We're facing awartime economic emergency, and Rachel Reeves is saying nothing. No reassurance. No plan. No action. In this video, I set out exactly what the Chancellor must do right now to protect the UK economy from the predictable consequences of this war, and why her silence is making things worse.

The tools are all there. The Bank of England must be instructed to intervene in bond markets to keep UK interest rates under control; it did that in 2008, 2016, and 2020, and there is no reason it cannot do so again.

The “there is no money” narrative must be abandoned. Government spending will need to rise to protect households and businesses from disruption, just as it did during Covid. Reeves needs to say that clearly, and say it now.

And on energy, the link between electricity pricing and gas prices must be broken immediately, something I have argued for repeatedly on this channel.

Meanwhile, with 92% of UK flights being for holidays, jet fuel must be rationed and redirected to essential travel, whilst road fuel rationing plans must be drawn up before the shortages hit, not after and renewable energy output must be maximised.

And on food and critical medical supplies, there must be a plan, publicly communicated, so that businesses and households know what to expect.

This is not radical. It is basic wartime economic management, with clear historical precedent. The question is why Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of a Labour government, is failing to lead during the gravest economic crisis of her tenure. The UK economy cannot afford her silence.

This is the audio version:

This is the transcript:

---

I have a problem with Rachel Reeves. I have a big problem with Rachel Reeves. My issue is that she is not providing reassurance to people about the war that this country is now inevitably engaged in.

The risks from war are obvious. Right now, the economic consequences are totally predictable. We are going to face shortages and disruption, and they are going to be widespread as this war continues without, at present, a foreseeable end, because whatever Donald Trump says, it's not his choice to end it.

So, people are understandably anxious at present, but we are seeing no clear action as a consequence from our Chancellor, and that is making me angry.

Words alone would not be enough from her either at present. The government must show that it can act. Tools are available for her to use right now. My question is, why aren't they being used? Let's talk about what she could be doing at this moment to improve confidence in the UK economy.

She could be saying that she will tackle the problem of rising interest rates that the UK is now already seeing as a result of the war in the Middle East.

She could say that she will not allow interest rates in the UK to rise.

She could reject the increase in government borrowing costs that we are suffering.

She could signal that she will demand that the Bank of England intervene in markets to keep rates under control.

She could provide an immediate boost to economic confidence as a result.

And let's be clear, there's nothing unusual about this. An instruction from the government to the Bank of England for it to intervene in bond markets is normal. It happened in 2008. It happened in 2016, post-Brexit. It happened in 2020 with regard to COVID. It could happen in 2026, with regard to war.

She could take action now to repurchase government bonds that are already in the market and, as a result, stabilise yields and borrowing costs right across the interest spectrum in the UK.

She could, as a result, also remove the fear of austerity from the UK government's agenda, but she isn't.

She could, as a result, make a massive difference by intervening in this way. I'm angry that she isn't.

I'm also angry that, at the moment, Rachel Reeves is providing no clear indication of the fiscal response she's going to provide to this war.

She isn't making it clear that government spending will increase if it's required to deal with the consequences of what is happening.

She isn't taking the steps to protect the economy from external shocks.

She isn't rejecting the “there is no money” narrative, which is so commonplace from people like her.

She isn't providing visible economic leadership in wartime as a consequence.

We know that the armed forces will get money if they need it right now. What she is not promising is money for everyone else as well. She's failing us as a result. The government can create the money to get people through this crisis.

There also needs to be action by the government, and by Rachel Reeves as a result, on essential issues like managing oil supplies.

She could take action to preserve them.

The government could identify the priority users of fuel right now and ensure that critical sectors are being protected so that fuel gets to the people who really need it within our economy.

They could plan the allocation of fuel before shortages hit and create economic chaos, but instead, we're going to get price-driven chaos at present because price-driven chaos means that the wealthy can do what they want. The rest of us are left without the fuel we need.

And there are some things that Rachel Reeves could do straight away to indicate her direction of travel on this issue.

She could, for example, restrict the non-essential use of jet fuel. Jet fuel is going to be one of the first parts of the fuel supply system that is going to suffer shortages. Indeed, in some parts of the world, we're already seeing airlines cancelling all their flights because they have not got the fuel available to deliver them.

