking about QE. The BoE bought bonds back from the private sector banks using reserve currency. Right? The BoE gets interest on these Bonds from Government, but then reimburses it to HMT. Right? Under the arrangements introduced in 2009 to bail out the banks the banks lodge the reserve currency back in the BoE and get interest on it. Right? The rates of interest on the reserve currency are much higher than the rates on the QE Bonds. Right? So thanks to the high interest rate policy, HMG is now making a thumping loss on QE. Right? Or do I need a lie down?
I discuss this in the TWR
Thanks. I’ve had a look. It looks to me like there should have been some kind of windfall tax on the banks. (Wonder why there wasn’t!?), and for the future a tiered approach to interest on reserves as you’re proposed. Or maybe some way of forcing the banks to use the windfalls for some socially responsible purpose. But I suppose it’s all in the “dream on” category. Anyway, thanks for bearing with me as I try to understand.
Extremely disappointing to see no mention whatsoever of the significant economic damage of Brexit as a result of additional trade friction with the EU, especially for consumer prices and for small British companies no longer able to export. Government propaganda.