Discussions at the House of Commons on Wednesday 28 October hadn’t even begun before Telegraph Investment Editor, James Baxter-Derrington, excitedly made his attempt at a thoroughly propagandised critique of the upcoming 2026 budget, seemingly to fear-monger the public. While I’d usually ignore such unsubstantiated pieces, the dissemination of this article online (in both text and video format) has concerned me as to how much it might succeed in poisoning the well, and stiffening what should be critical discussions about the UK’s financial management, with pre-entrenched opinions and mindlessly-repeated jargon.
Criticising the “breathing space for today” motto of Chancellor John Healey’s ‘hope-oriented’ budget, Mr Baxter-Derrington aims to warn of its falseness by bringing to light the impending “bigger bills” to come and override the government’s promise. This is structured throughout the article in the form of what is essentially a list of “a raft of new taxes” that should— he claims— be of particular concern to the average citizen. In doing so, he goes on a beautifully disconnected tangent of arguments, trying to frame the concerns of a very select (and frequently highly advantaged) few as everybody’s most pressing financial problem.
What’s perhaps most irritating about Mr Baxter-Derrington’s article is its blatant insincerity. I am not trying to defend Healy, or Prime Minister Andy Burnham, or the budget; had Mr Baxter-Derrington commented, for instance, on the continual student loan repayment threshold freeze, and Chancellor Healey’s public ignorance of its harms, I might’ve believed that he was actually trying to point out some of the budget’s greatest structural flaws. Instead, I heard and read the typical buzzwords: “pensioners,” “landlords,” “grieving families,” and “homeowners;” all intentionally emphasising ordinary and vulnerable-sounding groups to provoke emotional reactions, while he holds back on explaining the data, and bigger picture.
Most hilarious is his claim in the video clip made to accompany his article, condemning the massive tax surcharge one may experience “if your home is deemed too valuable,” wherein he pretends that this assessment is arbitrary and threatening to potentially anyone. Meanwhile, if you look into his article, it’s revealed that he’s simply complaining about the £2m mansion tax, which doesn’t work out too convincingly in the piece. Though— I’ll grant him this— it’s hard to camouflage a word that connotes extreme wealth as blatantly as “mansion” does without omitting it entirely, as he does in the social media clip. Ah, yes, the mansion tax! How will the ordinary working individual ever find stability and prosperity now?
In the article, he states that the “Government may be surprised to discover no £2m homes exist by [2029].” It seems Mr. Baxter-Derrington is under the misconception that the government’s intention should be to ensure mansions keep accruing insurmountable wealth on the market. He may be surprised to discover the appalling state of the UK housing market, if he bothered to give it a proper look.
Another frustrating element of articles like Baxter-Derrington’s is how he omits discussing the means by which those who may actually be affected by these taxes could be realistically supported, if needed, like Scotland’s considered alleviation measures for “households that are asset-rich but have a more limited income,” on a similar taxing scheme.
Taxes are not the great, inherent evil; it is an impoverished system in which people fear giving anything away for a potential greater good, because we are operating on individualised survival mindsets amid a constant sense of scarcity. Baxter-Derrington’s article on the government’s “cheap, distracting policies” only serves to feed further into these worries with an insincere ideological pretence.
Photo by Sarah Agnew on Unsplash
Related
Baxter-Derrington’s unoriginal attempt to fear-monger about the new budget: A polemic
Discussions at the House of Commons on Wednesday 28 October hadn’t even begun before Telegraph Investment Editor, James Baxter-Derrington, excitedly made his attempt at a thoroughly propagandised critique of the upcoming 2026 budget, seemingly to fear-monger the public. While I’d usually ignore such unsubstantiated pieces, the dissemination of this article online (in both text and video format) has concerned me as to how much it might succeed in poisoning the well, and stiffening what should be critical discussions about the UK’s financial management, with pre-entrenched opinions and mindlessly-repeated jargon.
Criticising the “breathing space for today” motto of Chancellor John Healey’s ‘hope-oriented’ budget, Mr Baxter-Derrington aims to warn of its falseness by bringing to light the impending “bigger bills” to come and override the government’s promise. This is structured throughout the article in the form of what is essentially a list of “a raft of new taxes” that should— he claims— be of particular concern to the average citizen. In doing so, he goes on a beautifully disconnected tangent of arguments, trying to frame the concerns of a very select (and frequently highly advantaged) few as everybody’s most pressing financial problem.
What’s perhaps most irritating about Mr Baxter-Derrington’s article is its blatant insincerity. I am not trying to defend Healy, or Prime Minister Andy Burnham, or the budget; had Mr Baxter-Derrington commented, for instance, on the continual student loan repayment threshold freeze, and Chancellor Healey’s public ignorance of its harms, I might’ve believed that he was actually trying to point out some of the budget’s greatest structural flaws. Instead, I heard and read the typical buzzwords: “pensioners,” “landlords,” “grieving families,” and “homeowners;” all intentionally emphasising ordinary and vulnerable-sounding groups to provoke emotional reactions, while he holds back on explaining the data, and bigger picture.
Most hilarious is his claim in the video clip made to accompany his article, condemning the massive tax surcharge one may experience “if your home is deemed too valuable,” wherein he pretends that this assessment is arbitrary and threatening to potentially anyone. Meanwhile, if you look into his article, it’s revealed that he’s simply complaining about the £2m mansion tax, which doesn’t work out too convincingly in the piece. Though— I’ll grant him this— it’s hard to camouflage a word that connotes extreme wealth as blatantly as “mansion” does without omitting it entirely, as he does in the social media clip. Ah, yes, the mansion tax! How will the ordinary working individual ever find stability and prosperity now?
In the article, he states that the “Government may be surprised to discover no £2m homes exist by [2029].” It seems Mr. Baxter-Derrington is under the misconception that the government’s intention should be to ensure mansions keep accruing insurmountable wealth on the market. He may be surprised to discover the appalling state of the UK housing market, if he bothered to give it a proper look.
Another frustrating element of articles like Baxter-Derrington’s is how he omits discussing the means by which those who may actually be affected by these taxes could be realistically supported, if needed, like Scotland’s considered alleviation measures for “households that are asset-rich but have a more limited income,” on a similar taxing scheme.
Universities are threatening student journalism
Taxes are not the great, inherent evil; it is an impoverished system in which people fear giving anything away for a potential greater good, because we are operating on individualised survival mindsets amid a constant sense of scarcity. Baxter-Derrington’s article on the government’s “cheap, distracting policies” only serves to feed further into these worries with an insincere ideological pretence.
Photo by Sarah Agnew on Unsplash
Share this:
Like this:
Related