Monday, 21 September 2026

FASCISM?

  

 The weekend’s Guardian (Saturday 19th September) contains a review by Daniel Trilling of a book by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor called “End Times Fascism.”   According to Trilling the purpose of the book is to warn us of a convergence of three  interests which are in effect encouraging the climate crisis rather than working to prevent it.  

The book focusses chiefly on the United States and identifies the  three interest as the “Religious Fanatics” ( the Christian Right who look forward to the Rapture and the end of the World, when the righteous will be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air,") the “Tech  Barons,” expecting to exploit AI and the “Political Entrepreneurs” who are anxious to “turn their nations into bunkered garrison states . . . in an increasingly aggressive scramble for natural resources.”

These three groups together are working towards what the book defines as  “End Times Fascism.”

If climate change is the biggest danger to our way of life (or even human life itself) then the second most serious danger we face is surely to Liberal Democracy, which I believe to be threatened by the same or similar forces.

Google defines fascism as  “a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that places the perceived interest of the nation or race above individual rights.”

It  describes Fascism’s features as:

1 Dictatorial Leadership

2 Extreme Nationalism

3 Suppression of Opposition

4 Militarism and Regimentalism;

. . . and finally

5 Rejection of Liberal Democracy: Opposes pluralism, individual liberties, equality, communism, and socialism.

The first four features are very much in evidence in British Politics today, fuelled and encouraged by wealthy sources, some of them foreign.

If our political class is alert to the danger there is as yet not much sign of it. 

The Conservatives, probably in cohorts with Reform and Respect, seem likely to go along with it. Labour alone lacks the backbone to fight it (no cap on donations to parties, restriction on the right to protest, further drilling in the North Sea still on the cards, BBC fighting desperately for funding.)

 The principal raison d’être of the Greens is to halt and even reverse climate change, the principle raison d’être of the Liberal Democrats is to preserve, improve and extend Liberal Democracy. 

Both are desperately needed, in alliance with “one nation Tories, (of which there are, apparently , a number recently converted and attending the Liberal Democrat conference,) in government with Labour to preserve and improve and spread our way of life.

54 comments:

  1. Peter,

    sounds like the 3 horsemen of the apocalypse!
    It might be funny if it wasn't so serious. I'm reminded of Robert Paxton's 5 stages of fascism:

    1. Gaining publicity through emerging widespread disillusionment
    2. Establishing legitimacy as a political party
    3. Gaining power through right wing coalitions
    4. Consolidating monopoly political power
    5. Implementing radical change to embed power and control

    Farage & Reform have probably read the playbook and are trying hard at stage 2 with the support of the populist media. Stage 3's timing is clearly linked to the next general election but is already being discussed in the media.

    The catalyst has been the “widespread disillusionment” that has been coming for a while and largely ignored by successive governments and the main parties over the last few decades and I see no real attempt to counter this.

    We've only ourselves to blame for what is to come

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mik W for Paxton's Five Stages: we're certainly well on the way, and not just in this country.
      I agree with you about the "widespread disillusionment," and wonder why, since we are enjoying the highest and most comfortable and exciting standard of living any generation has ever enjoyed on these islands. among the reasons are:
      1. We spend too much time hankering after our allegedly glorious past, rather than aiming for modest competence in the future.
      2. The astonishing growth and prosperity of the post-war years has not been shared evenly. Our government and systems are much too centralised. In too many areas people have found that their boat has not been lifted.
      3. Too much of our politics remains based on the archaic distinction between capital and labour. The increasing prominence of the Liberals, and the Greens (bless them) should help remedy this, along with the political reforms you enumerate in a later comment.
      4. Our biassed press finds it too easy to exploit grievances in order to increase the influence of their owners. We need more media studies on the Finnish lines, as discussed in an earlier post.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you about the "widespread disillusionment," and wonder why, since we are enjoying the highest and most comfortable and exciting standard of living any generation has ever enjoyed on these islands.

