The FT has this headline this morning:
You don't need to read the article.
You just need to ask the obvious question, which is "Why?"
Why would we want to lead a Ponzi scheme?
Why would we want to lead the charge to undermine the state that made money?
And don't we understand that this stuff only exists to undermine democracy at the end of the day?
Or rather, it exists for that reason and to assist criminality.
So, why would we support those two things?
Why, oh why, oh why?
And as to answers, there are none: not from Labour.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
For a moment I thought the headline meant the UK could lead the way by banning crypto. Then I saw that the claim was being made by a “City minister”, so no chance of that then. Pity.
Completely off-topic, but catching up with the news at the weekend I was heartened to see that the diocese of Leeds in particular was standing firmly against the man formerly known as Yaxley-Lennon, speaking clearly in favour of a decent immigration service and extending a warm welcome to all at their services. Yasmin Alibai-Brown writing in The I paper on Wednesday, and commenting that we hear nothing like this from the main two political parties.
Thanks
Thanks Richard. You could also have mentioned the environmental impact of crypto farms burning vast amounts of energy to run the complex algorithms.
Agreed
Crypto is simply an alternative techie derived word for Corruption.
“Stupid is, as stupid does… and that’s all I’ve got to say about that” (Forest Gump)
After a quick read of
https://www.gherson.com/blog/2025-update-on-crypto-regulation-in-the-uk-a-legal-overview/
I have a question for Lucy Rigby. If the gov’t does decide to develop a “digital pound”, will it be governed by “the household analogy” and have to be collected in taxes first before the government can spend it? If that question is too difficult, pass it on to Rachel Reeves, or Andrew Bailey. No rush…
(We all remember our mums sorting out the household crypto budget on the block-chain kitchen table, don’t we?)
That last sentence is very funny! Unless of course Mum is involved in drug dealing!
🙂
Corporations like Apple, Amazon, and Google, and individuals like Musk and Thiel, would love to issue their own currency. Imagine a world where they are allowed to pay their employees in their own monopoly money, and the control this would give them over their labour force. Companies like Meta already do it to an extent, offering stock options as part of their employment packages. It’s part of why they are desperate to appear to be growing, so they can create stock to offer potential workers. Of course Labour, and the City would want a slice of that action; their entire stock and trade is in peddling an illusion.