The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[gg1]

To be fair, Labour cannot exactly "reverse Brexit" because strictly speaking it would be a new form of membership including adopting the Euro and Schengen, while a true reversal would be as things were before including opt-out conditions, something the EU won't be willing to extend.

The best we can hope for is a Norwegian or Swiss-style deal where we align on key policies while maintaining some opt outs, and I doubt the EU will be willing to extend that either. The Swiss deal has been quite frustrating for them already as it is.

It would also require the EU to want us back. They're not going to re-admit us unless they can be 99.9% sure we won't change our minds again a decade or two down the line.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The graph paints the vivid picture - Labour are throttling us with their taxes. They are not capable or competent.

This is an extremely simplistic view and, quite frankly, this sort of view is why we are stuck in a doom loop.

The Tories were in power from 2010 to 2024. In that time, despite the hollowing out of public services under the fiction of austerity, the Tories expertly took the UK national debt from 65% of GDP in May 2010 to 94.7% of GDP in May 2024.

This debt has a cost. For 2025/26, the OBR expects this debt to cost the taxpayer £112 billion. The interest payments on this debt now accounts for 8.3% of total public spending. This is likely to increase again thanks to Trump's bombing spree in the Middle East.

Labour only have two levers to try and deal with this: increase taxes, or cut public spending (or a combination of both levers). The money has been spent but it now needs to be paid for.

There's no easy solution to any of this. What would you do differently?

 

[SargeNpton]

This is an extremely simplistic view and, quite frankly, this sort of view is why we are stuck in a doom loop.

The Tories were in power from 2010 to 2024. In that time, despite the hollowing out of public services under the fiction of austerity, the Tories expertly took the UK national debt from 65% of GDP in May 2010 to 94.7% of GDP in May 2024.

This debt has a cost. For 2025/26, the OBR expects this debt to cost the taxpayer £112 billion. The interest payments on this debt now accounts for 8.3% of total public spending. This is likely to increase again thanks to Trump's bombing spree in the Middle East.

Labour only have two levers to try and deal with this: increase taxes, or cut public spending (or a combination of both levers). The money has been spent but it now needs to be paid for.

There's no easy solution to any of this. What would you do differently?

How much of that was due to Covid? The pandemic blew a hole in the budgets of most countries worldwide.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How much of that was due to Covid? The pandemic blew a hole in the budgets of most countries worldwide.

Not as much as you'd think:

Data:UK PSNDex percent GDP.tab - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

It was already up to 84.5% of GDP in March 2020. The debt as a percentage of GDP went up rapidly in 2020 but GDP also fell rapidly.

It's cumulative but fundamentally we've never actually dealt with the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. National debt went from 34.7% of GDP in January 2008 to 62.7% of GDP in January 2010 (although again GDP fell rapidly). The Tories just made it worse with austerity, ten years of pain and we were worse off at the end of it than we were at the start.

I don't know how we fix it. The 2008 banking crisis blew everything up, we reacted badly to it by printing debt, then austerity made things even worse. But we can't keep on at the current tax levels with nothing to show for it. Trouble is, I don't think any politician knows how to fix it.

I think at this stage the only thing we could really do is blow the whole lot up and start again.

The globe's entire debt is at 235% of the globe's entire GDP. How can we collectively as a planet owe more than double the amount of money we generate? Sounds like kleptomania to me. Tell them to go whistle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The overall tax burden in the UK is already at a post-war high and will move higher next financial year. We know that Labour are incapable of doing anything other than raise taxes but that isn't the only option. It seems likely we are moving towards a future Reform Government and their plans for an insurance based health model will save £billions from general taxation which could be then allocated to defence.

Health insurance payments are de facto tax. Indeed, the only reason Switzerland is seen as low income tax is that people don't consider it. I looked into it for personal reasons a while back and with it the income tax burden on my middle ish income at the time was basically the same in both countries once it was included.

 

[Sorcerer]

It would also require the EU to want us back. They're not going to re-admit us unless they can be 99.9% sure we won't change our minds again a decade or two down the line.

This is true. Now of all times would be among the worse for going back because not only does the optics make it look like we're crawling back after realising it was a mistake, but if we want to treat a Reform-influenced government as a possibility in 2029 then we also have to accept the possibility that they would just undo any progress down the line.

