
Milei-style shock therapy may be needed to save Britain from fiscal disaster
Economic growth has flatlined, unemployment has risen to 4.7pc – the highest since early 2021 – inflation stubbornly lingers at 3.6pc and government spending is spiralling out of control.
Every household understands a simple rule: you must earn more than you spend, or eventually hit the rocks.
Yet the UK has long been living beyond its means, maxing out its credit card.
For the year ending April 2025, borrowing reached £148bn – a staggering 70pc higher than the £87bn forecast in March 2024. Debt levels are now at heights not seen since the post-Second World War era, and once again, taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill.
Worse still, the Government shows no sign of reining in expenditure.
The Chancellor is widely expected to announce new tax hikes in the autumn. And when implemented, the real damage will have already occurred following months of speculative debate – 'will-we-won't-we' tax rises that create uncertainty and undermine confidence, dampening economic activity before any policy is even introduced.
Those advocating further tax increases misunderstand basic economics, what people need and how to get the best out of them.
Beyond a certain point, higher taxes reduce revenue by curbing economic activity – a lesson all too familiar amid rising employer National Insurance contributions, minimum wage increases, and other cost pressures.
Businesses across the country are already shedding jobs, particularly among lower-paid workers feeling the squeeze.
We may well have passed the point of optimal taxation.
Yet instead of easing the burden, the Government whispers about even more tax, including proposals for a wealth tax.
This would be disastrous, as the wealthiest 1pc already are estimated to contribute roughly 28pc of income tax. Imposing a wealth tax risks driving more mobile top earners away.
As Walter Wriston, the late chairman and chief executive of what was Citicorp, once said: 'Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated.'
The UK, like many European nations, has lived beyond its means for too long. Month after month, deficits grow.
The yield on the UK's 30-year government bond recently topped 5.5pc – far above the 4.85pc seen in October 2022 – reflecting investor wariness.
The Bank of England has been forced to adjust and review its quantitative easing reversal following pressure from investors.
Political will to cut spending appears scarce.
Parliament's handling of the welfare reform bill signals that no meaningful spending reductions will occur, meaning taxpayers will again bear the cost.
The debate narrowly focused on trimming a few billion pounds, when the circumstances call for far deeper cuts. And nobody asks how to deliver better public services for less or how it can be fair that taxpayers fund ever-expanding budget black holes.
The UK has become addicted to the notion that government should expand its role endlessly – that bigger government automatically means a better society.
As a result, spending cuts are politically toxic: the knee-jerk response to every problem is to raise taxes to fund more spending. This is more than policy – it's philosophical, big state versus small state.
To say 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help' remains as dangerous as ever.
Borrowing is set to rise significantly over this parliament, even as growth falters. Despite the rhetoric of engineering growth in the economy, the UK faces the prospect of a smaller economy at the end of this parliament.
The only way out is to grow the economy.
Real, sustained economic growth reduces debt-to-GDP ratios over time and generates the tax revenues needed to fund essential services.
Achieving this requires a hard balancing act: cutting spending, committing to fiscal discipline, slashing burdensome regulation, scrapping costly and anti-growth policies like net-zero mandates, and lowering taxes over time.
The UK simply cannot rely on ever-higher tax-takes to bail out unchecked spending.
We might start to look to Argentina for a solution.
Once an economic basket case with inflation soaring over 200pc and poverty affecting more than 40pc of its population, Argentina has faced nine sovereign defaults since independence, caused by persistent fiscal deficits in 57 of the past 65 years. Over half the population relied on government transfers in 2022.
Then came Javier Milei, a political outsider who was not expected to win Argentina's 2023 presidential election. Upon victory, he declared bluntly, 'there is no money', and since taking office, Milei has worked aggressively to balance the budget. While many economists initially derided his approach, it is now bearing fruit.
Argentina's economy is forecast to grow over 5.7pc this year. Inflation has dropped to 1.6pc monthly as of June, and poverty has fallen significantly – Unicef estimates 1.7 million children have been lifted out of poverty since Milei assumed power.
Milei's diagnosis is clear: 'The public sector is the illness. If a body has a virus, a germ, a bug, a parasite, you extract the parasite – you don't feed it. If you feed the parasite, you end up worse off. We got the state out of the way, and things are working better.'
