Reader Q&A: How can we radically change the way we live? Ask Aditya Chakrabortty | Budget 2026
Key events
What about the ‘man on the stree’ as a guest?
Fulya Ilbey asks: Why are all the guests sort of ‘famous’ ones? Wouldn’t it be eye opening to have the man on the street on the microphone?
Aditya says: In my writing, ‘ordinary’ people often take centre stage. Take my recent column on the redundant workers of Vauxhall in Luto
The Guardian does a lot of ‘on the ground’ video reporting – such as my colleagues John Harris and John Domokos in their Anywhere But Westminster series.
Would you interview Andreas Malm?
George Fidler asks: A second and related question. Would you consider interviewing Andreas Malm?
Aditya: George, I forgot to answer your second question. I was just discussing with colleagues an interview with Malm. I would, not least because his book on blowing up pipelines raises very profound questions.
The continued crackdown on free speech by supposedly left wing governments is a danger not just to academics and pensioners but to all of us.
Let Malm come!
How do we get new ideas rolled out?
Cathy247 asks: There is no shortage of truly inspirational new ideas about how to change economics for the better – some have been covered by you, other current ‘radical’ thinking is being championed by others such as Amol Rajan. These include the huge benefits of rewilding, new approaches such as doughnut economics. My question is, how do we get those currently in power in politics to take these ideas on board and actually start to roll them out?
Aditya: In 2018, I wrote about an initiative of citizens’ economics class. It was in a church in Levenshulme, where two women were running weekly classes and discussion groups on economics. It was a really good way for lay people who felt unconfident in economics and politics to feel some agency over their lives, at a time when the country was being hit by austerity and they themselves were suffering with chronic illnesses and debt.
This isn’t systemic change and it doesn’t involve Westminster. But community organising often gets overlooked and is so valuable.
What can ordinary people do to drive change?
Helen Griffiths asks: What do you think that the ordinary man or woman (‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’) can do that would help positive change, or contribute to change, in this country. We are not all politicians or leaders.
Aditya says: A great question, Helen, thank you. I am neither politician nor leader, and for me the answers are the same as they ever were: you try and keep informed, to work in your communities, and to be a good neighbour.
During Covid, I went to report on a food bank in the area in which I grew up. Standing there with a notepad made me feel like a lemon, so I began mucking in. I met more people and had a better time. For years, I’ve also been a trustee for my local CAB, which stands in one of the most deprived stretches of Britain. It’s not as good as being a volunteer or a staffer but it does give me some meaning.
Lastly, the man on the Clapham Omnibus should not insist on me listening to his phone as he scrolls through TikToks.
Gabriel Zucman v George Stevenson on wealth tax?
thegreatfatsby asks: Do you think the fact that Gabriel Zucman, who is a recognised authority on wealth tax is given more respect, time and attention by the mainstream media than Gary Stevenson, who has worked eloquently and tirelessly to spread the debate about the terrible consequences of inequality and whose ideas and analysis are almost identical is because of our cultural fixation on class prejudice?
Aditya says: I’ve followed Gabriel Zucman (and Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty) for a long time, and find his work rigorous and thought provoking. I don’t always agree, but I appreciate their acceptance that taxes on wealth are part of the fight against ever-increasing inequality.
I think Gary Stevenson is eloquent and compelling and is fighting a good fight. His book tells a story very well. But I don’t accept the insistence on a ‘wealth tax’ (as opposed to taxes on wealth) as being the only way we fight everything from inequality to the far right. We have to look at workers’ rights, housing, public ownership, greater democracy in economics and politics as well.
In the age of algorithm, simple, strong messages cut through. But the truth is often more complex.
How do you maintain mental peace?
Marija asks: How do you maintain peace of mind in your daily life during the unsettling times we live in?
Aditya says: What a nice question, Marija. I try to read a lot and write a diary. Unfortunately, I have the handwriting of a GP so I can’t read old entries. The other thing is I try to shirk my mobile phone.
Will staking everything on AI work?