 

[JonathanH]

Yeah, the 40% rate now cuts in at £50k. A decent income but hardly "rich".

And don't start me on the £100k-£125k band....

National Insurance also ends at £50k, so the increase in tax rate is only 28% to 42% at that point, which isn't particularly unreasonable.

 

[AlterEgo]

National Insurance also ends at £50k, so the increase in tax rate is only 28% to 42% at that point, which isn't particularly unreasonable.

Earming £50k still doesn't make you rich though. The mean salary for a 50 year old in the UK is higher than that.

 

[Magdalia]

The Tories were in power from 2010 to 2024. In that time, despite the hollowing out of public services under the fiction of austerity, the Tories expertly took the UK national debt from 65% of GDP in May 2010 to 94.7% of GDP in May 2024.

It was already up to 84.5% of GDP in March 2020. The debt as a percentage of GDP went up rapidly in 2020 but GDP also fell rapidly.

It's cumulative but fundamentally we've never actually dealt with the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. National debt went from 34.7% of GDP in January 2008 to 62.7% of GDP in January 2010 (although again GDP fell rapidly).

The response to the 2008 financial crisis, bailing out the banks, had the effect of "Nationalising" a lot of private sector debt. Subsequent increases in debt can be apportioned according to taste between austerity, Brexit, Covid, and the response to the energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine.

This debt has a cost. For 2025/26, the OBR expects this debt to cost the taxpayer £112 billion. The interest payments on this debt now accounts for 8.3% of total public spending. This is likely to increase again thanks to Trump's bombing spree in the Middle East.

There was a long period, through most of the 2010s, when, despite having lots of debt, the UK's debt interest costs were low because globally long term interest rates were low, and the UK was regarded as a low credit risk. This was the era of the magic money tree. That changed with Covid and the supply side shock to energy markets after Russia invaded Ukraine.

For the UK there is the added factor of the Truss/Kwarteng "special financial operation". Economist argue about the so called "moron premium", which the International bond markets charge on UK debt since the Truss/Kwarteng "special financial operation". I think what most economists miss is that the Truss/Kwarteng "special financial operation" had more impact because International bond markets had been taking the UK's fiscal management for granted for many years, they "woke up and smelled the coffee", and they don't take the UK's fiscal management for granted any more.

Labour only have two levers to try and deal with this: increase taxes, or cut public spending (or a combination of both levers). The money has been spent but it now needs to be paid for.

There's no easy solution to any of this. What would you do differently?

There is a third way, which is to increase economic growth. That way tax revenues go up without tax rates needing to increase.

In the UK, performance on economic growth had also been poor since the 2008 financial crisis, and looks even worse when measured per capita.

The combination of more debt, higher interest rates and low economic growth is what has got the UK to the position that it now spends more on debt interest than on any other block of government expenditure except the NHS.

after the war Labours solution was to engage in a campaign of investments designed to boost the economy and deliver growth.

This is what the government tried to do in the 2025 spending review. But the difficulty with investment is that the costs are up front while the benefits come later, sometimes much later. The most extreme example of that is probably HS2. In the meantime, the costs have to be met with borrowed money, and with high debt and high interest rates, the funds that can be made available for investment are limited. The time to have made those investments was when long term interest rates were low, but the UK public sector mostly missed the opportunity to do that.

Time is money, and when interest rates are high, the cost of delay is much bigger than when interest rates are low. That's why things like reform to the planning system matter too.

The globe's entire debt is at 235% of the globe's entire GDP. How can we collectively as a planet owe more than double the amount of money we generate? Sounds like kleptomania to me. Tell them to go whistle.

The net debt of the globe is zero, for every debtor there is a creditor. I don't think there are any Martians holding UK gilts or US Treasuries.

The creditors are unlikely to be institutions that we can tell to "go whistle". They include sovereign states such as China and the Gulf States, financial institutions that we rely on such as pension funds and insurance companies, and high wealth individuals such as the tech billionaires and entertainment and sports stars. The last time creditors were told to "go whistle" is what triggered the 2008 financial crisis, be careful what you wish for.

 

[gg1]

This is true. Now of all times would be among the worse for going back because not only does the optics make it look like we're crawling back after realising it was a mistake, but if we want to treat a Reform-influenced government as a possibility in 2029 then we also have to accept the possibility that they would just undo any progress down the line.

