The ideological roots of this agenda lie in neoliberal economics, shaped by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and actively promoted today by organisations such as the Atlas Network and the Tufton Street network of think tanks. Their programme deliberately weakens social cohesion, normalises inequality and insecurity, and strips public services to the bone. The Tory government between 2010 and 2024 put this into practice as a matter of deliberate policy and Labour has done precious little to reverse it.

Economic stress fuels resentment, and the elite redirect that resentment toward scapegoats from minority ethnic groups, to women, and LGBTQ+ people, all to maintain their hold on power and wealth.

The result is the rise of authoritarian politics across the UK and beyond. It is profoundly revealing that recent polls suggest large numbers of Church of England attendees would vote for Reform, a party whose values are, in every meaningful sense, completely alien to the Christian tradition.

Easter's core command is not complicated: love your neighbour as yourself. That is not a partisan slogan. It is a universal ethical imperative shared across religions and humanitarian traditions alike. If Easter means anything, it requires us to choose renewal over division, to rebuild public services, to resist the politics of exclusion, and to name the forces that profit from our fragmentation.

What if everything you think about money is wrong? And does it matter for the UK economy if it is? Most people believe governments must tax or borrow before they can spend. That belief shapes every political debate, every austerity programme, and every argument that public services "can't be afforded." But what if that belief is simply false? In this video, I explain why modern monetary theory (MMT) is forcing a reckoning with economic orthodoxy, and why understanding how money works and how money creation actually functions is essential if we are ever to escape the trap of unnecessary austerity and constrained public investment. The parallel with Galileo is not accidental. Just as heliocentric astronomy was resisted by those with institutional power to lose, the truth about government spending and fiscal policy is resisted today by politicians, commentators, and economists who cannot afford to admit they were wrong. The cost of that resistance is paid by the rest of us: in underfunded public services, stagnant wages, and a UK economy that fails the majority. This is economics' Galileo moment. The choice is between a comfortable illusion and the truth.

Right now, a litre of petrol costs around 150p. Of that, 52.95p is fixed fuel duty and around 25p is VAT sojust over half the pump price is tax. The remaining cost is the oil itself, plus refining, distribution, and retail margins. If oil rises from $110 to $200 a barrel, which is an 82% increase, the most likely pump price is around 192p per litre, and it could hit 221p in a worst-case scenario. That could be a devastating hit to the cost of living when UK families are already struggling.

But let's be clear, this oil price crisis is not being caused by UK tax policy. Fuel duty and VAT are not the drivers of this price rise; the disruption to global oil markets is. But that means the government has a real choice because it could cut fuel duty, as other countries have already done, to stabilise prices and protect people. A cut from 53p to 30p per litre could make a material difference. On top of that, it could also look at rationing, speed limits, or other demand-reduction measures used elsewhere in the world.

The choices here are political. The question is whether the government will act.

Markets cannot solve this. When supply collapses, markets ration by income and those with money survive; those without do not. That is not a policy choice. That is a failure of government. The energy crisis and emerging food shortages demand an active UK state response.

Drawing on Lord Keynes's approach at the start of World War II, and John Kenneth Galbraith's wartime work in the United States, this video argues that the only credible response to this supply chain crisis is a combination of government-led rationing and a serious redesign of the tax system.

That means rationing oil, aviation fuel, heating oil, and food.

It means equalising capital gains and income tax rates, extending national insurance to investment incomes, and adding VAT to financial services.

It means government intervention in the economy at a scale not seen since the 1940s.

The alternative is leaving resource allocation to the market, which will transfer wealth upward, destroy social cohesion, and risk public unrest. That is not how to manage a war economy. That is a policy choice to let the poor bear the cost of a crisis they did not create.

Donald Trump has signalled his intention to attack Iran’s civilian infrastructure, power stations and desalination plants, and that is a war crime under international law. The law is unambiguous: military gain does not justify targeting civilian populationsand the infrastruture they depend upon, and pre-announcing an attack does not reduce culpability. This is the reality of the Iran war that the world urgently needs to confront.