Perspectiverox asks: The government has an enormous amount riding on AI to deliver future economic growth. Do you think this strategy will work? And is the government’s heavy investment in this vision, and its apparent determination to pursue it, contributing to a failure to properly acknowledge or address serious public concerns about the environment and jobs? More fundamentally, what happens if the anticipated AI-driven growth doesn’t materialise? Is there a Plan B?
Aditya says: In their book When Nothing Works, the Foundational Economy collective of economists and analysts point out that after decades of successive governments in the UK talking up the ‘knowledge economy’, technology accounted for less than 5% of GDP. That wasn’t just a British failure – the story is same across much of Europe. This is before we get intot who benefits from AI.
I find the slavering of the UK’s politicians and press before America’s AI oligarchy vulgar and idiotic, especially when all the indications are that these trade deals work against the interest of Britons.
The other clear thing is that AI hyperscalers and Trump are forcing Americans through a bubble. When it pops it will be a political failure, a market failure, an economic failure.
Your question about Plan B is interesting. What does the Left do when the AI Bubbles pops? I think my first ever column for the Guardian was in August 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, where I said the Left should get ready for a looming crisis (Call me Mystic Meg, why not).
The former editor of the Economist, Bill Emmott, told me I was a silly boy and this would all blow over.
Never waste a good crisis.
How do we rid ourselves of neoliberalist thinking?
Odourcolon asks: Do you think it’s possible to get rid of the neoliberalist thought process that seems to have dominated, and ruined (?), the UK over the past few decades?
Doodah70 asks: Aditya, what does getting rid of neo liberalism actually mean? It seems to be a narrative of taking us back to the economic policies of the 1970s and has a rose tinted view of that period ignoring inflation, IMF bailouts and mass industrial unrest and strike action. Is there an example of a country that doesn’t follow neoliberal ideas, that is successful, that we can emulate?
Aditya says: Hello both, these are very good questions. I rarely use the term neoliberal in my own writing. Partly because I am not sure enough readers will have a clear sense of what it means, as Doodah says, and partly because when I am talking about neoliberalism I might be referring to:
1) handing public assets to private actors
2) reducing the active role of the state in providing essentials
3) weakening the power of labour
4) the bulldozing of institutions such as trade unions and the BBC
And on and on
Some of these processes are well described by the political economist Will Davies when he describes the ideology of neoliberalism as “the disenchantment of politics by economics”.
The reality is that few countries have gone as far down the same path as the UK: the first country to industrialise and the first rich country really to de-industrialise. The first social democratic polity to privatise at this scale. Filleting the BBC, an institution which so many other countries envy
Not all of this can be reversed, at least by much. I can’t see a quick path back to major manufacturing status – not now we’ve destroyed our supply chains. After starting on his March of the Makers, George Osborne did not make it far. (For a different view of this problem, look at Reindustrialise Britain, by Costas Lapavitsas, my dear former colleague Larry Elliott and Doug Nicholls).
But other avenues look more promising. Look at what Angela Rayner has begun with employment rights and renters rights – many in politics know some of the problems, it’s just that their solutions are too bitty.
Are public schools justified?
John Buckler asks: Please, can you justify for me private education in our society when it sucks up our scant resources to over-educate the mediocre, elevating them to positions of power eg Mogg, Gove, Johnson, Farage ?
Aditiya says: Thank you for your kind invitation, John, but I must decline.
Why Michael Gove?
George Fidler asks: On your podcast Radical Thinking why did you interview Michael Gove – someone whose politics are as orthodox as they can be in Britain? A similar thing happened with Rayner’s Beyond the Bubble. You would be hard pressed to find someone more central to the bubble than Gove. Genuinely, I don’t think there’s anything “radical” that can be learned from him. A second and related question. Would you consider interviewing Andreas Malm?
Aditya says: Thanks for listening, George. Your question is the one with which I start that interview: why is something called Radical Thinking spending time with Michael Gove? The answer comes in two parts:
One, across the West (and elsewhere) the radical politics that is taking the lead is not from the Left, but the Right. Think of Nigel Farage in the UK, Alice Weidel of the AfD, Giorgia Maloni running Italy, her past in neo-fascist politics.
