An unexpected week away from making videos—thanks to a kidney stone that I wouldn't wish on anyone—gave me something I almost never have: time to stop and think.
For more than twenty years I've written about Britain's economy and politics. For the last two years we've talked about them here, almost every single day.
Together we've explored why neoliberalism has failed, why living standards have stagnated, why our political system no longer seems able to meet people's needs, and why so many people have lost faith in politics altogether.
But being forced to step away made me ask a different question.
Should this channel change?
Not because the issues have gone away. They haven't.
Not because exposing failure no longer matters. It does.
But because perhaps the time has come to spend more of our energy asking a different set of questions.
What should replace neoliberalism?
How should we reform tax?
How should we reform money?
How should government work differently?
What would a politics of care actually look like?
How do we build an economy of hope instead of an economy of fear?
Those are the questions I increasingly want to explore.
The question is whether you want to explore them with me.
So this isn't an announcement that I've already decided to change direction.
It's an invitation for you to help decide whether we should.
Please vote in the poll, leave a comment, and let me know what you think. I genuinely want to hear your views, because they will help shape the future direction of this channel.
Thank you for being part of this journey.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Hello. I'm back.
It's good to be sitting in this chair in front of this camera with Tom over there, complete with his boot around his broken foot.
Things have changed since I was last sitting here and recording.
I've had a kidney stone. I do not recommend having a kidney stone. It is excruciatingly painful. I've only had two major health problems in my life now. One was a gallstone, the second's a kidney stone, and apparently they are just about the most painful things you can experience, as I can assure you is the case.
Pain management is working now, though. I seem to have things under control. I haven't finished the treatment. I will be back in hospital again over the next couple of weeks or so, but only as a day patient, all things going well, and so we are back making videos. But, and I want to talk to you about this, and I think this is quite important for me as a person and perhaps for the future of this channel.
A week off was good for me in one way. I wouldn't have chosen it like this, let's be honest. But when I was not in pain, and there were occasions when I wasn't in pain over the last week, I had the chance to think. There was no regular routine. I didn't really want to spend much time watching the news, or listening to the radio or watching whatever was on the web. I just had a think about what we are doing.
And that was important because we've been making videos now for over two years on this channel, every day, I think, almost without exception, over that period of time. And I've been writing a blog for more than 20 years now, which is really pretty absurd. I'm one of the few people in the world who's actually managed to ever do that for that long. And the point is this: Where am I going?
This little brush with being ill reminded me that I'm not as young as I was. I'm 68. And I won't be here forever, although I hope to be around for a lot longer yet, and doing this for many more years yet. But the point is, how am I going to best use my time?
And it occurred to me that over the last 20 years I have recorded, in various different ways, the failure of neoliberalism. This idea that markets work best and that if we only get government out of the way, the well-being of everybody is maximised is obviously false. We can see that.
We had the global financial crisis in 2008. We saw the flatlining of the economy since then. The failure to increase living standards. The failure to increase real wages. But the rise in the well-being of the very wealthiest during that period and the increasing power of the banks, the AI companies, and even of an elite in politics itself, of whom Andy Burnham is a perfect representative: a man basically becoming prime minister without the approval of parliament because Labour has selected him to be the man who looks remarkably like the man he's replacing.
There is a power elite. That is what neoliberalism describes, and I know that is bad for you, me and everybody else like us, who's one of what I would call the ordinary people.
Okay, we might be getting by, some of us. We are; I am, I admit it. But I also know that others aren't, and we are not in that power elite. How can we change things for the benefit of those ordinary people? Most of the people in the UK? 95+% of people in the UK who are not anywhere near that power grouping.
Well, that's my question, and lots of people are asking it, and we can see that people know this problem exists.
Just look at the rise of Reform and Restore. They are where they are precisely because so many people in the UK hate what is happening in our politics.
They hate the fact that they're being ignored.
They hate the fact they're not being listened to.
They hate the fact that their needs are not being met, and the government is not even trying to meet those needs, and indeed is making life worse for them.
They know this is what is happening. They're rejecting the political system as a result, and we do need a better politics.
