The Brexit debate was bitter and divisive – it is hard to believe that anyone has fond memories of it, or the even more furious arguments that dominated politics for the five years after the referendum. Families were split and friendships put at risk. Most of us are probably relieved it is now firmly in the past.

But not, it seems, the prime minister, Andy Burnham.

He has promised a “debate” on Britain's EU membership, opening up the possibility that we might well rejoin. Indeed, another referendum, or a straightforward promise to sign up for full membership if re-elected, may well be included in the next Labour manifesto.

It is not hard to see what Burnham is up to. A promise to reverse Brexit and rejoin the EU will unite the centre-left vote. With the right vote split between the Conservatives and Reform, if the PM can unite the left, he can probably secure an election victory. Less cynically, he probably believes that rejoining the EU is important, both for the economy and for national security. The polls suggest that most people now agree with him.

Brexit uncertainty will hurt the British economy

The trouble is, that is the last thing the British economy needs right now. There will be plenty of people in business, and especially in the City, who would like to rejoin.

Most of the business community never wanted to leave the EU in the first place. They believe it has damaged trade and hurt investment and confidence. Indeed, we are already witnessing the start of a campaign to rejoin, with Goldman Sachs putting out a report earlier this month predicting a 6% boost to growth if it happens.

It won't be long before the pro-EU think tanks are getting big donations to push their case. All the familiar arguments about jobs and trade will be rehashed, along with plenty of suspiciously precise statistics.

But a long debate over rejoining the EU is not going to help the economy. To start with, the EU is likely to demand stiff terms. We will certainly have to allow freedom of movement. We will have to rip up the trade agreements we have signed since we left. We will have to impose lots of new regulations introduced over the last few years, even in sectors such as AI, where Britain has been doing well precisely because we do not need to comply with Brussels. We may well have to join the euro. And we will have to start making large budget contributions, with little chance of reclaiming the Thatcher-era rebate. Perhaps most seriously of all, we will have to accept our share of the massive borrowing the EU took on to finance the Covid Recovery Fund, even though we did not benefit from any of it.

Next, revisiting the Brexit debate is going to create uncertainty. Leaving might have been painful, but that disruption is now in the past. Supply chains have reconfigured, exporters have figured out how to cope with the paperwork, and even the City, despite the dire warnings of collapse, has retained its status as Europe's main financial centre.

But a renewed debate will mean businesses have no idea what trading regime they will face in five or ten years' time. Worse, by the time we finally reach a deal, it may well be vetoed by France, or even by Germany if the AfD has taken power by then.

We spent much of the 1960s debating membership of what was then the Common Market, only to be told we were not allowed to join. The whole circus could easily be replayed in the 2030s. With rising taxes and sky-high energy prices, there is little incentive to invest in the UK. Burnham is about to make that even worse.

A huge distraction

In reality, the EU is just a distraction from the real issues. There is a growing consensus around what needs to be done. Planning rules have to be relaxed to let us build more homes. We need to restore energy independence, instead of always prioritising net-zero targets. We need to reform a bloated welfare system so that people are encouraged back into work. And we have to simplify a tax system that destroys incentives.

None of those have anything to do with the EU. Another decade spent arguing over membership will only keep us from focusing on what really matter.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Chancellor John Healey’s first Budget was characterised by tweaks around the edges of policy, rather than big bang announcements. This was true for pensions too. But even the relatively small changes could have a big impact on your retirement income.

Giving Britain financial ‘breathing space’ was the theme of Labour’s 2026 Autumn Budget. Yet for pensioners relying on savings and rental income, there were some surprise tax hikes that will likely be unwelcome after similar raises last year.

Matthew Phillips, director of wealth planning at wealth manager Canaccord Wealth, said there was “relatively little in the Budget that should require people to fundamentally reconsider their financial plans”, from a wealth planning perspective.

“After several years of change, that relative stability is no bad thing,” he said.

“However, a fairly quiet Budget does not mean there is nothing for savers and investors to consider.”

Here’s all the key Budget changes for pensioners, the likely impact and what to do next.

Pension tax allowance

A new pension tax allowance is being introduced for low-earning pensioners, equal to the 2027/28 full new state pension rate of £13,037 per year.

This ensures pensioners won’t be dragged into paying income tax purely because the state pension will rise by 3.9% next April, in line with the triple lock guarantee, (which they otherwise would because that exceeds the frozen personal allowance of £12,570).

The pension tax allowance will gradually reduce as pensioners’ income increases. For every £3 of income above £13,037 (the full level of the new state pension), the pension tax allowance will reduce by £1.

So those whose total income is above £13,319 lose the pension tax allowance altogether.

Becky O’Connor, head of pensions at PensionBee, said: “Sparing pensioners the hassle of being chased by HMRC for small tax bills is welcome.

“But the pension tax allowance is worth around £93 in its first year and is withdrawn as soon as someone has a modest private pension or a bit of savings interest, so people who saved a little extra could really end up feeling penalised for it.”

Savings tax increase

Savings tax rates were due to increase, but the government is going further by adding an additional two percentage points of tax from April 2027, above what was planned. For pensioners, who often keep substantial cash balances on hand for day-to-day expenses, this will likely be unwelcome news.

The savings tax hike means that for basic rate taxpayers in receipt of more than £1,000 of savings interest, every extra pound of interest will be taxed at 24% rather than 20%.

Similarly, for higher rate taxpayers whose personal savings allowance is £500, any additional savings interest will be taxed at 44% rather than 40%.

For additional rate taxpayers the change is particularly painful, as every pound of savings interest is taxable but at 49% rather than 45%.

Neil Jones, tax and wealth planning specialist at Standard Life, said: “For those with significant cash balances or regular savings, the incentives have edged further towards ensuring money is directed towards an ISA.

“However, against a backdrop of inflation, it’s important those affected look carefully at whether their money is keeping pace with inflation and consider whether it would be better invested where there is the potential for higher returns, albeit without guarantees.”

Ways to avoid being hit by the savings tax trap include:

• Make the most of your £20,000 ISA allowance
• Transfer savings to your spouse
• Consider Premium Bonds
• Invest in low-coupon short-dated gilts

State pension triple lock

The Budget confirmed the adjustment to the triple lock from 2030. Rather than applying the highest of CPI inflation, 2.5% or average weekly earnings each year, the government will review increases over time to ensure the state pension keeps pace overall.

Claire Trott, head of advice at St. James’s Place, said: “This should smooth increases and potentially deliver significant savings for the Treasury. It also addresses the cumulative ‘ratchet effect’ seen during Covid, when a year of sharp earnings growth compounded with increases in subsequent years.”

Rental income tax increase

Many pensioners partly rely on income from buy-to-let property to help pay for their retirement. But like savings, it was announced in the Budget the rate of tax on income from property is being increased from April 2027 by two percentage points across each marginal tax band; to 24% for basic rate payers, 44% for higher rate taxpayers and 49% for additional rate payers.

Alex Pugh, financial planner and partner at wealth management firm Saltus, said the increase “lands on a group that already feels overtaxed, with 43% of high net worth individuals telling us they pay too much tax, and 56% concerned about higher taxes on investment property”.

“For many of our clients, savings and rental income are a key part of their retirement plans, so this isn’t a small change. Using ISA and pension allowances in full is now more important than ever, and anyone with significant savings interest or rental income should review how those assets are held before April 2027.”

Definition of terminal illness for pension access

Changes are being made to provide greater flexibility in the medical evidence requirements for serious ill-health pension lump sums, with the government deciding to change the definition of terminal illness to make pension savings easier to access.

Under the new rules a lump sum may be paid where the pension scheme member can be reasonably expected to die within 12 months and the supporting medical evidence may be provided additionally by a member’s medical practitioner based outside the UK.

Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, said: “Prognoses are inherently uncertain. The revised definition needs to recognise that uncertainty and give patients, medical practitioners and pension providers a clear, workable test.

“The announcement does not yet specify the new wording or confirm whether it will align with the test used for DWP benefits, so the detail will be important.”

Pension death benefits

Pensioners, such as surviving spouses, will also benefit from the government decision to remove the requirement that pension scheme administrators must pay tax-free death benefits to beneficiaries within two years of learning of the death of a member aged under 75 (the ‘two-year rule’).

Under the change, a pension lump sum death benefit paid to a beneficiary more than two years after the pension scheme became aware of the member’s death will no longer be subject to an income tax charge.

The two-year limit is also being removed where beneficiary annuities are paid from the deceased member’s drawdown funds and where funds are designated for a UK resident under a pension scheme outside the UK.

O’Connor from PensionBee said: “Removing the two-year rule is a welcome fix: families shouldn’t face a tax bill simply because a pension payout was delayed by probate or paperwork outside their control.

“Greater certainty on how tax is collected when the lump sum death benefit allowance is exceeded should also make a difficult process less daunting for beneficiaries. In the run-up to pensions being included in estates for inheritance tax purposes, these changes are even more important.”

Investors will for the most part be relieved at the measures chancellor John Healey announced in his first Autumn Budget on 28 October.

Healey rowed back on controversial ISA changes and, in welcome news to investors, avoided a further hike to dividend income tax.

Bond investors have responded positively, if mutedly, to the Budget. Yields on 10-year gilts were little-changed on 28 October, the day of the Budget, but they opened the following day 0.9% lower.

“For investors, the message was one of stability, with few major surprises to unsettle financial markets,” said Tom Stevenson, investment director at wealth manager Fidelity International. “This was a Budget designed first and foremost not to rock the boat. And that is exactly what the chancellor’s most important audience – the bond market – was looking for.”

Some of the changes announced, though, will have a material impact on how Brits go about organising their portfolios.

ISA pivots

One of the most notable announcements, which had been trailed before Healey’s speech, was the reversal of his predecessor Rachel Reeves’s decision to cut the annual cash ISA allowance for under-65s from £20,000 to £12,000.

While the aim of getting more people investing rather than saving was admirable, there’s no denying that this was an unpopular policy. For the sake of preserving simplicity within the ISA system, Healey’s decision to reverse Rachel Reeves’s proposal to cut the deposit limit seems logical – especially given the prospect of the new ‘Starter ISA’ to take its place.

There is next to nothing known about this for the moment. The Budget document simply says:

The government will now go further, working with the investment industry to explore a new ISA incentive for people investing in a stocks and shares ISA for the first time. The detailed design will be developed with industry.

So we’ll wait and see what this ends up looking like, but a carrot approach to encourage investing seems preferable to a stick approach to discourage saving.

Simplicity in the implementation will be key, with some people warning against the introduction of another type of investment ISA.

“We applaud the chancellor's decision to scrap the cash ISA changes,” said Richard Wilson, chief executive at investment platform Interactive Investor (ii). “That said, we will await details on the Starter ISA before concluding he is not replacing tinkering... with more tinkering. One ISA only please.”

Dividend tax untouched – but a further tax hike on property income

If you were worried that more increases to dividend income tax were on the way, you can breathe a sigh of relief. Healey resisted the temptation to further hike levies on income from investment dividends.

But property investors will have to endure a further two percentage point increase in tax on their income (on top of increases announced last year by Reeves) from April 2027. Any savings held outside an ISA will also be subject to the same uplift.

Encouraging entrepreneurship?

Part of Healey’s speech stressed the importance of encouraging the nation’s entrepreneurs, and this translated into measures aimed at creating a more supportive tax regime for them.

A new Capital Gains Tax Founders’ Relief scheme will be introduced from 6 April 2027, offering a reduced 10% capital gains tax rate on up to £10 million of lifetime gains for qualifying business founders. Healey also announced an additional £20.4 billion of support for the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank, and the value of the Trading Allowance will also be tripled from £1,000 to £3,000 per year.

While this won’t have a direct impact on investors, the hope is that it will create a more vibrant, innovative domestic economy for British investors to invest in.

Missed opportunities

Despite attempts to encourage growth in the UK economy, Healey missed the chance to correct one of its biggest drawbacks for investors.

John Owen, chief executive of the Investment Association, an industry body representing the UK’s asset managers, views the Budget as a “missed opportunity” to remove stamp duty on UK-listed shares.

“The UK’s chilling tax on shares makes investing in British businesses more expensive and acts as a direct disincentive to invest in them,” said Owen. “At a time when the UK is fighting to attract and retain listed businesses, we should be removing barriers to investment, not maintaining them. For a government that says it is serious about growth, it is high time that this counterproductive tax was abolished.”

There was also no change to tax thresholds, which have been frozen since 2022 and will remain so until April 2031.

The Budget is one of the biggest days in politics, with the policies announced affecting everyone in the country.

Depending on the priorities of the current chancellor, some people may find they will start paying higher taxes, while others may enjoy a tax cut.

But how much do you know about the Budget? Test your knowledge in our crossword.

Did you manage to finish the crossword? Share your results on social media.

What would you like to see in the 2026 Autumn Budget? Get in touch by emailing editor@moneyweek.com and you may feature in our Budget coverage.

• How much do you know about the UK’s chancellors of the exchequer?
• How much do you know about the Autumn Budget?
• Income tax quiz: How much do you know about Britain’s biggest tax?

For the latest Budget news, analysis, and commentary, sign up to MoneyWeek’s free newsletters.

The Autumn Budget is days away, with chancellor John Healey due to set out the Burnham government's fiscal plans on 28 October.

While the upcoming Budget will be Labour’s third since they won the 2024 general election, it will be the first fiscal test of prime minister Andy Burnham’s new government which has promised to help those struggling with the cost of living and devolve power out of Westminster.

It will also be the first time new chancellor John Healey delivers the fiscal statement after he replaced Rachel Reeves in the summer.

Although Burnham and Healey have indicated that they want to increase public spending, the Budget comes at a time when the public purse is under pressure, meaning many are worried that taxes will need to rise.

What do you think? Are you dreading the Budget and its potential tax rises, or are you excited to see what the new government will do to help with the cost of living?

Tell us what you think in the poll below.

What would you like to see in the 2026 Autumn Budget? Get in touch by emailing editor@moneyweek.com and you may be featured in our Budget coverage.

• Why you shouldn’t act on Budget rumours
• Recap: What was announced in the 2025 Budget?
• Quiz: How much do you know about the UK’s chancellors of the exchequer?
• Quiz: How much do you know about the Autumn Budget?

For the latest Budget news, analysis, and commentary, sign up to MoneyWeek’s free newsletters.

What was the Big Bang?

The “Big Bang” was the sweeping deregulatory overhaul of the London Stock Exchange that took effect 40 years ago this coming week, on Monday, 27 October 1986. The Big Bang reforms were part of a programme of financial liberalisation pushed through by the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. They led to the transformation of the City over subsequent years and decades, making it more open, more competitive, more international and much richer. The reforms were driven by the realisation that the City had to change and modernise in order to survive and prosper – and they resulted in a radical and permanent cultural shift.

What did Margaret Thatcher change?

First, fixed commissions were abolished, meaning brokers were allowed to compete on price when it came to fees. Second, the centuries-old “single capacity” distinction between brokers and “jobbers” (market-making intermediaries) disappeared, allowing brokerage firms to become “dual capacity” stockbrokers and “stockjobbing” market makers, licensed to act both for clients and as dealers trading on their own account. Third, foreign ownership rules were relaxed, opening the way for major international banks to enter the market and/or buy existing British brokers. And fourth, the trading floor itself was transformed, with the old system of face-to-face dealing and “open outcry” trading (shouted prices) replaced by electronic systems. That allowed more business to be conducted more quickly, with greater volumes and across a wider range of markets. And all these big changes took place over a single weekend.

Did the Big Bang work?

Yes. In the short term the changes led to a surge in the volume of trading in UK equities and an influx of international banks into London. Traditional British stockbroking and market-making firms, often organised as partnerships, were bought up by much larger American, European and Japanese banks – a takeover boom that paved the way for London's growth into a financial centre to rival New York. Competition increased, transaction costs fell and market liquidity improved. At the same time, salaries for traders and investment bankers soared as institutions competed for scarce talent. In the longer term, the reforms drove a broader expansion far beyond stock trading, as the internationalisation of the City strengthened its position as a major centre for foreign exchange, international banking, bonds, derivatives, asset management and specialist insurance.

Was the Big Bang a success?

Broadly, yes. The UK's expanded financial sector generated well-paid finance jobs, vast pipelines of business for lawyers, accountants and consultants, and substantial tax revenues. It attracted overseas investment and enhanced Britain's international influence. The Big Bang reforms threw out old rules that meant bank bosses had to work from offices within ten minutes' walk of the Bank of England, paving the way for the City's eastern outpost at Canary Wharf. The regulatory revolution also boosted the democratisation and demystification that made it far easier for ordinary punters to access investment for a sensible cost. No Big Bang, no MoneyWeek. At the same time, the Big Bang undoubtedly helped entrench a model of British economic success, and uneven economic geography, that has always had its critics – that of a world-class financial centre sitting awkwardly alongside a broader economy characterised by persistently low levels of investment and productivity. Others argue that the deregulation and internationalisation of finance in the 1980s and 1990s sowed the seeds for the global financial crisis of 2007-2009.

How is the City of London doing now?

Pretty well. Famously, London has suffered a slump in initial public offerings on the stock exchange since the last flotation boom in 2021. By market capitalisation, the London stock market is now, at best, sixth in the world – though on some calculations, it's not even in the top ten. But doom-mongers should remember that stock trading is far from being the City's only suit, says David Smith in The Sunday Times. London leads in other financial sectors – notably foreign-exchange trading, interest-rate derivatives and speciality insurance – where no other centre comes close. Across a range of metrics and specialisms, it comes a very close second to New York and remains – post-Brexit – the “undisputed financial capital of Europe, with no other continental financial centre in the top ten”.

Is there any need to panic?

The City retains many core strengths that mean its pre-eminence is likely to persist: language, legal system, depth in accounting and consulting services, communication facilities and handy time zone (between Asia and America), diversity of markets and their infrastructures, diversity of counterparties, and institutional tradition, combined with continuing regulatory evolution. Important, too, is the diverse talent pool of people who would rather live in London than in Frankfurt or Amsterdam. Brexit knocked London's appeal as a place to float businesses, but in lots of other ways the City looks like “it's getting its mojo back” after a few years of uncertainty, says The Economist. Overall, the UK has the same number of people working in financial services now – about 1.1 million – as it did in 2017, accounting for a slightly bigger chunk of GDP (8% rather than 7%). As for the City (where the “EU decided not to take an axe to Europe's financial plumbing after all”), some 225,000 people worked in finance in 2024 – 36,000 more than in 2019. Another 181,000 worked in related fields such as law and accountancy, up by 51,000 over the same period. If that's what decline looks like, it's a decline worth celebrating.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The Autumn Budget is one of the most important dates in the political calendar, and is certainly the most important day for fiscal policy.

On the day, the chancellor lays out the government’s plans for the economy in the House of Commons.

But how much do you know about the history and traditions of the Budget? Test yourself in our quiz.

How well did you do in our Budget quiz? Share your results on social media.

Do you have a question about the Budget which you’d like to put to our financial experts? Email editor@moneyweek.com and your question may feature in our Budget coverage.

• When is the Autumn Budget?
• Will taxes rise in the Autumn Budget?
• Why you shouldn't act on Budget rumours

For all the latest news and analysis, subscribe to MoneyWeek’s newsletters.

Further changes to the tax regime would deter businesses from investing in the UK and stunt economic growth, entrepreneur and HomeServe founder Sir Richard Harpin warns.

Prime minister Andy Burnham was rumoured to be looking at bringing capital gains tax rates closer to income tax rates in the upcoming Autumn Budget, but self-made billionaire Harpin says this, or the possible introduction of a wealth tax, would be “absolutely devastating for British business” and result in an exodus of the wealthy – neither of which would help the UK economy.

Speaking to digital editor-in-chief Kalpana Fitzpatrick on the MoneyWeek Talks podcast, which you can also watch on YouTube, Harpin said: “We’ve clearly seen people have already left the UK, and we don’t want to see more people leave.”

The threat of higher taxes on the wealthy means as many as one in ten UK adults are considering leaving the country, according to a YouGov poll commissioned by wealth manager Tideway Wealth following the 2025 Autumn Budget.

“There’s got to be incentives for risk-takers to invest and work 24/7 to make a business successful here in the UK, to hopefully grow it and expand it internationally,” said Harpin.

“So we can’t have a situation where capital gains tax is the same level as income tax. There have got to be rewards for risk-takers. That’s the key to growing the UK economy.”

Following weeks of speculation, chancellor John Healey has reportedly rejected calls to raise CGT to match income tax rates, according to the Financial Times on Tuesday.

Some argue Britain’s wealthiest should pay more tax. In July, over 100 UK-based millionaires, including broadcaster and businessman Gary Lineker and musician Brian Eno, penned an open letter to Burnham saying they would be happy to pay a wealth tax.

When asked whether billionaires should pay more tax, Harpin said, “I don’t think they should”, arguing that those billionaires had taken a lot of risk and made a lot of sacrifices in order to make their businesses successful.

“It’s a difficult job as an entrepreneur,” Harpin said. “Failure is only one step away. Those billionaires have earned their money. If they’re still in the UK, they’ve paid their capital gains tax if they’ve sold their businesses. The businesses themselves have paid a high level of corporation tax so we should not have a period of double taxation.”

How HomeServe went from losing £50,000 a month to being sold for £4.1 billion

Harpin knows the risks that entrepreneurs take better than most. His lifelong dream of becoming a successful businessman nearly led to his business running out of money – twice.

Harpin and his business partner began their company in 1992, with their combined life savings of £50,000.

The business venture, then called A1 Fast Fix, hit major stumbling blocks. "We literally saw our life savings go down the drain in the space of six months,” he said.

Harpin says the problems were due to the wrong business model, high costs and a lack of repeat business.

In December 1992, they had to borrow money from friends and family to keep the business going.

The following spring, they got £500,000 in investment from South Staffordshire Water for 52% of the business.

There was a "big sense of relief", Harpin said: “I thought, right, now I can really grow the business, and it got bigger every month.”

But the company continued to haemorrhage money. "All that happened was I took £10,000 a month of losses and they became £50,000 a month of losses,” he said.

A little over a year later, the business was back in the same position. “[We’d] run out of money. [We were] literally down to our last £10,000”, Harpin said.

