A crippling consensus | James Vitali | The Critic Magazine - "the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Party... all proffered a strikingly common economic worldview. And it is a worldview resting upon three key pillars: a belief that Britain must pursue closer European integration, a certainty in net zero as a driver of prosperity, and what I call the statist imperative... The fact that the most salient problems with the UK economy predate Brexit seems not to have been a consideration for those who see some form of re-entry into EU institutions as a panacea for our anaemic growth. And given that the EU’s performance over the last decade has been highly disappointing, and that the EU’s share of global GDP continues to fall, is that the economic future that we want to tie our country to? Secondly, the “just energy transition” has become not merely a social cause but a defining component of the British left’s economic agenda. With energy prices so frequently cited as a factor inhibiting growth across the entire economy, so-called “free” solar and wind energy appears to be an attractive proposition. “Homegrown renewable energy” will “cut bills” argue the Liberal Democrats; according to the Labour government, energy security will be secured through “offshore wind in the Celtic and the North Sea” at the expense of North Sea gas; scaling up renewables will mean we are no longer vulnerable to supply shocks in the Green Party imaginary. Of course this belief is based on the erroneous idea that there are no economic trade-offs in seeking to totally replace dense energy sources with renewables. Nor does the left appear to recognise that gas is going to remain an important part of our energy mix for many years to come, not least because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy. Either way, an energy policy dedicated to the ideology of net zero as-fast-as-possible will lead to higher costs for households and businesses, not lower bills. Finally, and despite the fact that each party on the left wishes to present their ideas as novel and fresh, all continue to be united by that old statist view that the path to prosperity lies through government management. Of course, this social democratic perspective is now given a different name — the “active” or “catalytic” or “strategic” state, depending on the day of the week. But the idea is the same: that it is the state, not individuals or businesses, that drive economic growth. Every major political party agrees that low investment and subdued productivity growth constitute the two biggest drags on the British economy. What unites the left is a view that addressing these issues depends on a bigger role for government... On productivity, Labour has set out the statist agenda most explicitly. “Securonomics”, an approach which Reeves doubled down on during her Mais Lecture, holds that the state must guarantee people’s financial security, in order to provide a platform for improved economic performance. It is on this basis that they have justified further intervention in the jobs market, or discretionary welfare to support people with their bills. But the same logic lies behind the Green Party’s obsession with instituting rent controls and redistributing wealth through higher capital gains tax, or Davey’s statement that the government should be “more generous” in its support for household bills. All contend that if we let the state control the economy more tightly, it will be able to provide us all with more security, and growth will somehow magically ensue. The truth, of course, is that much of the opposite will happen. A bigger state will not have a “multiplier effect” as Polanski — a learned Keynes scholar to be sure — puts it, but will instead impair the dynamism of the wealth-creating parts of the economy. Indeed, we already have evidence that Reeves’s tax and borrowing increases have hurt private investment. The British left is in fantasyland. With debt set to exceed 270 percent of GDP by 2070 according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, they want more borrowing. With energy bills higher in the UK than most peer economies, they want us to be even more exposed to global supply shocks. With government expenditure already comprising about half of the GDP, they want the state to do even more on our behalf. And however much they try to differentiate themselves, each major party on the left wishes us to continue trudging down this path towards further impoverishment. All of this makes it even more essential that British conservatives start getting on the same page in advance of the next General Election. Some old truths need restating with renewed clarity and conviction: that the sources of our prosperity lie not in government, but in the energy and enterprise of the British people, that the world is a competitive marketplace, and we need to start competing much more effectively, and that a politics of envy can never produce a society of enterprise and entrepreneurship. As the bookies show, the stakes couldn’t be higher."