I call that a politics of care, of course, you've heard that phrase for some time. I also describe the underpinning economics of this as an economics of hope.
Now these are the issues I've decided I really want to talk about. I'm definitely going to be doing that more on my Funding the Future blog. The people there who I've asked in a poll say that's what they want.
They're not interested in me analysing what Labour's got wrong again and why neoliberalism is failing again.
They know Labour gets things wrong.
They know that neoliberalism is a pile of shit; let's be blunt about it. And I am now producing the evidence from 20 years of writing on these issues, and we're going to be publishing that over time. We'll be sharing some of it here.
But the point is, that's the background.
Now what I want to do, and which I'm certainly going to be doing on the blog, is look at what the solutions are. And I'm asking you a key question as a result, and I should have mentioned this earlier. The key question is:
Do you want me to continue to talk about things like crashes and politicians, and Labour's failings and why neoliberalism is not working?
Or
do you want me to talk about what we can do about it?
I believe that there are other people who can do all the first things and can do it as well as me. I can do it well, and look, it appears that some of you really like that content. We only have to put the word crash in the name of a video, and hundreds of thousands of you sometimes turn up to watch it, and I understand that. And for our purposes, that's good for revenue. So we will sometimes do these things because we enjoy doing them anyway.
But should the balance shift towards those solutions?
What should replace neoliberalism?
How should we reform taxes?
How should we reform the money system?
How should we reform the management of the economy?
What can we do instead?
What are the priorities?
What are the goals?
How are they set?
How are they measured?
What are the outcomes?
Are there other things we should be looking at, like proportional representation, changes to our parliamentary representation and all those things as well?
Is that something that you are interested in here?
I want to know because I want to make videos that you would like to see. I'm asking you, therefore, to do two things for me.
One is to leave comments. We do scrape all the comments from the comment section, and then we can analyse them and work out what you are trying to say to us. And that's important. We need to know what you're trying to say to us. And sometimes we get over a thousand or more comments on a video, but we can still actually use those to understand trends.
And the other thing we're doing is, as usual, putting a poll down below. The questions are pretty straightforward, but I think they're telling, and what they will indicate is:
Do you want us to carry on as we are?
Do you want us to change?
Do you want us to look at solutions?
And that's what I'm looking for direction from you on. Should I be doing what I have been doing, which has worked? Let's be honest, over 12 million people have watched this channel so far in 2026. Or should we be shifting a little bit towards how we make everything better?
I want the world to be better. I suspect you want the world to be better. I suspect you are fed up with it being as bad as it is. I am. Do we want to work on that together? Let me know. That would be what I'm most interested in hearing about. Please let us have your comments, let us have your vote.
Thank you, and it's good to be here. It's good to be back, and my thanks to Tom. Between us, a pair of old crocks as we are right now, we'll do our best to keep these videos flowing.
Poll ( a new variation on this issue):
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!
The emphasis should be on the practical. Too often I read reports with recommendations that are so generalised as to be useless.
I had a kidney stone in the 1970s and I have never experienced anything quite as painful ever. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. I wish you a very speedy recovery. Take care.
It is getting better.
A blood test confirms infection has gone.
May God bless you and speed your recovery .
I like the idea of presenting solutions because it gives me hope that others (politicians especially) will listen. However I believe you are in the vanguard when it comes to MMT and there is still a big lack of understanding. So I would like you to continue with that too because I see that there is change (hopefully not the sort Starmer has been promoting) and more people are talking about MMT.
MMT is still there.
Richard
The bottom line is that its your blog, YOU need to write about what you want to write about, as, lets face it nobodys paying you to do it.
So go out there and enjoy blogging, do the odd post about birds or a footplate ride on the Vale of Rheidol, let off steam if you need to – or have the odd day off – by choice that is
I have footplated the VoR, at the invitation of then MD.
Quite a memory!
I agree that it i important to consider the alternatives and how they may work, but I am also aware that you are getting new ‘followers’ all the time, many of whom may not understand why there is a problem with current politics and economic mainstream theory. So i think you still need to cover what’s wrong, sometimes, but with less emphasis n that and more on solutions.
