Browse the latest essays, opinion and analysis.
Faced with falling investment and an increasingly hostile business climate, Labour has reached for the only solution it truly understands: more state, more intervention and more bureaucracy. We have seen this experiment before. It failed then, and it will fail again.
Britain's greatest educational divide is not between private and state schools, but between the best and worst state schools. Abolishing independent education would not change who succeeds. It would simply redirect affluent, ambitious and well-connected parents into the state sector, leaving the weakest pupils competing for even fewer opportunities.
The attack on private education is often presented as a crusade for equality. In reality, it is something quite different. Independent schools challenge some of the Left's deepest assumptions about society, proving that parental choice, competition and individual aspiration can outperform state control. That is why the campaign against them persists despite the costs, the consequences and the evidence. The target is not what independent schools do. The target is what they represent.
Capitalism is often portrayed as a modern invention imposed upon society by financiers and corporations. In reality, it is simply the natural extension of ordinary human behaviour: specialisation, cooperation and voluntary exchange. From a Neolithic tribesman trading a stone axe for two fish to the complex global markets of today, free exchange has always allowed individuals to coordinate knowledge, allocate resources and improve living standards more effectively than central planning ever could.
Britain has built far more than a housing market. It has built an entire economic model upon ever-rising property values. As house prices soared, politicians congratulated themselves on “growth”, homeowners refinanced, banks expanded lending and the country consumed against paper wealth. But property prices cannot indefinitely outgrow purchasing power. Now, with transactions slowing and affordability breaking down, Britain is beginning to discover what happens when an economy built on asset inflation starts running out of road.
Why does political disagreement increasingly provoke outrage rather than argument? Because for many modern progressives, politics is no longer simply about economics or governance - it has become a moral identity, complete with saints, heretics and sacred institutions. And history suggests that societies rarely emerge peacefully once politics takes on the character of religion.
Andy Burnham has become the acceptable face of Labour populism: media-friendly, emotionally fluent and packaged as a champion of the North. But beneath the carefully constructed image lies a familiar political instinct — more state control, more public spending and more bureaucracy. Britain does not need another eloquent manager of decline. It needs a fundamental change of direction.
For decades, politicians understood their role was simple: improve the lives of the people who elected them. They built infrastructure, kept streets safe and ensured energy remained affordable. Today, however, much of Europe’s political class seems more interested in lecturing citizens and imposing inconvenient lifestyle policies than delivering practical improvements. From paper straws to absurd waste-sorting schemes, ordinary people are increasingly being asked to tolerate declining convenience in the name of political virtue signalling.
Angela Rayner’s stamp duty case has reignited a growing public suspicion that the political class no longer plays by the same rules as everyone else. While ordinary Britons face relentless penalties and scrutiny from the state, well-connected insiders too often seem to receive understanding, exemptions and leniency.
Bond markets are not political activists waiting to applaud “progressive policies”. They are lenders deciding whether Britain looks financially stable. Labour’s growing belief that markets should simply “fall into line” reveals the same dangerous arrogance that brought down Liz Truss — only this time from the Left.
Modern Britain has developed an almost neurotic inability to discuss the British Empire honestly. We are encouraged to remember only the sins and never the achievements. Yet judged against the age in which it existed, the Empire abolished slavery on a global scale, spread parliamentary institutions and left behind legal and political systems still relied upon across much of the world today.
Sir Keir Starmer promised to drag Labour into the modern age. Instead, his government is beginning to resemble a political time machine back to the 1970s: expanding union power, nationalising industry, edging Britain closer to Brussels and piling debt upon debt onto an already stagnant economy. Britain has seen this experiment before — and it did not end well.