Agree, but the problem is far longer term than that due to FPTP. In the political situation now where 5 parties are polling greater than 10%, plus the SNP and Plaid in Scotland and Wales, a party who takes 30% of the vote at a GE will likely hold a majority of the seats, or taking into account turnout, around 20% of UK adults.

Even if the yes vote in a future referendum (say in the late 2030s) on rejoining the EU is a resounding 65-70% , Reform (or whatever ego trip party Farage is in charge of then) could pull us out without a leave referendum on the basis of 1 in 5 adults voting for them. Only the introduction of some form of PR will remove that risk.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The last time creditors were told to "go whistle" is what triggered the 2008 financial crisis, be careful what you wish for.

The fundamental problem is that creditors weren't told to go and whistle in 2008. They got their money back in full, funded by the taxpayer. As you noted, the effect of the 2008 bailouts was to nationalise that private sector debt. The creditors didn't take a long-overdue haircut in penance for their poor investment decisions over the previous 10-15 years, the taxpayer footed the bill.

The response to the 2008 crisis was the epitome of privatising profit and nationalising losses. Come 2008 and facing wipeout, all those light-touch regulation free marketeers were suddenly a lot more receptive to government interference. They were practically kicking each other out of the way to get their hands on all that taxpayer cash.

Quantitative easing has just made things worse. QE had the effect of causing huge inflationary pressure on assets, assets held by the creditors who should have been told to go and whistle in 2008 but weren't. That's largely, in my opinion, the crux of the reason for the rapid increase in inequality we've seen in the last 10-15 years; the haves in the rentier class were bailed out by the have-nots. And now the bailed-out rentier class is sucking up all the money earned by people doing actual work and actually contributing to the UK economy. People talk about taxation as a fiscal drag but, in reality, the biggest fiscal drag of all is landlordism.

This is the issue we still have with taxation in the UK. Assets are relatively difficult to tax, income is relatively much easier to tax. So governments of all persuasions take the easy route, and understandably so, and increase the tax burden on income.

The net debt of the globe is zero, for every debtor there is a creditor. I don't think there are any Martians holding UK gilts or US Treasuries.

That's rather my point. Certain classes of people are doing very well indeed out of the process of creating money out of thin air through "debt."

It seems likely we are moving towards a future Reform Government and their plans for an insurance based health model will save £billions from general taxation which could be then allocated to defence.

Health insurance in Europe is largely compulsory. It is, to all intents and purposes, a tax.

Now if we take health expenditure out of general taxation then yes, it will free up money for other things. But you, as many advocates of health insurance, are rather missing the flip side of that coin: people will still have to meet the costs of the health system.
If you cut my tax bill by £2,500 a year but my new health insurance is £3,500 a year then I'm £1,000 a year worse off. And if you don't cut my tax bill at all, instead giving all the money to BAe for more bombs to kill more brown people, then I'm £3,500 a year worse off.

In reality, the poorest people are likely to be proportionally much more negatively impacted by a move to an insurance-based system. Poorer people have shorter life expectancies and are at higher risk of serious ill health in their lives. An insurance-based scheme will price that in when setting premiums.

A European-style health insurance system factors this in by making contributions compulsory and making contributions a proportion of your income. But even then it becomes two-tier; you can pay extra and get preferential treatment from the insurers.

The US-style system, which is what the likes of Reform seemingly want, is voluntary. This is priced on a risk-based approach and, of course, the richest people are lower risk and the poorest people are higher risk. This means that the poorest people don't buy cover because they can't afford to buy cover, in many cases insurers will deliberately price them out of the market. And this in turn means that if you are poor, or even lower middle class, and have a serious injury or illness then you will likely end up bankrupt.

There is a third way, which is to increase economic growth. That way tax revenues go up without tax rates needing to increase.

True, but that's easier said than done.

The idea that economies can keep on growing and growing seems fallacious, we can't just keep consuming more and more and keep hoping for the best. Countries will hit a ceiling: Japan did in the 90s and it looks like the UK has also hit a ceiling. Any growth will end up being inflationary rather than genuine real-terms growth.

The trouble for Labour (or whoever is in power) is that many of the solutions require a time machine. Thatcher pissed away the North Sea gas and oil windfall on tax cuts for her mates, whereas Norway invested it in a sovereign investment fund which is still giving them a good income. Imagine if the UK had done the same?