He continued: “Even my business partner came to me and said, ‘Richard, your life's dream of becoming an entrepreneur…you’ve got to face it, it’s over’.”

But Harpin refused to give up. “When you’ve got a life’s dream, you’ve got to make it happen,” he said.

Luck did strike, and Harpin found out about a water company in Surrey offering annual plumbing cover.

“I went down to Surrey, stopped people in the high street and said, ‘Have you joined up? What did you like about it? What did you not like about it? And literally designed our plumbing insurance membership on the street.”

The insurance memberships took off and customer growth exploded. By 1997, HomeServe had one million customers in the UK and by 2010, five million globally.

In 2023, Harpin sold HomeServe for £4.1 billion.

How can you become a billionaire?

After selling HomeServe three years ago, Harpin is now helping other entrepreneurs grow their businesses.

In 2015, he set up Growth Partner, which provides funding and advice to medium-sized businesses to help them scale. In 2023, he acquired Business Leader, a private network where chief executives and founders of businesses worth over £3 million can receive coaching and tips on how to grow their firms.

This summer, his book ‘How to Make a Billion in 9 Steps’ was published. Harpin discussed some of those steps on the MoneyWeek Talks podcast, including why “copying” and adapting existing ideas can be a recipe for success.

“We’re taught at school that copying homework is bad. In business, it’s definitely good to copy somebody else’s idea, like I did, and then do it better and bigger and quicker,” he said.

Harpin also discussed the importance of "honing your character" and focusing on the things you’re good at – step nine from the book.

“I was only good at a very small number of things and I was really bad at lots of things,” he said.

“I used to get really miserable at my performance review with my chairman, until I realised that what I needed to do was just focus on my couple of strengths and then hire people that could do all the things that I was bad at, that I didn’t like doing, and that was the magic bullet.”

‘Why you should start a business in the UK now’

The vast majority of businesses Growth Partner works with are UK-based.

And although economic growth remains sluggish, Harpin believes it is still a good place for businesses to thrive.

“I still believe that there is no better place in the world to run a global business from,” he said. “There’s a relatively low level of red tape, and what better time to open a business or expand a business than in a difficult time?

“It will eventually get better, and if you can grow through difficult conditions, then think about how easy it’s going to be in the future.”

To learn more about Richard Harpin’s life and his tips for succeeding in business, watch MoneyWeek’s full podcast on YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

About the podcast

MoneyWeek Talks is a podcast that helps you unlock the secrets to financial success. Editors Kalpana Fitzpatrick, Andrew Van Sickle and Cris Sholto Heaton are joined by influential guests – from CEOs and entrepreneurs to economists and fund managers – to share their top tips on managing money, investing wisely and building wealth.

Follow the MoneyWeek Talks podcast and get ready to make it, keep it and spend it with confidence. You can also watch the episodes on our YouTube channel.

What are tax havens?

Tax havens are small, well-governed, offshore financial centres that offer low or zero taxes, combined with secrecy – or at least strict privacy – regarding client and ownership information.

Many of them are islands connected in some way with Britain to exploit the country's legal frameworks, stability and access to the City of London, but with the convenience and flexibility of separate fiscal regimes. The islands have a massive incentive to take advantage of their position, and specialise, given financial services can generate vastly more income than other local industries.

Which British territories are tax havens?

Offshore financial centres linked to the UK fall into two categories: Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. The first group is made up of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which have enjoyed varying degrees of fiscal and legislative independence for many centuries (and are not legally part of the UK). When international finance took off in the 20th century, these islands had the advantage of independent legal and tax systems, plus close links to one of the world's biggest financial centres.

By contrast, Overseas Territories (the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands are the big three financial centres) are legacies of empire – self-governing microstates with their own tax and legal systems, but with the British monarch as head of state.

How big is the offshore financial centres industry?

The Cayman Islands is the legal domicile for 30,000 investment funds, with about $9.1 trillion in assets under management, according to its government's figures, with more than 75% of offshore hedge funds domiciled there.

The British Virgin Islands are specialists in company incorporation, holding companies and trusts – home to 352,000 registered companies, according to figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for 2024. According to the Tax Justice Network, some $2.6 trillion of foreign direct investment passed through British Virgin Islands structures that year.

Bermuda's specialism is insurance and reinsurance, with 1,210 registered firms handling $2.17 trillion in total insurance assets and about $300 billion in assets under management through licensed investment businesses. In each case, the territories claim to provide an essential and legal tax-neutral framework that enables global commerce. Critics say they facilitate aggressive tax avoidance and profit shifting, allowing corporations and individuals to pay hundreds of billions of pounds less in tax.

Is being an offshore tax haven sustainable?

There's definitely increased pressure on low-tax jurisdictions, both from global trends towards greater transparency and from the UK itself. The Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories are part of the OECD's Common Reporting Standard (CRS), meaning they must exchange financial-account information with foreign tax authorities. They are also subject to the OECD's 15% global minimum tax for large multinational groups, meaning the likes of Bermuda and Jersey – which both had zero-rate regimes – have been obliged to meet that minimum.

Meanwhile, the UK has been gradually pushing for more transparency when it comes to “beneficial” (ultimate) ownership of assets, with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Progress is far from complete, however, and wrangling continues. The Cayman Islands, for example, finally agreed to allow “legitimate interest” access in 2025, but in practice the process is slow and subject to expensive appeals and delays that critics say are designed to discourage access requests.

Will Britain's tax havens survive?

Neither of these trends are set to lead to the collapse of the UK's offshore tax havens. But the picture is morphing from one of “tax haven” bank secrecy and zero or low tax, to one of offshore centres providing tax-neutral legal and financial infrastructure for global capital. Strikingly, in 2025 the Overseas Territories between them froze more than $11 billion of assets under sanctions regimes, on Foreign Office figures. In other words, they are well on the way to being integrated into international anti-money-laundering and sanctions enforcement.

The relationship between the UK and its dependencies and territories has sometimes been fraught, with Jersey occasionally threatening independence if London gets too heavy-handed. But they are a positive asset and shouldn't be taken for granted, says James Price in City AM. The Overseas Territories account for 4.4% of the UK's services exports – more than Spain or Italy, or any Asian country except China. And they entrench the City's global dominance, channelling “enormous sums of money into the country and fuelling finance with access to worldwide asset pools. In turn, this stimulates investment, drives productivity and more than offsets lost tax revenues”.

How is Jersey as an offshore financial centre?

It's still one of the world's leading offshore centres, says Simon Nixon on Bloomberg. But tougher competition from rivals such as Dubai, Singapore and the Cayman Islands means the island is “locked in an increasingly difficult battle to preserve a financial-services industry that accounts for 40% of its government revenues and 44% of gross value added”.

Brexit hasn't helped – EU rules mean that funds marketed to European investors must be administered on European soil and Jersey has lost business to Dublin and Luxembourg. London, the source of Jersey's deal flow, has lost business to the Middle East and Asia.

And the UK's post-financial-crisis ringfencing rules (surplus deposits can no longer be lucratively parked with UK banks) has seen the number of banks on Jersey shrink by a third since 2017. A Jersey government-commissioned review put it well earlier this year: that “the privilege has shifted”. For decades, Jersey operated on the assumption that “access to the island was itself a privilege; now, Jersey must go out and compete for business like everyone else”.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The Office for National Statistics has changed how it measures productivity – economic output per hour worked – and it turns out we’ve been doing rather better than we realised. In particular, the government’s official statisticians now reckon the rate of growth in the decade following the global financial crisis, from 2009-2019, was 1.3% each year, on average, rather than the 0.7% they had previously thought.

Alas, this doesn’t mean the UK economic output was any higher. It simply means the statisticians have changed their minds about how many hours we worked – that is, they think it was far fewer than originally estimated. That same level of output, divided by a smaller number of hours, equals a higher resulting figure for productivity. It means the UK’s unique productivity puzzle may not have been so much of a puzzle all along – and places us in the top half of the G7 pack on productivity, rather than as an embarrassing outlier.

What did the ONS change when measuring productivity?

Previously, the ONS had largely calculated the total hours worked from the Labour Force Survey, in which respondents are asked how many hours they’ve worked in a particular week. However, for a variety of reasons (as covered in this space previously), that survey has become notoriously unreliable, with ever lower response rates.

People may report their usual or contracted hours rather than their actual hours, for example, as economist Jonathan Portes points out on his blog. Or when “respondents drop out temporarily, the survey may carry forward their previous answer – even if the reason they did not respond was that they were on holiday”. As response rates fell, the survey’s upward biases in estimating working hours worsened – with a corresponding downward bias in the calculation of productivity rates.

By contrast, the ONS’s new “component method”, already used by many other countries, draws on a wide variety of sources, including the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings – deducting for annual leave and other absences, and adjusting for overtime – as well as other business surveys. The resulting picture is one of falling average hours per job, and much slower growth in total hours, after 2008.

Is the UK getting more productive?

Yes, the revised figures suggest that people are more productive when they are working (output per hour is higher), but they are putting in fewer hours (average weekly hours are lower). Over the period from 2008 to 2024, the latest year for which we have the new figures – the difference is stark. Total output grew by only 8.7% under the ONS’s existing (“current”) approach, but 15.8% on the revised (“component”) method. On the face of it, that’s good news.

Productivity is one of the most important drivers of economic growth, living standards and the public finances. The metric slowed across advanced economies after the financial crisis, “reflecting weaker investment, the fading of the information-technology boom and other common factors”, says Portes. The fact that the UK was not, in fact, an exceptionally weak performer is good news.

Are there any caveats?

Always. Importantly, the revision doesn’t mean that productivity has recovered to pre-crisis levels – the revised annualised figure of 1.3% remains well below the pre-crisis average of 2%. Indeed, Richard Heys, ONS deputy chief economist, argues that the new methodology does not change “the fundamental story of a slowdown in productivity” following the global financial crisis and that the UK had still experienced “the slowest growth since the Second World War and arguably since the Napoleonic period”. Sadly, he’s right, says David Smith in The Sunday Times. Since 1997, the ONS reckons output per hour is 40.7% higher on the new estimate, compared with 34% on the old one.

That’s not a giant gap. Also, output per worker-hour is not the only way to measure productivity. The ONS has also looked at two other measures – output per worker and output per job, which are a “more relevant gauge” than output per hour when it comes to the impact on real wages and the public finances. In both cases, the new way of measuring alters the picture far less than with the output-per-hour metric: there has still been a drastic slowdown following the financial crisis.

Arguably, then, the revision of the ONS statistics is a worrying development. If productivity is already rising at 1.3%, it will be much harder to improve on it significantly – “leaving us stuck with wage stagnation and big fiscal challenges”. And if the UK’s productivity was less disastrous than feared, by corollary, our supposedly resilient jobs market was less impressive than assumed.

What do the latest stats show?

There are promising signs. Last month, the Resolution Foundation think tank published its own analysis of UK productivity based not on the Labour Force Survey, but on RTI payroll data (the Real Time Information system employers use to send pay data to HMRC) and on self-employment tax return data. They concluded that productivity has grown by a respectable 1.1% on average since the third quarter of 2024, having fallen 0.7% on average over the two years prior. By contrast, the latest (incomplete) “old” ONS figures – based on the LFS – show a fall of 0.2% over the past two years and 0.1% before that.

This strong uptick is not the result, say the Resolution report’s authors, of disproportionate contraction in low-productivity sectors such as retail and hospitality, nor expansion in high-tech sectors or increased use of AI. Rather, this is “a broad-based recovery, with 12 of 19 sectors seeing improved productivity growth in the past two years – including in information and communications, retail, science, transport and health”. It’s early days, and higher productivity is not a panacea, but there are at least some reasons for optimism.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

On Monday, the average price of diesel in the UK crossed the £2 per litre threshold and is set to go a lot higher still. The cost of diesel has risen by 54% since the start of the Iran war and is climbing higher all the time. Motorists stuck with diesel cars are starting to feel the full effect of the shortage of the fuel and so will all the haulage companies who rely on it to fuel their vehicles.

Why? The Strait of Hormuz has been largely closed to traffic, putting a squeeze on oil supplies. Refining capacity across the Persian Gulf has been badly hit by the conflict, with shipments of refined products falling by up to half over the past few months.

Ukrainian drone strikes deep within Russia have taken out a lot of that country’s capacity, and while the main purpose has been to knock out supplies to Russia’s army and inflict maximum economic damage, it means the world has less diesel than ever. Russian oil might be officially sanctioned in the West, but a lot of it was finding its way onto the world market.

Add all that up and supplies were already getting squeezed. It may be about to get a whole lot worse. With prices soaring in the US as much as anywhere else, Donald Trump is coming under pressure from Republican congressmen and senators to impose a 90-day ban on US diesel exports. It’s understandable that political leaders think keeping the domestic market supplied should be the priority. But if that happens it could escalate into a global diesel crisis.

Britain would then be facing a very bleak winter. We have only an estimated 42 days’ supply of diesel in storage to cope with any kind of emergency, the lowest buffer of any major developed country. We import a third of the diesel we consume from the US. It’s hard to see how we can buy much more on the open market. Our European neighbours have only slightly higher reserves than we do and are unlikely to want to help out.

Britain may run out of diesel

The harsh truth is that we may simply run out of diesel. If so, the price will soar and the government may well have to step in, with a ruinously expensive subsidy scheme and probably some form of rationing as well. It will have to make sure the emergency services are supplied and that the most important industrial users stay open.

The bigger problem, though, is that the diesel crisis will painfully expose how far we have run down our industrial resilience and capacity. As recently as 1995, Britain was a net exporter of diesel. We had our own oil wells and our own refineries, allowing us to export to the rest of Europe, and indeed the world. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. We are down to only four refineries. Over the past 15 years, five have closed, with diesel imported instead. The North Sea oil industry has been relentlessly run down, with licences refused for new drilling and environmental activists allowed to tie up developers in constant legal battles. Windfall taxes make it very difficult to make any money in the oil industry anyway.

That makes a difference. North Sea output won’t affect the global price of oil by itself. But in an emergency, a country with its own oil and its own refineries can always ensure it is supplied with fuel. It can place restrictions on exports and ensure the domestic market keeps running. You can’t do that when both the oil and products refined from it are imported from abroad.

Britain has been steadily deindustrialising for the past 20 years. Punitive taxes, an obsession with net-zero targets and some of the most restrictive planning laws in the world have made this a very hard country to make things in. We can see the evidence for that across a whole range of industries. Cement production is back down to levels last seen in the 1950s. Car production is down to early 1960s levels. Much of the petrochemicals industry has closed down. The list goes on. Domestic capacity has been steadily replaced by imports because it is simply too expensive to operate in the UK.

If we face severe shortages this winter, and perhaps even rationing, it will expose the folly of 20 years of running down basic industrial capacity. If you can’t make stuff any more, then you are left completely exposed to whatever crisis may erupt in another part of the world. The price for that will be very high.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

What's happening with British schools?

British schools – and English schools in particular – are doing remarkably well. Results from the OECD's 2025 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were published earlier this month, and the UK is close to the top of the class among European peers.

The closely watched comparative survey, which began in 2000, is conducted every three years, assessing the educational skill levels of 15-year-olds around the world, with an emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving and the application of skills to real-world contexts. It now covers 91 rich and middle-income nations.

For the first time, the UK was in the top ten countries globally for each of the three subjects covered – reading, maths and science. The highest reaches of the combined league table are dominated by East Asian nations: China, Singapore, Macao, Taiwan and Japan are the top five; South Korea is seventh. Of countries outside that region, the UK, eighth in the table, lies behind only Estonia, ranked at number six.

Are education standards rising globally?

No, most countries' results continued to decline, while in the UK they held steady in England, and only dropped a little in Scotland and Northern Ireland and a bit more in Wales (the exception being science, where they improved across the UK).

That flatlining doesn't necessarily take away from the UK's success. “Staying still, in the face of headwinds, while nearly everyone else drops back precipitously, is still an achievement,” says Sam Freedman on Substack.

But it obviously raises questions about what is going on globally, with potential factors including a pandemic hangover and decreasing levels of concentration in line with higher screen usage among children. In reading in particular, school pupils are struggling with skills such as interpreting information and assessing evidence, with an increase in “hasty reading” (quick but inaccurate). The OECD suggests this may be an effect of technological distraction and more reading happening on screens.

Is this good news for British schools?

Yes, and for England in particular. The PISA scores are also broken down in line with the separate school systems within the UK and show England now significantly outperforming Scotland and Northern Ireland, with Wales the weakest of the four. The results also show England has pulled further ahead since the last three-year PISA cycle compared with the rest of the UK, and with European peers more widely.

These striking results have been widely reported, says Freedman, but the extent of the gap between England and the rest of Western Europe has been underplayed. For example, in reading, the 25% most disadvantaged young people in England outperformed the average for all pupils in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and many other countries. “The overall gap has gone from nothing to significant in a decade.”

Where did it all go right for England?

England's increasingly impressive record over the past decade has its roots in stable and sensible long-term policymaking under successive governments, says Iain Martin on Reaction – dating back to the creation of the national curriculum under Conservative education secretary Kenneth Baker in 1988. In the late 1990s and 2000s, the Blair governments did “fantastic work” expanding the Tories' reforms, sharpening teaching and giving schools more autonomy.

Then the coalition government, with Michael Gove as education secretary, “supercharged the raising of standards”. The basic planks of England's educational strategy are a curriculum focused on core knowledge, greater emphasis on behaviour, more high-stakes assessment, the use of synthetic phonics in early reading and a strong culture of professional development.

Is Britain’s old-school approach to learning paying dividends?

Indeed. England's model of curriculum and assessment is often “mischaracterised” as “rote-learning” and a “factory model” of schooling, says Freedman. Sceptics argue it might lead to good test results, but, compared with more modern “competency-based” approaches, is of little relevance to real life and less engaging for pupils.

Yet the PISA test results, which focus on creative problem-solving and critical thinking, are a big vote of confidence in England's education reforms. There are two other factors that may well have contributed to our success – namely a more sceptical attitude towards screen-learning and smartphones, and greater success at integrating the children of immigrants.

According to PISA, distraction from digital devices in class is far lower in England than most European countries. And in England, immigrants outperform non-immigrant 15-year-olds, whereas in France and Germany they lag far behind. That reflects greater success in integrating new arrivals.

What has Labour got planned?

Since coming back to power in 2024, Labour has passed the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which was concerned with free school meals, safeguarding and professional standards. This year, it has also announced an overhaul of SEND provision (for children with special educational needs and disabilities) in its Education for All Bill.

Alas, the new education secretary, Lucy Powell, is now making ominous noises about in effect copying the Scottish approach that has led to Scotland falling far behind England, says Fraser Nelson on Substack.

Powell says she wants to replace the “exam factory with the talent factory” – a very Nicola Sturgeon-like soundbite. She's proposed a broader curriculum and qualifications, fewer written examinations and more coursework and practical assessment, alongside “stepping-stone” qualifications for pupils who fail English or maths. “But why? The experiments have been done. The answers are in. Her way was pioneered by Scotland, and it leads over a cliff.”

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

In the weeks after the Budget of October 2024, pension schemes started receiving an unusual request. Savers who had taken their tax-free cash wanted to hand it back.

They had taken it because of rumours that the then chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was about to cut it in the Budget. She didn't.

By December 2024, HMRC was writing to schemes to explain the position. The money could go back into the pension pot, but because there is only so much tax-free in a lifetime, what these savers had taken had counted against that limit for good. The decision they took could not be reversed. There are strict rules around the tax-free pensions lump sum allowance.

The same thing happened the following year, before the Budget of November 2025, and again the rules were left alone.

Now the same warnings are circulating ahead of chancellor John Healey's first Budget on 28 October about pensions tax changes.

Healey himself has not made an announcement. This does not mean that this year's speculation is wrong, but the rumours simply mean you are being invited to act on a claim that has been made twice in two years, and been wrong twice. Which raises the question of where the claim keeps coming from.

Why Budget tax rumours keep appearing

I've worked in financial journalism long enough to know how these stories start. Journalists hear genuine policy discussions and think tanks publish proposals - and out come the warnings.

Interested parties lobby, and readers do need warning about measures that might plausibly arrive. But often, stories are

The difficulty is what happens on the way to the reader. 'This is being discussed' becomes 'this may happen'. By the time it reaches the kitchen table, it has become 'this will probably happen’, prompting some to take action too soon.

Where the numbers actually come from

In August 2024, the Fabian Society proposed that the maximum tax-free lump sum be cut to the lower of £100,000 or a quarter of someone's pension wealth. Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, had argued for £40,000 back in 2019, when he ran the Resolution Foundation.

The case for reform is a serious one, and it isn't confined to think tanks with a political affiliation. Writing in September 2024, the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the tax subsidies for pension saving generous, opaque and poorly targeted, and said they could sensibly be reformed. But it also warned against constant tinkering, and argued that savers need to know where pensions policy is going, whatever any one Budget does.

Two Budgets have come and gone since then, and savers are no clearer than they were. What they do have is a set of proposals, and no statement from any chancellor that he intends to act on them.

But the seeds of fear have been planted.

Why you can't simply put your tax free pension back

You can usually take a quarter of a pension without paying income tax on it. What far fewer people know is that there is also a limit on the total you can take tax-free across all your pensions in your lifetime, currently £268,275. It is called the lump sum allowance, and it moves in one direction. Once you have used part of it, it stays used.

HMRC's position is that sending the money back does not restore the allowance, and that there is no legal mechanism for doing so. The Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates pension providers, has said that taking tax-free cash does not by itself give you a right to cancel. Cooling-off rights attach to buying something new, an annuity for instance. Taking your own money out of your own pension isn't buying anything.

Suppose someone of 58 with a £600,000 pension draws the full quarter she is entitled to, £150,000, years before she needs it, because she has read that the allowance may be cut. The Budget comes and goes and nothing changes. Her £150,000 is now sitting outside a pension, where growth would have gone untaxed. And of the £268,275 she could have taken tax-free across her lifetime, £150,000 is gone. That part of her allowance is spent. None of what she had read was from anyone who really knew.

Are Budget rumours ever right?

Waiting is not always cheaper than acting.

