Labour will run out of other people’s money to spend

The 1974-9 Labour government ran out of money by 1976 and had to go to the IMF to borrow. That entailed agreeing to cut spending and sell some assets as the state had over extended. Tax rates were high, driving rich and hard working people abroad in the brain drain. Borrowing was excessive. Interest rates were very high. The government had to borrow some money at more than 15% interest rate. The country effectively  went bust. The Labour government fell thanks to its economic disaster.

The next Labour government elected in 1997 followed Conservative spending and borrowing policies for its early years, which worked well. Then it decided it should spend and borrow more. It worked with the Bank of England on an asset bubble with excessive bank credit driving up prices and creating excessive options, leveraged funds and futures. By 2008 it was clear they had overdone it. They created a credit crunch which brought banks down and meant once again the state ran out of money. The great recession followed.

This time round they are seeking to overdo the spending and borrowing right at the start of their term. They have spent and wasted too much, with plans   to borrow £180 bn more than the Conservatives planned over five years. How long before markets teach them another expensive  lesson?

88 Comments

  1. Mark B
    July 7, 2025

    Good morning.

    Sir John I am of the opinion that, the sooner we get this sham over the better. No government is going to make the politically hard decisions needed so, at some point the matter is going to have to be forced. Hopefully given that, despite having a very large majority, this government has had to U-Turn on so many issues and is weak. The Backbenchers know that it can bully the government. This is a problem ! Because when the crunch comes, they will not vote for massive spending cuts. Instead TTK will have to go to the King to dissolve parliament and, hopefully, we can get rid of this rotten lot.

    1. Lifelogic
      July 7, 2025

      Hopefully we will not have to wait the full four more years but I suspect they will hold on the bitter end. Just as the appalling John Major did. I blame the 14 years of the fake Tories and especially throw the towel in early Sunak and Boris who wasted borrowed £Billions on the net harm lockdowns and net harm vaccines, stuck with the insanity of net zero and gave us the appalling Two Tier. Plus the appalling botched Brexit and dire Windsor Accord too.

      1. Lifelogic
        July 7, 2025

        So from the Times:- The King has used the 20th anniversary of the “tragic events” of the 7/7 bombings to call for the nation to “stand firm against those who would seek to divide us”.

        The King said that the 20th anniversary was a chance “to reaffirm our commitment to building a society where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together with mutual respect and understanding, always standing firm against those who would seek to divide us.”

        “Those who would seek to divide us” perhaps being those people of some faiths who want to bomb us, murder us, rape and torture our daughters, live of benefits… but not to this Two Tier government. The far right to Kier is the real enemy and the real threat. So we get weasel words like these from the helicopter (but net zero supporter) King.

        1. Ian B
          July 7, 2025

          @LL – ‘people of all faiths’ says the Head of the Church of England – it is no wonder that religion is imploding when its boss doesn’t even believe in it.

          Its time to bring back ‘free speech’. Religion, all religions should be open to challenge, that includes the religion of the Political Party, the UN, The WEF and a few million more. Things, ideas, etc. can get stronger when they are challenged, just as with business, enterprise, sport and so on – the alternative is hypocrisy

          1. Lifelogic
            July 7, 2025

            Indeed – they constantly use absurd weasel words and talk about the “four bombs detonating on 7/7” as if the bombs did this by magic – without any assistance from the four Muslim suicide bombers. A bit like saying after a shooting “the gun fired and shot four people”.

        2. mancunius
          July 7, 2025

          I think it’s time for the plants and trees to talk back to the King, and tell him what’s what.

        3. Berkshire Alan.
          July 7, 2025

          Lifelogic
          Yes, and meanwhile the Kings Government is letting 40,000 illegal fighting age men from goodness knows where into the Country each year, and providing housing, medication, food, and spending money to them.
          Then allow them legally to later bring in unknown so called relatives and other family members to join them !
          Only in the UK could this stupidity ever happen !

          1. Lifelogic
            July 8, 2025

            +1 while loads of tax paying wealthy and hard working leave!

        4. JohnK
          July 8, 2025

          I have news for His Majesty. This nation is a powder keg which is ready to explode. That is why a panicked government cracked down so hard on the likes of Lucy Connelly. After Southport working class communities exploded in inchoate rage. The government thought that the day of rebellion had finally come. It had not. That does not mean it will not. The indigenous people of Britain know their country is being given away by their own government. Unless this stops and is reversed, they will inevitably behave like colonised people have always done.