The Cameron/Osborne Tories pissed away the decade of low interest rates by borrowing money to fund tax cuts rather than investing in renewing infrastructure, or even just borrowing less money. Much as I'm anti-HS2, imagine if they'd got on with HS2 in 2010 instead of arsing around for a decade?

Labour weren't any better: the UK was actually generating a budget surplus under Blair/Brown in the late 90s/early 00s but they were so terrified of being accused of tax-and-spend (and I've never quite understood what was wrong with tax-and-spend) they went and set up PPP, the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[JamieL]

Now if we take health expenditure out of general taxation then yes, it will free up money for other things. But you, as many advocates of health insurance, are rather missing the flip side of that coin: people will still have to meet the costs of the health system.
If you cut my tax bill by £2,500 a year but my new health insurance is £3,500 a year then I'm £1,000 a year worse off. And if you don't cut my tax bill at all, instead giving all the money to BAe for more bombs to kill more brown people, then I'm £3,500 a year worse off.

In reality, the poorest people are likely to be proportionally much more negatively impacted by a move to an insurance-based system. Poorer people have shorter life expectancies and are at higher risk of serious ill health in their lives. An insurance-based scheme will price that in when setting premiums.

I am aware of this and I am not advocating for a health insurance based system - but if we get a Reform Government that is what they are proposing and I suspect their financial backers are advocating for one much more along US lines than European ones. Like Brexit, there is a fast buck to be made from the turkeys who vote for them. The result will be the poorest will scrimp on their insurance cover and get a far degraded medical cover. The irony then is that due to their unwillingness to make hard decisions on welfare (such as the 2 child cap, winter fuel, disability payments etc), Labour have locked themselves into a higher tax doom loop that guarantees a Reform government and the consequential impact arising from the medical changes.

 

[Magdalia]

The fundamental problem is that creditors weren't told to go and whistle in 2008.

Creditors were told to whistle once, when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Once was enough.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Creditors were told to whistle once, when Lehman Brothers collapsed.

The small retail investors were. The big investors got their money back, they were alright Jack.

The irony then is that due to their unwillingness to make hard decisions on welfare (such as the 2 child cap, winter fuel, disability payments etc)

Those are not the hard decisions.

The two-child cap was always performative cruelty from the Tories. It saved very little money and the cost of reversing it was negligible. The winter fuel allowance changes saved very little money either, and I doubt that Labour with hindsight think the saving was worth the political fallout.

We've seen a continuation of that nonsense under Labour. The Motability scheme being the perfect example: Motability were taking disability payments from people for leased cars and making a significant surplus from the arrangement. That money could have been fed back into the Treasury but, no, Rachel Reeves knew best. So all those people who were paying into Motability and were generating a huge surplus for the scheme- money which could have gone to Treasury- are now paying into private commercial leases and the big lenders are making the profit instead. With genius like that you can see why she couldn't even fiddle her expenses properly.

Beyond that, it's a choice of priorities. There's no money for disabled people but there's all the money in the world for BAe shareholders and arms dealers essential defence expenditure. Of course BAe and the other arms dealers are generous donors to all the main political parties and, with the best will in the world, disabled people in poverty are not.

Reform, too, are huge fans of defence spending. Their biggest donor, usually described as a crypto billionaire, is also the single largest individual investor in QinetiQ, the privatised MOD research arm. Bombs away!

 

[Magdalia]

The big investors got their money back, they were alright Jack.

If the big investors had lost all of their money, especially the other banks, then there would have been a sequence of banking collapses, like a row of dominoes. That's why interbank lending ground to a halt after Lehman collapsed. And because payment systems are so deeply embedded in the banks, the contagion would have quickly spread to the wider economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==

The idea that economies can keep on growing and growing seems fallacious, we can't just keep consuming more and more

It isn't fallacious, and we can consume more and more, because the human capacity for innovation is unbounded.