In October 2024, capital gains tax rates rose from 20% to 24% for higher-rate taxpayers, and they rose on Budget day itself. People who had already decided to sell something, and brought the sale forward, saved four percentage points. The official forecasters later confirmed that enough of them did it to show up in the tax figures.

The speculation about cash ISAs proved right too. The cash allowance falls to £12,000 for savers under 65 from April 2027. So did the speculation about salary sacrifice, though that change doesn't take effect until 2029. Anyone who reorganised their pay in the autumn of 2025 moved more than three years early.

The people who gained in these three cases had something in common. They were mostly bringing forward a sale or a change they had already settled on, not doing something new because of something they had read.

Not everything in the news this autumn is speculation. Two changes affecting pensions and savings are already settled. The cash ISA change and the pension inheritance tax change both arrive in April 2027. You can plan around both, because both are coming.

A cut to the lump sum allowance is different. It has been proposed, and it has been reported. No government has said it is going to happen.

Three questions to ask yourself before 28 October

Before acting on anything you read between now, here’s what you should ask yourself first:

1. Has this been announced, or is somebody predicting it?
2. If the prediction is wrong, can you undo what you did?
3. What will waiting cost you?

The third question isn't a way of talking yourself into doing nothing. Sometimes waiting has a real price, as anyone who sold an asset after 30 October 2024 discovered. But that price is usually one you can work out in advance. The cost of acting on a rumour that turns out to be wrong often isn't.

The Budget is on 28 October. Until then, the thing to keep hold of is the difference between what the government has announced and what other people think it might do. The first one you can plan around. The second is a forecast, and there's no way of knowing in advance which forecasts are the right ones. Where a decision can't be undone, that difference is worth waiting a few weeks to resolve.

Gary Stevenson, a gobby former City trader turned socialist firebrand, known for his advocacy of a wealth tax and “for dressing like a 16-year-old scally despite being a 39-year-old man”, as Christopher Snowdon puts it in The Critic, was briefly all over the news during the silly season, when Parliament was in recess, and there was hence nothing better for political hacks to talk about.

Stevenson's perhaps most stunning achievement was to make and present a Channel 4 documentary about himself and his ideas in which he allowed his arguments to get severely and embarrassingly bested by people who know what they're talking about. His five minutes of fame ended with his early retirement from social media, citing burnout and exhaustion.

The big issue with wealth taxes

Sadly, his ideas have a bit more life in them yet, and for a simple reason – Andy Burnham, the new prime minister, is sniffing around for more money to fund his spending commitments. Where the cash will come from is, as Gerard Lyons says in The Times, the “defining fiscal question” of the present moment. Most economists rule out imposing wealth taxes as a solution to that problem, and for good reasons. But politicians are prone to forget sound economics when they have more pressing problems to deal with, such as huge fiscal holes to fill and political constituencies to placate.

Chancellor John Healey, now preparing his first budget for delivery at the end of October, has pointedly refused to rule out tax rises and faces the challenge of rebuilding a fiscal buffer eroded by the Iran war and weak growth while funding new spending commitments from a prime minister whose premiership so far seems distinguished mostly by his inability to see a spending commitment he doesn't like.

Healey's options are limited. The Office for Budget Responsibility is unlikely to upgrade its forecasts for economic growth or future tax revenues, and borrowing more will not be easy. Gilt issuance is already around £250 billion this fiscal year and debt servicing costs are on the rise. And Labour's manifesto commitments rule out increases in any of the main taxes. Attention has thus long been shifting to wealth and other taxes, presented as a simple way out of the predicament.

“They are not,” as Lyons says. Modern tax systems have evolved in the way they have because governments need “large, reliable and predictable” sources of revenue. That consideration means that revenues generally come primarily from taxing recurring flows of income, profits and spending. Such taxes generate around four-fifths of tax revenues across the OECD club of developed nations. Wealth taxes depart from this principle, seeking to draw income from a stock of wealth held in assets rather than from flows – and that is far easier said than done. Countries that have tried to impose them have usually ended up abandoning them. Where they remain, they have simply become another burden, not on idle wealth, but “on entrepreneurs, business owners and productive capital”.

Supporters of a wealth tax often cite the Wealth Tax Commission, the report of a group of independent experts tasked with studying the feasibility and impact of a wealth tax, but its own research undermines the case, says Lyons. Even at a tax rate of just 1%, the Commission estimated that behavioural responses could shrink the tax base by between 7% and 17%. “Many people are asset rich but cash poor. A tax that is detached from recurring cash flow eventually forces borrowing or the sale of assets simply to pay the tax. It alters behaviour, depresses asset values and adds administrative complexity.”

Why are wealth taxes so popular?

It is easy to portray those who oppose a wealth tax as “bootlickers for the haves and the have-yachts”, says Snowdon, but “the reason most economists are dismissive of the idea is the same reason governments of both right and left have abandoned them over the years: they are costly to administer, don't raise much money and drive talent out of the country”. What most people who advocate soaking the rich don't realise is that the money of the very wealthy is “not just sitting there in a bank account”. It is invested in shares, the value of which fluctuates daily and can spike or collapse dramatically. It is invested in property and possessions, the value of which is not known until they are sold. And in the case of people who technically own £10 million or more, it is the value of the businesses that they founded and own, the price of which is also not known until they are put up for sale.

The first task of a government that wants to introduce a wealth tax is to calculate how much wealth people have, but this is therefore an inevitably expensive and bureaucratic exercise requiring many arbitrary decisions that are open to challenge by those being assessed, says Snowdon. And that's just the start of the problems. In 1990, 12 OECD countries had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three. Norway and Switzerland use them as substitutes for inheritance and capital-gains taxes, and Spain's is “so full of holes that what remains can be considered largely symbolic”: it raises so little revenue that most fiscal accounts do not even bother to list it. In short, it soon dawns on governments that try to introduce them that wealth taxes are simply not worth the bother.

Why then are we still talking about them? Mainly because “more sensible proposals take five minutes to explain and therefore have little chance of being adopted in the current political environment”, says Joseph Heath, an academic philosopher writing on Substack. The main merit of the idea of wealth taxes for those on the left is that they are very easy to explain: “Billionaires are bad, so let's take away their money!” Wealth taxes are, in other words, a perfect example of “slopulism” – “policy ideas that make for quick, effective soundbites”, but that are useless and “almost universally rejected by experts”.

It is not even necessary to take a position on whether inequality is a big problem that we must deal with to see this. Perhaps you think it is. Even if so, there is nothing a wealth tax can accomplish towards whatever end you have in view that can't already be accomplished through the current tax system – that is, by taxing capital income. Some might say that this does not capture the increase in value of the stock of wealth when those assets earn a return or appreciate in value, but that is just an argument for treating the increase as income and taxing it – as happens already. All income derived from wealth in the form of dividends, interest payments and capital gains must be declared as income. The principle, as already stated, remains to tax the flow, not the stock of wealth. “For people who are angry about the Elon Musks and Peter Thiels of the world, a wealth tax offers the most immediate and intuitive way of channelling that anger. Unfortunately, the desire to punish one's enemies is not a sound basis for tax policy.”

Heath was talking about the situation in the US, but it is hardly very different here in the UK. Given that unfortunate fact, what we can expect from the current government in terms of tax policy? Nothing very pretty. Imagine you are a politician who does not believe in wealth taxes, but who wants to be popular with people who do, says Kristian Niemietz on Substack. You know wealth taxes don't work, you have economic advisers who tell you so, and you know they are usually more trouble than they are worth. But at the same time, you believe that the Gary Stevensons of this world have won the argument and, in any case, you need revenue sooner rather than later. What would you do? You would probably, says Niemietz, come up with “all sorts of policies that mimic aspects of what a wealth tax is supposed to do, without being a wealth tax proper”.

That would explain a lot of otherwise puzzling moves by the current government – why, for example, we have seen increases in the rates for capital gains taxes while tax-free allowances have been cut; why landlords face higher rates on rental income and higher stamp duty land tax rates; why we will see a “mansion tax”, a council-tax surcharge for properties worth more than £2 million. Polls show that such reforms are popular with the public. They might not be so popular when the consequences come home.

All such changes will probably decrease savings, investment and wealth generation while raising only minor amounts of additional revenue, as Niemietz points out. But other consequences will be more immediate, visible and intrusive. The government plans, for example, to send tax inspectors around the country to value homes believed to be in the price range of the mansion tax. Those inspectors will have powers to demand entry into people's homes so that they can conduct a valuation. This may seem to be an intrusion into the private sphere and a violation of civil liberties, but it is an inevitable consequence of the bureaucratic process of valuing wealth that hasn't yet been sold in order to impose wealth taxes. “If this sounds like a terribly inefficient way of raising money to you, just imagine what an actual wealth tax, which does the same thing for assets across the board, would be like.”

Policymakers need to heed the lessons of history

The popular support for higher rates and wealth taxes may not be all it seems either, says Viggo Terling, also in The Critic. Westminster has “convinced itself that the public is desperate to tax the rich harder”. But new polling conducted by the Adam Smith Institute suggests otherwise. True, asked whether they support a wealth tax, 61% of voters say yes. But told additionally that such a tax could drive high-net-worth individuals abroad and reduce the money available for public services, support plummets to 37%.

Voters should be capable of doing the maths themselves. The top 10% of earners contribute 60% of all income-tax revenue. If enough net contributors flee Britain to escape an ever-increasing tax burden, the resulting bill will land on everyone else, either in the form of higher taxes or worse public services, says Terling. Worryingly, the millionaire exodus seems already to have begun. Britain now has 442,000 sterling millionaires, down 7% since 2024 and the lowest number since the financial crisis. Britain's tax burden is already testing post-war highs – a level the Office for Budget Responsibility has called “uncharted territory” – and imposing new wealth taxes and leaving tax thresholds unchanged will change incentives dangerously for the super-rich and workers alike.

Today, earning between £100,000 and £125,140 can leave you facing an effective marginal income-tax rate of 60%. Yet 81% of the public agree that people should be able to keep more of what they earn and pass it on to their children. “That is about as close as Britain comes to a settled moral position on tax, and no major party currently builds its policy around it.”

It's beyond time that policymakers heeded the lessons of history and stopped “wasting public resources reviving failed ideas, especially ones that are more about political signalling than devising meaningful solutions”, says Cristina Enache for Project Syndicate. “To restore public confidence in our political and economic system, we should instead focus on fostering growth and expanding opportunity – on building the bottom up, not tearing the top down.”

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Soaring oil prices have pushed UK inflation to a five-month high. Consumer prices rose 3.1% in the year to August. Motor fuel prices rose nearly a quarter, with petrol rising to 161.3p per litre and diesel hitting 181.8p. Brent crude is back above $100 a barrel. Trading at $108 as of Wednesday, it has risen 78% since the start of the year.

While there is no end in sight to America's war with Iran, until recently the White House had seemed to be gaining the upper hand in the economic battle. Despite the closure of the vital Strait of Hormuz artery, oil prices had stayed below $100 for several months. That was in large measure thanks to clandestine shipments through the strait – high-risk “dark crossings” made by crude tankers with their transponders turned off so as to evade Iranian detection, say Dmitry Zhdannikov and Anushree Ashish Mukherjee for Reuters.

Together with pipelines that circumvent the Strait of Hormuz, the “industry consensus” is that roughly two-thirds of pre-war Persian Gulf volumes are still making their way out of the region. All told, such “dark shipments” may have reached 500 million barrels between June and August, enough to put a meaningful dent in the world's thirst for fuel.

Now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Last week, Saudi Arabia was forced to close its vital east-west pipeline following attacks by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. That may cut global oil supplies by as much as 3.6 million barrels per day, equivalent to 3.6% of global demand, according to analysis by Kpler.

Pipelines have been a major tool for bypassing Hormuz, but these strikes are a reminder that they can be destroyed, Anne-Sophie Corbeau of Columbia University tells the BBC. In war, pipelines are “sitting ducks”.

Meanwhile, the alternative Red Sea route is coming under renewed threat from Yemen's Houthi militia, says Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. The Houthis are a tough nut to crack. They have been fighting better-equipped enemies for more than two decades. The persistence of the Taliban, another US adversary that ultimately outlasted Washington's patience, comes to mind. Another vital energy route is being squeezed just as the northern hemisphere enters winter.

Surging oil price at the root of the debt crisis

Surging energy prices and inflation are the root cause of the global spike in government borrowing costs, says Aaron Back in The Wall Street Journal. The benchmark US ten-year Treasury this week topped 5% to hit its highest level since 2007. After years of deficit spending and the “twin crises” of Covid-19 and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the world's developed nations entered this year in a “weakened fiscal position”. That was “the dry timber that the Iran war now threatens to set ablaze”.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Britain gained full access to the CPTPP, the huge Pacific free-trade zone, last week after Canada's ratification. It is by far the most significant trade deal that Britain has been able to secure since leaving the EU. Though, with the bond markets in meltdown, the cost of Britain's debt starting to soar, and the economy sliding closer to recession, it is perhaps not surprising that this piece of positive news did not get much attention.

The CPTPP – or Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, to give it its full, if slightly cumbersome name – is a free-trade zone that covers 12 countries across Asia and the Americas, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia and Malaysia. It became fully operational on 1 September. Our exporters now have full, tariff-free access to its 600 million consumers. The Treasury estimates the deal could deliver a £2 billion boost to the economy. It could be far larger: the CPTPP represents a vast market that is growing at a rapid rate.

The problem is that at precisely the same time that the CPTPP comes fully into effect, the government is talking about a “reset” with the EU. Prime minister Andy Burnham has talked constantly about getting closer to the EU, and senior ministers have come out in support of joining the customs union. But any closer relationship would, in effect, mean leaving the CPTPP. Brussels would demand full control of our trade policy as part of any deal, and membership of the customs union would mean that the EU would set Britain's tariffs again, including levies on anything we buy from the Pacific. The two trade deals are incompatible.

It would surely be crazy to choose Europe over Asia. Europe is a larger overall economy, it is a lot closer, and it still accounts for more than 40% of British exports. But we already have tariff-free access to the EU's market through our existing agreement. For growth, which is what really matters, the Pacific bloc is far more important than the European one.

To start with, it is rising in significance, while Europe is steadily declining. At the start of the century, the EU accounted for 25% of global output. Today it is down to 15%. By contrast, the Pacific, on both Asian and American coasts, has been growing far faster. Right now, the CPTPP is only £4 trillion behind the EU, measured by total GDP. Within a decade, the Pacific bloc will have overtaken the EU. That makes it a far more lucrative market.

The CPTPP is what the EU might have been

Next, the legal framework of the CPTPP is far superior. Members have full access to each market within the bloc based on recognition of each other's standards. Subject to local vetoes, if your product is on sale in Japan and meets all its safety and regulatory standards, then you can sell it in Mexico or Australia, and vice versa. It acknowledges that there is no need for an extra layer of bureaucracy. More importantly, there is none of the paraphernalia of an emerging superstate. There is no CPTPP flag, or anthem, or foreign minister strutting about on the world stage. There is no freedom of movement. It is just a simple free-trade zone that allows goods and services to be sold, and without tariffs, across a huge range of territories – akin to what the EU was back when it was just the Common Market.

Finally, it is easier to do business with. When an economy is stuck with zero growth, as Italy, France, and now Germany are, there are very few commercial opportunities. Not much is getting built, companies are not investing and consumers don't have much money to spend. By contrast, when it is growing rapidly, as most of the Pacific is, lots of possibilities open up. People are ready to sign deals because they need stuff. British firms will find it far easier to grow their order books in Australia, Chile or Malaysia than they will in Portugal, Greece or Austria.

So long as the PM keeps talking about a reset with the EU, there is no point in British businesses embracing the opportunities offered by the Pacific deal. The government should make it clear that Britain's main trading bloc is the CPTPP and that we have no interest in anything other than our existing trade deal with Brussels – and then seize the opportunities the CPTPP offers.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

New chancellor John Healey has laid out the principles of his economic policy, saying he will stick to the existing fiscal rules and seek to control public spending while trying to boost growth in Britain.

Healey emphasised his commitment to fiscal discipline and stimulating growth in his first major speech in his new position, delivered at a manufacturing plant in Coventry on 7 September.

The cost of borrowing was a major focus. Gilt yields reached record highs last week with the yield on 10-year UK government bonds (gilts) rising above 5.29% on 2 September, the highest level for 19 years.

"Staying true to our values means being honest about the need to control government spending,” Healey said.

He noted that government debt as a share of GDP has soared from 64% in 2009 to almost 100% today and placed the blame at the foot of successive Conservative governments.

He said borrowing costs were around the G7 average until the Truss budget “crashed the economy [...] Since 2022 we have been paying that Truss penalty as we battle to re-establish belief in Britain.”

“There's nothing progressive about the government spending £1 in £10 on debt interest,” he added.

Healey also sought to reassure markets that he will not let borrowing get out of control or ignore Britain’s self-imposed fiscal rules, saying: “On my first day in the Treasury I said fiscal discipline was my first priority as chancellor.

“It underwrites every promise this government makes and the Prime Minister and I are in lockstep in our commitment to meeting the fiscal rules at the upcoming budget: to balancing the books, with a buffer to protect against uncertainty, to controlling borrowing to bear down on inflation and reducing long term pressures on our public finances.

“This isn’t about lines on a graph, or numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s a matter of values.”

What will happen in the Budget?

As Healey’s speech was mostly in broad strokes, he did not provide specifics on what new policies may be announced in the Budget and refused to answer any questions about it.

Responding to questions from journalists on the subject, Healey said: “If I respond to speculation now that will only fuel more speculation. Every chancellor would say ‘that’s for the Budget’, and I will set out my plans and the future route for the government for this country at that Budget.”

Although we will have to wait for a full economic plan, Healey did make some broad announcements.

On devolution he said: “At the Budget, I will set out a roadmap to fiscal devolution, a permanent transfer of power and resources from Whitehall to our regions, with greater business rates retention for local councils and strategic authorities, grants from central government replaced by a share of local income tax for every mayoral strategic authority beginning in 2028.”

He also made a new commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses by 25% before the end of this parliament in 2029 by taking “an axe to the thicket of consultation, litigation and administration that has a stranglehold too often on private investment.”

The chancellor also said he will make changes to the Treasury Green Book, the guidance on how to evaluate public spending, to skew investment into projects with “more long-term potential.”

Meanwhile, the way the government decides where to invest will start to include “economic potential analysis” in business case decisions to judge regions not on their current state, but on what they could become in the future.

Will taxes rise in the Autumn Budget?

Although Healey did not directly address whether or not taxes will be hiked in his first budget, he stood by the 2024 Labour manifesto which he said made “very strong, very clear, very specific" commitments on tax.

That manifesto pledged that none of the ‘big three’ taxes – income tax, national insurance, and VAT – would be raised on ‘working people’, ruling out the possibility that these taxes will rise.

However, these commitments still leave the door open for alternative tax hikes. For example, Rachel Reeves emphasised this same commitment in her first two budgets but still raised taxes in alternative ways.

Government debt markets have been around since the city-state of Venice issued its first bonds in 1171, but public debt only became tradable in the English-speaking world six centuries later.

Contemporaries held conflicting views about the development. Several leading members of the Scottish Enlightenment were downbeat. As government debt across the developed world escalates, their concerns are proving timely.

In his book, A Fabulous Debt: The Epic Story of How Bonds Built the Modern World, Financial Times journalist Robin ‌Wigglesworth explains how Britain's geopolitical ascendancy was inexorably linked to its public finances, and in particular its ability to issue vast quantities of low-cost debt.

Thomas Mortimer, an 18th-century financial writer, described the nation's bond market as “the standing miracle in policies, which at once astonishes and overawes the state of Europe”.

Not everyone was sanguine. In his 1752 essay Of Public Credit, the Scottish philosopher David Hume fretted about Britain's newfound tendency to “mortgage the public revenues, and to trust that posterity will pay off the incumbrances contracted by our ancestors”.

Access to the bond market, said Hume, allowed politicians to behave extravagantly without having immediately to raise taxes. “The practice, therefore, of contracting debt will almost infallibly be abused, in every government.”

Adam Smith, the economist who wrote The Wealth of Nations, claimed the issuance of long-dated public debt “has gradually enfeebled every state that has adopted it… When national debts have once accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid.”

Another Scottish contemporary, Adam Ferguson, opined that a permanent and unproductive national debt was “to be reckoned among the causes of national ruin”. In the decades after these warnings were issued, Britain's national debt kept expanding. No crisis appeared, however, and the country's prosperity grew apace.

Looking on the bright side

In his History of England (1848), Thomas Babington Macaulay mocked the debt doomsayers. He hailed Britain's “fabulous debt” as “the greatest prodigy that ever perplexed… statesmen and philosophers.

At every stage in the growth of that debt, it was seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt went on growing; and still bankruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever.”

The error of the pessimists, said Macaulay, lay in their comparing national debt to that of an individual borrower. Since most of Britain's public debt was held by its countrymen, the nation was in effect borrowing from itself.

They also ignored that economic growth rendered the debt sustainable: “They greatly overrated the pressure of the burden; they greatly underrated the strength by which the burden was to be borne.”

The conditions that created a stable bond market in Macaulay's day have vanished, ‌however. Economic growth across much of the developed world has faltered. Excessive borrowing and spending by governments is partly responsible.

Bloated government spending is to blame for the collapse in productivity growth, according to Swedish economists Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson. Hume expected that excessive debt would lead to debilitating taxes.

Government debt levels have risen inexorably since the financial crisis. Worldwide public debt has reached 94% of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund. US federal debt is around 114% of GDP, reckons Fitch Ratings.

Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded that when government debt breaches the 90% threshold, economic growth falters.

Hume would have agreed: “We have always found,” he wrote, “where a government has mortgaged all its revenues, that it necessarily sinks into a state of languor, inactivity and impotence.”

He cautioned that overseas investors owning big portions of a country's debt “render the public, in a manner, tributary to them”.

A large share of the national debt issued by the US, Britain and France is held abroad. For instance, a third of Washington's $40 trillion in borrowing comes from beyond its shores.

Whereas Britain in the 19th century was the world's top creditor, the US today is the world's largest debtor.

The Bank for International Settlements notes that rising geopolitical tensions could disrupt capital flows, threatening nations with large current account deficits.