          Meanwhile the King lives in his fantasy world of multicultural harmony. He is as out of touch as Louis XVI was at Versailles, when on 14th July 1789 his diary entry read “nothing”.

      2. Lifelogic
        July 7, 2025

        Good article by PETER HITCHENS in the Mail on Sunday: If Charles was truly green, he wouldn’t scrap the royal train – he would have two.

        But trains (once you consider average occupancy, end connection journeys often two way taxis or cars, track maintenance, ticketing, indirected routes… are not as energy efficient as he thinks.

        He also points out which I had noticed too the BBC saying Lucy Letby has had two appeals. No she has quite appallingly had two application to appeal refused by three deluded judges. All 14 convictions are clearly totally unsafe. Quite an achievement for our wonderful and vastly expensive justice system to get all 14 unsafe convictions wrong.

        1. Peter
          July 7, 2025

          King Charles loves the trappings of power and all the pomp and ceremony. I am surprised he would scrap a royal train. I thought it more likely he would reinstate a royal yacht.

        2. Original Richard
          July 7, 2025

          LL :

          I suspect the royal train has been cancelled for security reasons.

        3. JohnK
          July 8, 2025

          LL:
          I notice that Cheshire Constabulary are now trying to fit Lucy Letby up for more murders, in a clear attempt to stymie her appeal. Anyone who has ever dealt with them will know how bad they are.

      3. Peter
        July 7, 2025

        ‘ Hopefully we will not have to wait the full four more years but I suspect they will hold on the bitter end.’

        Not necessarily with Starmer and Reeves in charge though.

        1. JohnK
          July 8, 2025

          No, it could actually get worse!

    2. Wanderer
      July 7, 2025

      Will they stick in power until we get Weimar inflation, such that buying voters and paying the police/security state/judiciary to keep us in line is no longer possible?

    3. Ian wragg
      July 7, 2025

      I left the country in 77 as I saw no future . I watched in awe when Thatcher came to power releasing my uk funds by ending exchange controls. I was able to save and invest with confidence which has paid off now I’m retired.
      We are now back to 77 and I fear this load of excrement is going to destroy mine and others carefully planned retirement to fund hare brained schemes and channel invaders.
      The sooner the bond vigilantes collapse this government the better. Like removing a plaster it will be initially painful but worth it.

    4. PeteB
      July 7, 2025

      Agreed Mark. The question then becomes will the next Government balance the books? On current polling this task will fall to Reform. Do we thing Farage et al will take the tough decisions to cut spending?

      It’s easy to be liked as a politician when you are promising/giving more money to people. Much tougher to take that money away – whether it is deserved or not.

      1. mancunius
        July 7, 2025

        imo Farage does not have the ability of Margaret Thatcher to tell the nation hard truths. Mind you, she too did not go quite far enough. I remember shaking my head in sheer horror when she announced ‘The National Health Service is safe in our hands’. She should have dismantled this socialist illusion; I suppose that it must have been her euroscepticism that prevented her from appreciating what a much better job tiered health insurance systems made of it in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
        In fact Sir JR must have an idea as to what and why – perhaps he could give us an historical insight one day!

        Reply Margaret reformed and changed many things. The NHS was very popular and she kept her word not to privatise it.

    5. Oldtimer92
      July 7, 2025

      Agreed that the sooner this government falls the better. That might be forced by a bond market strike against buying more gilts. I suppose it possible, if unlikely, that internal divisions could bring it down. Unfortunately the most likely outcome is that it will stagger on doing irreparable damage to the economy and it’s capacity to produce wealth.

      Re our host’s analysis of past Labour governments one could add the first Harold Wilson government and his “pound in your pocket” speech which fooled no one.

      1. IanT
        July 7, 2025

        I wasn’t very keen on Harold at the time but in retrospect (and whatever his real motives were) he kept us out of the Vietnam War. As a serving soldier (in the Far East) at the time, I have good reason to be grateful to him if only for that one thing… 🙂

    6. Peter Wood
      July 7, 2025

      There are reports that members of the PLP are not worried about running out of money since they think the BoE can ‘print’ as much as they want to spend, without cost. Ms Reeves should know better but she may not be around long, then who knows who might move into No. 11. Sterling crisis anybody?