 

[GusB]

I am aware of this and I am not advocating for a health insurance based system - but if we get a Reform Government that is what they are proposing and I suspect their financial backers are advocating for one much more along US lines than European ones. Like Brexit, there is a fast buck to be made from the turkeys who vote for them. The result will be the poorest will scrimp on their insurance cover and get a far degraded medical cover. The irony then is that due to their unwillingness to make hard decisions on welfare (such as the 2 child cap, winter fuel, disability payments etc), Labour have locked themselves into a higher tax doom loop that guarantees a Reform government and the consequential impact arising from the medical changes.

What "hard decisions on welfare" are you proposing?

The winter fuel issue could certainly be looked at, but I'm struggling to see how you can make cuts to disability payments.

 

[Broucek]

The creditors are unlikely to be institutions that we can tell to "go whistle". They include ... financial institutions that we rely on such as pension funds and insurance companies

Any funded defined benefit pension plan will be holding UK government debt. As will defined contribution pension plans. As will the insurance companies responsible for paying annuities to retired people.

The inpact of "go whistle" on the UK alone would be a disaster. And that's without the inpact of alienatING governments and investors outside the UK...

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the big investors had lost all of their money, especially the other banks, then there would have been a sequence of banking collapses, like a row of dominoes.

There probably would have been.

I'm largely of the view that that would have been preferable to what we got instead: privatised profit and nationalised loss and a bailed-out rentier class using the benefits of that bailout to screw the rest of us into the dirt.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==

It isn't fallacious, and we can consume more and more, because the human capacity for innovation is unbounded.

I'm rather more Malthusian than that.

I think we've seen with stagflation in Japan in the 90s and now in the UK in the 2010s that, actually, there is a limit to how much one country can actually consume. We're even starting to see that in China now, after a rapid boom we're starting to see stagflation there too.

 

[Magdalia]

there is a limit to how much one country can actually consume.

But what matters for economic growth in the UK isn't what we can consume, it is what we can produce.

That's especially relevant because the UK has spent the last 40 years consuming a lot more than it produces, and borrowing to make up the difference. Until 2008 that was mainly private sector borrowing, since 2008 it has mainly been public sector borrowing.

What the UK needs to do is to spend many years producing more than it consumes, and using the difference to reduce its debt. Whatever the challenges of producing more, they are not as big as the challenges of consuming less.

 

[BAFRA77]

The net debt of the globe is zero, for every debtor there is a creditor. I don't think there are any Martians holding UK gilts or US Treasuries.

The creditors are unlikely to be institutions that we can tell to "go whistle". They include sovereign states such as China and the Gulf States, financial institutions that we rely on such as pension funds and insurance companies, and high wealth individuals such as the tech billionaires and entertainment and sports stars. The last time creditors were told to "go whistle" is what triggered the 2008 financial crisis, be careful what you wish for.

That argument overstates both the power of creditors and the risks of policy flexibility. Governments are not limited to either fully repaying debt or “telling creditors to go whistle”; in practice, they manage debt through a mix of refinancing, inflation, growth, and fiscal policy.

Moreover, invoking the 2008 financial crisis is misleading: it was not caused by governments refusing to pay creditors, but by a collapse in highly leveraged private financial markets. Creditors’ importance is real, particularly for financial stability, but the relationship is interdependent - investors need safe assets like UK gilts just as much as governments rely on buyers.

A more accurate framing would recognise that debt involves ongoing management and negotiation, not a binary choice between full compliance and catastrophic default.

 

[Railwaycat]

If the big investors had lost all of their money, especially the other banks, then there would have been a sequence of banking collapses, like a row of dominoes. That's why interbank lending ground to a halt after Lehman collapsed. And because payment systems are so deeply embedded in the banks, the contagion would have quickly spread to the wider economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==


It isn't fallacious, and we can consume more and more, because the human capacity for innovation is unbounded.

What part of "resources are finite" don't you understand?

Unfortunately, the only human capacity that is unbounded is the capacity to develop more ways to kill each other, and even worse, to deploy that capacity.

 

[jfollows]

If Burnham wins in Makerfield, there will be an election for Manchester Mayor on 30 July.
As noted in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-labour-party-under-keir-starmer.272035/post-7785138, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 automatically disqualifies him from holding the post of mayor once he becomes an MP.

Confirmed today at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx1epg40gqo

The vote to elect the next mayor of Greater Manchester will take place on 30 July.

The position became vacant as soon as Andy Burnham, who held the office for nine years, was elected as the MP for Makerfield in Thursday's by-election.