      The blindness is almost wilfull…

      It’s because people have seen the country change a lot in the past quarter-century, mostly because of unprecedented levels of migration; people, quite reasonably, don’t like seeing the country they grew up in change (and like even less being told that it’s good that it changed, and if they don’t like it they are racists); do they have consistently voted for politicians who have told them that they will reduce migration and the pace of change, but when in office those same politicians have done nothing to reduce immigration or the pace of change; so they have, again quite reasonably, come to the conclusion that the politicians were either lying to them, or lack the powers to do what they promised.

      Disillusionment is therefore a perfectly rational response. The illusion was that politicians had the ability to set the course of the country, and that they would use that to give effect to the wishes of the voters. That illusion has been rudely sundered.

      Delete
    3. Peter

      Can't disagree with your comments about the reasons but I'd add also

      "We spend too much time hankering after our allegedly glorious past, rather than aiming for modest competence in the future."

      I'm always amused and usually disappointed about how much emphasis is placed by some on GREAT Britain as if we were still a world power. Most of the main stream politicians seem to have little vision as to what Britain's place in the world should now be and how we position ourselves from now on

      “prosperity of the post-war years has not been shared evenly”

      I've posted on this previously. There are large chunks of the population who feel (rightly) that they've been left behind over the last few decades. For me the rot started with Thatcher who for mostly idealogical reasons oversaw the demise of many of the tradition industries which were major employers. There was no attempt to provide meaning retraining opportunities or to attract alternative employers. This continued under successive governments. The result in some parts of the UK was two or three generations of people “on the dole”

      There's also been almost a total lack of government interest and initiative in fostering assimilation of incoming economic migrants over the decades. I'm old enough to remember concerted campaigns to stop white Brits selling their house to immigrants as “it would spoil the neighbourhood”. As a result many immigrant communities have circled the wagons in self defence.

      Fertile ground for Farage

      I've also posted previously about the labour/capital split with the dominance of capital and the wealth it brings to its owners. In my view this will only get worse. We may well see modern Luddites attacking AI data centres built in their communities

      And as we know from history the classic right wing approach is to find a scapegoat – migrants, Jews, blacks, gays ...

      I'm minded of a speech in the film “The American President” where the incumbent president is under attack by the equivalent of Farage. He finally starts fighting back ...

      “We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character.”

      Sounds familiar doesn't it

      Delete
    4. Thank you. Your quotation frm the film sums up the present situation nicely and neatly.

      Delete
  2. Rejection of Liberal Democracy

    That's interesting, because you reject liberal democracy.

    You reject liberalism because you push illiberal things like restrictions on political action (like donations to political parties), wealth redistribution, and restrictions on press freedom (very fascist, that one).

    And you reject democracy because you don't respect results that you disagree with, instead claiming that people could only have voted in ways you disagree with because they were misled, so their obviously-compromised votes should be ignored.

    So are you a fascist?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The fact that there's widespread disillusionment in the UK seems to be acknowledged but ignored by the main parties. Polls suggest that around 2/3rds of Brits believe the country is in decline, and even more lacking faith in the political system. This seems to be driven by the impact of economic austerity and stagnation (spread unevenly around the country and the population) together with perceived elitism and a belief that politicians are out of touch, untrustworthy and interchangeable.

    There are large groups of people who feel neglected, abandoned and powerless and who feel they're facing a future without prospects or hope. A fertile breeding ground for the right-wing and wannabe fascists so no wonder reform has been doing so well lately

    Unless these issues are addressed directly, right wing support will continue to grow (even though the right wing and Farage have no solutions that will make much difference) but the main parties appear blind to this

    There are no easy answers but ….

    Electoral & Democratic Reform
    Introducing proportional representation; increased voter registration and expanded franchise for young people; citizens' assemblies across the country to give people a more direct voice

    Money in Politics
    Capping private donations and closing loopholes; (one survey found that over 90% of voters would favour this as one of their top priorities to rebuild trust); increasing public funding of parties to reduce dependence on wealthy donors; stricter lobbying transparency; increased transparency of MPs personal finances and interests

    Ethics & Accountability
    Tighter regulation of post-government employment (the "revolving door" between Westminster and business ); replace the House of Lords with a directly elected assembly; ending PM patronage of the honours system; total ban on second jobs for MPs

    How could anyone object?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This seems to be driven by the impact of economic austerity and stagnation (spread unevenly around the country and the population) together with perceived elitism and a belief that politicians are out of touch, untrustworthy and interchangeable.