      1. rose
        July 7, 2025

        Aren’t they deliberately bankrupting the country so they can say free markets don’t work: we must have communism and go back in the EU?

        1. JohnK
          July 8, 2025

          I am not sure they are even that intelligent. They simply hate “the rich” and think they should be forced to pay for everything. The “rich” are people who earn £1 more than they do.

      2. IanT
        July 7, 2025

        Some people without parachutes, all jump out of an aircraft at the same time. At times, one (or other) of them is falling a bit faster than the others. As he drifts past, they think “Great, he’s going to hit the deck first”….

        All FIAT currencies are falling in purchasing power, it’s just that some are falling faster than others at the moment. Sterling has been in crisis (decline) for a very long time, because we borrow more than we earn just to pay our basic bills. However, this Government seems very determined to hit the ground first and the way they are going, they will succeed!

  2. Cliff.. Wokingham.
    July 7, 2025

    Morning Sir John,
    Far too many current politicians on the green benches, believe that we are a rich country. I may have no real grasp of economics, but even I can guess that if you are trillions in debt, you can’t possibly be rich.
    One of the problems I see is that, everytime the government speaks, it announces that it is going to throw money at something or other.
    Everytime the PM goes abroad, which is often, he throws money about like a giddy aunt at a wedding with a big box of confetti. They need to get a grip.

    1. Ian B
      July 7, 2025

      @Cliff.. Wokingham. +1

    2. James1
      July 7, 2025

      This sorry excuse for a chancellor and her boss 2TK seem to feel they can move ‘rich’ people around like pieces of wood on a chess board. Perhaps they might wake up and realise that they can’t, and that so called ‘rich’ people can just simply say ‘goodbye’.

    3. Berkshire Alan.
      July 7, 2025

      +1

  3. Berkshire Alan.
    July 7, 2025

    Afraid it will take outside influence again, because no-one in Government is prepared to cut spending.
    Most politicians seem to live in this dream World with the belief that taxing the rich and wealthy will pay for everything.
    Unfortunately they think the rich are those with assets over £325,000, the present inheritance tax level.
    I see Kinnock is at it yet again, talking about a yet another annual wealth tax idea.
    Clueless absolutely clueless.

    1. Ian B
      July 7, 2025

      @Berkshire Alan – its there 2TK, has put the UN in charge(last week) of UK taxes and they have told him they the taxes must rise and be used bend wills and minds

  4. formula57
    July 7, 2025

    How long before the Bank of England acts as gilts buyer of last resort?

  5. Stephen Reay
    July 7, 2025

    It was a 2008 global financial crash not a Labour one. Not a fan of Labour, just expecting the facts.

    1. Sir Joe Soap
      July 7, 2025

      We took far longer to recover-indeed never have recovered-compared to USA due to Brown bail outs of RBS and cajouling Lloyds-until then a good bank -into buying a pup.

    2. Ian B
      July 7, 2025

      @Stephen Reay – a Gordon Brown one, that we and our offspring will be paying for for years to come

    3. formula57
      July 7, 2025

      Like Gordon Brown said “It all started in America” – with the collapse of Northern Rock!

      1. hefner
        July 7, 2025

        Gee, ever heard about securitisation, ie, packaging mortgages to sell onto other banks?
        philadelphiafed.org 03/2010 ‘« cream-skimming » in subprime mortgage securitizations: Which subprime mortgage loans were sold by depository institutions prior to the crisis of 2007?’

        ‘Cream-skimming: transferring risk to naive, uninformed, or unconcerned investors through the securitization process’ (same ref.,’Conclusion’, p.28.)

        Yes, Northern Rock (words left out ed)had bought these subprime mortgages securitised as derivatives linked to the mortgages as a way to bump its profits (liquidsearch.com ‘Northern Rock: Subprime mortgage crisis and nationalisation’.)

        The official NR’s business plan had involved borrowing heavily in the UK and international money markets, extending mortgages to customers based on this funding, and then re-selling these mortgages on international capital markets.
        When the value of these securities started to crash at the beginning of 2007, then followed by others (New Century Financial Corp., April 2007; then American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. and many other US banking institutions) in summer 2007, Northern Rock was taken flat-footed, had to enter a liquidity support facility with the Bank of England on 14/09/2007 and was (kind of) nationalised on 06/02/2008 and following two unsuccessful bids to take over the bank was properly nationalised on 22/02/2008.