By law, an MP cannot sit in the Commons and hold a metropolitan mayor role that also has powers over local policing.

The Greater Manchester mayoral contest has to take place within 35 days of the post becoming vacant.

• What is the Greater Manchester mayor and what do they do?

The deadline for voter registration is midnight on 14 July.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority said: "Residents not already registered at their current address are urged to make sure they are registered in time."

It added that more information about the election, including about applying for a postal or proxy vote, and where to get help, could be found on GM Elects, external.

 

[edwin_m]

What part of "resources are finite" don't you understand?

Unfortunately, the only human capacity that is unbounded is the capacity to develop more ways to kill each other, and even worse, to deploy that capacity.

Isn't there more scope for continued growth if it's fuelled (literally) by renewable resources?

 

[Magdalia]

That argument overstates both the power of creditors and the risks of policy flexibility. Governments are not limited to either fully repaying debt or “telling creditors to go whistle”; in practice, they manage debt through a mix of refinancing, inflation, growth, and fiscal policy.

Moreover, invoking the 2008 financial crisis is misleading: it was not caused by governments refusing to pay creditors, but by a collapse in highly leveraged private financial markets. Creditors’ importance is real, particularly for financial stability, but the relationship is interdependent - investors need safe assets like UK gilts just as much as governments rely on buyers.

A more accurate framing would recognise that debt involves ongoing management and negotiation, not a binary choice between full compliance and catastrophic default.

Telling creditors to "go whistle" is catastrophic default and my point is that's not an option. The consequences of a sovereign default would be different from a bank default, which is what happened with Lehman Brothers in 2008, but similarly catastrophic.

What part of "resources are finite" don't you understand?

I do understand that (some) resources are finite, but human capacity, through innovation, to make better use of scarce resources, or find different resources to replace them, is infinite.

And here is an example.

Isn't there more scope for continued growth if it's fuelled (literally) by renewable resources?

 

[Railwaycat]

Isn't there more scope for continued growth if it's fuelled (literally) by renewable resources?

All renewables are doing is replacing fossil fuels, which we need to do anyway given global warming, and to replace them completely we'll have to cut our energy use - however, producing more energy efficient devices, homes etc will create jobs...but can we produce and export those devices when China produces them so much cheaper and with excellent quality?

 

[david1212]

But what matters for economic growth in the UK isn't what we can consume, it is what we can produce.

That's especially relevant because the UK has spent the last 40 years consuming a lot more than it produces, and borrowing to make up the difference. Until 2008 that was mainly private sector borrowing, since 2008 it has mainly been public sector borrowing.

What the UK needs to do is to spend many years producing more than it consumes, and using the difference to reduce its debt. Whatever the challenges of producing more, they are not as big as the challenges of consuming less.

Exactly but just producing more of our consumption so reducing imports would be better. 40+ years ago Margate Thatcher seemed not to be concerned about the decline in manufacturing and hence self-sufficiency. Since then no government has been able to even stabilise production. Just think of rail rolling stock. Up to 1995 most was UK built with predominantly UK sourced components. Now a significant proportion is from outside the UK while the remainder is dominated by non-UK companies assembling components of which a proportion are sourced from outside the UK. (Road) coaches 50 years ago were predominantly Duple and Plaxton bodies on AEC, Leyland, Bedford and Ford chassis. Now only Plaxton ( as subsidiary of ADL ) remains but currently is only building buses. Commercial vehicles from light vans through to maximum gross weight lorries and artic tractors were Bedford, ERF, Foden, Ford, Leyland, Seddon Atkinson ....

When this government first came to power Rachel Reeves was regularly talking about economic growth but now has gone quiet simply looking for ways to increase tax income and in the process reducing business viability and hence employment. Following on less disposable income so less spending to generate revenue from both VAT and business profits.

The published figures for the 18-24 age group not in education, employment or training for October - December 2025 was 957000 which is 12.8%. Looking forward what prospects do those now finishing education have for the next 40 - 50 years?