      And uneasiness at rapid social change due to mass migration, which politicians seem unwilling or unable to stop. Don’t forget that one.

      Delete
    2. How could anyone object?

      Well, I could object, based on the fact that you seem to think the problem is that voters don’t agree with you and all your ‘solutions’ are based on trying to either force the voters to agree with you, or bypass them if you can’t get their agreement.

      Perhaps in fact the solution should be to listen to the voters and do what they want?

      Delete
    3. The "solutions" posted earlier are based on published market research with voters - maybe you should listen to them more. Which do you disagree with as a voter?

      Delete
    4. Which do you disagree with as a voter?

      All of them! Every one! Would you like me to go through the reasons for every one?

      (Except perhaps ‘Tighter regulation of post-government employment (the "revolving door" between Westminster and business’ — I could get behind that, but only as long as it applies equally to trades unions, charities and NGOs as to business)

      Delete
    5. But these are what the voters want.

      Delete
    6. But these are what the voters want.

      No, they aren't. The voters have said what they want, and it's less immigration.

      It's quite funny actually.

      Voters: We want less immigration.

      You: Ah, I hear you. You want proportional representation.

      Voters: No, that's not it.

      You: Oh, okay. What then?

      Voters: The immigrants. We want less of them.

      You: Ah, I see! You want citizens assemblies!

      Voters: No, we want there to not be as many immigrants.

      You: Right. Got you. House of Lords reform. Coming right up!

      Voters: Are you deaf or something?

      You: And votes at sixteen! Yes, of course we can do that. Anything else?

      [Voters head off to the ballot box and vote for Reform]

      Delete
    7. Oh dear ranting again

      As usual my posts are evidence based. The suggestions I posted are not mine but those of the electorate from published market research.
      Voters were asked what actions would help restore their trust in politics and politicians. You've seen their ideas.

      But of course you know better than they do although you never seem to have any evidence to back up your rants

      Delete
    8. The funny thing is that exactly the same thing is happening in many countries, and the same people who refuse to acknowledge what's going on the Britain stick their heads in the sand about every one.

      Take Germany, for example. Germans don't want to vote for the AfD. Up until 2015, Germany politics was, by British standards, incredibly boring. The AfD was a fringe party, even less consequential than the Liberal Democrats, and the two main parties were basically different varieties of fashionable progressivism.

      But then what happened? Frau Merkel made one of her top three most colossal mistakes (for any other politician it would be by a long way the most colossal, but she was special): she said 'Wir schaffen das' and opened the borders. Immigration to Germany shot up, and German chaos was plunged into chaos, and now the AfD is winning federal elections left right and centre, and poised to win the next national election. And that's with voters having real, and quite reasonable, reservation about the rest of the AfD policy platform, especially things like their pro-Russian stance. But that single issue, of immigration, is so important to voters that they are willing to hold their noses and vote for a party that they normally would dismiss out of hand, just because every single other party has failed on that one issue.

      And at any point in the last ten years, the previously-established parties could have killed the AfD stone dead, easily. Because, as I say, Germans don't want to vote for the AfD. They don't like most of what the AfD stands for. The only thing they like about the AfD is its stance on immigration. If any mainstream party had just stolen the AfD's immigration policies, and kept everything else the same, the AfD would be dead and that party would not be running Germany. Bout for some reason I still can't understand, they didn't.

      And we know this is true because the even funnier thing is not only can we see the same dynamic playing out in country after country (I haven't even had space to mention France), but we have an example of a country where the exact opposite has happened: Denmark. In Denmark the mushy centrist parties of exactly the kind that are being forced out of contention and, in some cases, existence in places like Britain, France and Germany are still forming the government and look undislodgeable, and why? Because they adopted the hardline anti-immigration policies demanded by their voters. As a result the Danish centre-left and progressive SDP (they're in the same EU group that Labour used to be) won the recent election and managed to form a government (though thanks to the terrible PR system, it took over two months, so let's hope we never get PR here).

      When politicians either refuse to listen to the voters or say they will listen but then fail to do anything about it, such as in Britain, France, Germany and so on, then you get disillusionment and chaos. When politicians listen to the voters and enact their desired policies, as in Denmark, they retain the support of undisillusioned voters.