        So, obviously all the fault of Gordon, nothing to complain about with the bank’s top management …

        Reply Northern Rock was not brought down by selling off packages of mortgages. It was brought down by savers wanting their deposits back when markets were kept too illiquid by the Central Bank leading to a credit crunch.

        1. Martin in Bristol
          July 7, 2025

          Good effort hefner.
          But as usual always on the wrong side of the argument.
          Your analysis of Northern Rock’s failure is nonsense.
          And no criticism from you of either the regulator nor the Treasury who had the role of overseeing this bank.

        2. formula57
          July 7, 2025

          @ hefner – Brown eventually (14th., April 2010) confessed it did not all start in America (as you show with the actions of the culpable Northern Rock management), rather his maladroit deregulation that saw separation of Bank of England supervisory and oversight functions to other bodies (that caused then Governor Eddie George to consider resigning in protest) was at last acknowledged as playing a part.

          Peter Lilley as shadow chancellor had warned Brown at the time that:
          “with the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority – the ‘super-SIB’ – it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.” (Hansard, 11 November, 1997)

        3. hefner
          July 7, 2025

          And why did savers want their savings back if not because they were learning of the credit crunch happening in the USA?

          1. formula57
            July 7, 2025

            A question of considerable interest in the context.

            According to Hyun Song Shin, Professor of Economics, Princeton University writing in the Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 23, Number 1—Winter 2009

            “The Northern Rock depositor run, although dramatic on television, was an event in the aftermath of the liquidity crisis at Northern Rock, rather than the event that triggered its liquidity crisis.” [Recall the run by retail depositors, those forming queues outside branches, occurred only after the Bank of England announced it was supporting Northern Rock.]

            He goes on to explain: –

            ” But the Northern Rock bank run was not enacted by individuals, but rather by sophisticated institutional investors. These investors often face constraints on their risk-taking either from risk management rules they follow for internal business reasons, or from regulatory rules. When measured risks are low, risk constraints on capital do not bind, and such investors will be willing to lend. However, when a crisis strikes, risk constraints bind and lenders cut back their exposures in response. But whatever the reason for the prudent cutting of exposures by the creditors to Northern Rock, their actions will look like a “run” from the point of view of Northern Rock itself. In this sense, the run on Northern Rock may be better seen as the tightening of constraints on the creditors of Northern Rock rather than as a coordination failure among them.”

            (By “coordination failure” he refers to the classic models of bank runs where ” an individual depositor runs for fear that others will run, leaving no assets in place for those who do not run”.)

          2. formula57
            July 8, 2025

            @ Reply “Northern Rock was not brought down by selling off packages of mortgages. “ – a point supported by Shin who states that NR’s mortgage portfolio was too illiquid to sell. He explains in his paper: –

            “In effect, Northern Rock was faced with a giant margin call, where lenders [“in the repo market”] demanded higher haircuts. The usual way to meet a margin call is to sell some assets to raise the cash. But the assets of Northern Rock were illiquid long-term mortgages, so that it could not meet those margin calls. The inability to meet this margin call led to Northern Rock’s demise.”

  6. Bryan Harris
    July 7, 2025

    It will take more than a little loan from the IMF to put things right in Britain this time.

    With their high spending, lack of any real budget and determination to Wealth transfer huge amounts anywhere but to the UK the debt will be unsustainable.

    This is not just deliberate, it is policy, backed up by the same perverse logic sending Germany and France down the drain.

    The costs incurred due to the alleged pandemic and net-0 were all about boosting our debt levels and taking us down dark paths. Real science has been absent for too long.

    What is actually going on – it’s full on socialism, and socialism is winning.

    1. graham1946
      July 7, 2025

      The pandemic has been a wonderful excuse for both parties to excuse the mess they made. The actual cost of the pandemic was about 400 billion, a lot of money agreed, but pales in comparison with the near 3 trillion debt we are in. When the Tories took over in 2010 the debt was about 900 billion, when they left it was approaching 3 trillion so they don’t have much of a case to put forward on the economy. Amateurs the lot of them with the power to cause so much damage. Our ‘democracy’ system is crap, being in effect an elective dictatorship run by fools who always end up ok and well out of it with their millions.