This is what the view on Series willing be about. There may be 80 of these – maybe 5 books worth.
This is where the tidy organisation and indexing/searchability/glossary side of the site has made a difference.
If new “solutions” articles include a section entitled something like “common objections” or even good old “FAQs”, (eg: “but how would we pay for it?” or “wouldn’t that cause inflation?” or “wouldn’t that spook the bond markets?”) then a newbie can find their own way to enlightenment. A bit like your “debate arguments”.
I am genuinely not sure what it would look like though…
Richard I’ve put focus on solutions because I think there are now a number of people/channels criticising neoliberalism and the STP. What we really need are practical tangible solutions. I’m a Green Party member,but the party gets a lot of criticism focus for having idealistic and unworkable policies. My personal view is that work you are doing engaging and helping bridge the gap between pure economic theory and really good solutions is vital. You understand economic theory enough to take apart the lies/misunderstandings put out and explain why they are wrong but also what better ways are out there.
Glad the pain management is working and you’re able to function again.
Thanks
It seems to me that neoliberalism will not be beaten in one, revolutionary stroke. I would be interested in your take on what a reasonable time scale would be for the financial institutions to accept that a change was coming. Also, how it might happen.
I wuld love to reply to our questions but am just too tired this afternoon. Sorry.
I think you’ve been spending almost all your time describing problems, analysing problems and concluding that the cause is neoliberalism. It’s time to jump over that obstacle at the end of that thinking, cross the field of Monowitz under a clear blue sky and work out a final solution. Good luck, I’m happy to be a foot soldier.
Thanks
One point to bear in mind is that it is going to become increasingly difficult to gain exposure for criticism of the government, because both the algorithms of the tech broligarchs and the increasingly authoritarian repressive legislation of the state will prevent it.
Currently being steam-rollered through parliament (in 24hrs so getting zero democratic scrutiny) is the National Security State Threats Bill after which it will become an offence (up to 14yrs in jail) to tell the truth if it comes from a source the government officially doesn’t like (eg: casualty figures from the Gaza Health administration, or the Iranian government).
And just to put the icing on the cake, Lloyds/HBOS appear to have debanked The Canary.
Think about your news sources – DDN – Declassified- almost any journalist reporting honestly on the Middle East – Al Jazeera – The National – Peter Oborne in Byline Times, The Good Law Project – imagine the last three years reporting from them, with this new legislation in place, making it illegal to air a video from a victim of war crimes because they were a doctor abducted by the IDF from a hospital in Gaza, or write about the court cases of arrested P******** A***** protesters, or anti-fossil fuel protest groups?
Burnham is going to need to build a lot of detention centres. (How WILL he pay for them?!! ;-( )
When this rotten edifice that used to be a democracy, falls with a crash, we will need a good system to rebuild the economy and politics British state. You are one of the few people producing good proposals for that. So I voted for the “Cover both but… option”.
Here’s to the rapid disintegration of uroliths.
Much to agree with and worry about.
You know the old saw “the old order is dying, the new order is not yet born, now is the time of monsters”?
Someone on Mastodon asked a simple question about that the other day:
“What if the new order is already here, and just needs nurturing?”
That simple question has changed me in a fundamental way. Everywhere you look, you see evidence that they are right.
What are the signs the new order is here?
There are many. In US, Mandami and the other Social Democrats are making progress, and even there renewables are almost the only energy sources being installed. In continental Europe Palantir is being kicked out, and Microsoft is being replaced by open alternatives. In Hungary Orban is gone. In the UK even the Telegraph is now talking about climate change. Whether Burnham will be a stride forward remains to be seen, but he’s certainly a move leftward. And there are many other signs that things are improving.
it’s not enough, but it’s a start.
Thanks
Wishing you a swift recovery, Rishad!
Thanks – getting better, but exhausted by a morning’s work today
Funding the Future, to me, implies the question ‘how’.
How do we fund the future? What sort of future do we want? What are the threats to getting it?
