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!
🙂
RobertJ: “If the govt does decide to develop a ‘digital pound’…” – isn’t sterling already a digital currency? It only exists as computer data, not as gold or silver, despite the cash paper and coins based on it.
I think it is…
I could hear Richard’s voice in my head reminding me about that as I wrote! But I dont think the BoE mine sterling with block-chain (yet) and I didn’t want to spoil the punch line.
I can now hear the Disney song, “Heigh ho, heigh ho, its off to work we go”, as small versions of Rachel Reeves and Darren Jones march off to the block-chain mine swinging their crypto-pickaxes over their shoulders, and whistling the fiscal rules.
I am not convinced by block chain unless the encryption is removed.
I thought the difference was that a digital pound £ would be programmable.
Maybe
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.
Company Script was banned in the 1930’s crypto is the new Script. It was issued by companies as wages and could only be spent in the company stores. So, it’s not an new idea but definitely one certain powerful people want control over in the brave new future.
“Scrip” to be accurate.
And according to Gemini “During the “Railway Mania” of the 1840s, a form of scrip was common in a financial sense. New railway companies, needing to raise initial capital before receiving full parliamentary approval to build their lines, issued “scrip” certificates to subscribers”, for example. Many UK companies used to issue scrip to employees to use in company stores until it was banned by the Truck Acts. I researched such a company in Yorkshire when I was doing my degree in Leeds.
I miss the Truck Acts (1830’s). They prevented employers paying in ‘company tokens’, much used in the coal mines. Repealed in 1986.
Why? Oh, why?
Because a few people see it as a chance to make money without having to do anything useful for society.
And our political set up feels it should allow them to have the chance.
Because LINO is hopeless.
My hypothesis has always been that Reeves is a product of her background. Mainstream economics education, banking, BankofEngland, Treasury. That is what she knows and they are whom she listens to. So we should not be surprised when a lot of their wish lists turn up as Labour policy.
The Labour Party was founded not to be part of The Establishment! At least that’s what Keir Hardie reckoned!
Crypto = the end of democracy.
In fact, the fact that this has been mentioned at all is a measure of how much government is now captured by the private sector. The whole front bench are avatars for deeply undemocratic and authoritarian private wealth to mould the world as they see fit. This is the beginning of the end, right there.
It’s the second part of the headline that is important. There will be a new regulatory regime from 2027 and the reason our politicians are bringing that in is because they care about getting the regulation right. You could call this an example of the politics of care. It’s certainly not the politics of indifference.
Politely, if you cared the regulation would be happening a year earlier. And that is not the motivation: mindless, reckless and utterly irresponsible growth is. And if you did care, you would have answered my questions about the uses of this corrosive technology.
Have yourself a very merry block-chain till you don’t!
Once again, I invoke the Plato defence on behalf of the hapless fools who come up with these things. They make claims and propose ideas about matters on which they are ignorant. Thus, we must , as forgiving human beings, absolve them from blame.
They have clearly not read a word of this blog. Shame, not blame.
Some time ago in a desperate attempt to understand what bitcoin was about I did an Allison on line course, introduction to bitcoin if my memory serves me correctly. I’m almost convinced that in it’s inception there was an intention to provide a new alternative reserve currency (unless I completely misunderstood, quite possible!). But clearly that is ancient history.
There is an interesting article in the “Open Britain ” blog about Crypto and the donation a Crypto millionaire has recently made to the Reform party.
This just came up on Twitter
See, read and inwardly digest
https://x.com/daniellismore/status/2000369845309767964
I like it. I have no idea who the author is, but that maybe says something about me.