      1. Bryan Harris
        July 7, 2025

        Indeed – time for an evolved form of democracy to come about – to stop anyone with too few marbles from getting in.

    2. hefner
      July 8, 2025

      f57, Thanks for all your messages.

  7. Dave Andrews
    July 7, 2025

    The Labour backbenchers won’t let the PM go to the King to dissolve parliament will they. That would be political suicide given how they are placed in the polls. That lot are away with the fairies and think the solution is to print money. They will replace him first with one of their own mad socialists.

    1. graham1946
      July 7, 2025

      He won’t of course, but I don’t think the back benchers could stop him. He does not need a vote in parliament. I believe also the King can dissolve parliament if he wishes, but what a constitutional crisis that would cause, with the probable end of the monarchy.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        July 7, 2025

        The King cannot dissolve Parliament ‘if he wishes’. He is under orders not only here but in the Dominions too.

    2. Mark B
      July 7, 2025

      If TTK needs to push through tough legislation he can use it as a threat. But he really has to mean it, because if he does not and his backbenchers call his bluff he effectively becomes a ‘dead duck’ PM. So far TTK has stuck to just removing the Whip. With the size of the majority he has room to manoeuvre here. Problem comes as they get closer and closer to the next GE.

      TTK will not last the full term.

  8. Peter Gardner
    July 7, 2025

    The UK’s public finances were in a parlous state before Covid. The necessary financial support during the pandemic given to businesses and individuals and the extra health spending made them much worse. Contrast with Australia which also gave generous financial support but, owing to a far superior health service and very low public debt (45% of GDP, UK 85% of GDP), was able to recover economically both earlier and faster despite starting vaccinations much later than UK. The Telegraph and The Spectator ran a series of articles denigrating Australia precisely because without vaccinations until much later than UK it still outperformed UK using cleverly designed lockdowns alone. Tall Poppy Syndrome. Sadly the Covid Enquiry in UK will not attempt to compare UK’s performance against that of other countries, which would be the best way to learn lessons.
    Obvious lessons like saving for a rainy day and keeping the larder stocked were by-words for Mrs Thatcher but these simple sensible guiidelines seem to be very unfashionable now.
    One would think that after the pandemic it would have been a priority to repair UK’s debt. But apparently it wasn’t a priority either for the Conservatives or for Labour. Labour is always spendthrift by nature because its support base is essentially those who are net takers. ONS stats show the majority of households are net takers from the state, a result of Blair’s and Brown’s deliberate policy of making the middle classes clients of the state.
    It will be very difficult for UK to claw its way back to a sound financial position, whichever party is in power. Excessive dangerous levels of debt have been the norm for decades, so generations of people are no longer alarmed by it.
    When the crunch comes will UK go cap in hand to the IMF or to the EU or to both?

    1. Sir Joe Soap
      July 7, 2025

      Necessary financial support???
      Please explain why necessary beyond helping care homes and hospitals sequester Covid through careful deployment of staff. Probably 5% or less of what was splurged.

      1. Donna
        July 8, 2025

        +1

    2. Ian B
      July 7, 2025

      @Peter Gardner – agreed. We were at crisis point, on the cliff edge and this new crowd is pushing us over the edge.
      People so easily forget we are still paying for Brown’s self created economic crisis, as will our children and then theirs.

    3. graham1946
      July 7, 2025

      Australia, Canada, USA are big countries with relatively small populations. We are a small country with far too many people here, sucking on the teat. As we import ever more non payers, we can never recover.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        July 7, 2025

        OBR reports that ‘low wage immigrants each COST £465,000 by their 80th birthday’.
        Wonder how much each ‘no-wage’ dependent costs?

  9. Richard1
    July 7, 2025

    The U.K. now leads the world in the export of millionaires. Despite having 1/20 the population, more millionaires are expected to leave the U.K. than China this year. Now Lord Kinnock – always greatly over-rated in his day – has said they are considering a 2% wealth tax over £10m. On this basis no wealthy person with any flexibility as to residency, or young entrepreneur who hopes for success, can remain in the U.K. the exodus of rich people will turn into a flood.