‘Uninvestable’ Britain is turning into a shake-down state - "Eurotunnel, which operates the link from Dover to Calais, last week condemned Britain as “uninvestable” as it prepared to take the Government to court over the increase in its rates bill. Likewise, Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, warned it may have to wind down investment here over the endless obesity targets and levies. A worrying pattern is starting to emerge. Britain is turning into a shake-down state – and investors will have no choice but to get out as fast as they can. Business rates were originally meant to be a way of raising money for local services, and were based on a modest assessment of what a company’s premises were worth. But like so many taxes under this Government they have morphed into a way of squeezing as much cash out of companies as possible. Eurotunnel is a good example. Getlink, the Paris-based owner of the route, has seen its bill pushed up from £40m to £118m... Gatwick Airport last year complained of an £11m annual increase in its rates bill (one reason why it has pushed up the rightly disliked “drop-off” fee to £10 a car) while Heathrow faces a £35m a year increase in the amount it has to pay. You can’t pick up a tunnel or a runway and move it somewhere else. The companies have little choice but to stump up the cash. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any impact. It just gets passed on in the form of higher prices for customers, and less investment in keeping the facilities up to date. Likewise, obesity levies were originally designed as a way of persuading us to eat more healthy foods, but they are starting to turn into a revenue machine as well. The result? Mondelez says endless taxes and targets would eventually force it to invest elsewhere... Business rates are imposed seemingly on the basis of where cash is squeezed out of companies, which have no choice but to stay where they are, even if there is no real basis for them. Windfall taxes are imposed more or less arbitrarily, depending on how much money the Treasury thinks it can squeeze out of a sector and not because an industry is genuinely making exceptional or unjustified profits. There is an endless series of green levies imposed on top of what is already the most expensive industrial energy in the world. Packaging levies are imposed on anyone the Government thinks may be able to pay them, while businesses are somehow meant to hit a social target the Government has set for itself, but no longer has any money left to pay for. The list goes on. Companies used to simply have to pay corporation tax on any profits they happened to make. Now they face a bewildering series of charges and levies that drain any chance of making any money. In reality, it is little more than a series of shake-downs. Like a local protection racket, officials are tasked with simply hustling money out of companies wherever and however they can. There are two big problems with that. To start with, it is morally wrong. Investors and entrepreneurs are entitled to make a return on the time and capital they put into creating a good or a service. More seriously, it is a huge deterrent to putting capital to work in this country. The one thing investors value over almost everything else is stability and the rule of law. Whatever its other drawbacks, such as poor infrastructure, cumbersome regulations, and limits on its access to the European market, Britain always scored very highly on both. Its institutions could be trusted. Unfortunately, that is no longer true. There are already worrying signs that foreign direct investment into Britain is starting to fall significantly. In 2025, according to figures from the consultancy EY, we secured 730 inward investment projects, but that was a 14pc year-on-year decline (we maintained second place in Europe, but only because our neighbours did even worse). We have witnessed huge projects being cancelled, such as the £1bn that the pharmaceuticals giant Merck was planning to put into Britain, or the massive data centre from OpenAI. Meanwhile, we have seen virtually no major new investments announced so far in 2026. Companies are looking at the treatment of the likes of Eurotunnel and Cadbury and deciding it is not worth the risk."
Left wingers want degrowth so this isn't all bad for them. Good luck paying for the unlimited social spending they demand - they think money and prices are fake, so hyperinflation is in the works
Letters: The benefits of HS2 will never justify the astronomical cost of delivery - "It is no surprise that HS2 may cost more than Nasa’s Artemis mission: there are no bats between Earth and the moon."
"I had contact with the HS2 project in a number of engineering and management roles over several years. As with almost everything in public life, nobody is accountable for failure. An overly complex project and legislative environment fosters a culture where no one takes responsibility, bad news is “massaged”, and there is active obfuscation or deception. Within the project, contradicting the party line on costs or time frames leads to sanctions, or even one’s services being dispensed with. Politicians are also to blame, having shown a lack of critical analysis of what they were told, taking information supplied at face value."
Getting welfare under control is now the central issue of politics - "The British state is apparently short of money. The Armed Forces, for example, have been starved of funds for decades. Warships languish in dock for years on end, essential capabilities are not replaced when they wear out, buildings are falling down. Things are no better in other areas. Police stations, schools and courts are often as poorly maintained as the defence estate. The Government plans to reduce jury trials, fairly obviously to save a small amount of money. Roads are potholed, the railways don’t always work, and street lights are turned off. Every possible saving is made. Yet the machinery of the state is spending colossal, unprecedented amounts. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects public spending of £1,368bn for 2025-26. Despite new and burdensome taxes, it expected the Government to only bring in £1,235bn, adding another £133bn to the national debt – now rapidly approaching £3tn. The UK’s debt as a share of GDP has tripled over the past 25 years, a bigger increase than any other country over the same period except Botswana. We now spend much more on debt interest payments than on defence, education, transport or justice; and the Chancellor is thinking of ways to borrow even more through other means such as PFI."
