The most honest line that I read in the media yesterday was this, from the New York Times:
Regardless of your partisan lean, it's safe to say that these are scary times.
The best political news that I read came from Germany, where Politico reported:
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture.
The trouble is, the German President has no power, and Mark Rutte, the right-wing former Dutch Prime Minister who heads NATO, expressed his support for Trump and his war.
The award for the most economically inept performance of the day was shared by Rachael Reeves and Nigel Farage.
In the face of growing fear over energy costs, Rachael Reeves announced that she is doing very little and nothing as yet. The inference is obvious. Dealing with a crisis is way above her pay grade.
Farage, meanwhile, according to the FT:
abandoned plans for a Reform UK government to part-nationalise Britain's utilities as the party adjusts to the country's stretched public finances, although it is still considering using “strategic stakes” to fix broken markets.
In the process, he revealed that he has as limited an understanding of government finances as do all the other leading political parties, leaving just the Greens with some comprehension of this issue in England.
And war continued in the Middle East, with no one knowing why, or what is truly happening, or where we are headed as a result.
In addition, Israel continued its illegal actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
And here in the UK, people continue to be treated in hospital corridors because our government does not care enough to create the money required to resolve the problems in our NHS.
In other words, we suffered another day of callous, indifferent, incompetent neoliberal government where those supposedly in charge only succeeded in proving just how useless they are at the jobs that they hold.
The job of government is to protect people. That's it. At the bottom line, it has no other purpose. Our problem is that right now those who wish to govern appear to have completely forgotten that fact. No wonder these are scary times.
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!
This is rather amusing, its from Australia
https://x.com/ctindale/status/2036576149472682457
Rename the RBA the Reserve Bank of Anywhere But Reality. A war constricts imported inputs, plumbing prices surge, and the cure prescribed is to club the mortgage holder until copper discovers obedience. We are governed by monetary pilots who have locked themselves in the cockpit and mistaken altitude for authority. Their conceit persists in financialising the economy for the banking system even as the aircraft descends toward a reckoning few will be equipped to survive. This is not democracy; it is debt serfdom administered with professional confidence by its own bankers.
This is all deeply unfair to the nice LINO gov. Yesterday, the nice lady that is Sir Starmers No2 (I think her name is Powell?) made some very very helpful comments:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/24/labour-party-lost-white-working-class-voters-greens-gorton-and-denton-analysis
It is clear that LINO has got to grips with the major issues affecting Uk citizens, e.g. free childcare, workers rights and renters protections. These are very very important issues, make no mistake & I am very very sure that LINO has lots of more important things they will do in the very very near future.
I think I will have a lie down, I’m laughing so much a) at LINO, b)@ the Guardian imbecile that wrote the puff piece. Bye bye LINO, dead man walking after May & functionally incapable of addressing either the main concerns of UK citizens or having any idea whatsoever to deal with the increasingly terrifying times we live in & the impacts on the Uk & its citizens.
The NHS is drained of cash but you can expect the UK military budget to go up without a whimper of objection from the main stream media and average voter.
You can also guarantee that the UK will build/buy ships/tanks/airplanes that will be out of date and have massive cost overruns.
UK governments for the last 3o years plus has been a continual trotting out of ” we have no money and austerity is the only answer”.
With regard to the unlawful aggressive war with Iran, being waged by Trump and Netanyahu, aided by Starmer, I can’t see a Labour government doing anything other than what it is told to do, by those who finance the campaign funds of its ministers & MPs.
Two fact-filled articles “following the money” from the Canary.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/03/24/labour-together-funder
& in case anyone protests, remember that you have access neither to legal aid nor a jury, and its worth “following the money” on that one too.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/03/24/jury-trials-zionism
Having a paralysed corrupted government without a moral compass, and with a passively pathetic Chancellor, seems to be incredibly expensive.
Somebody is getting what they pay for, but it isn’t the UK population.
Rachel Reeves ineptitude doesn’t surprise me. However the complete lack of plans to ration fuel does. We know prices are going to rise and there will be shortages, so it makes sense to plan for this and ensure essential users can do their job. How long before haulage is effected and not just by cost resulted in empty shelves on supermarkets?
Like many in rural areas I have no option but to drive. Our public transport is very limited and there is none to any of my work locations. I only drive when necessary so actually drive very few miles. Rationing would ensure we have enough fuel for essential journeys and stop the unnecessary miles many chose to do. It happened in the 70s and we just avoided it in 2000. It’s surely going to have to happen now.
To be pedantic, Hazel, petrol rationing coupons were issued in the UK in the 1970s oil crisis but never implemented. It was in the 1950s suez crisis, but there were only about 3 million cars then, whereas there are 34 million today.
I was still at primary school then,so forgive me if my memory is sketchy. But surely the need for rationing is more not less urgent with so many more cars on the road and the likelihood of prolonged disruption.
Agreed
Probably inevitable, to be honest.
Reeves is also conservative with the truth.
She, and Labour, keep on saying that they are cutting £150 off everyone’s energy bills from April 1st. This is not true. The £150 saving is an average, based on a reduction to unit rates for electricity and gas. It’s based on a typical household. So, it depends on how much you use. It’s not like we will all see a £150 credit on our bills.
Why is she lying? Well, she’s a neoliberal politician.