And two: Gove is a thinker, an intelligent man who has both led the Right (one of the fathers of Brexit, don’t forget) and followed it (think of what he publishes as the editor today of the Spectator).
FWIW, I found that interview fascinating. Here was a man accepting that the Conservatism that he’d previously championed was dead, and that its successor was a new, nastier, nativist right that derived much of its legitimacy from the failures of him and his colleagues. Think about living with that knowledge.
Where is the outrage over inequality?
redstar1000 asks: Britain has some of the highest levels of deprivation in Europe. Millions of people in one of the richest countries in the world cannot eat well, keep their homes warm and take part in social life. Why is this seen as acceptable? Where is the moral outrage?
Aditya says: This is a great question that chimes with the one above. I share your outrage and so do others. Confronted with the situation you describe – around 300,000 households in England homeless, many of them with children – in one of the richest societies in human history, they would agree this is unacceptable, outrageous. But in a highly-unequal country, not everyone sees or feels or even brushes against this deprivation.
Are we heading for total economic and social collapse?
Flaxborough asks: Hi Aditya, can you answer truthfully, do you think we are heading for total economic and social collapse? How soon? Will we rise from it afterwards?
Aditya says: In truth, I think the UK is in economic and social collapse – it’s just that some people can’t see it, and others are too polite or arrogant to point it out. But what else should we call the most miserable period for wages and growth since Napoleon Bonaparte was on his horse charging around Europe? The worst decade for living standards since the end of rationing? Shit in our rivers? Joke prime ministers who blunder about, get booted offstage, then earn £££s? And no, not just Liz Truss, but Cameron and Johnson too.
The reason this isn’t recognised is because Britain is a highly unequal country where pain is heaped on those most hurt. Even in a collapsing country, some people always do well. Look at Argentina in the 1990s/2000s for an example.
Flaxborough, my friend, don’t ask when collapse will arrive: recognise it’s here already. And push for something better.
Radical thinking – or politics?
Michael Holmes asks: I have enjoyed all the talks. I am just a bit confused that the title of the talk varies between ‘Radical thinking’ and ‘Politics’, are they different categories? They seem to have the same production team. Also, the earlier programming had suggestions by you for further reading. This now doesn’t seem to happen? I thought that was valuable. I really enjoy the thoughtful interaction between you and your guests, with the time allowed for thoughtful and creative content. Great stuff! Thanks
Aditya says: Thanks so much for this, Michael. It’s great to get your feedback on the Radical Thinking podcast – and I’d love to hear more from viewers and listeners about what they are enjoying from the series so far.
Just to explain: Radical Thinking began as a one-off series of conversations. The idea was to capture some of the energy and ideas of this particular moment – a change of prime minister in the UK, Trump and the midterms, the rise of the far right. We publish every weekend here as well as YouTube, Spotify, Apple. This Saturday’s episode is with two of the best dissenting economists around on some of the central issues in this week’s Budget – it’s a corker.
You’re right – part of our (tiny) team is from Politics Weekly and because it’s a one-off we don’t have a separate channel. HOWEVER! The reaction so far has been astonishing, so strong that we’re thinking about more. So: watch this space
Glad you like the further reading. Again, I started it as an experiment – and I know it hasn’t appeared everywhere – but if it’s useful i’ll keep it up.
Welcome to the Conversation
Aditya Chakrabortty is the Guardian’s award-winning senior economics commentator. Through his regular opinion column, he shares his thoughts on the economy and its impact on society and earlier this year he was awarded an MBE for services to public understanding of the economy and wider social issues.
This month he launched a new Saturday podcast Radical Thinking, where he interviews major thinkers about the ideas that have shaped our times. He has conducted conversations with Yanis Varoufakis on democracy and the Eurozone crisis and Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor on Gaza, fascism and climate chaos.
In his latest episode he discusses doomscrolling and democracy with playwright James Graham who suggests that our algorithms have led us into ‘a massive crisis of the new’ and are preventing us from imagining a different future.
Aditya will be online at 2pm GMT (9am EDT) today to answer your questions on economics, democracy, the future of British and global politics.
Email your questions to conversations@theguardian.com or Sign up or sign in to post one in the discussion below