Bernie on X - "Remember when I told you this… I’m bored of telling you that All the parties are lying to you. Because if they told you the truth they wouldn’t be elected. Britain is nearly bankrupt and politicians have no idea where this ‘mythical’ growth to cover obscene spending will come from Because they can’t! There isn’t any. The working-age population is shrinking, the number of people claiming benefits is rising, and the public sector, funded by the private sector, is ballooning. AI is on track to replace huge amounts of white-collar jobs in the next 10–15 years. All of these people will be jobless and needing to claim benefits. Which we won’t be able to afford to pay! The guff about “net zero” and “green jobs” is bollocks (technical term) Those jobs only exist during the construction phase, after that, these are largely automated industries. As for those shouting about Universal Basic Income er … from where? How would it be funded? You’re dreaming. And those saying we can just tax the corporations, they’re dreaming too. They’ll just operate from outside the UK. And to control you … as you demand pay rises and more benefits? Well a near total clampdown of speech and thought through legislation and censorship and those Digital IDs, “just so you behave yourself.” There really is little growth, even trades will be hit because the population won’t have the money to buy their services. We’re are in a badly managed decline, with grossly under qualified and incapable leadership in any party at all. And all those screaming to tax the wealthy? You’re just morons. I really wasn’t exaggerating 🔥"
Labour may need help from the IMF, economists warn - "In a warning shot to Labour leadership hopeful Andy Burnham, the former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff said a major UK debt crisis before the end of the decade was now more likely than not... Sir Charlie Bean, a former official at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), warned that IMF intervention was now a “material risk”... Mr Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor, compared Mr Burnham’s pledge to nationalise swathes of the economy to the radical Left-wing agenda introduced by François Mitterrand in the early 1980s. “Mitterrand came in being Andy Burnham, and the markets collapsed,” said Mr Rogoff. The move triggered a collapse in the franc, rampant inflation and capital flight that forced Mr Mitterrand to impose severe austerity just years later. Mr Rogoff said the UK economy was now more vulnerable than the US, even though the world’s biggest economy has higher deficits and debt levels. He added: “The UK is definitely in more trouble than the US because there isn’t a growth story in the UK.” Mr Rogoff said the Government would likely use the IMF as a scapegoat. He added: “They don’t need the IMF, but they would call the IMF. McKinsey will often get called in by a company that knows they need to fire their CEO.”"
Labour’s magical thinking on debt will doom future generations - "There will, of course, be those who point to the fact debt rose under the Conservatives. But they conveniently ignore two important pieces of context. One is that, in 2010, the Conservatives inherited a situation from Labour where the government was borrowing one pound in every four it spent. We managed to bring the deficit down such that, before the pandemic hit, debt as a proportion of our economy was falling and the current budget was in surplus. The other factor, of course, is the pandemic, where governments across the world had to step in to support the economy and the health system, and debts rose sharply, followed by the energy crisis caused by the invasion of Ukraine. Those events mean we have a particularly elevated level of debt. That problem is then exacerbated by higher interest rates. Interest rates have risen across the world compared to the 2010s. And the mismanagement of Rachel Reeves means the UK pays a higher premium on its borrowing costs than any other G7 country. The response to this should be to bring down borrowing urgently so that we can stabilise our debt and start to bring it back down to a more sustainable level. But Labour has opted to do the exact opposite. Since coming into office, the deficit has been 75 per cent higher than was forecast when Rachel Reeves entered the Treasury. Incredibly, the Chancellor has been claiming that she is bringing borrowing down – when in reality she has massively increased it. She seems to think that a slight reduction in a number which she herself sent soaring is somehow an achievement. In total across this Parliament, Labour’s plans now involve more than a quarter of a trillion pounds of additional borrowing compared to the plans they inherited. Debt is set to rise every single year. Labour seems to believe every problem can be solved by spending more money, but it’s ordinary families who end up paying the price for high debt and crippling