X Close

Britain’s debt spiral is a cross-party failure

Whose mess is it, anyway? Credit: Getty

Whose mess is it, anyway? Credit: Getty

August 4 2025 - 7:00am

Amid continuing bond market disquiet, Kemi Badenoch has accused Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves of not learning the lessons of Liz Truss’s disastrous 2022 mini-budget. She charges Labour with being afraid to make or implement the hard choices required to bring Britain back from the fiscal brink. “They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books,” she told the Telegraph this weekend.

With the zeal and clarity of the religious convert, Badenoch seems keenly aware of the risks of ignoring the demands — not mere requests — of the markets that underpin government borrowing. As a former member of Liz Truss’s cabinet, perhaps Badenoch has learned from experience. Maybe she now “no longer identifies” as an arsonist, having initially backed the Truss plans that ignited market turmoil and pushed up borrowing costs.

Badenoch’s advice to Labour to pacify the bond markets is simple: cut public spending further. That’s a tough sell for the public, however. After being asked to tighten their belts for the best part of a decade and a half, only 17% of the public would support tax reductions and spending cuts, according to a recent YouGov poll. It’s also rather cakeist advice from Badenoch, mere months after her party claimed victory over forcing Labour to U-turn on its Winter Fuel Allowance cut — worth nearly £1 billion in extra government spending alone.

Such is the iron rule of politics since at least 2010: modest cuts to benefits for the richest generation of pensioners are untouchable, while slashing working-age benefits is deemed both fiscally and morally necessary. Accordingly, Badenoch extended an olive branch, pledging support if the government kept the two-child benefit cap — introduced under David Cameron — to rein in working-age benefit spending.

“I made a straightforward offer: Conservative MPs would give him the numbers in parliament to get the bill through, if the Prime Minister committed to cutting welfare costs, getting people into work, and ruling out further tax rises this autumn. He refused. So instead, we watched as the Government stripped its own legislation of any serious reform,” Badenoch said.

Fully aware that removing the two-child benefit cap divides Labour’s leadership and backbenchers, Badenoch’s offer is steeped in political calculation. It also reveals her persistent confusion between tactics and strategy on public finances — asking for just one more squeeze on public spending to “finish the job.” Where is the acknowledgment that this approach keeps failing us?

Badenoch wouldn’t even need to give up the political theatre to back the kind of reforms Britain needs to grow. The worst housing shortages are in cities — areas almost entirely represented by Labour MPs. Supporting urban housebuilding wouldn’t endanger Tory seats, wouldn’t mean concreting over the countryside, and would help supply British businesses with the workers they need. It’s an open goal — and the party that stands to gain the most is refusing to take the shot.

We are approaching the point where making sweeping changes to the state and the political economy are no longer a choice. As the financier and hedge fund founder Ray Dalio put it recently, the UK is at risk of entering a “debt doom loop” where international capital loses confidence in Britain’s ability to reform and return to growth, undermining certainty in debt repayments. Badenoch is right to hold Labour’s feet to the fire on the public finances, but this is bigger than party politics, and it requires a bigger, more mature response.


James Sean Dickson is an analyst and journalist who Substacks at Himbonomics.

Gaylussite

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam