Funding the Future

Nigel Farage won Clacton. But did his unnecessary by-election actually make his political problems worse?

Farage beat Count Binface after calling an election that cost the public more than £200,000. The mainstream parties stayed away, Farage did not attend the count, and the parliamentary scrutiny of his finances that he hoped the election would negate has not disappeared.

But the bigger story is what happens next.

In this video, I ask whether Reform UK has already passed its peak. Farage has moved from insurgent outsider to parliamentary politician, bringing much greater scrutiny and demands for accountability.

At the same time, Rupert Lowe’s Restore movement is challenging Reform from further to the right. If Reform begins losing voters in that direction, does Farage moderate his politics, or does he follow them?

That question matters far beyond Reform.

Labour and the Conservatives have repeatedly responded to Farage by shifting their own positions rightwards. If the right fragments further, will they continue doing so? And could the Greens, Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru benefit from a political realignment?

Farage won Clacton. That much is certain. What his victory means for the future of British politics is anything but clear.

What is microeconomics really about?

Conventional economics usually puts markets at the centre of the answer. It assumes that individuals make rational choices and that markets, operating through prices, allocate resources efficiently. But that account leaves out much of what actually shapes economic life.

None of us makes economic decisions in isolation. Families, communities, businesses and governments all influence the choices available to us. Governments also create the laws and institutions that make markets possible in the first place. Property rights, contracts and money do not simply appear naturally. Markets are social institutions created within society.

Power matters too. Wealth changes the choices people can make, while large companies can exercise considerable market power. And many things that are economically important, including unpaid care and voluntary work, never appear in market transactions at all.

Markets can also fail to account for environmental damage and other costs imposed on society. That is why prices and values are not the same thing.

In this episode of Understanding Economics, I explain why microeconomics needs to look beyond markets. It should ask how society allocates resources, who has power, who bears the costs, who receives the benefits, and how we can organise the economy so that everyone has the opportunity to live well and thrive.

I think that journalists are all asking politicians the wrong question. They should be asking every politician: “What are your priors?”

Instead, they ask “How are you going to pay for it?”

That's the wrong question because a person’s priors are the assumptions they bring to every debate before they even look at the evidence. Those assumptions shape what they believe government can do, what they think markets can achieve, and which policies they consider realistic or impossible.

If we knew a politician's priors, we would know why they think something can or cannot be paid for, so that has to be the question that comes first. 

Too often, however, these assumptions remain hidden. Politicians present opinions as facts without explaining the political philosophy that underpins them. As a result, important ideas such as neoliberalism are treated as common sense rather than as viewpoints that deserve to be challenged.

Political economy reminds us that economics is never value-free. Every economic argument reflects assumptions about power, society and who should benefit. If journalists exposed those assumptions, political interviews would become far more revealing and far more honest.

Instead of accepting claims that “there is no alternative”, we could begin debating the alternatives that genuinely exist. Then we might break the political logjam we are in now. 

Britain is being told to fear a Russian invasion and spend accordingly. The evidence says otherwise. Russia is losing an estimated 30,000 soldiers a month in Ukraine, according to the Financial Times, with casualties now exceeding 500,000 killed and 1.4 million in total, or roughly one in every hundred Russians. Recruitment is failing even with £40,000 signing bonuses. This is a country that cannot defeat a vulnerable neighbour, let alone mount a conventional invasion of a NATO state.

The real threats are cyber attacks and drone warfare, which is cheap, deniable, and already happening, yet current defence spending is still aimed at ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers and tanks that are increasingly vulnerable to the drones doing the actual damage. This video argues that the "conventional invasion" fear narrative serves a purpose: it justifies ever-rising defence budgets at the direct expense of social care, the NHS, education and climate spending, while benefiting what General Eisenhower called, in 1961, the military-industrial complex.

The real risk to Britain isn't tanks crossing a border. It's internal, from people disenchanted with a society that isn't providing for them and who are rejecting democracy as a result. Politics should be built on evidence about actual threats, not on manufactured fear that serves vested interests.

Donald Trump calls himself the ultimate dealmaker. The record says otherwise.

His breakthrough deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz with Iran collapsed when Iran hardened its position.

His agreement for Hamas to disarm in Gaza fell apart when Israel rejected the precondition.

His domestic nuclear energy deal with Saudi Arabia unravelled after he added a demand about recognising Israel by social media post.

Even fixing the Washington reflecting pool went wrong.

This is not bad luck. It is what happens when someone treats running a country like running a private company. Public administration is not private administration, and markets alone cannot solve national problems, something Trump's own record now proves.

The only major objective he has consistently delivered is tax cuts for the wealthy. Everything else, from foreign policy to migration enforcement, military promotions, and medical support, is descending into chaos, blame-shifting, and reversals, while only around 30% of the country still backs him.

This video argues that Trump's failures are not incidental but structural: they are the product of arch-neoliberalism combined with authoritarian instincts, a combination that now shows up in British politics too, in figures like Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe. Removing "Trump's politics" is not just an American task. It is a global one.