interest bills. Every pound borrowed today must be repaid, with interest. Every pound spent servicing debt is a pound that cannot be spent on defence, policing, schools, or to bring taxes down. The bond markets are now delivering a brutal reminder that hard choices never disappear. They are merely postponed. Britain today pays more to borrow than almost any major Western economy. Investors are demanding a premium because they can see what many politicians refuse to admit: our current path is unsustainable. We saw how deep their concern was when Andy Burnham announced his intention to return to Parliament and bond yields spiked. His past comments show he has the perennial Labour disease of thinking deficits do not matter. He has complained the Government is too “in hock to the bond market”. And despite now saying he is committed to the fiscal rules, in a recent interview he was unable to say what those rules actually are. Hardly a man to inspire confidence from our creditors. Debt is not merely an economic issue. It is a question of national strength. A country drowning in debt loses freedom of action. It becomes more vulnerable to economic shocks, less able to respond to crises, and more dependent on the goodwill of creditors. Debt is, in effect, a tax on the future, and a profoundly unfair one at that: the people paying for it – future generations – had no say in accumulating it."
Shameless Burnham will promise anything for power - "obviously, Burnham has tied himself to a group that refuses to say what it believes in pursuit of naked self-interest. Lest we forget, the original aim of the Waspi campaign – long since scrubbed from its Facebook group in case anyone realises the depth of its selfishness – was for the state pension age not to be equalised at all. But only for them. When asked a decade ago by Frances Coppola, an economist and journalist, whether they would consider supporting younger women, they suggested they “start their own campaign”."
Is this Andy Burnham’s worst idea yet? - "It is hard to think of any less deserving cause in British politics than the Waspi women. Standing for Women Against State Pension Inequality, it campaigns on behalf of the women who lost out when the retirement age for men and women was gradually equalised. Even though it was flagged many years in advance, giving them plenty of time to plan their retirement, and it was always hard to understand why women, with a longer life expectancy, collected their state pension earlier than men, the group insists more than three million of them are owed compensation. A bail-out package could cost the government more than £10 billion. It turns out that Burnham agrees with them. Pressed on the issue at a hustings event, he said would “stick by the Waspi women because they deserve some recompense for the unfairness”. It is going to be hard for him to row back on that now. The trouble is, there are two big problems with a package of support. To start with, compensation for the Waspis is very unfair on everyone else who will have to pay for it. With free universities, and cheap houses, it is not as if the women born in the 1950s were dealt the worst hand in life’s lottery. Why not compensate the generation that suddenly had to pay more £9,000 a year for their degree in 2012? Or the generation that were locked out of school because of Covid? Once you start, the list will never end. In reality, life is full of twists and turns, and we can’t expect the state to compensate us for all of them. Next, and more importantly, it exposes the free spending populism that will characterise a Burham government. The Starmer-Reeves double act has hardly spent much time trying to control spending, pushing up taxes and borrowing to finance soaring public sector salaries and welfare payments. But Burnham, to borrow a line from Spinal Tap, would ramp that up to 11. There doesn’t appear to be any form of spending he is not in favour of. Let’s nationalise the utilities. Let’s subsidise the buses. Let’s build more council houses. Heck, why not? After all, we don’t want to be “ruled by the bond markets”. That is not going to end well. The government is already running out of money. Last year, the Treasury had to borrow £132 billion, and with the figures already running way ahead of the forecasts it is likely to punch well through the £150 billion barrier this year. That amounts to £1,925 per person, or close to £10,000 for the average family. Every year. Bond yields have already started to touch twenty-year highs as investors grow more and more nervous about the viability of the state. It is hard to think of a worse possible moment to ramp up spending even further, especially on a cause as undeserving as this. In reality, Burnham is going to keep on throwing money around like confetti until it finally runs out. Most of us probably already suspected that a Burham premiership would trigger a financial crash. Now we know for sure."
