Funding the Future

We like to believe medicine exists solely to heal. History tells a different story. From slavery to women’s dissent, from homosexuality to neurodivergence, medical authority has repeatedly been used to define resistance as illness and compliance as health. This video explores how diagnosis has been shaped by power, how difference has been pathologised, and how mental health is increasingly used as a tool of governance in schools, workplaces, welfare systems, and politics. It argues for a politics of care that treats difference as human variation, not disorder, and asks whether medicine can be reclaimed as a genuinely liberating force rather than an instrument of control.

A growing number of high-paid professionals in the UK are choosing to work fewer hours. Some commentators claim this signals economic weakness, declining productivity, or the consequence of bad tax policy. This video explains why that interpretation is wrong. When people reach a point of sufficiency, working fewer hours can improve health, well-being, productivity per hour, and the transition into retirement. It can also open opportunities for younger workers, improve skills transfer, and reduce burnout across the economy. This is not a withdrawal from work. It is a rational response to the scarcity of time, and not money, and it challenges outdated ideas about growth, productivity, and success.  

Artificial intelligence is not virtual, clean, or weightless. It has a rapidly escalating physical cost in electricity, water, and emissions—and ordinary people will pay the price. Research shows that AI data centres could soon consume electricity on the scale of entire nations. At the same time, AI cooling systems are diverting vast quantities of water in a world already facing severe shortages. This video asks the questions politicians are refusing to confront: who pays for AI’s energy and water use, who profits, and whether unlimited AI growth is compatible with planetary limits, democratic accountability, and basic human needs. AI may promise growth—but at what cost, and to whom?

The United States is openly threatening to take Greenland, a self-governing territory linked to Denmark and therefore to NATO. That creates a crisis no one planned for. What happens when a NATO member threatens another NATO member? This video explains why Donald Trump’s claim has no legal basis, how extractive fantasies are driving geopolitical aggression, and why Europe now faces a choice between law and force. If rules only apply when convenient, they do not apply at all. But this is not about Greenland alone. It is about whether collective security, international law, and European sovereignty still mean anything. In political economy, this is a massive deal affecting all our futures. 

Affordability is a hot-button issue, yet solutions remain elusive. Politicians often blame inflation, but deeper problems like structural income extraction are at play. Rising rents, mortgage interest, and fees are draining household incomes permanently. The crisis is exacerbated by weak regulation and a political system favoring capital. Financialization and limited competition keep prices high, while consumers lack the power to push back. Unlike temporary price spikes, these issues reflect deliberate policy choices that demand urgent attention.

Venezuela has become a test case for the world. If external control backed by force is allowed to stand, then sovereignty, international law, and democratic accountability all become conditional, tyranny rules and care has been consigned to history. This video argues that Britain can no longer pretend to sit on the fence. Outside the EU, the UK must decide whether to subordinate itself to US power or recommit to Europe, multilateralism, and the defence of international law. This is the choice of 2026. Tyranny or care. Power or principle. Silence or resistance. The cost of getting it wrong will be enormous.

Why is infrastructure crumbling, care failing, and democracy under strain? In this video, I explain two concepts that quietly shape everything around us and help us answer this question. They are capital, and capital maintenance. Importantly, capital is not just money. It is the accumulated stock of financial, physical, environmental, human, and societal resources that make future well-being possible. When we fail to maintain those resources, societies decay. In that case, I argue that because modern economics focuses obsessively on financial capital while neglecting the others, including their capital maintenance, we get collapsing services, environmental breakdown, and political anger. Care, then, is not a sentiment. Care is capital maintenance in action.

As the Christmas break ends and reality intrudes, many people feel deeply uncomfortable with the world around them. The news feels alien. Politics feels broken. The economy feels cruel and irrational. In this video, I explain why that discomfort is not a personal failing; it is a rational response to a world driven by neoliberal madness, authoritarian politics, and moral collapse. If you think Trump is mad, Farage is dangerous, Labour has failed, financial capitalism is destructive, and empathy still matters — you’re not alone. Feeling out of step today often means you’re seeing more clearly than those who’ve learned to accept the unacceptable. Change has always come from people prepared to be called “unreasonable”. This video is about clarity, humanity, and why hope still matters as we move into 2026.

2026 opens in a world more fragile than at any point since 1945. This video explains why — and why the risk is not personality, but systems. Donald Trump is accelerating every existing fault line: climate breakdown, democratic erosion, militarisation, forced migration and global instability. Small shocks now cause disproportionate damage, the defining feature of fragile systems. This is a warning about climate denial, cruelty as policy, weakened diplomacy, and the abandonment of the post-1945 settlement built on cooperation and care. War is a risk, but slow catastrophes may be worse. The politics of care is no longer optional. It is the only rational response.

As we move into 2026, a striking contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore. People over 55 now account for around half of global consumer spending, and yet markets and advertisers largely ignore them. This video argues that this is not a marketing accident. It is a systemic failure. Older consumers are not passive, disengaged, or uninterested in the world. Many are still working, caring, volunteering, and politically active. What they reject is churn, planned obsolescence, and financialised capitalism’s obsession with novelty over value. We want products that last. We want simplicity, reliability, and trust. We want markets organised around care, maintenance, and responsibility. And because those products are not being made, older people are increasingly refusing what is being sold. This video explores why that matters – and why it points towards the need for a fundamentally different economic model in the years ahead.