
Or: Why Should Voters Come Second to City Bankers?
Ah, the United Kingdom, where democracy thrives—or so we’re told—and the fruits of capitalism are plucked by the privileged few. Our wealth-centred economy has long held the belief that the rich deserve everything and the rest of us… well, we’re here to clap politely.
In this gilded age of Wealth Awareness, our society celebrates economic success as the ultimate achievement. Forget the virtues of character or contribution; it’s your bank balance that commands respect. Governance dances to the tune of a democratic two-party system, though both parties seem to have their priorities firmly rooted in the needs of big business. Voters? A quaint afterthought.
Who’s Really Running the Show?
Leadership, predictably, is dominated by political and business elites, a cosy little club where wealth is the membership card. The focus of government shifts to a peculiar kind of benevolence: making sure the already-wealthy become wealthier.
Take Chancellor Rachel Reeves, for example, whose latest masterstroke involves summoning Britain’s regulators to a Treasury meeting with all the subtlety of a drill sergeant. The instruction? Strip back those pesky rules that protect consumers and temper corporate greed, all in the name of “pro-growth” policies.
Regulators, those dull defenders of fair play, are being asked to “go further and faster” in tearing down the very rules that stand between voters and exploitation. It’s a bit like hiring a fox to audit the henhouse.
Risk for Whom?
“Companies need to take more risks,” we’re told. Sure, but let’s be clear: the risks we’re discussing won’t touch the boardroom. When the rules are dismantled, it’s the average consumer, taxpayer, and small business owner who’ll be left holding the bag.
Meanwhile, Reeves will proudly champion the needs of the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chamber of Trade. These groups often complain about “red tape,” which is really just another way of saying, “laws that make it harder for us to maximise profits at the public’s expense.”
The Eternal Question: Why Do Bankers Always Win?
One has to wonder: why should voters come second to City bankers? Why is our collective security being eroded to prop up the very people who already have far more than they need? Reeves’s visit to China, criticised as “tone deaf,” encapsulates this disconnect. As gilt markets wobbled, there she was, focused on international deals while domestic issues festered.
Yet, this isn’t just about Reeves. It’s about the ideology that places economic growth—measured solely by the profits of the wealthiest—above societal well-being. The so-called “pro-growth” narrative is little more than a Trojan horse for deregulation, reduced worker protections, and growing inequality.
What Does It Mean for the Rest of Us?
For the average voter, this means higher costs, fewer protections, and a political system increasingly captured by corporate interests. For businesses, it’s a green light to prioritise profits over people. For society at large, it’s a recipe for discontent and division.
But hey, at least the City bankers will get their bonuses, right? And isn’t that what really matters?
As Reeves tells regulators to “strip back” the rules, let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t about economic growth for everyone. It’s about ensuring the wealthiest stay on top, leaving the rest of us to fight over scraps.
So, the next time someone waxes poetic about the virtues of a wealth-centred economy, ask yourself: whose security are they really talking about? Spoiler alert: it’s not yours.
Comments