‘I moved to America 18 years ago. Britain seems like it’s waiting to die’ - "I moved from Britain to the US East Coast 18 years ago, living first in the New York suburbs and then Palm Beach, Florida. At 45, I made the move with my family for many reasons, but primarily because I was fed up with the UK’s constant negativity, and disdain for people who succeed, even when self-made. Although there are things I miss – such as the British sense of humour, and the sense of fairness that most Britons possess – I would never move back. The UK appears poor and lethargic, like it’s completely lost its mojo. It’s as if it has entered old age and is just waiting to die, and some parts do seem overwhelmingly foreign. It’s a great shame because the country has so much to be proud of. The quality of life is so much better in the States. There’s nicer weather, more financial opportunities and dynamism, a constant and vigorous debate of new and fresh ideas, and a “can-do” attitude. While the US has its problems with crime, you don’t get the same sort of disruptive, low-level hoodlums and petty criminals that blight residential areas of the UK and contribute to a diminished sense of safety and quality of life. I’m also Jewish, and the attitude towards Jewish people is much more positive in the US than in the UK. I feel at home in the US, whereas, despite being born in the UK, I sometimes felt, and still feel, like merely a guest there. This aspect has worsened in the last few years... The US is huge, and has such varied options for travelling, though generally I’d say Europe does cities better – they are much more historic and on a human scale – while the US does the outdoors better... I have lost 40-50lbs since moving here, because of the generally more active and healthier lifestyle most people embrace, again in the larger cities on both coasts. I’m sure this will be a surprise to most Britons, who view Yanks as 25st slobs."
"Yes there are problems there too, but the optimism and belief that if you work hard you will get rewarded and have a nice life, and also the pride in the nation, stands out head and shoulders above the UK.”
"The British media portrays Trump as the devil and living here under him as hell, but that’s far from the truth for most people – he has made the country feel more secure by closing those bloody wide open borders we had under Biden. We complain about the cost of gas and electricity, but electricity is three times cheaper than in UK . Yes the cost of healthcare is exorbitant even with insurance, but at least you can get treated in a timely manner. We used to wonder if we would move back to the UK, but given what is happening there now? No way. I hope Britain recovers from successive governments’ awful policies.”
"While I hate to think what the woke left in the USA are going to become as adults (if not deprogrammed), the Americans are as a whole my favourite people in the world. I prefer France and Spain for infrastructure and food (the UK is the opposite), but the Americans are positive, kind, helpful, honest, hard-working, and don’t have a nasty bone in their bodies.”
"It runs rings around the UK for opportunity, decency and quality of life. I visit the UK at least once a year and it seems like the country is on an exponential decline in terms of culture, financial stability and effective leadership.”
Factory bosses prepare to shift jobs abroad as ‘patience runs out’ - "Factory bosses have issued a plea to the Government to alleviate the cost burden on industry and prevent an exodus of manufacturers. Without urgent government action to bring down energy bills and employment costs, the deindustrialisation of Britain will accelerate in the coming months, costing thousands of jobs across the country, businesses warned. A quarter of the UK’s manufacturing base is threatening to shift operations overseas, and more than one in four fear they could run out of cash in the next 12 months if ministers don’t do more to temper soaring costs. A slew of recently expanded government relief schemes will fail to halt the crisis sweeping through heavy industry, manufacturers said. The stark findings came in a survey of British industrial companies jointly conducted by Make UK, the manufacturing lobby group, and the Trades Union Congress. “Despite a promise in last year’s Industrial Strategy of ‘bold action’ to bring down energy costs, nothing has yet been delivered to support businesses. Patience has run out,” Make UK said. Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK, said: “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now. Britain faces deindustrialisation unless manufacturers get relief from high energy prices. “Electricity and gas in the UK are far too expensive, and it’s costing our country steeply. We cannot afford to be delayed by political upheaval or by further consultations,” he added... Make UK said the need for further support was given greater urgency because energy prices in Britain were already the highest in the G7 before the conflict in the Middle East and had increased further since the outbreak of war in the region... According to the Chemicals Industry Association, Britain experienced a near-40pc fall in UK chemical production between 2021 and 2024, with 25 site closures."