After interest rates shot up four years ago, government borrowing costs soared. This wasn't a problem in Macaulay's Britain, where public debt was mostly financed with fixed-interest perpetual bonds.

By contrast, US public debt has a relatively short maturity profile, rendering it more sensitive to changes in short-term interest rates. Rising interest costs on a large stockpile of debt strain government finances.

The historian Niall Ferguson says the decline of a political superpower becomes evident when it spends more on servicing debt than on defence. The US breached this threshold two years ago.

Hume envisaged a day when an overburdened government would stop paying interest on its debt.

Since governments nowadays print the money in which their debt is denominated, an option not available in 18th-century Britain, formal default is unnecessary.

Instead, bondholders can be short-changed through inflation, financial repression and the management of long-term interest rates.

“The natural death of public credit,” said Hume, is inevitable when “overbalanced by a great debt”. The Scottish philosopher's timing was disastrous, but his principles remain sound.

A longer version of this article was first published on Reuters Breakingviews.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

What's the current situation with adult social care?

A few years ago a parliamentary committee memorably summed up the adult social care system in England as “unfair, confusing, demeaning and frightening” – and that remains a good summary.

A central problem is the “care lottery” involved in a complicated patchwork of funding rules, means-testing, local-authority decisions and private providers – with families taking up the slack.

Whereas a patient with cancer receives free state-funded treatment on the NHS, someone with dementia must fund long-term care costs themselves if they have assets worth more than £23,250 – so even modestly wealthy individuals can be forced to sell their homes to fund residential-care costs, which can easily top £100,000, or indeed multiples of that for the most unfortunate.

Addressing that unfairness in a way that's acceptable to taxpayers, those requiring care and those eager to protect hard-gained assets is a problem that has so far proved unsolvable.

What about quality of adult social care?

The squeeze on funding for local authorities, which provide social care, has led to a “fragile and fragmented market of providers”, says the Financial Times– leading to even lower pay levels, problems in recruiting and retaining staff and huge variations in quality.

As the population ages, demand is growing – at present only 42% of requests for help can be met. But it's not just about age: half of council care budgets go toward care for working-age adults, whose care needs can last much longer.

Overall, two million people have unmet care needs because they can't afford help, while more than 30,000 died last year while waiting for a social-care package, such as residential care, to be provided.

Under this badly functioning system, unpaid family carers absorb enormous personal costs, while delayed discharges owing to gaps in social care account for almost one in ten hospital beds, adding costs and stress onto the NHS.

What has Andy Burnham announced?

Andy Burnham has reconfirmed Labour's pledge to reform and rebuild adult social care in England via the creation of a National Care Service.

So far, though, that is very much an aspiration, with no fixed plan on how to achieve it – nor a clear picture of what that service will look like.

Burnham has also begun cross-party talks, and last month launched a “big conversation” with the public to get buy-in for whatever funding model is ultimately proposed.

And he has asked Louise Casey, a cross-bench peer, to bring forward delivery of her Independent Commission, begun under Starmer, to the summer of 2027.

Haven't we been here before?

Many times. Ominously, even Andy Burnham himself has been here before. As health secretary in 2009, Burnham floated a national-care scheme to revitalise and fund social care in England.

The Conservatives promptly branded the funding model – a levy on estates – a “death tax”, a label that stuck. But even so, Labour went into the 2010 election with a very familiar sounding policy – the creation of a National Care Service implemented in phased stages.

Under the Conservatives, a series of white papers were promised, but successive PMs failed to take action, with Theresa May's attempt at the 2017 election backfiring spectacularly with voters.

Labour accused her of planning a “dementia tax”; in fact she'd proposed a rather promising state-sponsored equity-release scheme that protected assets up to £100,000.

What are the funding options?

The phrase “National Care Service” suggests a universal NHS-style service free at the point of use and paid for out of general taxation. But the Health Foundation estimates the costs at £18.5 billion a year – and the UK's delicate fiscal position, demographics and low-growth economy make such a scenario highly unlikely.

More money will be needed, either via some form of hypothecated tax, or some form of compulsory social insurance that caps liabilities and pools risks – a model that works well in Germany and Japan. Here, civil servants have produced a model where workers over 34 pay an extra 1.8% income tax (above a £6,240) threshold to fund a national Later Life Care Fund.

Separately, Burnham has mooted scrapping inheritance tax and introducing a 10% levy on all estates, not just the largest 5% or so. Such a system would be simple and potentially raise large sums, but it's a tough sell politically and open to the “death tax” accusation.

So what's the solution?

Britain can't afford a “blank cheque” National Care Service that pours resources into a “taxpayer money hole”, says Eamonn Butler on CapX. But it urgently needs a “targeted safety net against genuine catastrophe”.

The first stage of any resolution will surely draw on the 2011 Dilnot report, says the FT: impose a lifetime cap on individuals' contribution to care costs and raise the assets threshold for making them pay. Such a cap would remove the threat of crushing expense that would overwhelm all but the very wealthy. And it would “create an insurable risk against which consumers could take out private insurance, avoiding having to sell their homes in their lifetime”.

The second plank, says Bloomberg, should be to “make more private provision workable”, for example by more stringent regulation that facilitates transparency and comparability, and by ensuring no one is penalised insuring themselves. “New financial instruments – from auto-enrolment pensions with a social-care component to annuities attached to home equity – could play a role if carefully regulated.”

In terms of funding, there “will be fights over thresholds, taxes and who gets what. So be it. The option Burnham can't afford is the one governments have been choosing for decades: pretending the bill disappears if nobody opens it.”

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The Bank of England might be best known for setting interest rates and printing banknotes, but there’s much more going on at the central bank you might not be aware of.

Jack Leslie and Rupal Patel, Bank of England (BoE) economists and authors of the new book Money: The Inside Story, discussed how the central bank holds 400,000 bars of gold and ‘giant’ and ‘titan’ banknotes worth up to £100 million in its vaults.

Speaking on the MoneyWeek Talks podcast, they also explained how electronic payments in the UK, from coffees to house purchases, go through the Bank’s ‘black box’.

They recalled a “spooky” story of how a sewer worker in the 1800s accidentally discovered an old drain which led to the Bank’s gold vaults.

Plus, Leslie and Patel explained why the first colour banknotes were printed amid a German plot during World War Two to airdrop counterfeit notes over the UK and crash the economy.

The episode is also available to watch on our YouTube channel.

Bank of England facing ‘uncertain’ external environment

As well as some of the quirkier Bank of England-related facts, Leslie and Patel also addressed the biggest challenges facing the central bank – such as the rise in wholesale energy costs due to ongoing tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Speaking to MoneyWeek’s digital editor-in-chief, Kalpana Fitzpatrick, Patel described increasing interest rates as a “blunt tool” to combat inflation, in that it can reduce demand, but that it is less effective at counteracting shocks on the supply side.

Patel also said interest rate decisions taken by the BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee can take “about 18 months to two years” to filter through to inflation.

She explained: “What the Bank of England is looking at is trying to think about inflation about two years ahead, and that’s quite difficult to do when the external environment is quite uncertain and you keep getting these new shocks.”

Leslie also addressed the issue of soaring government debt – recent analysis from The TaxPayers Alliance, a pressure group, estimates public sector debt has now tipped over the £3 trillion mark.

Asked whether printing more money could be the answer to pay off some of the debt, Leslie said: “When there’s more money in the system, you can actually buy fewer things because those things are more expensive.

“And so it’s really not a useful tool in helping out governments when they need more money.

“We can see the effects of that in other countries. A lot of people would’ve heard of Zimbabwe or Germany where money was printed and caused something called hyperinflation…and that’s just not useful.”

How you can get rid of old banknotes

They also explained what you can do if you come across an old banknote that’s no longer classed as legal tender.

You can exchange any Bank of England note that’s ever been issued back to 1694, for the same value modern note with the Bank of England, Leslie said.

He added: “You can physically come into the Bank of England because we have a counter for the public to exchange those notes.”

If you’ve got half or more of a note, you can exchange it for a new one.

“As long as you’ve got more than 50% [of the note], so just a fraction more than 50%, we’ll swap it for a new note,” he said.

About the podcast

MoneyWeek Talks is a podcast that helps you unlock the secrets to financial success. Editors Kalpana Fitzpatrick, Andrew Van Sickle and Cris Sholto Heaton are joined by influential guests – from CEOs and entrepreneurs to economists and policymakers – to share their top tips on managing money, investing wisely and building wealth.

Subscribe to the MoneyWeek Talks podcast and get ready to make it, keep it and spend it with confidence. You can also watch the episodes on our YouTube channel.

With a new prime minister and a blank sheet of paper, John Healey could have started his chancellorship with a burst of announcements. After all, Andy Burnham appears determined to try to do things differently and, even if most of the policies announced so far are very small-scale, at least he is trying. His chancellor, by contrast, has been very quiet. He popped up briefly to replay a few familiar complaints about price gouging by the supermarkets, even though the major grocery chains operate on some of the slimmest margins in the world, and there have been a few leaks about more borrowing. Apart from that, No. 11 has remained silent.

He may, of course, be storing up the major announcements for his first Budget, now scheduled for the end of October. But the really significant chancellors of the last 50 years all made major policy decisions within their first few weeks in office. Gordon Brown announced the independence of the Bank of England. Nigel Lawson slashed the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. George Osborne created the Office for Budget Responsibility and set out plans for controlling the growth of public spending. You might agree or disagree with any of those decisions, but there is no question they were significant and had a major impact on the economy. Each of these chancellors seized the day to make big reforms, aware there would never be a better time for a change of direction.

It would not have been hard for John Healey to hit the ground running. He could immediately have licensed new fields in the North Sea, as well as reduced the windfall tax on new developments. That would have made it clear from day one that the new government was more interested in energy security than in virtue signalling on climate change. He could have suspended the rise in employers' national insurance for six months to give companies a chance to start hiring again. To help with the cost of living, he could have lifted a range of tariffs that are still left in place from when we were part of the EU. He could have suspended some of the green levies that, when added to the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world, have crushed manufacturing. He could have cancelled pointless taxes such as the packaging levy that have added to the costs of retailers.

He could have demonstrated a commitment to curbing Britain's out-of-control welfare spending, perhaps by replacing the “triple lock” for pensioners with a slightly more affordable “double lock”. The list goes on.

John Healey appears to have pressed the “repeat” button

Instead, he is sticking to the script written by Rachel Reeves. There are lots of attempts to shift the blame onto business for persistent inflation, ignoring the impact that the constant criticism is likely to have on confidence. There are repeated attempts to manipulate the figures to allow the government to get away with borrowing yet more. Most of all, there is a complacent assumption that the economy will recover so long as the government spends more, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Reeves took months to announce anything of significance and even then it was just a huge tax raid. John Healey appears simply to have pressed the “repeat” button.

Meanwhile, genuine reforms to the supply side of the economy, such as freeing up planning rules to make it easier to build things, scrapping pointless regulations such as the GDPR on data protection inherited from the EU, and creating incentives for entrepreneurs and firms to start investing again, have been sidelined. They might come in the Budget, but I don't think anyone is holding their breath. There might only be two years left before a general election, and if Labour doesn't manage to get the economy growing before then, accelerating wage growth and getting unemployment down, it will surely lose. It is becoming painfully clear that the centre left doesn't have any ideas apart from taxing and borrowing more to try and keep the public-spending juggernaut on the road for a few more years. John Healey seems content with a re-run of the Reeves years – the results will be just as bad.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Is the UK too centralised and will devolution help?

Devolution has long created separate administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather creating the illusion that the British state must be a quasi-federal one. But the whole of England – 85% of the UK’s population – remains governed by Whitehall. Westminster decides everything, says The Economist, from the sums that local authorities can charge for planning applications to how long the tinkling of ice-cream vans may go on. Local and regional taxes account for less than 2% of GDP, much lower than in peer nations.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 19th century, the great cities were beacons of civic pride and municipal power. But the post-war centralisation of the state has turned us into a country where the phrase “postcode lottery” is used to describe the supposedly “horrifying prospect” of public services differing from place to place.

Voices from across the political spectrum have long argued that decentralising power would help build a more effective and responsive state, and spur growth. The basic argument is that regional leaders are better placed to understand their economies and public services – and can join up policies across transport, housing, skills and employment.

What is Labour doing?

The government under Keir Starmer had already made a start on devolution with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, which came into force in April this year. The Act establishes a framework for shifting powers out of Whitehall by creating elected strategic authorities, expanding local mayoral powers and establishing a Community Right to Buy, giving localities a “true right of first refusal” for Assets of Community Value.

The Act also beefs up the Local Audit Office, in charge of monitoring the local council’s finances. The underlying presumption is that devolution will become a default constitutional arrangement, rather than something individual councils negotiate with ministers on a case-by-case basis.

What has Andy Burnham added?

The new prime minister has announced plans to go further. In March, the then chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced that the Treasury would develop a fiscal devolution road map and consider giving regional leaders control over a share of national taxes. Burnham has now confirmed that this will happen, with mayors (and perhaps also other local authorities) being handed a slice of regional income-tax receipts from 2028, in place of central grants.

Details of the plan will be unveiled in the Budget on 28 October and a new devolution White Paper (draft legislation) will be published this autumn. This will build on a new blueprint called “The New Model of Government”, which takes the existing settlement further, and gives local leaders even “greater power to shape their places through control over local transport, housing, innovation, local energy and cultural investment”.

Is this good news?

Potentially, yes. Burnham’s diagnosis of “the link between centralisation and poor local performance is almost certainly right”, says The Economist, and local and regional governments must be given a better incentive to drive their own growth, rather than beg for bigger handouts. For that, more fiscal devolution is needed – devolution of spending powers, if not, at first, tax-raising powers – and income tax is the obvious choice.

The sums won’t be large at first: the Centre for Cities think tank estimates that around 2% of income tax raised locally is enough, on average, to replace the grants that existing mayors receive. But it’s an important move in the right direction and means that if a place can create more and better-paying jobs, it will directly reap the benefits via higher tax revenues. Burnham’s plans are a welcome first step, agrees Robert Colvile in The Times. Naturally, however, there are some big question marks and caveats.

The challenges to devolution

Most crucially, devolving finance will mean nothing while councils’ budgets are dominated by “the frightful four” spending liabilities of adult social care, temporary accommodation, children’s services and school transport. “These are services that councils are legally obliged to provide, but haven’t been given the money to pay for, meaning they’ve squeezed out everything else.”

Second, there’s no point in devolving power if it’s only the power to do what Labour wants. Burnham’s first policy announcements on capping bus fares across England and offering more favourable tax arrangements to pubs and clubs at the expense of “what he deemed ‘anti-social business’”, such as vape shops, signal a very top-down kind of local politics.

What’s needed is devolution that lets places keep the fruits of their success and allows for competition between regions. Labour’s instincts will be to “enforce equality of outcomes via all the levers available to it”.

Is there any hope of genuine change with devolution?

There’s certainly a risk that devolution is “oversold as the answer to everything”, says Sam Freedman on Substack. In reality, it is likely to be a slow process and there will necessarily be trade-offs and problems along the way. Local authorities have been eviscerated since the 1980s, meaning that devolving too much power too quickly would be unwise; “much of the initial focus will need to be on capacity building”.

Currently, when powers are devolved to mayors, Whitehall retains responsibility for the approximately 50% of England (by population) that does not have one. So there’s much work to do in terms of strengthening local authorities and building new structures.

For devolution to work, many similar trade-offs will “need to be balanced right – between speed and sustainability; autonomy and national consistency; freedom and accountability; neatness and historical identity; equality and incentives to grow”. Devolution promises to be the defining issue of Burnham’s premiership, but there’s a long and hard road ahead.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Andy Burnham is the UK’s newest prime minister, and the seventh since 2010. It makes him the 59th person to hold the office in Britain.

Each one has left their mark on UK history, but how much do you know about them?

Test your knowledge in our prime ministers quiz.

How well did you do in our prime ministers quiz? Share your results on social media.

For all the latest news and analysis, subscribe to MoneyWeek’s newsletters.

• Will taxes rise in the Burnham government's first Autumn Budget?
• Three tasks for new chancellor John Healey
• Can Andy Burnham’s Manchesterism work for Britain?

London hasn't been “left behind”, it hasn't suffered from “deindustrialisation”, and there is little sign that it was harmed by “40 years of neoliberalism”. So Britain's new prime minister, Andy Burnham, probably hasn't given much thought to London, except as a place to escape as he pursues his relentless focus on Manchester and the rest of the North. But he should. There are worrying signs that the economic decline of the capital is starting to accelerate – and that is turning into an emergency.

Last week, we learned the population is falling for the first time in three decades. More than 400,000 Londoners left the capital for other parts of the country in 2025, according to the Office for National Statistics. Sure, plenty of people still moved to London, but there was still a net outflow of 130,000. That might make it easier to get a seat on the tube, or to find a flat to rent, but it is hardly a sign of economic vibrancy.

What's more, the latest data from HM Revenue & Customs showed that figure includes 1,200 non-doms. Not everyone approves of allowing wealthy foreigners to pay less tax than the locals, but there is no question that the money they brought into the country fuelled a lot of London's finance and service industries, from lawyers to wealth managers to family offices.

Meanwhile, the property market is slumping. In Westminster, prices are down by 23% over the last year, and are still going down. It is almost as bad in other areas, with falls of 10% in Kensington and Chelsea, and 7% in Hammersmith and Fulham. Measured in real terms, prices are now down by 40% or more from their peak, as a slow-motion crash unfolds.

Even some of our best-known retailers are feeling the pain. Harvey Nichols was one of the most glamorous stores in the capital – a destination for celebrities and high-rolling tourists from around the world. Yet its long-time owner, the Hong Kong entrepreneur Dickson Poon, has tired of its constant losses and has put the business up for sale. Rewind 20 years and the world's luxury giants, or the wealth funds of the Gulf, would be battling for control of this trophy asset. Not now. The leading bidders are Next, Mike Ashley's Frasers, and even Gordon Brothers, the owner of Poundland and Laura Ashley. There is nothing wrong with any of those companies – Next is one of Britain's best-run businesses – but they are hardly the kind of owners associated with Knightsbridge. London’s high-end retailers are not worth as much any more.

London is the engine of the British economy

Add it all up, and one point is surely clear: London's economy is in deep trouble. That matters for the rest of Britain, since London is central to the wider economy. The capital accounts for over a fifth of the nation's output, even though it has only 13% of the population. The average worker is 28% more productive than workers in other parts of the country. London pays 27% of the income tax the Treasury collects every year, and 36% of the corporation tax. It is the engine of the British economy. It is impossible to imagine any other part of the country replacing it.

It is not hard to understand why London is in trouble. The decision to end non-dom status may have played well to voters and activists, but it was hugely destructive. After leaving the EU, we could have done a lot more to help the City find new business, but instead kept it wrapped up in regulation. The city's infrastructure is in steady decline, and housebuilding has collapsed. Shops have been hit by the decision to end VAT refunds for tourists. Successive governments seem to have been on a mission to damage it as much as possible.

So while the new government spends its time worrying about the regions, it urgently needs to get to grips with London's rapid decline. Once a city starts to contract, that can accelerate very quickly. The world's wealthy stay away because it does not have the services they require. Global businesses don't bother with it because it doesn't matter so much any more. Success is turbo-charged by a network effect, but so is failure. London, unfortunately, is starting to switch from one to the other.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

What is the UK's new social media ban?

The government said in June that it will bring in a social media ban for children. Modelled on a similar ban already in place in Australia, the necessary legislation is due to be put to Parliament in the autumn, and to take effect early next year. The restrictions will broadly define social media as sites that promote social interaction between users, allow them to post material or links to external sites, and use recommendation algorithms or “persuasive design”, such as infinite scrolling. The onus will be on the technology platforms to enforce the ban by introducing age checks on users; they will face fines if they don't.

What platforms will be in the social media ban?

The social media ban will mean YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, X, and Bluesky will be off limits to under-16s. Some dating apps and live-streaming sites could also be covered. However, other platforms popular with young teens – including Discord, Roblox, Pinterest, YouTube Kids and WhatsApp – will not be banned. Educational services, e-commerce, libraries, museums and music streaming platforms are also expected to be exempt.

However, the UK is going further than Australia by also specifically banning all platforms – including Discord and Roblox, for example – from offering live-streaming for under-16s, and from allowing strangers to contact child users. Chatbots offering romantic companionship will also be banned for under-18s.

What's the rationale behind the social media ban?

Supporters argue that the evidence of harms caused by social media is now overwhelming. Numerous studies have found that teenagers who spend large amounts of time on it report higher rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness and poor self-esteem. Teens are especially vulnerable to the features designed to make platforms addictive (auto-play, infinite scroll, and so on), and recommendation algorithms tend to reinforce access to undesirable or toxic content. Social media is a breeding ground for cyberbullying, while late-night scrolling leads to poor sleep and exhaustion.

A ban is needed because the current system is not working. A survey by Ofcom found that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a national minimum age of 13. Also, even if no ban will be perfect, that's not a reason for not having one. Bans on sales of cigarettes and alcohol to teenagers are also not 100% effective, but few would dispute their usefulness. A ban is also enormously popular, with polls showing large majorities in favour.

What are the arguments against banning social media for children?

The tech firms naturally oppose any bans as an unjustified interference in their businesses. But it's not just Big Tech that's worried. Smaller UK enterprises that make apps aimed at teens are waiting anxiously to discover whether their in-app features will see them classed as social media.

There have always been moral panics about how children waste their time, says Christopher Snowdon in The Spectator. But what the government has planned is “more like banning the printing press than banning Grand Theft Auto”. It won't work, and no one really expects it to – so why bother?

Moreover, the science, in terms of the harms caused by social media, is far from settled, says the FT, with much research showing only weak associations between teenage usage and mental ill-health. And, strikingly, not all campaigners on this issue support an outright ban.

There are fears that bans will encourage children to move to riskier platforms and instil a counterproductive false sense of security in parents. Such campaigners say the government should force the companies to make their products safer, for example by banning addictive features such as infinite scroll.

Is the social media ban working in Australia?

No. The Australian government's eSafety Commission found last week that 81% of children aged ten-15 had accessed at least one of the banned platforms following the ban. Slightly more encouragingly, the proportion of that age group who actually held their own social-media account fell from 52% to 42%. The research is hardly definitive, based on surveys involving just 800 children and parents. But it's broadly in line with other surveys.