Fiscal discipline, slashed public spending, ending monetary financing of deficits, and deregulation have shrunk the state dramatically.
These measures are not without pain, with over 50,000 public sector workers laid off, government departments merged or closed, infrastructure spending frozen, and energy and transport subsidies cut. But the result is a state budget surplus and a transformed economy – all within 18 months.
Being fiscally responsible also means attracting investment. If the UK is seen as a balanced, prudent economy living within its means, capital will flow in. Right now, the notion that the UK is poised for a global investment bonanza is wishful thinking.
To fix the UK's economy and become an attractive destination for investment, we must balance our books.
Like Argentina, we need a complete reset – a new philosophy and a radically different approach. This will require an honest conversation with the public about 'there is no money,' and a commitment to sustainable spending plans aligned with growth
and fairness.
Failing to act risks the UK ending up in the hands of the IMF – a fate best avoided.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Car finance mis-selling scandal: Millions of drivers denied payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of drivers have been denied payouts after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. But lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error'. And intervening in the case, the Financial Conduct Authority claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the long-awaited Supreme Court ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99 per cent of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.


Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Car finance scandal: could you still get compensation?
Does the Supreme Court ruling mean I won't be compensated? The upholding of the judgment could have paved the way for anyone who took out a car finance loan before 2021 to be in line for some form of compensation. Now it's been overturned, pending any further appeals or escalations, it could mean only those who are eligible to claim against the potential misuse of discretionary commission arrangements could receive compensation – pending further information from the FCA. This could still implicate a lot of people, but the scale is not expected to be as huge if it also included commission disclosure complaints. The Supreme Court, however, did uphold one complaint against the lenders, suggesting there could be scope for some individuals to successfully claim. It upheld a claim from a claimant over an 'unfair' relationship between a customer and a finance company. The size of commission was 55pc of the total charge for credit. As it was so high, the 'relationship' between the customer and finance company was deemed to be unfair. How much could I be owed? This is still unclear. In regards to the discretionary commission agreement arm of the scandal, those who signed up to multiple car finance agreements between 2007 and 2021 could be eligible for several payouts. The average mis-sold car finance payout, according to LawPlus Solicitors, is £1,500. The FCA has suggested that for a typical £10,000 four-year car finance deal, a customer could have overpaid £1,100 in interest. Exact amounts would depend on individual circumstances. A driver would likely receive the difference between the amount they paid at an inflated interest rate and the rate they should have been charged. Interest of 8pc on the overpayment would also likely be added, so the payout could be quite substantial. Should I use a claims management company? Thousands of drivers have been lodging compensation claims via claims management companies, which charge a commission fee upon the outcome. Scores of law firms are also offering 'no win, no fee' deals to manage claims. You do not need to use one of these companies to make a claim. Consumer rights expert Martyn James said there was 'no reason whatsoever for claims companies to exist'. He said: 'They are like vultures. This industry made millions if not billions from PPI claims, and now they are doing the same with car finance. They are out in force.' Regulated claims firms can take up to 30pc of the reward, up to a maximum amount of £10,000, excluding VAT, whereas those who go solo will receive 100pc of their payout. You may not even have to make a claim yourself, as the FCA is considering setting up a free redress scheme, which will force lenders to automatically compensate consumers. What should I do next? For discretionary commission arrangements, the best thing to do is wait and see what the FCA reveals in six weeks' time. It could be influenced by the Supreme Court's separate ruling, so it is best to wait for the next development. Do not use a claims management company, as the FCA could force banks to automatically compensate impacted consumers. In case an automatic redress scheme isn't set up, you could log a claim if you haven't done so already. In order to do so, you'll need to contact your original lender and ask them about the commission agreements secured on your deal. The FCA has put a pause on the deadline for providers to get back to you while it carries out its investigation. As it stands, lenders don't have to respond to your complaint about car finance until December 4 this year. If you're unhappy with the eventual response from the lender, you can take your case for free to the Financial Ombudsman Service.


The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Millions set to miss out on car finance compensation after Supreme Court ruling
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.