What is the economy actually for?

Most economists assume the answer is obvious. They say the purpose of the economy is growth, and they measure success using GDP. But what if they are asking the wrong question?

In this second video in my Understanding Economics series, I argue that economic growth is not an end in itself. Endless growth is impossible on a finite planet, GDP tells us remarkably little about whether people are actually thriving, and rising GDP has too often been accompanied by growing inequality and environmental damage.

Instead, I suggest a different way of thinking about economics.

The purpose of the economy should be to help everyone live well and thrive. Markets matter, but they are tools, not the purpose of society.

Money should help us organise resources, not dominate every decision we make.

I also introduce the idea of capital maintenance, a concept that accountants understand well but economists have largely ignored. Prosperity depends on protecting the real resources we inherit, including knowledge, institutions and the natural environment, so that future generations can thrive too.

This video lays the foundations for everything that follows in this series. If we begin with the wrong purpose, we will inevitably create the wrong economic policies.

If you’d like a different way of understanding economics, this series is for you.

For decades we have been told that Britain’s prosperity depends upon the success of the City of London. Politicians celebrate financial services, economists praise the markets, and the media repeats the idea that finance is Britain’s greatest economic strength.

But what if the opposite is true?

In this conversation, I am joined by John Christensen, co-founder of the Tax Justice Network and creator of The Spider’s Web, to discuss his new documentary, The Finance Curse. Together we explore the evidence that countries with oversized financial sectors often perform worse, not better.

We discuss why excessive finance can reduce investment, weaken manufacturing, increase inequality, undermine productivity and distort democracy. We also examine the links between tax havens, financial power and political influence, and ask whether the City of London has become too powerful for Britain’s own good.

This is not an argument against finance itself. Every modern economy needs an effective financial system. The question is whether finance should serve society or whether society has increasingly been organised to serve finance.

If you have ever wondered why Britain has experienced stagnant productivity, widening regional inequality and declining public investment despite having one of the world’s largest financial centres, this conversation offers an alternative explanation that deserves serious attention.

Most people think economics is about money. It isn’t. Economics is about how society organises itself to meet people’s needs and help everyone thrive.

In this first episode of my new Understanding Economics series, I explain why economics is much bigger than money, markets or finance, and why understanding it matters to every one of us.

I begin with three simple questions that every society must answer:

• What should we produce?

From there, I explore why governments matter, why markets are only one part of the story, why resources are more important than money itself, and why power shapes every economy.

This series is designed for everyone who has ever wondered how the economy really works but found traditional economics confusing, overly technical or detached from everyday life. I’ll explain economics in plain English, starting with the basics and gradually building towards the big ideas that shape our societies.

Whether you’re completely new to economics or want to rethink what you’ve previously been taught, this series will help you understand the economy and how we can make it work better for everyone.

If you enjoy the video, please subscribe and follow the Understanding Economics playlist as new episodes are released. I will publish new videos regularly, and this series will build into a complete introduction to economics as if people matter from first principles.

Has corporate money begun to lose its grip on American politics?

In this video, I examine the extraordinary result of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, where Dr Abdul El-Sayed defeated the corporate-backed establishment candidate despite being dramatically outspent. It follows the victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York and raises a much bigger question than simply who won one election.

I argue that this is really a story about political economy: who politics exists to serve. For decades, both major American parties have relied heavily on corporate funding and lobbying. Increasingly, however, many voters appear to be rejecting that model and demanding representatives prepared to challenge concentrated economic power rather than accommodate it.

The media response has been revealing. Much attention has focused on whether insurgent candidates can win future elections rather than why so many Democratic voters chose them in the first place.

I also consider what these developments might mean beyond the United States. Similar questions are emerging in Britain, where concerns over the influence of large corporations, lobbying and political donations continue to grow. Could this mark the beginning of a broader movement that puts people ahead of corporate interests?

If politics is ultimately about deciding who holds power, this election result may matter far more than many commentators currently appreciate.

Will rising oil prices push Britain into recession? And if they do, will the Bank of England make the situation even worse?

In this video, I examine the extraordinary profits recently reported by the world’s largest oil companies following the conflict involving Iran.

While households and businesses face higher fuel costs, oil companies are making windfall gains.

I argue that these profits reveal something important about today’s inflation: it is being driven by pricing power and economic extraction, and not by excessive demand in the UK economy.

If that diagnosis is correct, then raising interest rates is the wrong response. Higher interest rates cannot reduce internationally determined oil prices. They cannot stop companies using market power to increase profits. What they can do is reduce spending elsewhere in the economy, weaken businesses already under pressure, increase unemployment and make recession more likely.

Using the insights of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), I explain why Britain needs a different response. Instead of raising interest rates, we should support jobs and demand by cutting rates while taxing excess profits from soaring energy prices.

If we misunderstand the causes of inflation, we risk making the economic damage far worse than it needs to be.