Why did Australia's social media ban have such a limited impact?

The biggest issue was “ineffective implementation of age-assurance measures by platforms”, the research found. More than half of children said they had not been asked to confirm their ages. Some 18% said platforms had incorrectly estimated their age to be above 18, and 37% said they had simply claimed to be 16 or above to maintain access.

The federal government in Canberra recently doubled the maximum penalty for companies that fail to comply with the ban to A$99 million (£52 million), arguing that tech giants were “not doing enough” to comply with the new rules. But even so, the early signs are that the road to compliance – even if possible – will be long and winding. “The impact of the law will not be measured in weeks or months, but over generations,” said Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety commissioner.

What are the alternatives to banning social media for under-16s?

Some campaigners favour more nuanced policy interventions. Rather than banning access altogether, governments could regulate the design of platforms – for example by prohibiting addictive features such as infinite scrolling or autoplay for younger users, limiting algorithmic recommendations, making accounts private by default and preventing children from being contacted by strangers.

All these interventions would still rely on effective age verification. But rather than raise age limits, regulators “should redouble efforts to make social sites more suitable for teens”, said The Economist. This would be preferable to an unproven and almost certainly unworkable outright ban. Governments should also “force web firms to cough up more data on how teenagers use their products–the better to help researchers measure harms, and come up with ways to prevent them”.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Bond markets have a habit of reminding governments that they, not politicians, determine the price at which the state can borrow. Despite Andy Burnham’s message to the New Statesman last September that we've got to “get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond market”, ten-year gilt yields remain around levels not seen since the aftermath of the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget.

There is no doubt that Andy Burnham's affable persona and savvy TikTok game are a refreshing contrast to his predecessor's stiffness. But while politicians trade in popularity, investors are interested in profits.

The rising stock of a prime minister is not necessarily reflected in the stock market. Indeed, external shocks have undone the plans of every occupant of Downing Street over the past decade. And each, whether Conservative or Labour, has reached for much the same economic playbook: more borrowing, higher spending, a larger state and, ultimately, higher taxes. With public debt already elevated and fiscal room increasingly scarce, Burnham may become the first prime minister forced to discover whether that playbook has finally reached its limits.

The public-sector finances data for June were marginally stronger than expected, with borrowing £300 million below the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) forecast. The cost of inflation-linked debt interest fell as the ceasefire in the Iran conflict pushed down energy prices. It was a timely reminder that governments do not control the most important variables in their own fiscal forecasts. With hostilities resuming, inflation is unlikely to remain so well-behaved, leaving Burnham's fiscal headroom squeezed.

As one official reportedly told the new prime minister on arriving in Downing Street: you might not be interested in foreign policy, but it's interested in you. Events overseas can force an indebted government into making unpopular decisions. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) estimates that higher energy prices and weaker growth have eroded most of the government's fiscal headroom of £24 billion.

Higher inflation creates a double squeeze for the Treasury, raising debt-interest costs while reducing what departmental budgets can deliver. The director of the NIESR, David Aikman, says that “Commitments must be funded through taxation or savings elsewhere – not through more borrowing. That is the minimum needed just to hold the debt level where it is”.

Burnham vs the bond market

Burnham might want to get beyond bond markets, but unless he can unwind the relentlessly vicious circle of higher debt, higher deficits and stagnant growth, he will be doomed to repeat it. In her first act as chancellor, Rachel Reeves tried to pay for higher public-sector pay by removing the winter fuel allowance, sowing the seeds of her own demise. Taxing jobs through higher national insurance while raising the minimum wage made employment more costly, bearing down on growth. She then assembled a smorgasbord of wealth taxes owing to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise the three main taxes. Although Reeves reduced gilt issuance, it remains historically high. The Debt Management Office plans to issue around 50% more gilts this year than in 2022-2023. Burnham inherits the same fiscal constraints, but with Labour polling around ten points below the level that delivered its 2024 landslide, reducing his political as well as economic room for manoeuvre.

There is a more fundamental problem if he attempts revolutionary change. He was not even part of Labour's 2024 election victory and, like all unelected prime ministers before him, will face complaints that he lacks a mandate to make difficult decisions. He has repeatedly stressed that Britain is a parliamentary democracy where parties choose their leaders. It is not unusual: 12 of the 19 people to serve as prime minister since 1945 first entered Downing Street between general elections. But that has never made governing easy. Only four went on to win a majority at the subsequent election.

With a fragmented electorate split at least four ways, Burnham may need little more than 25% plus one vote for a majority. Yet volatile voters are unpredictable. His strategy will be to unite the left by invoking his favourite bogeyman, the “Thatcher tribute act” Nigel Farage. Failing that, his programme itself has a distinctly left-wing flavour: capping household bills, re-industrialisation, stronger public control of utilities and a National Care Service. Politically, it is an attempt to rebuild Labour's coalition. Economically, however, it assumes global events remain reasonably benign.

But the more he talks left, the more the bond markets will push him to the right. His priorities are expensive, and his options for paying for them are shrinking. The Laffer Curve is already alive and well in the disappointing revenues generated by a tax burden that has reached its highest level in decades.

Gilt issuance remains elevated, inflation an ever-present threat and he cannot afford to lose credibility by breaching the fiscal rules. “Events, dear boy, events,” as Harold Macmillan put it, still have a habit of overwhelming even the best-laid plans. Burnham's greatest opponents may not reside in the House of Commons, but in the bond market.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Cornwall is one of the poorest corners of northern Europe. Its output per head has sat at roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of the UK average for two decades. A typical full-time worker there earns around 84% of the national wage.

For 25 years the gap was cushioned by Europe. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly took well over £1 billion in EU structural funds between 2000 and 2020, something like £100 million a year. That money has gone, its replacement is worth roughly half as much, and from April 2026 the successor to that replacement excludes Cornwall altogether.

But now something has changed the calculus entirely. That poor, peripheral region also happens to have hard-rock lithium and tin deposits, the largest tungsten resource in the West, Britain's first deep geothermal power station and a mineral-processing industry with two centuries of pedigree.

Forty miles away in Bridgwater, Somerset, Tata's Agratas is building a £4 billion, 40GWh factory that will be the largest in the country. Resources, low-carbon power, processing know-how and a battery end market, all in one economic-geographic area. Nowhere else in Britain has all four.

China accounts for about 80% of world tungsten mined production and an even larger share of the downstream conversion. From February 2025 it placed tungsten under export licensing on national security grounds and by late 2025 had restricted authorised exporters to around 15 firms for 2026 and 2027. Ammonium paratungstate, the key traded intermediate, went from roughly $300 to $940 per metric tonne unit in early 2025 to above $3,000 by this spring. That is why Devon's Hemerdon, the West's largest tungsten resource, and Cornwall's Redmoor, Europe's highest-grade undeveloped tungsten deposit, matter to people who have never heard of either.

The activity on the ground is real and, in places, world-leading. Cornish Lithium has sought regulatory permission to develop a former china clay pit at Trelavour and is pulling lithium from geothermal brine at Cross Lanes. Cornish Metals is developing South Crofty, closed since 1998, aiming at production in around 2028 and a company with an estimated net present value of nearly £500 million. Geothermal Engineering's plant at United Downs delivered the UK's first deep geothermal electricity in February this year, with lithium carbonate coming from the same well. Tungsten West at Hemerdon is hoping to start production by the end of this year.

This is not a thesis about the geology waiting to be proven – it has already been proved. What is missing is the next step, the chemistry that turns concentrate and brine into battery-grade or defence-grade material, and Britain is building most of that capacity at Teesside rather than in the region that actually holds the ore.

Cornwall's lithium project pipped at the post

Here is the part investors and ministers alike should pay attention to. In February this year, Imerys placed its St Austell lithium project on hold. It was not a bad project; it was simply not the project the company chose to go ahead with because the French state had just taken a €50 million stake in Imerys's rival venture in France, Emili. Capital did not leave because the geology failed. It left because a rival state turned up with a cheque and Britain did not. That single episode should worry anyone backing UK critical minerals more than any drilling result. Geology is necessary. It has never been sufficient.

Britain has the wherewithal. The National Wealth Fund has put £31 million into Cornish Lithium and £28million into Cornish Metals, real money into the right projects. But its remit now stretches from clean energy to defence to life sciences to the creative industries, and a fund asked to do everything risks losing focus.

France did something narrower and, I think, smarter: it took a direct stake in one named asset, through one named vehicle, and said plainly that this is the project the state has decided to back. The US has done similar. Britain's equivalent is, for now, an announcement of an up to £50 million fund and a set of sector programmes that may not add up to much.

The investment case follows from policy

None of this needs a white paper. It needs a decision. Back one properly scaled mid-stream processing hub in the South West rather than subsidising several plants that are too small to matter. Build a stockpile mechanism for defence-critical tungsten, given that Britain currently produces none and refines none. Speed up the permitting process that has seen

South Crofty take years to develop a mine before a tonne of tin comes out. And close the funding cliff-edge Cornwall now faces with an argument based on national security rather than regional deprivation, because the latter has manifestly not worked for 25 years and the former might.

The investment case follows from the policy case, not the other way round. Companies with permitted, de-risked, assets that have already been built, Cornish Metals and Tungsten West among them, are the ones best placed to benefit if Britain decides to act like it means what it says about supply-chain security.

The lesson from Imerys is that being right about the rock is not enough. Somebody, whether it's the government or private capital, has to be willing to be the anchor. Cornwall has spent 25 years waiting for a growth story. It's finally got one under its feet. The only question is whether Britain gets there before France, or Kazakhstan, or the next country willing to write the cheque.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Andy Burnham has taken power with remarkably little scrutiny – no general election, no contest for the leadership of his party, and no form of questioning in Parliament. A few sound bites aside, we have very little idea of what his plans are. Instead, over his first week, he made a series of small announcements, all of them to be financed by some form of creative accounting or financial conjuring trick.

On his first day, for example, Andy Burnham announced a plan to end rough sleeping, at an estimated cost of £340 million over five years. Where is the money to come from? Apparently from some “uncommitted” funds in the housing department – in other words, they found some cash down the back of the sofa.

Then the new PM announced a plan to cut VAT on electricity at an estimated cost of £840 million. This time, the money was found by scrapping the digital ID scheme. The only trouble is that the ID plan was never funded in the first place. In effect, one form of imaginary money was being replaced with another.

Then came a £2 cap on bus fares, reversing the decision taken by his predecessor to raise them. The cost is £500 million and the money to be found by replacing “grants” for international climate projects with “loans”, which might shift it to another part of the balance sheet, but won't make any difference to the amount of money that has to be spent over the next few years.

There is a common thread here. Each of the policies involves some clever-clever financial tricks. With a deft sleight of hand, money is shifted around, redesignated and reallocated. That might seem clever to a politician, but if it were happening at a listed firm, the shares would have crashed and the board would have been charged with fraud.

Financial trickery is the reddest of red flags. It may not matter for now because the sums are tiny. Andy Burnham's policies mean a commitment of slightly more than £1.6 billion of extra spending. Given that the government spends £1.3 trillion a year, that is a drop in the ocean. But it is the thought that counts. Andy Burnham has made it clear that he is happy to play games with the public finances if he thinks he can get away with it.

Andy Burnham's policies are making bond markets suspicious

That matters. There are two big problems. First, Britain's debts are already precarious. The government is set to borrow more than £140 billion a year, and the interest due on all the money we already owe has climbed over £120 billion a year. Yields on ten-year gilts have spiked past 5% and are rising faster than for any other major developed country. The bond markets are already treating the UK with well-justified suspicion.

Next, the government is going to have to borrow vast sums, not just to finance ambitious plans for taking utilities into public ownership or building more council houses, but simply to cover day-to-day spending. With the welfare bill spiralling out of control and with defence spending set to rise, Andy Burnham's policies will need more and more money every year, while a stagnant economy means that tax revenues will flatline at best, and may soon start to fall.

Add the two together and Andy Burnham's government is going to have to borrow £300 billion or more over the rest of its term, as well as persuading the markets to roll over all the existing debt. It was always going to be a tough sell, even with plenty of goodwill from investors. Now the markets have, in effect, been warned not to trust the government's figures.

It could have been more straightforward – finding the £1.6 billion needed by making serious savings elsewhere, for example. The completely pointless National Wealth Fund would have been an easy place to start. Instead, Burnham simply tried to pretend he could magic the money out of nowhere. At some point over the next year, the government may well have to spend some serious money. It might be for the debts of the newly nationalised British Steel, the collapse of several of the water companies, a spike in energy prices, or something else that no one is thinking about right now. Whatever it is, the government will need to tap the bond markets. And yet it has already thrown away the support of the markets by treating investors like idiots. A crash now looks all but certain – and it will be very messy when it happens.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Andy Burnham has appointed John Healey, the former defence secretary, as chancellor. It was certainly a surprise. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood had been seen as a certainty for the job at No. 11, but at the last moment The incoming prime minister, appointed Healey instead. The markets were relieved. Given that the potential alternatives were Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner, that is not saying very much.

Still, at defence, and as a former minister in Gordon Brown's Treasury, John Healey carved out a reputation as a tough and effective minister. For now investors will trust him to stick to the fiscal rules and at least make some efforts to control the huge rise in public spending. The choice is better than could have been hoped for a few weeks ago.

The trouble is, Rachel Reeves has left behind a dismal inheritance. After less than two years in office, growth has stagnated, real wages are stuck, investment has been crushed, retail, hospitality and manufacturing have been suffocated by higher taxes, and unemployment has begun to steadily rise. Meanwhile, borrowing is starting to run out of control, overshooting even the £70 billion increase planned in Reeves's first Budget, and the cost is rising all the time, with the country now spending £125 billion a year on debt interest alone.

If Healey is to have any hope of fixing that and saving the government from a financial crisis, he will have to make it clear he is making some decisive changes and is willing to make them right away. It won't be easy. But here are three places he could start.

1. Schedule an early Budget

To begin with, he should schedule a Budget for early September. Parliament can always be recalled for a few days if necessary. One of the worst mistakes Reeves made was to allow months of speculation about which taxes might go up. It will be even worse under Burnham, who is at his happiest when pandering to the free-spending wing of his party. A wealth tax? A steep rise in capital gains tax? A lower threshold for the mansion tax? A land value tax? Each time one or other option is floated in the media, assets are sold or reorganised to try and minimise the impact. It damages the economy, and you don't even raise any revenue. The best thing John Healey could do is to set out what his plans are as quickly as possible. At least that way, all the damaging speculation would be brought to an end.

2. Stop battering businesses

Next, John Healey should call off the war on wealth creators. He should make a big speech within the next few weeks praising entrepreneurs, start-ups and small businesses. Another big mistake Reeves made was to relentlessly batter businesses, and new small businesses in particular, with an endless series of levies, charges and new rules. She made them feel that their staying in business was not worth the effort, and increasingly that feeling was unfortunately justified. Apart from the increase in employers' national insurance, none of them raised very much money, and they all crushed the life out of companies. Instead, Healey should offer one major concession such as restoring the 10% rate of CGT for entrepreneurs or exempting family businesses from inheritance tax. It would hardly cost anything and would send out a signal that enterprise was back in favour.

3. Reform welfare spending

Finally, John Healey must start making serious cuts to welfare spending. We don't have any real idea what Burnham's plans are, but they will be expensive. A lot more money will have to be found from somewhere – not least for defence given Healey's previous stand on this issue – at a time when the government is already breaking through its borrowing limits. Welfare spending is already projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to go above £400 billion by 2030, and given the rate at which it is rising, may well go much higher.

Unless that can be controlled, the country faces endless tax rises, with no improvement in services and with no money left to do anything else. Welfare will simply consume every spare penny. At defence, John Healey showed he is capable of tough decisions and doesn't mind confronting his party. He will have to do the same as chancellor – he had better make a start from the very first week.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Could Andy Burnham’s leadership mark a shift in tone and pace for the UK’s beleaguered economy?

Business leaders hope so. Gregor Paterson, fund manager in the UK team at fund management group Amati Global Investors, highlights that the new prime minister ought to have the expertise on hand to do so.

“Burnham himself has a lot of experience, and has a pretty heavyweight team of advisers around him,” says Paterson. “He must be aware – as we all are – of how much Keir Starmer’s team struggled to get the economy moving, and you’d hope that he has a plan.”

The sense of urgency is critical. One key frustration with the previous government was the lack of clarity around policy direction, especially around the Budget.

“Businesses weren’t able to hire, expand or build because they didn’t know what was coming,” Paterson says, pointing out successive delays around fiscal events, whereas Burnham already looks to be moving at pace.

“It looks like he’s putting his team in place and keen to get things moving much more quickly than might have been the case if there had been a messy leadership battle.”

To the business community, speed and clarity are essential for planning – not merely political virtues. There is a deeply felt need for a credible and ambitious growth strategy.

Anna Leach, chief economist at business leaders’ professional body the Institute of Directors (IoD), says some elements of the previous government’s approach were well-intended but overshadowed by uncertainty.

“We need a better industrial strategy and it all needs to be done a bit more quickly and at a grander scale,” she says.

Infrastructure is a key area of focus

Leach would welcome a clearer long-term framework that gives companies the confidence to commit capital, hire staff and expand their operations.

Planning reform and infrastructure investment should form two central pillars of a growth strategy and she supports Burnham’s ambitions for a more balanced economy.

“A regional growth agenda and devolution are really good ideas. There’s strong economic evidence that – if well-designed – these can deliver strong growth and help draw in private sector investment,” she adds.

But execution will be key.

“It does come down to design because while Manchester looks like it has been successful, I don’t think one could look at Wales and Scotland and say that devolution has unleashed any animal spirits in those two regions.”

Job market dynamics are another area of concern. Cost pressures have intensified, the jobs market has cooled, hiring is declining and vacancies are falling. This all raises questions over how to meet conflicting priorities.

“We want to see how we shape the labour market in a way that balances everybody’s needs… because at the moment things are looking a little bit risky, particularly when you layer in artificial intelligence,” says Leach.

All eyes on Burnham’s tax policies

Given the £3 trillion debt burden, the key question is one of tax. For many in the business community, their immediate wish is not further reform but stability, with uncertainty particularly acute around the non-domicile regime.

“The constant speculation about what tax increases should fall on wealth creators, following big tax increases on businesses themselves, is all detrimental to private sector investment,” adds Leach.

She also highlights the cumulative effect as the business tax burden has been creeping up in successive budgets.

“In the near term… more certainty and a lack of vilification of business would be pretty pleasant to start with.”

Darius McDermott, managing director of investment platform Chelsea Financial Services agrees; he’s a clear believer that if you overtax the wealthy, they will leave the country, shrinking future potential tax revenues.

“If additional rate taxpayers face a 1% increase, I don’t expect you’d see a huge outcry. But if it goes up to 60% over a certain number, then I think you’d see a lot of unhappy wealthy people,” he says.

Markets rely on confidence as well as policy

From a market perspective, the challenge is not just policy design but sentiment.

According to Anna Macdonald, investment strategy director at Hargreaves Lansdown, the UK needs a “credible, investment-friendly plan for economic growth, alongside clarity and stability on tax”, otherwise investors will remain hesitant.

“Constant speculation, including around capital gains tax, risks making people more cautious about moving their money from cash into long-term investments, at precisely the moment when the UK needs more people to invest for their future.”

Critics of Starmer say that Labour was voted in on the promise of growth and change, but it soon emerged he didn’t have a clear plan to achieve it.

“What markets want to see is how we're going to start to grow the economy and grow productivity. We thought the answer to that previously was going to be in housebuilding but that didn’t really materialise,” adds Paterson.

“When you have such high levels of debt, you have to grow your economy. And I think neither people nor businesses feel confident enough to invest – hire people, build factories and expand.”

It’s early days, but if Burnham can shift the mindset, his impact could be significant.

“If he can inject some confidence back into the system, then people and businesses will hopefully start to react,” adds Paterson.

One move that would encourage investors towards UK companies is if the new administration were to lower the rate of stamp duty reserve tax on most UK-listed stocks and shares.

Currently investors directly purchasing more than £1,000 of UK-listed shares, unless they were newly listed or traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) – even inside an ISA – would need to pay 0.5% stamp duty.

“If you were to buy Tesco shares to put in your ISA, you’ll pay half a percent tax when you buy those shares, but if you buy Walmart shares, you won't pay any tax,” Paterson says.

Scaled up, those amounts soon mount up. He says as well as eroding returns, the UK could be putting itself at a disadvantage compared to other markets.

“It’s something most markets don’t have. The French do, but it's only 0.3% and it’s only on the very largest companies. So we're a bit of an outlier in charging people to participate in our stock market.”

Which investments could benefit under Burnham’s government?

John Healey being named chancellor was the big announcement many of us were waiting for.

He stood down as defence secretary on 11 June in protest over insufficient funding of the country’s defence strategy; he’d been calling for a defence budget of 3% of GDP by 2030.

Healey’s appointment saw a bounce in some defence names. Babcock International Group (LON:BAB) jumped roughly 7% following the news and BAE Systems (LON:BA.) was also up around 3% the following day. Both share prices climbed further over the next few days.

While it remains to be seen which defence companies are the specific longer-term beneficiaries, the sector as a whole will be a clear structural winner, according to McDermott.

He says: “The increase in spend isn’t over one year; it’s a multi-year increase. We may see the investment into companies from other countries, the US or elsewhere, but I think European defence, of which we’re obviously a subsector, is likely to see a decent amount of growth over the next decade.”

As always, individual investors should try to avoid overreacting to political headlines or any market noise as the new government sets out its plans.

“Changing a long-term investment strategy in response to a change of chancellor can easily do more harm than good. Staying invested and focused on long-term goals remains the most sensible approach,” says Macdonald.

Andy Burnham, the UK’s new prime minister, is never going to be popular with everyone – but this may well be his hardest lesson.

It’s clear he wants to be a superhero prime minister – the hero of UK politics who speaks without a lectern (signifying no barriers) and someone who wants to give power to local authorities rather than just the Number 10 powerhouse. In his words, he “wants to bring back hope” as he attempts to fix the broken political system and the UK economy.

