The Great ‘Blame The Dole’ Swindle: How Governments Con Us Into Believing National Debt Is Like Household Debt

Rachel Reeves had her government credit card stopped...

Since the 1970s, and probably before, successive governments pulled off one of the most effective political deceptions in modern British history. They convinced the public that the national debt was an urgent crisis, framing it like household debt, something that needed to be paid off immediately, or the country would go bankrupt.

This was, of course, bullshit. Governments have unique capabilities, like creating money and borrowing in their own currency, that households do not. National economies don’t function like household budgets, but those in power have exploited the public’s lack of economic expertise to justify brutal austerity measures.

Rachel Reeves is fond of telling us her mum taught her household budgeting at the kitchen table, but Mrs Reeves clearly didn't include teaching her daughter how not to exceed the limit on your government credit card - or indeed how to 'balance the books' so that she could afford to buy her own clothes, despite having two free houses and all the bills paid.

Also, households frequently find themselves in the position of not being able to afford things that they want, and therefore having to do without. Strangely, this never happens to the UK government; there's always enough money for things they actually want, like nuclear submarines, the upkeep of country mansions for Cabinet bigwigs, MPs expenses and pay rises, refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, an extra £45 million a year for the king, £10 billion to hand over to Ukraine...

But more money for doctors, nurses, social care, welfare? No chance. There's no magic money tree, y'know! 

They’re ‘tough decisions’, you see – but strangely they’re only tough on the poorest. Funny, that…

Libraries, youth services, social care, and countless other public institutions have been gutted, not because it was necessary, but for an ideological goal: shrinking the state. This used to be the sole province of Tory governments, but not anymore.

What made this deception so powerful was how, under repeated media-enhanced sloganeering, the Tories managed to frame the entire political conversation on their terms. They pushed the Overton window so far right that even Labour, under Ed Miliband, wouldn’t dare say they would reverse the cuts.

Instead of offering an alternative vision, Labour timidly accepted the premise that “we must tighten our belts, but perhaps not as tight as the Tories,” afraid of being labelled economically irresponsible. Austerity became the only "sensible" position, and anyone who challenged it was ridiculed.

Jeremy Corbyn was perhaps one of the first politicians brave enough to challenge this position. At a time when virtually the entire media establishment had bought into this ridiculous narrative, he stood up and called it out for what it was, a lie.

His message was clear: this was ideological, not economic. It was a brave stance to take because he wasn’t just taking on the Conservatives; he was challenging a media and political class that had spent years reinforcing this falsehood – including a large cohort within the Labour Party. And, in the end, he was right.

The truth has a way of surfacing, no matter how much it is buried under propaganda. Even the International Monetary Fund, once a supporter of austerity, eventually turned against it, admitting it had done more harm than good.

And now, in 2025, the national debt is higher than ever, yet the public appetite for cuts is, to put it mildly, low. With cuts to services about as appealing as a dead rat, politicians have had to think of other ways to explain them – they have settled on the ‘blame someone else’ narrative; benefit claimants, asylum seekers, trade unionists, even pensioners – the cause of austerity has been laid at all their doorsteps. Otherwise, the public might notice that the richest are never affected – they might just finally apportion blame where it is actually deserved.

The lesson here is clear: manipulation can shape public opinion for some time, but reality always catches up. The suffering caused by austerity was real, and for what? The economy didn’t improve, public services never recovered, and the only ones who benefited were those who always do: the wealthy, who got their ideological dream of a smaller state, their self-serving agenda of lower taxes, while everyone else paid the price.

What’s truly alarming at present is how the Labour Party, despite knowing the damage austerity caused and despite overwhelming public disillusionment, seems determined to continue down this path. With the party under Keir Starmer's leadership, there has been a worrying shift towards maintaining "fiscal restraint" and sticking to the same austerity narrative, despite it clearly being unpopular.

The truth is, political choices in the UK are depressingly limited. We are trapped in a two-party system where both the Tories and Labour serve the interests of the wealthy, those who do not want to pay taxes and do not care about a well-funded, functioning public sector.

Both parties dress up policies that benefit the rich as being in “the national interest,” ensuring that we are left with few alternatives. And with our first-past-the-post voting system, the situation becomes even more dire. Voters feel they have no choice but to support one of these parties that, while differing in rhetoric, ultimately serve the same elite interests.

This limited political choice feeds into the idea that austerity, or at least its underlying principles, must continue, even when the people don't want it and the evidence shows it's failed.

As we look back on decades of austerity under various pseudonyms, it’s clear that the political establishment, no matter which party is in power, continues to serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many. The truth about austerity may have surfaced, but our political class are just as fixated as ever.