    Will all those complicated models the OBR and the Bank of England have extend to concluding that this might lead to a reduction in tax revenues? Despite their shocking collective lack of private sector experience will Labour MPs and ministers understand this?

    1. Ian B
      July 7, 2025

      @Richard1 – it will happen, sooner rather than later. But is wont be about raising money through tax it will be ensuring those that are not natural Labour supporters leave the Country. Voter manipulation

    2. Lynn Atkinson
      July 7, 2025

      No, Zimbabwe is the world beater at exporting millionaires. They are all millionaires as their currency is worth a tiny fraction of a penny, and they all have to leave.

  10. Lynn Atkinson
    July 7, 2025

    It’s all about being £5 billion short – of course they sent £5 billion to Ukraine …
    Nothing but bankruptcy will stop the economic illiterates, so we need that to happen fast.
    When you are bankrupt other people make your decisions for you.
    The sooner someone other than this government make decisions the better.

  11. JP
    July 7, 2025

    Yes the Blair government took over a sound economy from Major & Clark and destroyed it
    Blair started with low debt thanks to Ken Clark
    As JR points out look where we ended up
    Bankrupt and having to deploy QE
    If you think about it the UK economy has never fully recovered since

  12. Sir Joe Soap
    July 7, 2025

    How long indeed?
    The time must come when markets realise that constantly raising taxes won’t meet the debt interest.
    As income tax is raised, VAT take is reduced, and is in any case partly voluntary as it depends on spending. Corporation tax reduces as costs including NI increase. Profits and income divert overseas. The harder they squeeze us, the less juice comes out.
    The question is whether these idiots call for gilt defaults rather than reduce spending. They’ll be arguing that rich foreigners don’t warrant receiving capital gains and high coupon rates, and be cutting coupon rates after issuance. That’s when the money really does run out. Either that or long dated gilts become unsaleable on the basis that the coupons can’t be funded over the longer term, and government is hand to mouth on a kind of payday loan basis.

  13. Kenneth
    July 7, 2025

    And, of course, as always, the most vulnerable people will suffer the most

  14. Ian B
    July 7, 2025

    Sir John
    Having a Democratic Government working for and not against the people, is about having a management structure in place to ‘budget’ – as in manage expenditure.

    Having money to spend is reliant on nothing other than a strong growing economy. Removing money from the economy taxes etc is nothing other than destroying the economy. The ‘Great Reset’ as its called is about the Marxist cult of destroy to build in one’s personal image maybe a conspiracy theory, but is practiced daily by the UK’s Legislators, Government, MP’s and the unelected unaccountable House of so-called Lords.

    From the WEF website ‘you can hear Klaus Schwab on these podcast episodes: the Great Reset launch’ we are told we have their thinking wrong, then every day their disciple’s and believers go out and prosecute the destruction they preach.

    The WEF, the UN, so-called International Law and so on are not World Government they have no democratic mandate, no legitimacy. They are just Marxist desires of control by egotist that have got ahead of themselves

  15. Rod Evans
    July 7, 2025

    I have read several articles recently that show the basic flaw in socialist economic thinking.
    The unions pushing for wealth taxes have consistently come out with the believe taking money from a private taxpayer and allowing the state to use that money to fund public sector pay awards and public sector growth, in some way increases wealth of the nation/increases growth?
    They all have in common the belief a £1 in circulation in the economy is superior to a £1 in an asset with a notional value of £xxx. They fail to notice the person with the asset has a choice. They can choose to deploy that asset anywhere, thus add to the economic activity and wealth of their chosen location.
    Labour have not learned anything from past fiscal history sadly their Chancellor seems to have learned nothing from her time as an economist at the BoE……apparently.

  16. Ian B
    July 7, 2025

    Sir John
    This time around we have the unelected, unaccountable, UN’s ‘Sevilla Commitment’ that Starmer last week has signed up to and will treat as a de facto Law of the Land. In essence 2TK has out sourced UK Tax Policy to the UN. At the same convention the UN called for all taxes to be raised especially on the ‘rich’

    So, in the parlance of TwoTier it is to be International Law that imposes higher taxes on the UK and not our legislators – it won’t be him.