      So the solution to disillusionment is clear: don't try to work out what the voters 'really want', as if you think you are smarter than them. Just listen to what they say they want and do that.

      Delete
    9. as usual irrelevant and off the point
      "Just listen to what they say they want and do that"

      Do you not bother reading carefully or do you just not understand
      The solutions listed earlier - that you disagree with - are what voters have said they want to help restore trust

      But you continue to deny their voice by disagreeing with what they've said




      Delete
    10. The solutions listed earlier - that you disagree with - are what voters have said they want to help restore trust

      Please keep telling yourself that. I must remember to take Napoleon's advice, and not interrupt my enemy when he is making a mistake.

      Delete
    11. the usual BS from you. You can't answer sensibly when you realise you're wrong

      Delete
    12. Maybe if you insult people enough times they will vote for you. How's that been working out so far?

      Delete
    13. See my previous post. Your response says it all

      Delete
    14. Keep going. Call people stupid one more time and I bet that’ll win their vote. There’s nothing that the average person loves more than being patronised.

      Delete
    15. Oh dear, you've thrown your toys out of the pram again

      It's very noticeable that when you're challenged over some of your posts and asked to provide evidence of what you claim, you resort to inane comments (napoleon etc) or revert to your fixation about immigration as if this were the only issue facing the UK.
      If you want a serious discussion on this topic then read on, otherwise don't bother.

      To try and help let me say again:

      My focus on this thread is to discuss the increasing voter disillusionment with UK politics and politicians. As I've posted elsewhere you need to focus on defining the problem first before searching for solutions. The reason for this focus is that there is plenty of evidence that such disillusionment provides a breeding ground for extremist populist politicians. I for one don't want to see that happening

      So, first question: do you agree that there's such an increase in voter disillusionment in the UK?

      If Yes, then the next obvious question: what's caused this?

      I've posted previously what others have found from their research. I reiterate – these are not my conclusions but those from the research evidence (which is widely available for those who can be bothered to look)

      “This seems to be driven by the impact of economic austerity and stagnation (spread unevenly around the country and the population) together with perceived elitism and a belief that politicians are out of touch, untrustworthy and interchangeable. There are large groups of people who feel neglected, abandoned and powerless and who feel they're facing a future without prospects or hope.”

      So do you agree that these factors are the main drivers of dissatisfaction?

      (BTW concerns about immigration are part of this but not the whole picture – cost of living, the economy, unemployment, NHS, housing also come high on peoples' priorities)

      Next stage is to see what voters think should be done about this (not what I think or what you think but what THEY think)

      Delete
    16. revert to your fixation about immigration as if this were the only issue facing the UK

      It's not the only issue, but it is one of the most major ones. Which is why it's so funny that you keep claiming it's not an issue at all.

      do you agree that there's such an increase in voter disillusionment in the UK?

      Of course there is.

      do you agree that these factors are the main drivers of dissatisfaction?

      Of course they aren't. The main driver of dissatisfaction with politicians is that people keep voting for politicians because they promise to do one thing, and then when they get elected they don't do that thing.

      It really is just that simple.

      Delete
    17. Please point me to my posts where I've said immigration is not an issue. Or apologise

      Please provide evidence about your claim that the main driver of voter dissatisfaction is politicians not delivering.

      Put up or shut up. My posts are evidence based. Yours aren't

      Delete
    18. And please don't bother with your usual off the point responses

      Delete
    19. Please point me to my posts where I've said immigration is not an issue.

      https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2026/08/blunders-for-mr-burnham-to-avoid.html?showComment=1787135473583#c8770074079457313353

      Please provide evidence about your claim that the main driver of voter dissatisfaction is politicians not delivering

      Do you ever even read over what you've written?

      Delete
    20. How pathetic
      . Bye

      Delete
    21. As usual no evidence just bluster

      Delete
    22. "Please point me to my posts where I've said immigration is not an issue.

      https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2026/08/blunders-for-mr-burnham-to-avoid.html?showComment=1787135473583#c8770074079457313353"

      You're confused as usual> where do the words "you keep claiming it's not an issue at all" appear?.