I am amazed to find that I am almost in my 9th decade with a ticker that nearly stopped 20 years ago. I take pills every day.
I might not be here to see the future but I have grandchildren ( one of my step granddaughters is moving into her first house today ) and what I notice is that concern for the next generation broadened out as I got older, to all our grandchildren even those we will never meet. Several friends have reported the same. feeling. One definition of love for others, is wanting the best for them.
You could be on the golf course with other retired accountants ( I suspect it would bore you stiff ) rather than working on this blog and other things. That you choose to do otherwise is an act of love.
I will leave it there.
Thank you
And good luck to your step-grand daughter
And golf? Why?
Thanks
Isn’t the golf course supported to be the meeting place for retired professionals? I will admit I have not played it since I was 18 -except for mini golf with the children.
I thought that was something called ProBus?
And I am not retired – really! I hope I never am.
I voted both because neoliberalism has done two things, both need to be walked back a long way.
Firstly, it was wrong about money and wealth, so we are living with systems that are not fit for purpose. Many still equate economics as a discipline and practice, with neoliberalism as if they are the same thing.
Secondly, because it gives the illusion that if you manage the money system right, because people are rational actors, the rest of society will fall into place. ( By “right” I mean fatherly enough that there is a trusted system, and backed off enough to let the system work.)
A lot of heavy lifting to do there. Practical : this fatherly hand on the monetary system has meant that most governments are in effect managed by the finance ministries.
I, spent a good part of my life in management and governance from within large companies and administrations. Only to see good practice, like regular maintenance, take second place to quarterly earnings.
The primacy of monetary management has pushed out good management practices. After WWII Britain was good at getting things done to a high standard – and we saw the emergence of system dynamics, quality management, and project management, not to forget the emergence of computing.
All over the world, people who are good at the practice of governance and the art and science of management have been pushed aside for those skilled in management by fiscal primacy.
So the challenge is both to challenge the paradigms in politics and economics, but also to bring back management so that the nation can function well within physical constraints.
Management is an art and science. Economics has only a minor contribution. We have to put it back in its box.
Thanks
Richard, glad you’re back and pain free. I’ve followed your content and genuinely enjoy it, but there’s a framing issue worth raising.
On the poll (13.45 on 01/07/2026): 65% wanting more of the same is a vote from your existing audience. It can’t tell you how to reach the audience you haven’t got, the ones who write off structural critique as “the politics of envy” before hearing the argument. The question isn’t content vs. solutions, it’s whether you’re serving the audience you have or trying to grow past it. Both legitimate, but the poll only answers the first.
On the framing: “crash” videos outperform the structural ones not because the audience is lazy, but because “neoliberalism failed” gets filed as left-wing. Say the word and people check out tribally. You’ll know this from your own comments, pushback probably isn’t engagement, it’s “Marxist” or “politics of envy” as reflex.
“Economics of hope” and “politics of care” risk the same filter. Worth noting: in the US, left and right are starting to converge on the diagnosis of a rigged system, even where they disagree on the fix. People don’t need to agree on solutions yet, they need to see the problem first, before ideology attaches. Younger audiences seem to get there instinctively; older ones, wired by decades of tribal signalling, don’t.
Have you tried describing the mechanism, not the ideology, who captures the value, and why it isn’t the people who produced it. Ownership and capture, not left and right; no villain needed, just captured institutions and inertia.
It’s not simply about vocabulary, you’ve spent 20 years on the substance. But getting people to actually listen might be the hardest, most important part of this work right now.
I think there is a great deal in what you say.
You are right that my poll tells me what my existing audience wants. It cannot tell me how to reach people who currently dismiss my arguments before hearing them. That is a different challenge altogether.
I also agree that language matters. Terms like “neoliberalism” are analytically useful, but they can become tribal labels that prevent people engaging with the underlying argument. If people switch off at the vocabulary, they never reach the substance.
That is one reason why I have increasingly tried to explain mechanisms rather than ideologies. I want people to understand how money works, how ownership works, how wealth is created and captured, and why so many institutions now fail to serve the people they are meant to benefit.