Left wing logic: jack up business costs through disastrous policies, then complain about "corporate subsidies" if governments try to stop businesses leaving/shutting down and collapsing the economy
Britain risks ‘terminal decline’ unless Labour backs business, warns Wrightbus boss - "Britain faces “terminal decline” unless Labour adopts a more pro-business approach to entrepreneurs, the owner of Wrightbus has warned. Jo Bamford, whose bus manufacturer employs 2,500 staff in Northern Ireland, said an ignorance of corporate Britain in the Government and among London’s civil servants was holding back growth... He said Labour needed to do more to back UK start-ups or risk hollowing out swathes of the country and consigning their residents to the scrap heap. “If you don’t start getting people working hard and don’t start having businesses that they can come into, you just go into terminal decline,” he warned... Bamford said that despite owning Wrightbus, one of only two UK busmakers and among a handful worldwide to produce a range of traditional and net zero models, he has struggled to get a hearing in Whitehall. “I’ve never met the minister of transport,” he admitted. “I met the head of buses once. This is the guy coming up with the bus policy for the UK. I’m one of the only people in the world with a hybrid, diesel and battery bus, and he won’t see me. “I go and talk to them and they go, no, you’re wrong. But I’ve been doing this my whole life, and I’m not sure what you’ve done before.” Britain’s political class, from the 650 MPs to the Civil Service and government-appointed quangos, also have a lack of business know-how, which was holding the UK back, he added... “Look at the committee on climate change, which the Government is mandated to listen to. I think barely one of them has ever been an engineer. Most of them are commentators or civil servants who have done PPE. And they are designing our plan on energy transition.”"
Jack on X - "Lewis Hamilton says there should be a limit to how much wealth one person can have "One of the things that I struggle with every day is that there is such a disparity between the wealthy and the poor” "When you drive around LA there's still so many people living on the streets. You shouldn't be able to have billions" "I think there should be a limit to how much you can have because there's enough to go around for everyone”"
Rush on X - "The same Lewis Hamilton who used a corporate leasing structure to save money on taxes (around £3.3 million in VAT) when acquiring his Bombardier Challenger 605 private jet in 2013? The same Lewis Hamilton who bought the £16.5 million jet through his British Virgin Islands company (Stealth Aviation Ltd) and who then set up an Isle of Man leasing company (Stealth (IOM) Ltd, to import it into the EU and sub-leased it to a UK jet management firm (TAG Aviation), which in turn provided it back to Hamilton and his Guernsey company under charter agreements? *That* Lewis Hamilton?"
Starmer refuses to cut welfare to boost defence - "John Healey resigned as defence secretary on Thursday, accusing Sir Keir of putting the country’s safety at risk by failing to come up with the cuts required to properly fund the Government’s defence investment plan (DIP). The Conservatives said the failure to include benefits in the scope of cuts was proof that the Prime Minister had never been serious about increasing defence spending to the level required to make the nation safe."
Morgan Barrett on X - "Jeremy Clarkson’s Farm show on Amazon is the most radicalizing piece of mainstream media I’ve ever seen Just one example (bear with me): Badgers became a protected species in Britain 40+ years ago. The population has exploded and now frequently transmits tuberculosis to cows But farmers can’t cull the badger population to protect their cattle because the government still considers them to be endangered Instead of addressing the root cause, the UK has the most batshit testing regime for cattle There’s no TB vaccine. So the cattle have to get tested. The vets administering the test have to measure welts on the cows neck. Whether a cow lives or dies comes down to a vet trying to discern 1mm on a caliper (reactive vs non reactive). If a cow tests positive, the farm (already running on super thin margins) is quarantined and starts hemorrhaging money. Jeremy Clarkson’s cow (pregnant with twins) has an inconclusive test so it’s separated from the herd. It receives a second inconclusive test so they have to kill it (before it can give birth to the twins). Now here’s the kicker: the autopsy reveals no sign of TB. It was a healthy cow needlessly killed. So - silver lining the farm should be removed from quarantine, right? WRONG - it’s still under quarantine and has to keep testing and can’t sell its beef. Kafkaesque doesn’t even begin to describe how f’d up it is for British farmers"