      Delete
  4. Mik W's comment:"BTW concerns about immigration are part of this but not the whole picture – cost of living, the economy, unemployment, NHS, housing also come high on peoples' priorities" is a valuable summary of our current situation. I would add "growing inequality."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add "growing inequality."

      Most people don’t care about inequality. Most people, as long as they and their family are doing well, don’t care whether other people are much richer than them. Most people, in fact, wish those richer than them well.

      Of course there are some — a few examples here — are consumed with burning envy and can’t be happy with what they have if they know that someone, somewhere, has more, and so they devote themselves to tearing down anyone more successful than they are. Get back in the bucket, crab!

      But most people aren’t like that, and aren’t bothered about inequality: they are bothered about their own circumstances and their family’s, not others’.

      Delete
  5. I suggest you read "The Spirit Level" by Wilkinson and Picket, which enumerates the bonuses greater equality brings to societies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suggest you read https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Delusion-Fact-Checking-Everything/dp/0956226515/ which thoroughly debunks that book’s findings (which are basically all the result of blatantly cherry-picking data to get the author’s desired conclusions).

      And there’s more at: https://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

      You could also look at https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-spirit-level-revisited

      And finally you should read https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitution-Liberty-Routledge-Classics/dp/041540424X/ which explains why inequality is good for society (in short: because without inequality there is no incentive to innovate).

      Delete
    2. Yes, there have been several attempts to paint W and P's research as "fake findings" but the respected Sage Journals found that they "appear to be robust."
      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207152241245620
      As I've quoted before:
      "Tis with our judgement as our watches, none
      Go just alike but each believes his own."
      Alexander Pope

      I'l stick with the peer-reviewed findings.

      Delete
  6. Peter

    I think the issue of inequality has slipped down the political agenda unfortunately.
    Trickle down economics was never going to work and inequality in the UK has consistently got worse.

    For me this isn’t about taking from those at the top but enabling those at the bottom. The economic impact of such enabling is well understood – even tough it’s generally ignored. Amongst the more obvious impacts:

    1. The poorest groups tend to have higher marginal propensity to consume and hence have more of an economic multiplier effect on national income than those at the top. Mpc for those at the bottom has been calculated at almost 1.0 whilst for those at the top it’s 0.1 or 0.2
    Help those at the bottom to increase their income and national income benefits


    2. The loss of economic potential
    I grew up in what today would be called a poor family. Luckily I got a place at BGS which was one of the best schools in the area at the time. However, I was from outside the catchment area and my parents were quite literally unable to afford the regular bus fare to get me to and from. The old WRCC was able to provide a means tested bus pass which meant I could accept the place. Thanks to some great teachers (take a bow Peter) I got the A level grades to get into university. No tuition fees at the time and a means tested maximum maintenance grant (not a loan) of £250 pa.
    As a result I’ve had a great career earning very good salaries as well as starting my own business which means that I’ve repaid the bus pass, tuition fees, and maintenance grant multiple times over

    Were I in that position today I wouldn’t be going to uni and would probably be on benefits having had low skill low paid jobs for decades. And probably a Reform supporter having been "abandoned" by the mainstream parties

    I despair at the young people today in similar circumstances who’ll never get the chance to fulfil their potential even though it mostly pays back to the economy


    3. Impact on productivity
    Local secondary schools at the time in my area were effectively a holding pen for the kids until they were old enough to leave school usually without qualifications without skills and without prospects. They ended up in low skilled low paid jobs until those disappeared in the area with industrial decline The impact that has on productivity makes me shudder

    Giving those who need it a hand-up (not a hand out) makes economic sense no matter the denials about scroungers from the Tories & Reform (very few of whom have any idea what poverty is really like)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The poorest groups tend to have higher marginal propensity to consume and hence have more of an economic multiplier effect on national income than those at the top

      Not true. Not the bit about the poor having higher marginal propensity to consume, that's true, but the bit about it being more of an economic multiplier. What the country is short of isn't consumption, it's investment, and the rich have a much higher marginal propensity to invest than the poor. Therefore if we allow the rich to keep more of their money, they will invest it in new and innovative businesses, and that will be much more beneficial to national income than just boosting consumption a few points.