As for means testing, that means people applying via the benefit system. A system now so flawed, it means millions will miss out, including many who will need help, but probably won’t qualify because of all the rules.
Then there is the stigma attached to applying for benefits. A stigma that the right wing media have helped create that everyone is a scrounger who claims benefits. Many people, especially older people, will just not claim a benefit.
And millions do miss out.
It’s no coincidence that £23 billion of support goes unclaimed each year (2024). The actual true amount may be £30 billion.
https://policyinpractice.co.uk/publication/missing-out-2024/
And how would Rachel balance her precious books if it was claimed?
Re population not applying for benefits I agree. As an unpaid carer for a husband with dementia I found out by accident we were eligible for Attendance allowance and council tax reduction. Other people in my position still don’t know this non means tested support exists.
Here’s a link to the official, Gov.uk, report on the COBRA meeting. Jaw-droppingly inadequate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/readout-cobrm-iran-economic-and-domestic-impacts-23-march-2026
Good to know that as supply inevitably constrains, and shortages kick in, the planning is to think about anti-competitive behaviours and price gouging as if there are no supply shortages. Backs on the statement by the energy minister that there are no energy shortages to see here, and no need to stockpile fuel.
The quote about ending the war on Iran by imposing tough conditions on Iran can’t be serious, and must just be for political messaging. Although if they honestly believe Iran, which holds all the leverage given the strait of hormuz, will quietly stop doing so and accept harsh conditions just because the UK demands so without anything behind the words, they are fools.
Currently the first job of the government is to look after, in no particular order : the establishment, the city, the donors (both party and personal) and future job prospects. The people are the least of their concerns unless of course the peoples actions directly affect the above
For difficult decisions the strategy is always – pontificate, deny, defer and diminish. Look at Post Office, Thames Water, Hillsborough, etc.
For the current crisis Ofgem should instructed to decouple the gas price immediately bringing immediate relief to public and businesses, at no cost to the government
Where are the brave politicians who are will to make these types of big and quick decisions to support the people in times of need ?
DtM:
This Sky News article reports that Milliband has hinted to MPs that the Gov are thinking about making a change. (Thinking about tends to mean a long way off). They seem to have been prodded into considering it by pressure from Dale Vince.
It also suggests that Rachel-from–accounts is far from being a brave politician will to make big urgent decisions. As she almost ignored it when the matter was raised by Green MP Ellie Chowns. https://news.sky.com/story/ed-miliband-tells-mps-how-he-hopes-to-cut-household-energy-bills-amid-calls-for-more-north-sea-drilling-
We can live in hope
Apologies Richard for being slightly off topic but I have a question which I have been mulling over. Why was the concept of money created?
I used to think (maybe nievely) it was a record of an individual’s contribution to society as judged by their peers i.e. societies iou, that can be exhanged for other goods or services.
However the question of why does the Bank of England pay interest discussed in your recent blogs struck a cord and got me to revisit my thinking about money.
I now feel, maybe again nievely, maybe cynically, that it is a note that when requested and presented says ‘iou no harm’.
My rational is one where long long ago I was minding my own business and was cultivated a crop that I had the ability to turn into bread to feed my family. It was hard work but I was happy I could feed my family and myself and therefore what need did I have for money?
Then along came the local bully (King) and said I want half of the bread you make to feed my family and myself and for it I will give you a note that will protect you from harm from me or anyone else who threatens you as they will have me to answer to. At the end of the year prior to you growing you new crop the bully says I will take the note back (so you are no longer protected) but will give you a new note (iou no harm) in exchange for half your bread again. The bully has no need for the returned note so burns it.
The note is effectively an extortion device for protection against harm or hardship from those in powerful positions but makes the threat socially acceptable and seem more civalised. The threat is still there, if I don’t pay my taxes I risk hardship and being thrown in jail.
At some point some smart elite came up with the idea of interest so that my bread became worth less so I had to work harder to provide more to feed the bully’s extended family and friends/associates (Dukes, Earls,etc.).
This system has now been taken over by todays rich and powerful.
Apologies if I am talking nonsence.
You are not talking nonsense. You are circling around something important — but drawing a conclusion that is too narrow.
Money did not arise for a single reason. It evolved because societies needed a way to organise obligations, exchange and power.
Your earlier idea — that money is a record of contribution — captures part of the story. So does your newer idea — that it reflects power and obligation. Both are true, but incomplete on their own.
Historically, money became widely used because states imposed tax obligations payable in their chosen unit. That did create an element of coercion: people had to obtain the state’s money to settle those obligations. That is well understood.
But that is not the same as saying money is simply an “IOU no harm” note.
Once established, money became useful because it:
• allowed trade between strangers
• enabled specialisation (you bake bread, someone else makes tools)
• provided a unit for accounting, planning and contracts
• supported large-scale societies and infrastructure
So yes, power is part of the story. States enforce tax. Laws enforce contracts. There is coercion at the margins.
But money is also a social technology. It allows complex cooperation across millions of people who do not know each other.
On interest: that is not an ancient plot to extract more bread. It is a price for credit within a financial system although, as you imply, it can certainly become a mechanism for inequality and extraction if left unchecked.
So the better way to think about money is this that it is a system of recording and settling obligations, created within a framework of law and power, but used to enable cooperation at scale.
Your instinct about power is right. But money is not just coercion — it is also what makes modern society possible.