And as such, welfare appears to be at the core of what Burnham wants to achieve by putting an end to rough sleeping, introducing more council homes, and providing more help for young people to end the growing NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) crisis. In recognising the cost of living pressures, he pledged breathing space, which has included axing the 5% VAT from electricity bills from October and capping bus fares outside the capital at £2. He’s also announced a 20% cut in business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues from April, though not all hospitality venues are included.

But are his moves bold enough? Removing VAT on electricity bills is estimated to save families around £45 a year, but amounts to a 12p saving per day. The reality is most people will not feel the benefit, especially as average household energy bills are around £2,000 per year.

The bus fare cap is useful for regular bus users, saving around a third off single journeys for many. But households that rely on their own transport are still subject to high prices at the pumps – petrol prices have shot up from around 133p at the start of this year to 151p on average now, the RAC Foundation shows. In the meantime, there is uproar over the £26.2 billion in profits made by energy companies since the start of 2026, according to the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.

You’d be forgiven for calling these measures tokenism, and perhaps that’s all it really is as he figures out how to tackle the bigger problem of reducing government debt, improving the economy and making Britain a great place for investors once again.

But what can we expect to see, and can he, alongside his new chancellor John Healey, deliver on the big issues?

What can Burnham do to boost the UK economy?

Tackling labour productivity would be key. UK productivity has been at a low since 2008, but it is the foundation of economic growth and can improve living standards as it promotes stronger wage growth, too.

Hear more about the UK's growth problem as economist Julian Jessop talks to MoneyWeek’s Andrew Van Sickle about the UK's productivity problem in our latest podcast.

Related to productivity and growth is the burgeoning NEETs issue. We cannot afford to let the young generation become a lost generation. Financial advice and wealth management firm St James’s Place estimates that youth unemployment costs the government £125 billion. It is an area Burnham must absolutely focus on. Plus, let’s not forget, without young people in the work system, there is no one funding future state pension payments – today's workers pay for today's pensions.

Speaking of pensions, there are also heavy calls for Burnham to scrap the changes to salary sacrifice pension rules. As of next year, only the first £2,000 of salary sacrifice contributions per employee will be exempt from National Insurance contributions.

That, plus changes to inheritance tax (IHT) rules which will bring pensions into an estate for IHT purposes from April 6, 2027, do little to encourage pension saving.

Age UK claims 1.9 million pensions live in relative poverty and is estimated to cost the government around £10-£15 billion, according to Pensions UK. Simplifying pensions and encouraging savings will be vital, rather than adding barriers that undermine retirement savings.

Care should also be on his mind as an ageing population is also looming and quite possibly the next big crisis to face the UK.

Taxes

While Burnham has ruled against making any changes to the frozen tax allowance, which has stood at £12,570 since 2021, there are calls for the new chancellor to address this in the Autumn Budget.

A £500 increase in the personal allowance would cut income tax bills by £100 for basic rate taxpayers, and could cost the government £5 billion, AJ Bell estimates. Resoring it to £16,000, which is where it could be without the freeze, would cost the government around £35 billion, the investment platform says.

Could a cut to the National Insurance rate be a better alternative to take the pressure off household finances? Employees currently pay 8% in National Insurance on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270 (the rate is 6% for self-employed profits) and the rate is 2% above the upper earnings limit.

AJ Bell says that cutting each main rate by 1% would cost the government £5.8 billion, but would give workers more breathing space and it would certainly not be seen as just a token gesture; someone earning £35,000 a year could save around £225, compared with a £100 tax saving from a £500 increase in the personal allowance.

Backing British

Former chancellor Rachel Reeves was incredibly keen to get investors backing British companies, so much so, she reduced the cash ISA allowance to £12,000 for under 65s in a bid to shift savers into investing instead. This limit, taking effect in April 2027, will only apply to cash ISAs – and the overall £20,000 ISA allowance remains. Reeves even decided that cash holdings of any kind, such as money market funds, could not be part of a stocks and shares ISA. If any cash is parked in a stocks and shares ISA, interest earned will be taxed.

While in government in the past, the Conservatives proposed a British ISA, an idea that never truly came to fruition.

I don’t think either of these policies would encourage savers to suddenly invest more and in British companies specifically. So, what will Burnham do? Can he save the UK stock market?

I think policies that undermine saving, instead of encouraging it, are bound for failure.

Addressing speculation about hikes to capital gains tax is needed if he is to encourage investors, and if he can also restore political stability, there is a chance the UK stock market could thrive. But to do this, he will have to find a fine balance between public spending and fiscal policies.

Can he do it? It is early days as we wait to see his final 10 year plan. That and Healey’s Autumn Budget will be ones to watch closely as this could really be Labour’s final opportunity to show it can change fortunes, fix politics and bring back stability to the UK.

When the US president appointed Kevin Warsh to run the Federal Reserve, critics assumed he would be little more than Donald Trump's stooge. But Warsh is a deeper and more serious thinker than that. He was appointed as a critic of the way the Fed has been run, as someone who believes central banks need to be dragged into the 21st century and who argues that they should be doing more to promote economic growth.

This week, he appointed a panel of experts to help him work out how to deliver those outcomes. Among those experts are the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, Walmart's former CEO Doug McMillon and Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England.

Warsh has talked of “regime change” at the Fed, criticising it for keeping interest rates unnecessarily high, for keeping too many assets on its balance sheet and for collecting the wrong kind of data, especially on inflation. They are all valid points. Very few people could look honestly at the way central banks have operated since the 2008 financial crash and conclude that they had made every decision correctly.

We'll have to wait to see what happens. But when King has finished advising Warsh, perhaps he could bring some of his expertise back over to this side of the Atlantic. After all, the Bank of England needs reforming far more than the Fed does.

It has been a very bad decade for the Bank. There have been four major problems. To start with, it clearly lost control of inflation in the wake of the Covid pandemic. Inflation in Britain went all the way up to 11%, far higher than in most comparable countries. Why the Bank started to print more money when the supply of goods and services was so restricted is a mystery to anyone who has ever encountered even a GCSE economics textbook. It was a policy mistake for which the economy paid a high price.

Second, the Bank has presided over the steady decline of the City as a financial centre. True, leaving the EU didn't help. But the Bank could have been a lot bolder, taking the lead in new products such as cryptocurrencies, where London could have carved out new markets. London has been allowed to drop out of the top 20 globally for initial public offerings (IPOs), when it should be leading the world. In 2024, it was even overtaken by countries such as Oman and Malaysia.

Third, the Bank was at least partly responsible for the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. To be sure, the former prime minister hardly helped herself with an energy support package that cost way too much. But by allowing the liability-driven investment (LDI) scandal to blow up at the same time, the Bank worsened the collapse of sterling and the spike in bond yields that led to the demise of her short premiership. If Truss had had more time to push through the pro-growth elements of her agenda, the economy might be in slightly better shape now.

Finally, the economy has stagnated for the last decade, with productivity flat and real wages stalled, while the tax burden keeps rising. We can only pin part of the blame for that on the Bank. The government, by allowing welfare to run out of control, obsessing over net zero and allowing the planning system to prevent anything being built, is largely responsible. But the point of an independent central bank is to allow the economy to grow more quickly and that clearly has not happened.

The Bank of England is stuck in a rut

Some of the blame for the Bank's record can be pinned on successive governors. Mark Carney proved ridiculously overhyped and spent far too much time virtue-signalling over climate change and campaigning to reverse Brexit instead of doing the job he was so generously paid for. His successor Andrew Bailey is a civil-service plodder; mediocre, at best, with few fresh ideas and no appetite for reform. But the Bank also has institutional failings it hasn't addressed.

It is a sign of how America's political culture is so much more vibrant than Britain's that its central bank, even with a far more successful record than ours, is already examining ways of fixing itself. It is willing to learn from past mistakes and adapt where necessary.

By contrast, the Bank of England is stuck in a complacent, bureaucratic rut, insisting that everything is working well, even though that is clearly not the case. When he is finished with the Fed, King should be drafted in to tackle the Bank next – it is long overdue a radical overhaul.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Economic growth in the UK has been lacklustre for years. Between 2009 and 2024, the UK economy grew by just 1.5% a year, around half of the average growth between 1993 and 2007 of 3% a year.

Successive governments have tried and failed to turn the economy around and deliver the type of growth many got used to before the 2008 financial crisis. So what can be done about Britain's growth issue?

Independent economist Julian Jessop told the MoneyWeek Talks podcast that part of the answer is boosting productivity in the country.

But the best way to do this for Jessop is not necessarily pouring more money into public services. In fact, it may be the opposite.

He said: “The austerity period, interestingly, was a period of relatively rapid growth in the productivity of public services. So I think there’s a good argument for saying that sometimes you need to give the public service a little bit less money and encourage them to make more of what they’ve already got.”

“If you look at the overall amount of resources that were pumped into the public sector, they were used relatively well during that period.”

The consensus of austerity did not survive long though, and after the early 2010s, governments started spending more.

The current Labour government is no exception and is spending more on public services like the NHS – but the expected rewards from this are yet to be seen, Jessop said.

“We’ve had a surge in spending on the NHS during and after Covid. An enormous amount of additional resources are being pumped in, including more staff, but the amount of operations, GP appointments, and so on hasn’t actually increased at all. So it’s not just about money, it’s about how efficiently the services are organised.”

The trouble is also that the UK is unable to fund all its spending through taxation and other revenue-raising activities alone. To fill the gap, the government is borrowing extensively at a time when borrowing costs are at 28-year highs.

The brewing fiscal crisis will need to be addressed at some point soon to keep the wolf from the door.

On the positive side, whatever fiscal crisis may be expected, Jessop doesn’t think the UK will need to be bailed out by the IMF like it was in the 1970s.

However, he says that while the UK won’t need an IMF bailout, it may need “political cover” from the IMF to introduce a proper programme of control on public spending, “which is where the problem is.”

A counter-argument would be that the UK has control over its own money supply and so we should just print the money we need. That, though, leads to inflation as more money floating around will eventually chase up prices.

“So if we don’t fix the problems on the supply side of the economy, if we don’t make more of the resources we’ve already got and use them more productively, then that’s where the productivity drama happens.”

Listen to MoneyWeek Talks for our full interview with Julian Jessop, where he discussed the issues with the UK’s planning regime, poor infrastructure investment, energy supply, and much more.

You can watch the podcast on YouTube, or listen to it wherever you get your podcasts.

About the podcast

MoneyWeek Talks is a podcast that helps you unlock the secrets to financial success. Editors Kalpana Fitzpatrick and Andrew van Sickle are joined by influential guests – from CEOs and entrepreneurs to economists and policymakers – to share their top tips on managing money, investing wisely and building wealth.

Subscribe to the MoneyWeek Talks podcast and get ready to make it, keep it and spend it with confidence.

What is Manchesterism?

Manchesterism is the new political buzzword that Andy Burnham uses to describe his political philosophy – essentially meaning social democracy with an emphasis on close relations with business, regional devolution, strong municipal government and public control (though not ownership) of essential services. It is the word the soon-to-be PM himself prefers to sum up his outlook and record as metro-mayor of Greater Manchester since 2017.

In Burnham's words, the concept means “a modern and functional response to the high-inequality, low-growth trap that came from the 1980s drive to privatise economic power and overcentralise political power in the Treasury”.

To Burnham's critics, Manchesterism is nebulous flannel with no coherent set of policies attached; vibe-shift politics at its most virtue-signalling and vacuous. Meanwhile, to economic historians – free-market liberals in particular – his adoption of the concept is ironic and mildly annoying.

What's wrong with Manchesterism?

In the 19th century, “Manchesterism” was coined to describe the culture of laissez-faire capitalism that grew up in Manchester and its cotton-rich Lancashire hinterland. Burnham sees his new Manchesterism as the nemesis of “neoliberalism”.

By contrast, original Manchesterism meant the free-trade liberalism of Richard Cobden and John Bright, leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, which campaigned successfully to scrap the protectionist tariffs that kept bread prices artificially high. The idea – as relevant today as ever – was that free markets and free trade will lead to a more equitable society by making goods available to all at reasonable prices.

What about modern Manchester?

Its recent history is also of expansion and getting richer: the city-region's economy has grown at more than 3% since 2015, double the overall UK rate, and the skyline is dotted with gleaming new towers. However, as Burnham acknowledges, the roots of that transformation long predate his tenure as city-region mayor.

In the late 1980s, the Labour mayor of Manchester City Council, Graham Stringer, began opening up the city to private-sector property investment. In the early 1990s, only a few hundred people lived in Manchester's city centre. Following the massive redevelopment and regeneration that followed the IRA bombing in 1996, that figure is now approaching 100,000.

In the 2010s, Labour council leader Richard Leese, together with the council's chief executive, the late Howard Bernstein, opened up the city to foreign investment in property and expanded the tram system. They also negotiated Greater Manchester's far-reaching devolution deal – creating the city-region and mayor position – with then-chancellor George Osborne in 2014.

What has Andy Burnham achieved as Greater Manchester mayor?

His signature achievement has been to bring Greater Manchester's buses, which were deregulated in the 1980s, back into one publicly controlled system known as the Bee Network. The municipal authority doesn't own the companies, rather it operates a franchise system under one (distinctive yellow) branding, with control over services, routes and fares (capped at £2 for a single trip).

It's been a success, with passenger numbers and customer satisfaction up. He's also attracted some £2 billion of public and private investment into the Greater Manchester Good Growth Fund, which aims to fund the building of 10,000 council and social homes by 2028, as well as a series of public-private industrial schemes.

Is Manchesterism socialism?

Burnham reckons Manchesterism is “business-friendly socialism”, says Tej Parikh in the Financial Times. But the long-term rise of Manchester was actually built on stable, pragmatic local government and its openness to private enterprise. “The emphasis on attracting investment, clustering and connectivity has supported creative destruction” – in particular the regeneration of old industrial zones into business spaces, drawing in higher value-added sectors including professional services, technology and media.

That's the real story of Manchesterism, not public control of colourful buses. Regional devolution has helped, but the city's rise is more “about the ‘neoliberal' forces the politically astute Burnham has recently criticised, and less the socialist principles he suggests”.

If the UK as a whole is to grow faster under its new PM, it will need to draw on the real “Manchesterism, not the version Burnham supporters think he represents”.

Can Manchesterism work at the national level?

“What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow,” remarked prime minister Benjamin Disraeli on a visit to Britain's industrial powerhouse in the 1870s. Burnham, despite his eye-catching plans for a “Number 10 North”, will obviously not find it that simple.

If the UK does indeed follow Manchester's example, a new paper by two Burnham allies, Mathew Lawrence and Alex Williams (“The Productive State: A Framework for Manchesterism”), ought to be a promising guide to what we might expect. It calls for “public control of essentials” such as water and sewerage, energy networks and rail infrastructure, alongside social housing and social care.

But Greater Manchester doesn't actually have public control of these sectors. And in any event, the idea that what worked so well for Manchester will work for the UK is “the very definition of a fallacy of composition: the generalisation from a single example to the whole, from a city to a country”, says Wolfgang Munchau on UnHerd.

The crucial difference between a country and a large city is not size, it is macroeconomics and fiscal policy. Cities don't have currencies, don't have significant tax-raising powers and “they certainly don't have bond markets. Becoming acquainted with the latter will be a new experience” for the self-styled King of the North.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Keir Starmer vowed not to touch the triple lock, a system that promises to increase the state pension each April by either the rate of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5% – whichever is highest.

The triple lock guarantee saw over 12 million pensions receive a state pension boost in April, as it increased by a very generous 4.8%. This added £575 to state pensioner income this year.

Most pensioners saw their income increase more than non-pensioners, who are effectively funding the state pension.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates the triple lock will cost around £15.5 billion by 2030, up from the £5.2 billion originally estimated when it came into play.

The triple lock was introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2012. The Conservatives left it untouched and Labour, under the leadership of Keir Starmer, also promised to leave it alone.

The policy is hugely popular among state pensioners, making it a difficult policy for politicians to tinker with. But is a costly policy set up in 2012 still sustainable or fair today?

Will Andy Burnham, who looks likely to take the top spot in government later this month, finally axe the triple lock?

While Burnham’s focus is on devolution, he cannot escape the need to cut government debt. Pressure will inevitably mount for him to be the leader to finally stop placating pensioners.

What’s the problem with the triple lock?

Depending on who you ask, you may get a different answer. Steve Webb, who was the pensions minister when the triple lock was introduced, told me on the MoneyWeek Talks podcast that the triple lock was there to do a job to keep pensioners afloat.

“I became pensions minister in 2010. But in the previous 30 years, the state pension had been falling in value relative to what people earn, so it just went up with inflation most of the time.

“But the problem with that is if you earn and earn and then stop earning, then the thing you fall onto when you stop earning needs to be connected to some proportion of what you were earning. Otherwise, you just fall off a cliff and your standard of living crashes. So, the state pension needs to be pegged to a proportion of what people are earning and for 30 years, [prior to the triple lock] that had not happened.”

“So, the point of more generous indexation post 2010 was to undo 30 years of damage. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed; I am proud of the fact that the state pension has been over-indexed.”

But the working generation would argue the system is an unfair burden on taxpayers, especially as young workers doubt the state pension will even exist for them.

Pensioners will say they worked for it and the increase merely protects them from rising living costs.

Though, according to the think tank Resolution Foundation, the triple lock has done little to reduce pensioner poverty. In the 12 years following the introduction of the Triple Lock pensioner poverty rose by 2.3 percentage points.

Difficult choices for Burnham?

Former Labour leader Tony Blair and former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt have both called for the ‘outdated’ and ‘unaffordable’ policy to go.

A report from the Tony Blair Institute earlier this year called for the triple lock to be cut by 2030 and to overhaul the UK state pensions system.

Though it is unlikely the new Labour leader will make any change during this parliament, he will need to make some difficult choices, eventually. Will Burnham be the man who finally takes the triple lock out?

In a major speech on Monday, Andy Burnham, our prime-minister-in-waiting, at last deigned to give us some clues about his plans for the country, including a massive transfer of power to the cities and regions. Apparently, the key to unlocking growth is to devolve power to city mayors and local councils and a proposed “No. 10 in the North”. Burnham promises a programme of council-house building, to bring the utilities under tighter public control and to restore the high street to its former glories.

There was a lot of waffle and not much in the way of concrete proposals, but he was at least trying to seriously address some of the structural flaws in the British economy.

And he is not just trying to chuck money at the issue, as most of his predecessors have done, even if the main reason is that the money has unfortunately run out. The problem, however, is that the country does not actually need more devolution. What it needs is more wealth creation.

Andy Burnham is repeating a failed experiment

There are three major problems with a focus on the regions. First, Britain has already had a 25-year experiment in devolution, with both Scotland and Wales having their own governments and assemblies and, in the case of Scotland, even limited powers over taxation. And the results? Unfortunately, dismal.

Scotland's growth has started to lag the rest of the UK, while spending has grown so fast that were it an independent country, its deficit would be running at an alarming 9% of GDP. As for devolved tax powers, it turns out they are only ever used to make taxes go up, not down.

As for Wales, it has been even worse, with close on 20% of the working-age population now living on benefits, traditional industries wiped out, and with living standards that are now among the lowest in Europe. If devolving power was so great for the local economy, there is not much sign of it so far.

Next, devolution will just create yet more government and more spending. Devolution in Scotland and Wales has mainly created just an extra layer of politicians, all of whom have to justify their existence by spending more money and passing yet more regulations. That is how Wales ended up with a 20mph speed limit in urban areas right across the principality, even if it slows down commerce by adding to the cost of every delivery. Or how Scotland ended up with rent controls even though they never work. It seems extraordinary that anyone could look at Britain in 2026 and decide that what it really needed was yet more government and higher levels of spending. Yet that is Andy Burnham’s only prescription.

Andy Burnham is micro-managing decline

What the British economy needs is not more power for the regions, but more power for businesses and consumers. With all his talk of “ending 40 years of neoliberalism”, it seems to have escaped Andy Burnham's notice that the government has never been more powerful than it is now. It accounts for 45% of GDP directly and micro-manages trade and business in a way that it never used to.

Take the living wage. According to a recent report from the Centre for Cities, in 42 of Britain's 63 largest cities the living wage is now above two-thirds of median earnings. In effect, what everyone earns is now decided by the government.

Or take energy prices. What you pay as a consumer is determined by the price cap from Ofgem, and the amount factories pay is decided by a complex series of green levies, and the wholesale price for wind and solar is set by a range of long-term, state-controlled agreements.

In Scotland, the government is planning price caps for basic foods and it probably won't be long before that is introduced nationwide (the chancellor has already publicly criticised the supermarkets for raising prices too quickly). The number of prices that are set in a free negotiation between the buyer and seller, which is the way it is meant to work, is getting smaller all the time.

It is hard to see how yet more state intervention is going to help anyone. If this is the best that Andy Burnham has to offer, it is going to be a long, hard slog until the next election.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Why is air conditioning becoming a necessity?

Until recently, the UK scarcely needed to consider air conditioning; now it is a pressing economic and political issue. A sweaty, sleep-deprived country is wondering what has happened to the traditionally underwhelming British summer – the “three fine days and a thunderstorm” of blessed memory. For centuries, summer's lease hath, famously, had “all too short a date”.

This year, though, it's an all too long one – kicking off with a killer heatwave in May, and smashing temperature records before we even got to July. The Climate Change Committee warns that 92% of homes are at risk of overheating by 2050 because they are “built for a climate that no longer exists”. If you live in a sweltering flat in a city, or have a bedroom at the top of a loft-converted house, you'll already know that.

How has the heatwave affected Britain?

Tens of millions of people across southern England have been unable to sleep properly, or have had their working lives upended by the failures of public transport or the closure of overheating schools. Writ large, all that makes for a massive public-health and economic issue that we are only beginning to understand.

Extreme heat is especially hard to cope with for older adults and those already ill: the summer of 2022 caused 60,000 excess deaths across Europe (according to a 2023 paper in Nature), the vast majority among people aged over 65. The World Health Organisation puts the number even higher, at 175,000 a year. Extreme heat hits children even harder, says George Monbiot in The Guardian. They have higher metabolisms and lower sweating rates, and their thermal comfort levels are, on average, 1.9˚C-2.8˚C lower.