      Luckily I got a place at BGS

      I assume that 'GS' there sands for 'Grammar School'? You'll never see me write a word against grammar schools. Grammar schools were great. Non-selective comprehensives were totally the wrong idea. However...

      Were I in that position today I wouldn’t be going to uni

      … this is utterly wrong. The proportion of the population that goes into higher education is higher today than it has ever been (it's over 50%!) and the proportion of pupils on free school meals who go on to higher education is also higher than it's ever been (it's over 30%). You may have gone to university, but I doubt that a third of your disadvantaged peers did so. In actual fact if you grow up in a below-average-income household today you have a much greater chance of going to university than someone growing up in that same income level household at any point in the past.

      Delete
    2. "The poorest groups tend to have higher marginal propensity to consume and hence have more of an economic multiplier effect on national income than those at the top

      Not true."

      Wrong again. Look at the OBR report on this.
      Of course they're just professional economists so what would they know compared to you?

      "Were I in that position today I wouldn’t be going to uni
      … this is utterly wrong. "

      This is my personal statement so only I know if it's right or wrong
      The point being that if the current situation regarding tuition fees, student loans etc had been in place when I went to uni, I would have chosen not to go as it would simply have been unaffordable to someone of my (poverty) background

      QED a loss of economic potential
      Thanks to minimal - but essential - financial support to me the country & the Exchequer are better off.







      Delete
    3. here's an interesting number

      "45% of 16–18-year-olds from lower-income (C2DE) households think university is not worthwhile due to tuition fees and the associated debt"


      Delete
    4. Look at the OBR report on this.

      Link to the OBR report please. Does it really compare the economic benefits of an increase in consumption versus an increase in investment and conclude that consumption gives a better return?

      The point being that if the current situation regarding tuition fees, student loans etc had been in place when I went to uni, I would have chosen not to go as it would simply have been unaffordable to someone of my (poverty) background

      You may think that, but the fact is that it is clearly not 'unaffordable' because one-third of people from lower income households do afford it. And that's a far higher percentage of people from those types of households who went to university than among your peers. So you are wrong to say that if you were young to day you could not have afforded to go to university. (You may be right to say that if you were young today you would have perceived that you could not have afforded to go to university, but your perception would have been wrong — as long, that is, as you were doing an actual useful subject, see below).

      (mainly because the 'loans' are actually more like grants because if you never earn enough to go over the repayment threshold then you never have to pay it back, and it eventually gets written off — calling it a 'loan' is an accounting trick the government uses to get it 'off the books' and claim that it isn't just another unfunded spending boondoggle to be added to the national debt in years to come, but of course it is and it will).

      45% of 16–18-year-olds from lower-income (C2DE) households think university is not worthwhile due to tuition fees and the associated debt

      Well, they may be right about that — it depends entirely on what degrees they would be doing. Degrees in STEM subjects are worthwhile because the return in terms of higher income is greater than the debt, including interest. Degrees in anything ending in 'studies' are negative-value, but that has always been the case.

      Delete
    5. Link to the OBR report please

      (And don't say 'you can google it yourself': the OBR produces lots of reports, so if we're to discuss one of them we need to be sure we are discussing the exact same one, and if I google it I might end up looking at a different one to you. Give the link and then we know we are discussing the same thing.)

      Delete
    6. So giving the rich more money will boost business investment will it?

      Delete
    7. You know better than me what I would decide to do!
      Delusional

      Delete
    8. So giving the rich more money will boost business investment will it?

      It's likely to, yes. Because what do the rich do with their money? They invest it. They have to, because otherwise its value would be eroded by inflation. That's why when you see 'richest person in the world' lists, the values are all entirely notional because the vast majority of their wealth is in investments: Mr Musk in Tesla and Starlink, Mr Gates in Microsoft, Mr Bezos in Amazon, etc etc etc.

      Link to the OBR report, please.

      You know better than me what I would decide to do!

      Of course I don't. What I know is that lots of people in that position today (about one-third of them) make the decision to go to university. Of course that doesn't mean that you would, but from an economic point of view individuals like you (and me) are irrelevant. The important economic question is not what you or I as an individual would do but what people in general do in that situation, and we can see that from the data.