    As usual the Worlds Competitor nations will have nothing to do with the Marxist trend of unaccountable World Government

  17. William Smith
    July 7, 2025

    There’s no money for Brits, no money for SEND but that useless Lammy can hand over £95 million to Syria. What a disgracefully inept Government we currently have.

  18. Ukret123
    July 7, 2025

    Labour hide behind the Red Rose but the reality is rather a bed of thorns for millions. When Rachel Reeves was sobbing I, like many people, thought she had come back to earth and reality from her lofty, lefty fantasy dreams where you cannot borrow enough and spend enough of the country’s resources to shower it on the parties utopia ideas, especially after 14years of being denied (its deranged idea of being the ordinary person’s party)!

    1. Ukret123
      July 7, 2025

      Push the boat out in one direction (max out Uk’s credit cards) and pull in the boats in the other direction (max out UK liabilities) net result millions of millstones costing us Billions and billions more. Ridiculous madness.

  19. Trod
    July 7, 2025

    As Mrs Thatcher once said succinctly – there is too much concentration on wealth redistribution instead of wealth creation.

  20. Original Richard
    July 7, 2025

    Running out of money is not an unfortunate consequence. It is the goal for socialism depends upon making and keeping pople poor. High, wasteful spending is sought in order to justify high taxation. The communist CAGW hoax and its Net Zero “solution” is the perfect vehicle to waste vast sums of money and introduce tyrannical restrictions on food, travel and life. A good example of how our Civil Service works using the Uniparty was seen at the communist run UN Seville meeting last week. The red side signed us up to higher taxes on fossil fuels, alcohol and the wealthy (nicely fitted with Lord Kinnock’s call for wealth taxes at the weekend) etc.. The blue side said in response “this will only make it harder for a future government (sic) to reverse Labour’s tax rises”. Translation: “We’ll pretend for now to be on the side of the British voters and nation but in reality if we’re again a majority in Parliament we’ll say that we cannot reverse this international UN decision and high taxation will thus have to continue”. A true opposition would say that the unelected communist run UN does not make our tax policy and any such agreement will be torn up.

    1. mancunius
      July 7, 2025

      *This* !

  21. Northern Lass
    July 7, 2025

    There is a programme on YouTube with David Starkey and Liam Halligan on the current financial situation. It’s depressing but a must see.

  22. Robert
    July 7, 2025

    Will we soon end up in the same situation that Greece was a few years ago?

    1. Rod Evans
      July 7, 2025

      Not really Robert, they have sunshine in Greece…..

  23. Sea_Warrior
    July 7, 2025

    I see that Argentina’s recovery continues, Sir John. Care to offer some views on that – and on what that should mean for the development of Conservative economic policy?

  24. Ian B
    July 7, 2025

    In response to the unelected unaccountable Lord Kinnock who backs raid on the rich, the Government’s union paymasters swing in behind the idea.

    Christina McAnea, the general secretary of Unison, said: “A wealth tax would be a much fairer way of raising
    revenue to invest in public services and grow the economy.”

    Steve Wright, the general secretary of the FBU, said: “Introducing a wealth tax to ‘fund public services’, a ‘generous welfare state’, and workers’

    Aren’t these examples of an ‘oxymoron’, remove money from the economy to help it grow!

    Then more contradictions these are wealthy unions having money to fund the Labour Party whilst receiving exemptions on paying tax themselves ending up with some one else paying for the shortfall they create. Tax where it is taken should fall everywhere on all activities equally, so we can all take pride in paying for the facilities we enjoy. According to official figures only 10% of the people in this country contribute, the rest take out more than they put in.

    What Planet have I arrived on, what sort of Country has the magic money tree where money is spent and never earned, money is thrown away like confetti, some to foreign lands never to return. Someone else will always pay for the facilities I enjoy but it must never be me, a strange way to create a tomorrow.

  25. deg
    July 7, 2025

    How long before another crash? ASAP if we are to rid ourselves of this disaster that is the new Labour Government.

  26. mancunius
    July 7, 2025

    ‘How long’ is an interesting question. I’ve been keeping an eye on ten-year gilt yields, but though the media has made much of the sudden upwards lurch when Reeves was seen crying in the HoC, its current level (4.55%) is pretty much as it has been since last November. The really massive surge was between October and November 2024 (evidently Budget-related). The really curious point is that it has not yet exceeded its 4.895% max of January.
    I suppose the bondholders are looking forward to British taxpayers getting reliably scalped in an early Budget.
    Then it will take another year for it to become clear (despite Treasury attempts to obfuscate it) that UK taxes are ‘unexpectedly’ down, as every savvy taxpayer disappears from these shores (once again).