The United States has not signed up to the International Criminal Court, meaning Donald Trump faces no meaningful accountability. But what is equally disturbing is the UK’s role in all of this. Keir Starmer’s talk of de-escalation is hollow when his government remains deeply complicit in Trump’s plans. The proposed state visit by King Charles to the United States sends a message of political endorsement, not challenge. That is not diplomacy; that is complicity.

This, though, is not simply about Trump’s erratic behaviour or the latest Iran news. There is a deeper ideological logic at work here, which is neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics reduces human beings to units in a system, economic cogs with conditional worth. When civilians are treated as expendable targets in a war in Iran, that is not aberration. That is the neoliberal system working as designed.

Margaret Thatcher applied the same logic to UK communities in the 1980s, treating unemployment and social harm as acceptable costs of economic policy. Trump’s Iran policy is the modern expression of that same ideology, now directed at Iranian civilians on a far grander and more lethal scale. The mindset is identical; the human cost is simply larger.

The collapse of moral constraint we are witnessing in the US-Iran conflict is a systemic danger. Neoliberalism, combined with distorted justification, is overriding both international law and basic humanity, and the UK government is choosing alignment over accountability.

The tools are all there. The Bank of England must be instructed to intervene in bond markets to keep UK interest rates under control; it did that in 2008, 2016, and 2020, and there is no reason it cannot do so again.

The “there is no money” narrative must be abandoned. Government spending will need to rise to protect households and businesses from disruption, just as it did during Covid. Reeves needs to say that clearly, and say it now.

And on energy, the link between electricity pricing and gas prices must be broken immediately, something I have argued for repeatedly on this channel.

Meanwhile, with 92% of UK flights being for holidays, jet fuel must be rationed and redirected to essential travel, whilst road fuel rationing plans must be drawn up before the shortages hit, not after and renewable energy output must be maximised.

And on food and critical medical supplies, there must be a plan, publicly communicated, so that businesses and households know what to expect.

This is not radical. It is basic wartime economic management, with clear historical precedent. The question is why Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of a Labour government, is failing to lead during the gravest economic crisis of her tenure. The UK economy cannot afford her silence.

Your savings are dead money. That's the uncomfortable truth about how money works that politicians don't want you to understand. In this video, I explain why UK savings — including ISAs holding over £700 billion and pension funds costing the taxpayer £70 billion a year in subsidies — do nothing for economic growth, don't fund investment, and don't create jobs.

This is about how banks create money and the banking system explained honestly. When a bank makes a loan, it doesn't lend your deposits — it creates new money from nothing. Your savings sitting in a bank deposit simply give the bank cheap capital. They don't fund wages, they don't fund taxation, and they certainly don't fund productive investment in the UK economy. The same applies to the stock market — well over 99% of share transactions are secondhand shares, meaning your money in stocks and pension funds investment doesn't reach companies either.

This matters because savings vs investment is the key question for UK economic growth. We spend £80 billion a year of public money subsidising saving when we should be subsidising productive investment. Understanding how money works, how banks work, and why fractional reserve banking means your deposits are actually at risk is essential financial education. If we shifted incentives from dead money to real investment, we could build a fairer, more productive economy. It's time to tell your MP.

What would happen if no one went to work tomorrow?

It sounds like a simple thought experiment, but it exposes a fundamental truth about how our economy actually works. If work stopped, food would not be produced, care would not be delivered, services would collapse, and money itself would quickly become meaningless.

In this video, I explore why wealth is not money, but the result of human effort. Drawing on ideas from Adam Smith and beyond, I explain how real value is created through labour, care, creativity and contribution, much of which is unpaid and ignored.

I also argue that modern economics has lost sight of this. We have elevated finance above production, rewarded ownership over contribution, and built a system that undervalues the very activities that sustain our lives.

If we want a better economy, one that supports well-being, fairness and real productivity, we need to rethink what we mean by work and what we choose to value.