      Delete
    9. Unfortunately much of the investment by the rich (that which doesn't get slated away in foreign tax-havens) is in existing assets such as property which are likely to increase in value rather than in income-creating innovation.

      Delete
    10. Unfortunately much of the investment by the rich (that which doesn't get slated away in foreign tax-havens) is in existing assets such as property which are likely to increase in value rather than in income-creating innovation.

      That’s not true.

      Firstly, investments in property aren’t investments in ‘existing assets’: they are investments in building things, like houses, biological research campuses, and data centres. These all produce value and increase the national income.

      Secondly, investments in property are limited by the fact that there’s a limited amount of land, so if you’re rich you just can’t invest everything in property: there simply isn’t enough property on the world for all rich people to do that. So you have to diversify and invest in businesses as well.

      And thirdly, property-based investments are lower-risk than business investments, but they are also lower-reward. Nobody because super-rich through property investments; to become super-rich you have to found, or be an early investor in, a business, whether you’re Mr Carnegie or Mr Rockefeller or Mr Gates or Mr Buffett or Mr Musk. So the rich will invest in innovative businesses because that’s where they can get the really big rewards (while hedging their bets by also investing in lower-risk areas like property as well, of course).

      And finally: you do know that money ‘in foreign tax havens’ is invested too, right? It’s not just a load of gold coins sitting somewhere in the Caymen Islands. How it goes is, someone gets money, and gives it to a bank in the Caymen Islands. That bank then invests in innovative businesses (lots of them, to hedge risk). The profits go to the bank, which pays less tax on them because it’s in the Caymen Islands, and then it passes those profits (after taking its cut) on to the original investor (again, paying less tax on those profits because it’s in the Caymen Islands).

      Delete
    11. OK, I should have said "existing property," such as a posh mansion in Mayfair. Or a chain of existing care homes, which can be bought with debt, which can then be loaded on to it whilst your hedge fund passes on to something else.

      Delete
    12. I should have said "existing property," such as a posh mansion in Mayfair. Or a chain of existing care homes, which can be bought with debt, which can then be loaded on to it whilst your hedge fund passes on to something else.

      That’s not how rich people invest. That’s safe, low-risk, low-reward investments: those are investments for pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. Rich people have the money to diversify, and are after high returns, so they make high-risk, high-reward investments like in new businesses.

      Delete
    13. In fact, as a general rule, the more spare money you have, the more you can afford to make risky investments, because the less likely it is that any one single investment going wrong can wipe you out.

      So the more money rich people have, the more they can afford to take risks.

      So the less you tax the rich, the more money they have, so the more risks they will take in the hope that one of them will hit it big.

      So we should reduce taxes on the rich because that’s where will mean they have more money to invest, which will mean they will make more risky investments, and risky investments are where innovation comes from, and we all benefit from the results of innovation.

      Delete
    14. The usual babble and delusion
      The UK has chronic under investment public and private
      And that's not because the rich are taxed "too much" and don't have the spare cash to invest. Money supply for investment is already theso cutting graces for the rich won't boost investment

      Delete
    15. As usual you miss the point about reducing inequality by enabling those at the bottom
      Fact: enabling those at the bottom brings direct economic benefits to the national economy

      The hand-up supports available in my day have been removed or severely reduced by successive govts both Tory and Labour

      Delete
    16. You talking km about the "rich " making investments
      Direct investments in the UK by individuals run at about 10% of total capital investment mostly in property BoE and ONS).

      Delete
    17. Here's an interesting set of numbers

      "Poverty costs the UK public purse an estimated £78 billion annually through increased spending on healthcare, education, justice, and social services, alongside £9 billion in lost tax revenue and higher benefit payments due to lower employment and pay."
      JRF

      Delete
    18. Direct investments in the UK by individuals run at about 10% of total capital investment mostly in property BoE and ONS).

      Indirect investments count too.

      Delete
    19. Poverty costs the UK public purse an estimated £78 billion annually through increased spending on healthcare, education, justice, and social services,

      I’d love to see the itemised breakdown for that, I bet it’s hilarious.

      Delete