  27. Keith from Leeds
    July 7, 2025

    It seems the future problems for the UK are clearly understood by people commenting on your article. Labour is always a financial disaster for the country; the difference is that it is happening much faster this time.
    The idea of a wealth tax is plain stupid. I will never be worth £10 million, so it won’t affect me, but anyone who is will simply pack their bags and leave. Labour won’t be happy until they find a way of taxing the air we breathe.
    Angela Rayner once said the conservatives were scum! I suggest she, the PM, and the entire Labour Cabinet go and look in a mirror.
    What does it say about our education system that we have so many MPs who have not got a clue about the economy? As harsh as it will be, the quicker we go bankrupt, the better for the long-term health of the UK!

    1. JohnK
      July 8, 2025

      Keith,

      They have found a way to tax the air we breathe. What else is Net Zero but a tax on a trace element of the atmosphere? I salute their evil genius.

  28. agricola
    July 7, 2025

    I believe your title was one of Margaret Thatchers incisive observations. They have learnt nothing from history. They are either monumentally stupid, or came to power with a slash and burn agenda, from which they think socialism USSR style will arise. The core British people will not swallow it, so I suggest they go quietly or prepare for political decimation. Once rid of this abomination there is much rebuilding of democracy and our institutions before the way ahead become clear.

  29. Roy Grainger
    July 7, 2025

    Amongst all the other incompetents who need to be fired what about the Debt Management Office ? They’ve issued 25% of all government debt as index-linked compared with 9% in USA, 11% in France and 1% in Germany. This means that the traditional last-resort method of dealing with debt by inflating it away is no longer open to the UK. Why did they issue so much of it index-linked ? Whose decision was it ? Why is UK a total outlier in this respect – why did they think they knew better than our peers ?

    1. formula57
      July 7, 2025

      @ Roy Grainger ” This means that the traditional last-resort method of dealing with debt by inflating it away is no longer open to the UK” – rather three cheers for the DMO then, surely?

  30. Stred
    July 7, 2025

    All this is known to people old enough to remember the previous failures but most of the new Labour MPs are younger and from a publicly funded previous employment. Perhaps someone from the civil service or her family has told Rachel that she will be known as the first female chancellor who bankrupted the economy within the shortest time, and this was why she was bawling in Parliament the other day.

  31. JayCee
    July 7, 2025

    Unfortunately generous pandemic decisions and a ‘progressive’ Conservative government left the cupboard bare this time. So the incoming Labour government could not empty the cookie jar. It is already borrowing the cookies from other kids.

  32. David Boss
    July 7, 2025

    Wikipedia says the roots of the crisis lay in the Barber Boom of the previous Conservative government rather than just being Labour economic mismanagement.

    Reply The Barber boom was well before Labour up ended the markets.

  33. a-tracy
    July 8, 2025

    If Sure Start was as perfect as people like Toynbee writes “what Labour does best, what is it for: building a society where children come first and everything else falls into place.”

    Now I know the Tories aren’t child haters, but when the money runs out and there is only one chair left, who gets the money? Why was Sure Start terminated by restricting access to funding? When the Country went bust in 2008, the banks with everyone’s savings and poor quality mortgages propped up, where did the Toynbees expect the funding to come from?

    She’s going on today about 30 hours free childcare for preschoolers from September but that was put in place by Hunt, why are the Tories allowing Labour to claim credit for that, surely Hunt had that costed even with his reported £22bn black hole. Why can’t we see the figures Hunt raised from his massive tax increases he gifted Labour?

    It’s alright wanting arts, drama, music and sports for all as long as that doesn’t continue into University, with few jobs available to them unless they’re connected young. You can be the best, winning the competitions, but there aren’t enough opportunities for thousands and thousands of arts grads, so only the very highest achieving should go forward. They should be disappointed at 18 rather than 23 with a bag full of debt. This is never discussed. The numbers were allowed to creep up from, say, 10 trainees to 30 and 40, but only two from that cohort (if they’re super lucky) got through to regular paid work.

Comments are closed.