 

[The Ham]

Exactly but just producing more of our consumption so reducing imports would be better. 40+ years ago Margate Thatcher seemed not to be concerned about the decline in manufacturing and hence self-sufficiency. Since then no government has been able to even stabilise production. Just think of rail rolling stock. Up to 1995 most was UK built with predominantly UK sourced components. Now a significant proportion is from outside the UK while the remainder is dominated by non-UK companies assembling components of which a proportion are sourced from outside the UK. (Road) coaches 50 years ago were predominantly Duple and Plaxton bodies on AEC, Leyland, Bedford and Ford chassis. Now only Plaxton ( as subsidiary of ADL ) remains but currently is only building buses. Commercial vehicles from light vans through to maximum gross weight lorries and artic tractors were Bedford, ERF, Foden, Ford, Leyland, Seddon Atkinson ....

When this government first came to power Rachel Reeves was regularly talking about economic growth but now has gone quiet simply looking for ways to increase tax income and in the process reducing business viability and hence employment. Following on less disposable income so less spending to generate revenue from both VAT and business profits.

The published figures for the 18-24 age group not in education, employment or training for October - December 2025 was 957000 which is 12.8%. Looking forward what prospects do those now finishing education have for the next 40 - 50 years?

NEET's can be tricky to compare between years as the youth population can fluctuate quite significantly.

Below is the data block tracking youth worklessness over the last two decades.

AI Disclaimer & Methodology Note:
This table was AI-assisted for compilation and is intended for structural illustration. While the data aims to align with official ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates and House of Commons Library NEET datasets, I have not cross-checked every single data point; please verify them before drawing definitive conclusions.

The "Fixed %" column is my own custom calculation designed to track structural trends against a stable baseline, using the official year 2000 youth population size as a benchmark. It is not an official government metric.

Year	Youth Population	NEET Population	In-Year NEET %	Fixed % (vs 2000 Baseline: 6,500,000)
2002	6,639,344	810,000	12.2%	12.5%
2005	6,793,893	890,000	13.1%	13.7%
2008	6,739,130	930,000	13.8%	14.3%
2011	6,568,047	1,110,000	16.9%	17.1%
2014	7,014,925	940,000	13.4%	14.5%
2017	7,117,117	790,000	11.1%	12.2%
2020	6,930,435	797,000	11.5%	12.3%
2023	7,091,667	851,000	12.0%	13.1%
2025	7,476,562	957,000	12.8%	14.7%

One of the next big impacts is the shrinking cohort size. This is due to reduce the youth population from circa 7.5 million now, down to circa 6.5 million around 2035 (matching the year 2000 level), and further down to circa 5.7 million by 2041.

The risk here is a compounding structural issue. Many schools are currently struggling with finances due to falling school rolls and are cutting support staff. This means early interventions for vulnerable children are less likely to happen, which will worsen long-term outcomes. This risk remains severe, even though a shrinking youth workforce should theoretically make it easier to secure entry-level employment.

 

[Falcon1200]

All renewables are doing is replacing fossil fuels, which we need to do anyway given global warming, and to replace them completely

Can we ever completely replace fossil fuels, oil in particular though, given that it is not only used to provide energy but in the manufacture of countless things? And if not, surely it is preferable to make use of our own resources rather than depend on far-away places, from which transporting the stuff has its own environmental impact?

 

[edwin_m]

Can we ever completely replace fossil fuels, oil in particular though, given that it is not only used to provide energy but in the manufacture of countless things? And if not, surely it is preferable to make use of our own resources rather than depend on far-away places, from which transporting the stuff has its own environmental impact?

More plastics can be recycled and this technology will improve, but there's probably some long-term use of oil there, along with aviation where there's no viable route to widespread decarbonisation at present. But given the very limited reserves in UK waters there's an argument for leaving them be in case needed later rather than exploiting them now.

 

[Magdalia]

One of the next big impacts is the shrinking cohort size. This is due to reduce the youth population from circa 7.5 million now, down to circa 6.5 million around 2035 (matching the year 2000 level), and further down to circa 5.7 million by 2041.

The impact of demography is important and rarely considered. The UK economy is going to have to adapt to a smaller pool of young people that it can employ on the cheap.

Can we ever completely replace fossil fuels, oil in particular though, given that it is not only used to provide energy but in the manufacture of countless things?

Innovation has made more progress on replacing fossil fuels as an energy source than as a raw material for other products. Two big examples are plastics and fertiliser. But innovation will come here too. Plastic is used in lots of things that don't have to be plastic, and agriculture is already adapting to the high cost of fertiliser by finding ways to use less of it.