Where I perhaps differ is that I do think names matter. Once people understand the mechanism, they also need to understand that it is not accidental. It arises from a particular way of organising the economy and society. That system does have a name.
But I agree that diagnosis has to come before labels. If people first recognise the problem in their own lives, they are much more willing to consider why it exists.
Ultimately, my task is not to persuade people that they are “left” or “right”. It is to help them see the world a little more clearly. If they do that, the politics tends to follow. I think understanding has to precede persuasion. That has always been my objective.
I see that ‘The Canary’ alternative news website has been de-banked
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/06/30/lloyds-canary/
It has. They owe me money! But I am more worried for them though, and all of us who oppose government as well.
I didn’t realise that unelected, unseen, uncountable managers in the high street banks had been given these kind of draconian powers. Refusing to allow a person or organisation access to it’s own money should require an application to a judge, with all the requirements of having to prove your case plus the opportunity for a defence and subsequent appeal against the judgement. Anything less is a step towards anarchy.
Agreed
Even within neoliberal economics, there should perhaps be the concept of moral and social obligation. The ultra-wealthy are our modern nobility just as much as the historic aristocracy in terms of the power they wield and the help or harm within their power to disperse. ‘noblesse oblige’ for the modern world. No status for the accumulation of wealth, only for the good you create either by foregoing or spending it.
If only…..
Considering your already prodigious output, I don’t see any difficulty in pulling back on some problems or commentary content and making more room for solutions. I’ve always preferred to live in a house with a smaller number of larger rooms and you might look at taking a similar view regarding content creation.
There is inevitably a lot of repetition in what you produce, which is necessary as very few people will make much effort to trawl the archive. So one solution to free up time for deeper dives into creating solution content might be to make ‘flashbacks’ a regular feature. Be shameless in re-advertising a previous video or comment. The regulars who remember it first time will just skip it and focus on the new content (or, if they are like me, watch it anyway having forgotten 90% of what you said, regardless of how interesting it was) and for new readers it will be as good as shiny new content anyway.
One area I would like to understand more is how the City of London works, with it’s unique rights of self-governance and exemption from some national legislation. What unique authority, or exemption from scrutiny does this create in practice and is part of a solution for the UK to have the City brought more under the control of the government rather than the other way round which seems to be the current situation? Will this be necessary for an economics of hope to be created?
Good advice.
Good morning Richard,
I went for balancing criticism with proposals for change. I haven’t been following you, your blog and your channel for all that long and I feel I still have a great deal to learn. What I hope you might be able to do is keep up with the more educational content (eg explaining MMT, how bonds work, how the banking system works, etc), the critique (especially how it is that the media and politicians seem fixated on the wrong thing…) but round it out with what we can do. Or rather, how we can bring about change.
Developing a vision for how government should prioritise the needs of people in general, rather than a wealthy elite, is essential. But the biggest problem seems to be how we change the minds of those who are in control. The economists, media commentators and politicians who have all soaked up the neoliberal orthodoxy, and just slam the door on any alternative view. I don’t yet know how to do this, but it seems to me that a rigorous focus on their critique of our ideas – so that we can both test our own thinking, and find ways to ways to influence them – will be crucial.
An example: I have come to believe that, for example, government spending is not constrained in the way that nearly every mainstream commentator seems to think. How do we change their minds? I am with you when you show us that Government spending is not constrained, provided that taxation is used to control inflation, and in the process, re-allocate resources. Does Andy Burnham agree? Does the manager of the Bank of England agree? If not, how can we get through to them?
Thank you
I know that you try to remain politically neutral, but I think your focus on solutions is key, but also needs a political home to really drive it forward. Ideas are important, but politics is what then makes things happen
If you could convince a party to adopt, promote and ultimately enact your ideas (here’s looking at you greens…) then this becomes so much more.
Just my 2p worth, but I think the ideas are coming of their time and need actors in the political sphere to make them happen.
Regardless, the work you are doing is important so please KUTGW
Noted
We really need proposals and solutions to move forward, but they will have to work within the framework of economics and political will, so they are all linked. Hence my preferred option.