What a heatwave means for the UK economy

Researchers at insurance group Allianz have found that extreme heat is now a “structural economic risk” for Europe. Productivity losses intensify sharply above a critical 30˚C threshold – a three percentage point decrease in productivity for each degree of heat – and cooling costs rise sharply.

Under an entirely possible stress-test scenario – in which the five hottest years between 2014 and 2024 are repeated sequentially over the next five years – they project a hit to output of 5%-7% for the most exposed economies: $240 billion for France, $147 billion for Italy, $131 billion for Germany and $120 billion for Spain (the UK wasn't included in the study).

“The heatwave is not an exception, it is a direction,” said Katharina Utermohl, one of the co-authors. “Extreme heat costs all of us as workers, as businesses, as taxpayers, and there is a difference between countries that adapt and those that wait.”

Will air conditioning save us?

It will certainly be part of the response, along with other cooling measures. Air conditioning has emerged in recent weeks as the new hot topic in the online culture wars, with American blowhards bashing lily-livered Europeans for being too soft to fire up the air-con and cool themselves down.

The difference in take-up is indeed stark. In Europe, only around 19% of homes have air conditioning compared with 88% in the US. That's largely because Europe's housing stock is much older than in the US and its mitigations against heat – thick walls, small windows, shutters and so on – have developed over centuries.

Europe has also been cautious about widespread adoption of a technology, which, bluntly, can easily disfigure the built environment. But the reality is that the take-up of air-con in Europe is already rising due to the heating climate, with southern Europe being first to embrace it.

Is Europe warming up to air conditioning?

Penetration has doubled in Europe overall since 1990, but in hot countries it has risen much faster. More than half of Italian homes now have air conditioning, a doubling since 2013 – a trend that's true of the continent as a whole. In France, 28% of homes now have air-con, in Germany it's 6%, and in the UK 4%, a doubling in the past three years.

There's no reason to think that trend won't continue and accelerate, even without the promptings of US observers. Europe's climate is heating faster than any other continent (due to its proximity to the north pole). As that continues, it will seem ever more silly to argue that heating homes to a safe, liveable temperature is necessary, but that cooling them to the same level – saving lives and making life bearable – is somehow an extravagance that should be frowned upon.

Is air conditioning bad for the environment?

Environmentalists have long argued that it contributes to global heating by consuming energy and raising temperatures in urban areas. That is reflected in official policies. The government denies there's an “air-con ban”, but nor is it straightforward to install. Most homes don't need formal planning permission for air conditioning, which falls under “permitted development”. But that does not include flats – often more difficult to keep cool than houses – where planning permission is required, and is hard to get. The rules require developers to prioritise passive cooling and use air-con as a last resort.

What needs to change?

Policymakers need to catch up with changes to the climate and technology and let the market get on with meeting growing demand, says John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times.

The rising demand for air conditioning now aligns with the rapidly rising supply of solar energy, which will be most abundant when it is most needed to power cooling. Moreover, the potential for air-to-air heat pumps both to heat and cool buildings without burning gas means that the net impact on emissions could even be negative.

“Far from encouraging this, regulations in countries including the UK and France continue to disincentivise and even restrict these technologies.” That's not sustainable. There were once sound arguments against Europe adopting air-con en masse, but that's no longer the case.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Andy Burnham's arrival at London Euston, on the authentically late-running 10:43am Avanti West Coast service, reminded some of Barack Obama's “Hope express” from Chicago to Washington in 2008 and others of the secret “sealed train” carrying Vladimir Lenin to St Petersburg in 1918.

As “Comrade Burnham” hurtled south, tracked by helicopters, he made a symbolic reunion with his Westminster past: changing out of his trademark black T-shirt into a suit. He escaped the press scrum at Euston via “a hidden VIP exit”, reports The New Statesman, making off in a black cab. A niggling question – which could be a clue to future policy – is whether he claimed his Delay Repay refund.

Andy Burnham, the son of a BT engineer and a GP receptionist, “is shaped by his lifelong faith”, says The Spectator. He's “a Catholic communitarian”, steeped in the teachings of Derek Worlock, which emphasised “solidarity with the disadvantaged and working-class dignity”. He made it to Cambridge University, where he was “as happy on the football pitch as he was dissecting Middlemarch”, and from there he made a pretty textbook professional progression to Westminster.

After a spell on trade magazines – including Tank World Management and Passenger World Management – Burnham got his big break in politics in 1994 as a researcher for Labour minister Tessa Jowell, notes the BBC. There followed a spell with the Transport and General Workers' Union and a post with the government's Football Task Force before his own election as MP for Leigh in 2001. He climbed the ladder of the Blair government, making his Cabinet debut in 2007 under Gordon Brown.

In the ensuing decade of party turmoil, Andy Burnham twice stood for the leadership. “I've never met anyone more ambitious in my life,” a senior Labour figure, who worked closely with him in Manchester, told the Financial Times. But back then he didn't stand out. Even a year ago, says The New Statesman, the inaugural mayor of Greater Manchester was “nobody's idea of a premier”. Detractors in the party (a dwindling number now) snipe that he dodged the tough battle to unseat Corbynism and swanned off to Manchester in 2016, where the hard yards of economic revival had already been laid. The city's “spiky” council leader, Richard Leese, took to calling him a “glorified bus conductor” in private – because the reward for having an unwelcome mayor foisted on the council was “the ability to take back control of their buses”.

What can we expect from Andy Burnham?

Andy Burnham has something of a reputation for flip-flopping when expedient, but supporters say there's nothing wrong with pragmatism if it's grounded in solid values: Burnham's are “genuine”. What seems to count for the public is his interpretation of “northern soul” – an offer of hope, playing on a certain nostalgia for the past, that might also find fertile ground in the south. Last year's sell-out Oasis/The Verve tour could be seen as a subliminal Andy Burnham warm-up act.

Critics have dismissed Burnham's speech on “rewiring” Britain as a repurposed version of Boris Johnson's “levelling up” agenda. But for the moment, the lack of policy detail – and his unknown choice of chancellor – confer an everyman advantage. The “northern insurrectionist” espoused by the left is now wooing the very bond market he once vowed not to be “in hock” to, and has appointed a blue-chip team of economists and his old Blairite chum, James Purnell, as chief of staff.

Which Andy Burnham will we get? Aside from “evangelical zeal”, Burnham's great strength over a decade in Manchester was his ability to hold the city's “byzantine system together”, says the Financial Times. In this, his greatest reinvention yet, that might count.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

We will find out soon whether Andy Burnham will face a contest for the leadership of the Labour Party or take office unopposed. Either way, it makes little difference now. One way or another, he is likely to be our next prime minister before the end of the summer.

There are some ways in which Andy Burnham will be an improvement on the outgoing Keir Starmer. He is a better communicator and more personable. As mayor of Manchester, he is untainted by the failures of the last two years and can make a fresh start. Perhaps best of all, he can get rid of the hapless Rachel Reeves as chancellor and replace her with someone less obviously out of their depth and with at least some grasp on how businesses operate and the challenges they face. Temporarily at least, this may start to lift Labour's dismal poll ratings.

There's a problem, however. Prime minister Burnham will be heading straight into a financial crisis. Britain's economic outlook keeps on getting worse and worse. At the end of last week, we learned that government borrowing in May came in way above forecast, with a 30% year-on-year rise. For the month, government spending was up by 7% year on year, while tax receipts, even with record increases, were up by just 4% (it is hard to see much sign of the “neoliberalism” Burnham complains about in those figures). Growth stagnated last month, despite all the extra spending the government has thrown at the economy. Unemployment is rising relentlessly, especially for young people, and the welfare bills are running out of control, with the number of working-age people on benefits above four million. All the warning signs for a crash are already flashing red.

Andy Burnham is only going to make things worse. It is hard to detect much in the way of a serious economic programme in the collection of soft-left soundbites that make up his standard stump speech. But insofar as he has one, it involves yet more borrowing and spending. He has promised to bring the utilities under greater state control but said nothing about how that would be paid for. He has promised to cut business rates for small companies and launch a massive programme of council-house building, without attaching any kind of a budget. And if Burnham has ever said anything about controlling public spending, especially the soaring welfare bill, he has kept it very quiet. Even if he only keeps a fraction of his spending promises, and it will be very hard to break all of them, then the deficit will keep climbing higher and higher.

Can Andy Burnham succeed as prime minister?

Even as the deficit rises, Andy Burnham has said almost nothing about how he intends to boost growth to pay for it all, nor has he made any attempt to bring business on board. Celebrity chef Tom Kerridge has backed him, but only because of his promise to reduce the rate of VAT on hospitality businesses to 10% (yet another unfunded promise). Other than that, Britain's major corporate leaders have remained silent. There is not going to be any wave of investment to welcome the new regime, nor is there likely to be any dramatic measures to encourage investment into the UK. In the background, Britain's financial position is steadily deteriorating. Very quickly, the markets are going to test the new government. Is it willing to cut welfare, or will it raise taxes to keep paying the £125 billion a year in interest on the national debt the country now has to pay? Traders will want to find out, and find out very quickly, and if the answer is no, then gilts will be sold off.

The last PM to take over from one who had been elected with a big majority was Liz Truss in 2022. We all know how that worked out – her lifespan in office was famously shorter than that of a lettuce. Burnham won't face quite the same set of challenges, nor is he likely to attempt anything as risky as the mini-budget that led to her unravelling. Even so, the British economy is in far worse condition than it was then, our debts are far higher and the bond markets already view us with suspicion. Andy Burnham will soon face the heat – and may well wilt as quickly as a lettuce.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves looks set to follow her boss Keir Starmer out of government when Andy Burnham becomes prime minister on Monday 20 June.

Though Reeves has been lobbying to keep her job, it seems highly unlikely that Burnham will keep her on – not least because of how unpopular she is.

As a figure so closely associated with the Starmer project, keeping Reeves in No 11 would send the wrong signals to a country that Burnham is promising to change. His platform is much closer to the Labour soft left, and that would not make a good fit for the centrist Reeves.

Choosing a replacement for Reeves will be one of the most important decisions Burnham makes as prime minister, as who he chooses to replace her will reflect the style of economic policy he intends to pursue.

Currently, no official statements have been made by the Burnham camp about who the next chancellor will be, but there are rumours.

Who could be the next UK chancellor?

With Reeves almost certainly leaving, there are several high-profile candidates that could replace her. Who are they?

Shabana Mahmood

The current front-runner is Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, who is now heavily rumoured to replace Reeves as chancellor after Ed Miliband has fallen out of favour with the Burnham camp.

Mahmood was previously the justice secretary but has not held any economic positions within government.

The closest economic experience she has is when she served as the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury from 2013 to 2015 and shadow chief secretary to the Treasury in 2015 under then Labour leader Ed Miliband. When Corbyn became leader in 2015, she did not join his shadow cabinet.

Mahmood belongs to the right of the Labour party and has been instrumental in pushing through controversial, harsh immigration rules. However, we have little basis to predict what her economic policies may be.

Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at AJ Bell, said that Mahmood “has not spoken out on economic issues since her time in the shadow Treasury, so assessing a potential approach relies on extrapolating from her position as home secretary.

“She is considered to be measured, pragmatic and disciplined over budgets. If this is carried through into economic policy, it could mean steering clear of radical changes and opting for incremental improvements.

“The fiscal responsibility may go down well with markets, which had been worried about borrowing and spending under Burnham.”

Before going into politics, Mahmood was a barrister and specialised in indemnity law. She read law at Lincoln College, Oxford (she was in the year below former PM and chancellor Rishi Sunak), graduating with a 2:1.

Ed Miliband

Energy secretary Ed Miliband has also been tipped as the next chancellor. He was widely anticipated to replace Reeves in Burnham’s cabinet, but his stock has fallen in the past few days.

The reason Miliband was expected to replace Reeves is because he belongs to the soft left of the Labour party, just like Burnham, and has held a number of economic positions both in government and in opposition.

Miliband has by far the most economic expertise of any of Reeves’ potential successors. He worked as a special adviser to Gordon Brown in the Treasury between 1997 and 2002, taught economics at Harvard, then rejoined the Treasury team in 2004.

He also read philosophy, politics, and economics (PPE) at Corpus Christi College, Oxford and went on to get a postgraduate degree in economics from the London School of Economics.

“Miliband’s position on the soft left might raise the possibility of more spending and borrowing,” said Coles.

“However, his experience in senior roles, including as a special adviser to Gordon Brown, may lie behind reports that it was Miliband who helped persuade Burnham of the importance of sticking with the fiscal rules in order to calm the markets.”

Coles suggests that Miliband might turn to progressive taxes, or reviewing tax cuts that mostly benefit higher earners, in order to balance the government’s books.

“He has previously supported a mansion tax. He might also consider more environmental taxes,” said Coles.

Yvette Cooper

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper could also be a contender for chancellor, and might be well-received by markets, according to AJ Bell’s head of financial analysis Danni Hewson.

“Yvette Cooper is likely to be considered a safe pair of hands, having deftly jumped from domestic to global affairs of state as part of Starmer’s cabinet,” said Hewson.

“She also spent time in the Treasury under Gordon Brown and is considered to be something of a centrist, which could reassure markets nervous about an Andy Burnham premiership that starts with pledges to turn on the spending taps."

Adding to the possible appeal of Cooper is the fact that, as a northern MP, she has a good working relationship with Burnham.

“Her breadth of experience means that she will understand the pressures on the public purse better than many and her seniority could help bring together different factions of the party under a new leader,” said Hewson.

Wes Streeting

Wes Streeting is another contender for the role. Prior to Starmer’s resignation, he launched a bid to replace Starmer as prime minister, but immediately stood down to make way for Burnham on 22 June after Starmer resigned.

“Of the potential candidates, we view Streeting as the most bullish outcome for the pound, given his centre-left pragmatism and apparent aversion to aggressive tax-and-spend policies,” said Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at financial services firm Ebury.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at wealth manager Wealth Club, remarked that Streeting appears to be the front-runner for the position on the assumption that Reeves would be “ousted”.

“From any new chancellor, financial markets would initially be looking for stability and signs of action aimed at stimulating sustainable growth, and Streeting [would be] likely to initially try to project reassurance and a business as usual attitude aimed at reassuring investors and keeping a lid on high government borrowing costs,” said Streeter.

Streeting was previously secretary of state for health and social care, before resigning from the position in May.

Could Rachel Reeves play a role in the next government?

While it is unusual for senior ministers to accept demotions, the BBC has reported that sources close to Andy Burnham suggest she could do so, and take up a more junior ministerial role in a Burnham government.

Either way, Reeves is backing Burnham to be prime minister. She told the British Chambers of Commerce annual conference on 25 June that Burnham was committed to following the same fiscal rules that guided her term as chancellor.

“Andy has been really explicit - he backs those fiscal rules,” said Reeves.

“He is a great communicator, he's got a great track record of delivering in Greater Manchester, and I have no doubt he will bring that to the position of prime minister.”

Speculation has ramped up about who will be the next UK prime minister after Sir Keir Starmer kicked off a Labour leadership election by resigning on Monday (23 June).

Nominations will open on 9 July and end by the summer recess on 16 July.

The next prime minister may have different priorities to the current government, which has been working on several tax shake-ups including the mansion tax, cash ISA reforms and changes to pensions and inheritance tax rules.

New Labour MP and former Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is the only candidate to have put his name forward so far, as many expected following his by-election win last week.

Maike Currie, vice president of personal finance at PensionBee, said: “The Labour leadership contest will dominate the summer, with a new prime minister expected to take office when Parliament returns in September. Investors will be looking for a clear handover, a credible economic team and an early commitment to fiscal discipline.”

Who will replace Keir Starmer?

Burnham is the only name officially in the ring so far to become the next prime minister.

He has also been backed by former health secretary Wes Streeting, who was seen as a potential candidate.

No other Labour MPs have confirmed that they will run for the leadership role yet.

Burnham hasn’t confirmed what his policies will be, although he may have to stick to manifesto commitments to not raise income tax, VAT or national insurance.

He has previously backed reforming council tax and stamp duty.

Inheritance tax changes could also be a possibility. As health secretary in 2009, Burnham suggested a flat 10% charge applied to all estates, with the money being used to fund social care for all.

More recently, on BBC Question Time in June, he said he would look at raising the personal tax allowance and also said there was “definitely a case” for the return of a 50% top rate of tax for the wealthiest.

Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at global financial services firm and FX specialists Ebury, said: "Burnham sits firmly to the left of the Labour Party, and his record as mayor points to a significant step-up in public spending, a higher tax burden and greater gilt issuance.

“This is an experiment that the UK can ill-afford. Debt is at its highest relative to GDP since the 1960s, growth is weak, debt-servicing costs are already vast and the limited fiscal headroom leaves almost no room to manoeuvre, risking a self-reinforcing borrowing and growth trap.”

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist for Wealth Club, added that Burnham has tried to reassure markets by signalling that he will largely stick to fiscal rules and take a more cautious approach to spending.

She said: “He appears willing to tackle the UK's large benefits bill, arguing that welfare reform should focus on helping more people into work. Investors will also be scrutinising how Burnham's interventionist instincts translate into national economic policy. He has argued that the government should play a more active role in shaping economic outcomes, particularly through greater investment in regions outside London and the South East.

“He is also expected to push for further devolution of economic powers and has indicated support for a stronger public role in key sectors and infrastructure. However, concerns are bubbling that greater state involvement could deter private investment if it creates additional costs or regulatory burdens.”

Local supporters suggest the regeneration he has brought to Greater Manchester could be replicated nationally.

Property developer Mike Ingall, chief executive of Allied London, who has worked with Burnham on developments in Manchester including the technology and media campus Campfield, said: “He understands investment and that is the only way to get growth rather than just tax and spend.”

There have been rumours in the past that former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner could stand.

Rayner also sits on the left of the party.

Who could be in the new cabinet?

The prime minister is just one role that is likely to be up for grabs in July.

Whoever becomes the next Labour leader and prime minister is likely to want to appoint their own ministers and there are rumours that chancellor Rachel Reeves could be replaced.

Rob Morgan, chief investment analyst at Charles Stanley Direct, said: “Until we know more about the composition of the cabinet and likely policy direction it is hard to draw any firm conclusions from the soundbites heard so far. However, bolder moves on taxation certainly appear to be a possibility, so it’s a time for anyone planning their finances to be on high alert for changes.

“Already the Budget in the autumn looms large as a potentially highly consequential event. Yet given we don't even know the identity of the chancellor at this stage we can make no conclusions.”

Currie said a chancellor with a reputation for fiscal discipline could reassure markets but warned: “A more interventionist appointment, or a candidate perceived to be less disciplined with spending could have the opposite effect.”

Morgan added that there is some comfort in the fact that marked changes to taxation or other policies affecting personal finances rarely happen overnight and usually come with a long lead in time.

He said: “So while vigilance is essential there is likely plenty of time to assess any consequences, good or bad, that fall out of a change of political leadership.”

This year marks the tenth anniversary of an event that has proved to be of huge consequence for the UK stock market. No, not the Brexit referendum – 2016 was the year in which Japanese company SoftBank, led by founder and chief executive Masayoshi Son, acquired the UK's leading technology company, Arm, for £24 billion. Unlike American investors, professional UK fund managers became permanently disillusioned with the technology sector as a result of the collapse of the technology, media and telecoms bubble in 2000-2002, and so were delighted to be shot of its flagship domestic representative at a 40% premium to the prevailing share price.

With the yield on ten-year gilts at historic lows below 1.5%, pension funds were desperate to ditch equities and buy even more gilts, even leveraging up in their chase of the “liability-driven investment” delusion, which was to cost them hundreds of billions six years later. New solvency rules introduced after the 2008 financial crisis required insurance companies to invest in “safer, more liquid” securities, that is, short-dated gilts. Wealth managers could crow to their clients about short-term performance.

Only one major investor vehemently disagreed; James Anderson, the then manager of Scottish Mortgage Trust, bitterly criticised the sell-out on behalf of Baillie Gifford, with a holding of more than 10%. “We found it deeply depressing that Arm's management, and particularly its chairman, were so influenced by short-term shareholders.” Anderson said it was a premature sale of the UK's leading technology and intellectual property champions, “Britain's sole serious shot at building a global tech giant”.

In September 2023, Arm again went public when SoftBank floated the company on the New York Stock Exchange at a valuation of £40 billion, while retaining 90% of the shares. Unsurprisingly, pleas to list the shares in London were shunned, though Arm remains a Cambridge-based company. Since then, the shares have multiplied more than sixfold, although they are now down 17% from their early June peak.

Had Arm listed in the UK, it would be by far the biggest company on the London Stock Exchange. London is now only the world's eighth-largest stock market, accounting for just 3.1% of the MSCI All Countries World index. It has been steadily slipping down the rankings owing to its low exposure to the technology sector, which accounts for just 1% of the FTSE 100. This compares with 8%-9% in Europe, 27% in the US (not including Alphabet and Amazon) and 37% in Asia.

Britain's technology firms are condemned to stagnation

Also easily forgotten is the 2014 sale of Britain's DeepMind, a pioneer in AI, to Google for just £400 million. In 2006, US-based Illumina bought Solexa, the UK-based inventor of gene sequencing, for £315 million. It became the key building block in Illumina's climb to a market value of more than £50 billion (although the shares have fallen by two-thirds in the last five years). These and other examples show that Britain has a good record of creating and building technology champions, but that unambitious management, combined with uninterested and short-sighted institutional investors, means that they sell out rather than scale up in the way that American giants have shown is possible.

Without the “ecosystem” that results from successful technology firms, Britain's pool of talent will go elsewhere, there will be no pool of capital looking for the next potential breakthrough, a diminishing appetite for risk and no list of success stories to inspire future entrepreneurs. The London Stock Exchange has become a value trap – a shrinking pool of reasonably managed solid businesses with mediocre prospects. Such a market can have an occasional catch-up year of outperformance, but without a cadre of proper growth firms, is condemned to an ever-shrinking share of global capitalisation. Arm's sale to SoftBank, now Japan's largest company, didn't start this process, but it marked the point at which it became irreversible.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Few remember the pre-privatisation state of the water industry in 1989, after decades of underinvestment. The 1976 drought and consequent water restrictions exposed a shortage of water supply as reservoirs and rivers ran dry. The government's response was to build a reservoir – in the one part of Britain that did not have a shortage.

