Funding the Future

The Bank of England has held interest rates, but the real story is what happens next. Beneath its decision, pressure is building to raise rates again, and that could prove disastrous. 

In this video, I explain why that is the case. The inflation we are facing is not driven by excess domestic demand. It is being driven by war, supply shortages, and speculation in global commodity markets. Interest rate rises cannot produce more oil or resolve supply disruptions, but they can further suppress demand in an already weakening economy.

That is the risk we now face. Raising rates in these conditions could accelerate the move toward recession, increasing business costs, reducing investment, and undermining confidence. There is a real danger that central banks could turn a fragile situation into a much deeper economic crisis.

The problem, at its core, is that central banks are applying the wrong theory to the wrong problem. When inflation is supply-driven, higher interest rates do not solve it. They can only make it worse. And unless that is recognised soon, the consequences could be severe.

The Bank of England has warned that serious financial risks are building — and I think people need to pay attention.

An AI stock bubble, war in Iran, and risks in shadow banking could trigger a major financial correction.

In this video, I explain:

Why I think the risks are real

What the Bank of England is actually saying

How to protect your pension

WWhat to do about debt

Why certainty matters more than chasing returns right now

This is not financial advice. Please seek regulated advice where appropriate.

But doing nothing may be the biggest risk of all.

Tony Blair’s institute has published a report proposing sweeping cuts to UK social security by redefining mental illness, ADHD, autism and other health conditions as “non-work-limiting.” This will force many who are unable to work to look for jobs and leave them destitute if they cannot find them, as is likely

Worryingly, his whole report includes not a single reference to medical support for the reforms he is proposing. He is targeting those with ill health for the sole purpose of cutting taxes due by the wealthy, whose interests he seems to now serve. 

His report ignores the real causes of poor health in Britain, which has increased because of:

austerity

poverty

insecure work

poor housing

ultra-processed food

NHS underfunding

Meanwhile, healthy life expectancy in Britain is collapsing.

This is not reform. It is coercion.

And it could leave millions worse off.

These are practical steps to protect yourself:

The government is not being straight with you. The tools to protect yourself exist, but you need to act before the crash, not after.

The world is facing a financial crisis because we will be facing absolute shortages of oil, food, and raw materials very soon. And that changes everything.

Markets can never solve the problem of absolute shortages: they simply supply whoever can pay the most. If we leave allocation to the market, the vulnerable will be left with nothing.

The Economist forecasts that the oil crisis will hit us by June 2026 if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, as it will. But all politicians are still talking about are fiscal rules. That is not good enough.

There are only two things that can manage this crisis now. We need rationing of food, petrol, and diesel to ensure they are distributed equitably, and not sold to the highest bidder.

And then we must increase taxes on large companies, commodity traders, and the highest earners and wealthiest people to ensure money can be reallocated to those who will otherwise suffer as a result of the inflation that shortages are going to create.

These tools exist. What is missing is the political courage to use them.

What a full boycott must include:

Opposing these actions is not antisemitism. Allowing them to continue unchallenged would be a moral failure of historic proportions. Sanctions eventually ended apartheid in South Africa. Nothing less will do here — and the time is now.

The FTSE 100 and S&P 500 are near record highs. The real economy is deteriorating. And the Bank of England's Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, Sarah Breeden, has now said publicly what most politicians will not: a stock market crash is coming, and the financial system is not ready for it.

This crash could be worse than 2008 because of overvalued stock markets, the AI bubble, an overexpanded and at-risk shadow banking system and the Iran energy shock, which the International Energy Agency is calling the biggest energy shock in history.

If any of these risks crystallise simultaneously, and Sarah Breeden thinks they might, then the result will not be a market correction. It will be a financial crisis that will result in falling confidence, rising interest rates, frozen lending, job losses, and a domino effect through the real economy.

Governments must act now to plan for this eventuality and not after any crash happens.  Contingency plans must exist, and nothing appears to be being done as yet.

If ever there was a moment to worry, even the Bank of England is saying this is it. 

What would I do on my first day in office as Chancellor to create an economy in the UK based on the thinking that modern monetary theory makes possible?

In this video, I explain why MMT does not need to be “implemented” in Britain, because it already describes how government money works. The real task is to change policy. In that case, I set out six first-day reforms to:

Replace false fiscal rules

Launch a targeted public investment programme

Create a policy that delivers secure, long-term jobs

Reform the Treasury and Bank of England relationship

Redesign tax to tackle inflation, inequality and rent extraction

Redirect savings and pension subsidies into productive investment

This is not about fantasy economics. It is about ending neoliberal myths and managing the real economy in the public interest.

If you want to understand what an MMT-based economic strategy for the UK would actually look like, this video explains it.

Should the Bank of England control UK interest rates, or should that power return to elected government? In this video, I argue that the Bank of England's independence was never a neutral, technocratic decision. It was a deliberate political project, rooted in far-right Public Choice Theory, designed to strip democratic control away from ordinary people and hand it to unelected bankers.

Since 1997, the Bank of England has been given a single tool, control of the base interest rate, to chase a single target of a 2% inflation rate that no economist can convincingly justify. There are no targets for growth, employment, living standards or climate change. There is just a number pulled from thin air, enforced at enormous cost to people in this county.

The result is near 5% unemployment, 10% youth unemployment, soaring mortgage costs, and excessive rents. We have a Treasury with its foot on the accelerator while the Bank of England slams the brake, both pulling the economic steering wheel in opposite directions. No wonder the country is not performing. The rot starts in this dysfunctional relationship

This video explains why Bank of England independence was always a neoliberal political experiment that was designed to undermine democracy and the people of this country.

Now, the neoliberal era is over. The Bank of England's independence has delivered incoherence, crisis, and a democratic deficit that the UK can no longer afford. It is time to bring interest rate policy back to the Treasury, where elected politicians should be accountable for their decisions.

Whether you agree or disagree, this is one of the most important economic debates in British politics today. Watch, share your view in the poll below, and leave a comment.

In this podcast, I speak with William Thompson to explore one of the most important internal debates within Modern Monetary Theory.

We agree on the fundamentals: that governments with their own currency can fund full employment, and that the real constraints are resources, not money. But we disagree on how to achieve that goal.

William makes the case that the job guarantee is central to MMT as a price anchor, an automatic stabiliser, and a mechanism for delivering dignity in work.

I argue that while the diagnosis is correct, the proposed solution is not. The job guarantee, as currently conceived, is administratively unrealistic, underpaid, and risks undermining the very dignity it claims to support.

Instead, I set out an alternative: direct public employment, a living wage, and long-term investment in care, housing, the NHS, and climate transition that effectively delivers the job guarantee, as the UK state once did.

This is not a rupture, but it is a serious disagreement about how MMT policy should work in practice. And that is healthy.