In this country, we could, for example, prioritise essential business travel and social travel by those who are really in need, for example, to visit relatives who are ill. But we could preserve jet fuel supplies by cancelling holiday flights. 92% of all flights in the UK are for holidays. They aren't necessary. We could act now to prevent a crisis arising with regard to jet fuel in a way that is essential, but which the government is so far not indicating it will do. Our holidays will be the first sacrifice we have to make as a consequence of this war, and if that's the price we have to pay, it's one we can afford to make.

Then there is the issue of road fuel. We know that there is going to be a shortage of road fuel. It's already forcing up prices, but as yet, we haven't had non-delivery from the Middle East. Supply chains are such that it takes at least four weeks for any fuel from the Middle East to get here, so we have not as yet seen the disruption. But it's going to happen.

As a consequence, Rachel Reeves should be talking about essential measures to preserve that road fuel. She could, for example, reduce motorway speed limits. It's perfectly possible to drive at less than 70 miles per hour on a motorway and still get to your destination with little change to the journey time. She could extend this speed limit, a new one, of, say, 50 miles per hour, right across the road network to ensure that we save massive amounts of fuel, because driving at 50 miles per hour is significantly more fuel efficient than driving at higher speeds.

This will preserve essential fuel supplies. It's a quick and low-cost intervention the government could make. It might make them a bit unpopular: tough is my answer to that. You'll be much worse off if there is no fuel to be had later in the year, and rationing now cannot be by price alone.

There are people inside our economy who do need road fuel to get to work, to get to hospital appointments, to get to everything else. These people need to get fuel, whatever the price is in the future, and as a consequence, we cannot ration on the basis of price alone. We must inevitably be looking now at the fairness of the allocation of road fuel. If the government isn't at this moment already planning a rationing system for petrol and diesel, it should be, but we are hearing no sign of that. That is another reason why I'm annoyed with Rachel Reeves. The noises that we need to hear about ensuring that our economy can keep going are not being made.

At the same time, we need to maximise renewable energy output. It's an absurd fact that at present we are not using our renewable capacity to the fullest extent in the UK. We are instead relying on gas generation for electricity. This makes no sense at all. We need to improve our energy security, and quickly. Let's make this the moment when we reorientate our energy supplies towards renewables.

At the same time, we need to change electricity pricing. At present, this is based upon the price of gas. This link has to be broken to prevent unnecessary price inflation at this moment. We must protect households and industry, and the present price system maximises profits and maximises costs to consumers. That has to end now. This war should have this outcome if it has no other.

We must price our electricity in the UK on the basis of its actual cost of production, not on a fictional international price for gas when most of our electricity is not produced from gas in the first place. This is something Rachel Reeves should be talking about, but we're not hearing her say so.

And Rachel Reeves should be talking about protecting households that are reliant on oil heating. She's made a vague announcement on this issue, and it's a critical one for those who are affected. In rural areas, oil heating is essential to people's living standards, but the details of the support to be supplied have not been announced, and that is simply not good enough.

Then Rachel Reeves has to talk about how we're going to manage wider supply shortages.

She has to talk about how the government is anticipating disruption in fertiliser supplies.

She has to talk about the risk to food production as a consequence.

She has to talk about how medical services will continue without the supply of helium, which underpins MRIs and how certain drugs, which might have supply issues as a consequence of the failure to deliver oil, might be impacted by this crisis.

There has to be a creation of a contingency plan to deal with these situations, but is she saying anything? She's saying nothing at all.

At the same time, she has to talk about something else. She has to talk about how she will support businesses through the disruption this war is going to create. We all know that in 2020, there was support for businesses as a result of COVID. There were steps taken to prevent bankruptcies. There were steps taken to protect jobs. Now we need to do the same thing. We face a threat to our economic capacity in this country as a consequence of war. But why is Rachel Reeves not talking about that? I have no idea.

My point is this. If Rachel Reeves took action now, she would reduce fear and uncertainty in our economy, and that is precisely what wartime management requires. All the measures I've talked about are available for her to use now. None require new theory. They don't require new tools. All of them have been tried at some time in the past. All of them are deliverable. The failure to act now can only increase anxiety. The government must choose to protect people at this moment.

If you agree, please let us know. Share this video, put a comment down below, like the video, or subscribe to the channel, and if you think that this issue is important and you want to make a donation so that we might continue our work, we'd be really grateful.

But most of all, talk about what Rachel Reeves needs to do, and if you think action is required, write to your MP. Tell them you need support now, and Rachel Reeves should be delivering it.

---

Poll

 

PDF of article

---