But, if a bad idea is repeated often enough, it can lead people to mistake repetition for accuracy. They subconsciously adjust their own beliefs to avoid the mental stress of questioning or disagreeing with the proposal. Creating the illusion of truth is a prime objective of modern politics. This explains the growing clamour for the renationalisation of the water companies.

The leakage of water was, unsurprisingly, a problem; much of the pipework had been laid in Victorian times and was poorly maintained. The treatment of sewage was variable; inland, with outflows into rivers, it was reasonable, although swimming in rivers was unthinkable owing to regular storm overflows. On the coast, much of the sewage was untreated; it was merely screened and then flowed into the sea through short pipelines. This meant that beaches failed to meet the quality threshold of the EU or of anyone else. This remained the practice in Scotland long after privatisation in England and Wales.

The industry badly needed investment, but couldn't compete with the demands for capital spending elsewhere in more visible areas such as schools, roads and hospitals. Privatisation would ring-fence the sector from all the other demands on government and delegate the supervision of it to an independent regulator, Ofwat, introducing the accountability the sector had previously lacked. Investment would be debt-financed, serviced from cash flows. Charges would increase at the rate of 1% over inflation each year while additional cash flow would be provided through efficiency gains.

The post-privatisation investment boom

For about ten years, it all went according to plan. Investment, which had already risen 20% in the run-up to privatisation, quickly rose from £3 billion a year to more than £5 billion. Leakage rates fell 40%, river quality improved, short sea outflows were stopped and beaches became cleaner. Then progress slowed or stopped. Ofwat decided that keeping water bills down was the top priority. This meant restricting the capital expenditure they allowed; contrary to popular misconception, companies want to invest because that entitles them to a return on capital, achieved through higher bills. Ofwat also strong-armed the companies to reduce their cost of capital as that would lower the return on capital companies would need.

The mechanism for this was the substitution of debt for equity, achieved largely through leveraged buy-outs by private equity, taken to an extreme in the case of Thames Water. Such financially dangerous restructuring was encouraged by Ofwat and seemed justified while interest rates were low. When rates rose and the refinancing of the fixed-rate borrowing of the past came into view, the leveraged companies such as Thames Water came under extreme pressure.

The improvement in productivity continued – by an estimated 64% between privatisation and 2017 compared with zero in the public sector – but price rises in real terms stopped. According to Water UK, prices fell sharply in 2000 and remained broadly the same until 2024. Unsurprisingly, investment in nominal terms stagnated, at between £4 billion and £5 billion a year. The lack of additional investment meant a failure to deal with the continuing problem of storm overflows whereby untreated sewage was discharged into the river and sea when heavy rainfall overwhelmed the treatment works. Planning authorities refused permission for new reservoirs and sewage treatment plants and local authorities wouldn't give companies access to the roads they needed to repair leaking pipes properly.

Still, publicity given to bad news shouldn't result in good news being ignored. Leakage has continued to fall and pollution performance is below or close to target in most areas; in 2020, Southern Water and South West Water were major outliers, resulting in heavy fines. Nine companies are at, or near, their government-set targets. Severn Trent' Water's 2025-2026 results show a continued fall in leakage (to 17.6%, down from 23% in five years), water quality is above the regulatory target and significant investment has been made in waste water. For all its financial problems, Thames Water also reports a steady reduction in leakage and incidences of pollution.

It is possible, although there is no evidence for it, that Ofwat's disastrous change of direction in 2000 was due to pressure from the Blair government. They certainly castigated the managements of all privatised utility companies, encouraging them to sell out to private equity. Veteran City editor Neil Collins argues, rightly, that the government should have retained a golden share in each to prevent takeovers and maintain public accountability.

Ofwat has now been abolished, water bills are to be raised sharply in real terms for the next five years and the restructuring of Thames Water's debts is awaiting government approval. Investment is being accelerated and progress is already clearly visible. The River Thames in London has just got its first designated bathing spot. The problem now is the clamour that has built up from the “progressives” for the hugely expensive folly of renationalisation.

The objective of this is neither financial nor operational, but ideological; a drive to reverse every aspect of “Thatcherism”. If the advocates succeed, the proponents have every intention of working their way down a very long list of businesses and services once in the public sector, hoping it will take a long time for the water sector to return to its pre-1989 state.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

US corporate raider Castlelake thinks it can snap up a bargain in easyJet. The soaring cost of fuel has hammered the budget airline's shares over the last few months, which have fallen from 520p at the start of the year to less than 340p a fortnight ago, before news of a potential bid emerged. But if the oil price comes back down again, as it almost certainly will when the war in Iran comes to a close, easyJet will bounce back.

We will see what happens over the next few weeks. But the bigger story is that a pattern is starting to emerge. A whole series of British companies are being targeted by corporate raiders. It is only a few weeks since it emerged that activist investor Corvex is demanding that the Premier Inn owner Whitbread find a buyer or break itself up. The car sales platform Autotrader is under attack from its investors, as is the rather larger trading platform, the London Stock Exchange. Investment company Hargreaves Lansdown has agreed to be taken over by a private equity consortium led by CV Capital. The list goes on and on. Hardly a week goes by without a well-known British company being either sold off or coming under pressure to break itself up.

Companies change hands all the time, of course. There is nothing wrong with bids and deals. It is one of the ways that companies are forced to keep delivering for shareholders and a way for assets to be reshuffled. Without them, management would become very complacent. But in the British market it is getting out of hand.

These targets not terrible companies. EasyJet may have had a difficult few months, but as anyone who has flown with the airline will know, it offers a pretty good service at fair prices. It is hard to see anything that needs to be radically fixed. Likewise, staying at a Premier Inn is hardly a deluxe experience, but it doesn't pretend otherwise. It is a reliably good-value hotel chain for anyone who happens to be travelling around the UK. Much the same could be said for Hargreaves or Autotrader. They are all reasonably well-run businesses.

Why corporate raiders may struggle

The real problem is that it has become incredibly difficult for even the best-run companies to make any money in Britain. There are three big issues. To start with, growth has stagnated. Far from turning Britain into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, as she promised, chancellor Rachel Reeves has presided over stagnant growth, rising unemployment, a collapse in start-ups and business investment, and soaring real interest rates as the country's debt grows relentlessly less and less affordable.

Second, taxes have risen to the highest peacetime levels since World War II, with most of the burden falling on businesses. There has been a huge rise in the national insurance that companies have to pay on any staff; big rises in business rates; rising air travel duty (which has especially hit easyJet), and a rise in green levies such as the “packaging tax”. All of those have to be paid out of flat sales, regardless of whether the company is actually profitable or not. Companies have to get more and more efficient every year just to pay all the extra taxes they owe.

Finally, the government has crushed confidence. On coming into office, Reeves talked down the economy by constantly droning on about a “black hole” in the public finances that did not really exist. Ever since, there has been constant speculation about which taxes will have to go up next. And now there is a slow-motion leadership contest, fuelling yet more uncertainty about who will be in charge in a few months, and what policies might change. It is a mess. Against that backdrop, it is hard for companies to expand. Most are just hunkering down and trying to survive.

In zero-growth, high-tax Britain, it is very hard to make any money. The result? Raiders, typically based in the far richer, more dynamic US, look at the figures from a major British company and conclude that they should be doing far better. Perhaps in a country that was more pro-business, and pro-enterprise, they would do. But in Britain that has become very hard. There is very little growth, consumers don't have much spare cash to spend and rising taxes are squeezing profit margins. A whole series of companies are coming under attack and may well be broken up or sold off. But the real problem is the state of the economy. The US corporate raiders and buy-out funds will very quickly find there is not very much they can do to fix that.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Why is minimum wage in the news?

Many people are raising fears the UK's minimum wage may now be too high. Worsening youth unemployment and Alan Milburn's landmark report on “Neets” (young people who are not in employment, education or training) have sharpened concerns that the UK's relatively generous minimum wage and the gradual levelling up of lower youth rates to match the prevailing adult rates, are damaging overall employment – particularly among young workers.

Tony Blair – whose government established the minimum wage – has argued that recent rises have created headwinds for businesses. And within Labour, according to The Guardian, a split has opened up between those who want to slow the pace and those eager to press ahead with rises and age-convergence.

How much is the minimum wage?

In April the minimum wage for all workers aged 21 and over rose 4.1% to £12.71 an hour. This rate is known as the “national living wage”. It only applies to that adult age group and its level tracks two-thirds of median earnings. The rate for 18- to 20-year-olds is lower, but jumped 8.5% to £10.85. And the rate for 16- to 17-year-olds, or for apprentices, rose 6% to £8.00. These bigger increases for younger workers are due to the government's aim of gradually levelling up the youth rates to a single adult tier – a continuation of Conservative policies. In 2016, the Tories created the new premium national living wage tier for those aged 25 and over at the rate of £7.20 per hour. Subsequent governments then cut the age requirement for that top tier, to 23 years in 2021 and then down to the current age of 21 in 2024 – all the while increasing the headline rate.

About 1.7 million people get the national living wage, or about 6% of the workforce aged 21 and over – about twice as many as when the national minimum was introduced in 1999. Among workers under 21, the proportion is far higher – at about a fifth. Since its creation under the first New Labour government, the UK's minimum wage has got dramatically higher in real (inflation-adjusted) as well as cash terms.

Isn't that a good thing?

MoneyWeek has long been in favour on the grounds that taxpayers should not subsidise corporate profits in the form of tax credits for the working poor. The higher the wages, the fewer the benefits that have to be paid out. The other main arguments in favour are ones of social justice. Income distribution has become more skewed towards the rich in recent years, increasing inequality and potentially undermining the social solidarity that makes capitalism sustainable in the long run. Proponents argue that a minimum wage can help to arrest this trend. Some economists also argue that minimum wages boost productivity, especially in the service sector, though the evidence is contested.

Does a minimum wage destroy jobs?

Above a certain point, for sure. The question is where that point lies. Orthodox economic wisdom suggests that compulsory high pay levels will destroy jobs by disincentivising firms to take on workers. But the history of minimum wages since the 1990s has been far more encouraging than that. Landmark US research on fast-food pay rates (by economists David Card and Alan Krueger in 1994) shifted the dial in terms of the academic debate: it found that a minimum wage did little to dampen employment. A raft of further studies came to similar conclusions, and by the early 2000s the literature indicated that a 1% increase in wages due to a higher minimum wage would lead to a 0.5% decline in employment. “By the late 2010s the effect had fallen to around zero,” says The Economist. The politics changed, too. As the UK's national minimum was gradually increased without causing unemployment to grow, the Conservatives dropped their initial opposition and backed the policy.

What's the issue with minimum wage now?

The core issue is that the rate has now jumped so high. The UK has leapt from being relatively cautious – in terms of the minimum-wage level as a proportion of median wage – to being the most generous of all the big economies (from 45% in 1999 to 67% now). Most of the UK's historical experience and evidence relates to a period of low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment – and involved a minimum wage at around 45%–55% of median earnings, not 67%, the target introduced by the Tories in 2019. That jump, and today's worsening macroeconomic picture, makes it far harder to be sanguine about the wage's effect on job creation in future. At the same time, there's been a counter-revolution among economists. Several influential US studies from 2022 onwards found that higher minimum wages – a phenomenon seen across many developed economies over the past 25 years – have indeed hit job levels, and damage the employment, income and overall welfare of precisely the low-income workers they are meant to help.

What can be done?

A sensible start would be to freeze the rates for the rest of this parliament and take back control of setting the rates from the Low Pay Commission quango, says Rishi Sunak in The Times. In addition, future rises should be linked to gains in productivity – the national living wage is up by almost a third in real terms over the past decade, while productivity has only increased by 6%. That's obviously unsustainable and the latest unemployment numbers show the effect – the fall in both vacancies and payroll numbers is concentrated in retail and hospitality, which is where a third of all minimum-wage jobs are, and which account for almost half of all jobs held by the under-25s. “Shamefully, and in a reversal of the historical norm, we now have higher youth unemployment than the EU average.” And at least in part, that's because we are knowingly pricing young workers out of the labour market. Let's stop.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Matthew Partridge: Your latest book on the UK economy, Challenging Inequalities: How We Got Stuck and Where We Go Next, is part of a wider project by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). How did it come about?

Paul Johnson: It was a very long-term project that started in 2018, and part of a detailed study of inequality. We published over 100 papers, overseen by a committee chaired by Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton. Each of the papers took a detailed look at one aspect of the theme – ethnic inequalities, for instance, or wealth inequality. The idea was to highlight key issues in something approaching a narrative. The book itself I co-authored with three or four other people.

Matthew Partridge: I noticed that you say if you look at some measures, such as the Gini coefficient, income inequality hasn't changed much since the 1990s. However, other measures, such as the income controlled by the 1% and 0.1%, have increased. Is this a fair summary?

Paul Johnson: Overall income inequality rose enormously in the 1980s, only to plateau from 1990 onwards at a population-wide level. However, while inequality across most of the population didn't change, the top 1% continued to move ahead of everyone else in terms of both income and wealth until about 2008. Since then, income inequality has fallen slightly, although it remains at a very high level by historic and international standards. What's more, while raw income inequality may have peaked, other types of inequality have become more significant, including gaps between regions and generations.

Matthew Partridge: Do you think these high level of inequality have played a big part in the move away from mainstream parties to populism?

Paul Johnson: The main cause of the move away from the centre is probably the lack of growth over the last 20 years. However, the two factors interact very strongly. So, not only are people fed up because they haven't seen their living standards rise for quite a long time, but they are also angry because some people are a lot richer than they are. Certainly, the concerns around inequality wouldn't be so pressing if everyone's incomes were still rising. You can see that with the younger generation who are no longer doing better than their parents, at a time when house prices have been increasing faster than earnings.

Matthew Partridge: One of the big themes of the book is that just trying to solve inequality through more redistribution isn't going to work. Instead, you suggest something you call “pre-distribution”. Can you elaborate on that?

Paul Johnson: We made a conscious decision that the book wasn't going to go down the traditional route of suggesting how you could tweak taxes and benefits to reduce inequality, partly because the IFS has already done a huge amount of work on that. There are ways of making tax and welfare more redistributive, but they come at the cost of weakening incentives.

Most importantly, we discovered that people place more value on money they've earned themselves and having a good job than on being given handouts. So, we need to find a way that creates the sort of economy that works better for everybody. While that's easy to say and hard to do, it leaves less to tidy up afterwards.

That's why the book focuses on things that could boost productivity growth, such as early years education, family life and housebuilding, but also the regulation of big companies. However, we also talk about things such as globalisation, free trade and immigration, which generally boost economic growth, but if you take them too far they can undermine their positive impact by increasing inequality.

Matthew Partridge: Do you think that one of the problems with immigration is that, despite the promise of points-based immigration, we've failed adequately to change our system to focus on highly skilled workers?

Paul Johnson: Immigration policy has been all over the place, and even though this government has tried to tighten the rules, there are still a lot of people coming in as family members without having to demonstrate any particular skills. While I don't like calling care workers low-skilled, a lot of people took advantage of care-worker visas. Of course, if we do restrict this type of immigration, then we're going to be paying more for these types of services. Note, too, that due to the extraordinary fall in our fertility rate from 1.8 to 1.4 over the last five years, without net migration our population would start to fall.

Matthew Partridge: One of the big topics around both productivity and inequality is AI. The worry is that AI could be a double-edged sword for the UK economy in that it will boost productivity, but all the gains won't necessarily go to everyone equally; there will be many losers. Is that a fair comment?

Paul Johnson: I think there's clearly a risk of that and we are definitely seeing that in the US, where there have already been some big winners from the technology revolution. Even before AI, there was a concentration of economic rents in a small number of incredibly profitable companies, which, through a combination of very high pay and share options and so on, massively rewarded a very small number of people.

Matthew Partridge: Why has the UK economy grown significantly less than other countries over the last 15-20 years?

Paul Johnson: There are several reasons. We were more dependent on financial services than most countries when the financial crash happened. Brexit has clearly not helped; indeed, it has probably slowed things down further since 2016 and since 2021. We have invested less over a long period of time than most other countries, in both private and public terms. Our regulation and planning policies are more extreme and make it much harder to build things.

You can't pin it on any one problem, but all these factors, in addition to the general political chaos – with goodness knows how many prime ministers and uncertainty caused by various changes in direction – will have played a part.

Matthew Partridge: It seems a key danger is that the more the UK economy stagnates, the more disillusionment and political chaos ensue, causing more uncertainty and stagnation.

Paul Johnson: Yes, exactly. You can definitely get locked into a terrible vicious cycle of this kind.

Matthew Partridge: There has been much debate recently about the quality of the government's economic forecasts, which are attacked for being inaccurate or even supposedly manipulated. Reform's Nigel Farage has said he's given serious thought to scrapping the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Do you think this would be a good idea, or is there a role for institutions like the OBR?

Paul Johnson: The whole point of the OBR was to get the government out of the forecasting business – because it was pretty clear that the Treasury's forecasts were politically manipulated – and hand it to an independent body. So, I'm now confident that the forecasts are honest and not manipulated. Ironically, while the OBR has been berated for being too pessimistic, on average over the last 15 years we've found that it's been slightly too optimistic. While it's strange that there are two independent forecasters, the Bank of England and the OBR, we at the IFS thinks that the UK's main forecasting institutions are in the right place, especially as the OBR mainly produces mostly fiscal forecasts and the Bank of England focuses on monetary policy.

Matthew Partridge: What do you see as the biggest fiscal challenges for the UK economy over the next ten to 20 years?

Paul Johnson: Well, I think the big fiscal challenge is that in the past ten years we've seen an unprecedented 5%-6% increase in the share of national income accounted for by taxation. Before that, taxes were for a very long time fairly flat as a fraction of national income.

I think that what people will remember when they look back at this decade isn't going to be Covid or the energy crisis, let alone the mini-Budget, but rather that the British state grew to an extent that is totally unprecedented.

What's more, all the pressures that are pushing spending upwards are going to keep growing, with the commitment to spend another 1% of national income on defence leading to another £30 billion in expenditure. Spending on health is rising relentlessly due to the aging population, with the triple lock ensuring that the same thing will happen to pensions.

Given that we've already got a very big debt pile, it's going to be quite hard to meet these commitments with additional borrowing, especially with previous borrowing coming back to bite us in the form of debt-interest payments.

Perhaps the only silver lining is that while the UK's fiscal situation is much worse than the average OECD country, our debt-to-GDP ratio isn't above the G7 average. Indeed, it is odd that we pay more on our debt than France does, even though it has a higher debt burden. However, this interest-rate disparity is at least partially explained by the fact that we've had higher inflation here for a long period of time, and markets are less confident about our ability to turn things around.

Paul Johnson was director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies between 2011 and 2025, and is currently the provost of Queen's College, Oxford. His latest book, “Challenging Inequalities: How We Got Stuck and Where We Go Next”, with James Banks, Tim Besley, Richard Blundell, Angus Deaton, Robert Joyce and Debra Satz, (Princeton University Press, £25) is out now.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

It is hard to see how Keir Starmer could have had a worse local election campaign. The Labour Party lost hundreds of local councillors, many of them in its core heartlands in the north of England and Wales, and it was pushed down to third place in the total votes cast. One way or another, it is likely to get wiped out at the next general election.

It remains to be seen what happens to prime minister Keir Starmer and his embattled chancellor Rachel Reeves. Their fate will be decided over the next few days or weeks. Either they will just about stagger on, leading a demoralised party that can't decide who should replace them, or they will be ousted in favour of someone else – presumably Andy Burnham, who will have no mandate to govern. We will find out soon enough. But one point is clear: after the issue is decided, the UK will be stuck with a lame-duck government.

That will lead to three big problems. First, the endless speculation about a change of leader and all the political uncertainty around that will drive bond yields relentlessly upwards. The yield on ten-year gilts, the benchmark for the cost of government debt, has already punched its way through the 5% mark, and with each crisis nudges a little higher. The 30-year yield has risen to its highest level in almost three decades and above countries such as France and Italy, even though their long-term fiscal outlook is even worse. That matters. The country has an outstanding national debt of £2.9 trillion, and it is climbing by more than £100 billion every year.

The annual interest payments on all that have climbed to £110 billion and as older debt issued when rates were close to zero has to be replaced, they will keep on climbing. If they go much higher, the government will find itself forced to raise taxes, not to spend more on public services, or invest in infrastructure, but just to service its debts. It is hard to see how that will be popular with voters or the party's backbenchers.

Keir Starmer's government will drift from crisis to crisis

Second, tough decisions will be endlessly delayed. Sooner or later, a British government is going to have to make some harsh choices on public spending. The triple lock on pensions will have to be abandoned; the welfare bill will have to be reduced by reducing entitlements and making it harder to claim for mental-health conditions, and the dire productivity of the public sector will have to be improved. Those decisions can be postponed, but they can't be avoided forever. Starmer and Reeves, however, will not have the political support to make any significant reforms, even if they wanted to. Instead, the government will drift from crisis to crisis, hoping to survive until the end of the week.

Finally, Keir Starmer will have to keep on making concessions to the left. The backbenchers, trade unions and party activists who will decide his fate, or who will choose a new leader if there is a contest, want even higher state spending, more taxes on companies and the “rich”, more rights for workers, along with fewer for landlords and shareholders, and a lot more state intervention in the economy. All of that will damage businesses' confidence.

But even if there is a change of PM, it won't make much difference. As we learned with the constant changes of leader during the last Conservative government, anyone who comes into power without a clear mandate from the voters is inevitably very weak; they don't have any real authority. Gilt yields will still go up sharply, tough decisions will be postponed, and the left of the party and the trade unions will still have to be kept quiet with higher spending. Anyone expecting a fresh start under a different prime minister, presumably with a fresh chancellor alongside them, will quickly be disappointed. There will be no changes of any substance.

Add it all up, and one point is clear. The British economy is now condemned to at least another two or three years of stagnation. At best, the economy will limp along, with 1% or less growth, depending on what happens in the rest of the world. We can give up on any hopes of a sustained recovery – that will now have to wait until after the next election.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.