When Labour swept into government with a historic majority, many in the North East and across the country believed real change had finally arrived. But into power, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered a Mansion House speech that looks less like a break from the past and more like a full-throated embrace of it.
Instead of outlining a bold alternative to the failed economic experiments of the past 40 years, Reeves unveiled a plan that echoed the Thatcherite era – complete with a nod to the infamous 1980s “Tell Sid” campaign that launched the wave of privatisations.
The new “Leeds Reforms” promise looser financial regulation, relaxed mortgage rules, and a government push to nudge ordinary savers into stock markets. Reeves wants Britons to swap savings for shares, claiming this will revive growth and democratise investment. But for many of us outside the Square Mile, it raises an uncomfortable question: why is Labour borrowing so heavily from the Conservative playbook?
We’ve heard this tune before
For those who remember the original “Tell Sid” campaign, the parallels are hard to miss. British Gas shares, TV ads urging mass participation in privatisation, and the dream of a share-owning democracy. It was slick, aspirational – and, ultimately, part of a project that gutted public services and left regions like the North East on the wrong end of economic transformation.
Today’s version feels eerily familiar. Reeves, despite her credentials as the first woman to hold the Chancellor’s office, is pitching financial deregulation and market-led optimism as progressive reform. Yet what’s on offer sounds more like Thatcherism in a red tie.
Deregulation by another name – and its uncomfortable track record
The risks are real. Relaxing rules on pensions and investment disclosure opens the door to mis-selling and financial exploitation. Scaling back the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service could leave ordinary people without proper recourse if things go wrong. And pushing first-time investors into volatile equity markets, while cutting consumer protections, is a dangerous combination – especially in an era of social media scams and crypto-fuelled misinformation.
Before anyone buys into Reeves’s assertion that “lighter‑touch” regulation will magically enrich households, it is worth glancing at the sectors already run on exactly those terms.
Water: Thirty‑five years after privatisation, the flagship company of the model, Thames Water, is teetering on the brink. It reported a £1.6 billion annual loss in July 2025, is carrying £16.8 billion of debt, and is openly warning that temporary nationalisation is possible if creditors will not stump up yet more cash. Customers face bill rises of up to 35 % next year even as raw sewage spills hit record levels. Shareholders and executives have walked away with healthy dividends and bonuses; the public is left with polluted rivers and bailout talk.
Energy: The “competitive” gas‑and‑electricity market writes an even bigger cautionary tale. Twenty‑nine retail suppliers collapsed during the 2021‑22 price shock, leaving all households to fund the rescue through a standing‑charge levy. Even after the latest 7 % fall in Ofgem’s cap, a typical dual‑fuel bill is still £1,720 a year – 10 % higher than the same quarter in 2024, and roughly double pre‑crisis levels. Ordinary families took the hit; the trading desks of integrated energy giants booked windfall profits.
Buses: Perhaps the greatest irony is that Labour’s own metro‑mayors have concluded that transport deregulation was a historic mistake. Greater Manchester completed its Bee Network franchising in early 2025, wresting control of routes, fares, and fleet standards back from private operators after four decades of the free‑for‑all created by the 1985 Transport Act. West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and even the new North East mayoralty are set to follow. The mayors have made a simple, pragmatic judgement: if you want reliable, affordable services that reach every community, you need public accountability and long‑term planning – not pure market forces.
These experiences show what happens when essential services are handed to the market while regulators “get out of the way”: prices rise, quality falls, and the public ends up socialising corporate risk. Yet Reeves now proposes to apply the same logic to our pensions and life savings. The North East does not need more lectures about the virtues of deregulation; it is still paying the water bill, the heating bill, and the price of the last bus that never turned up.
Who really benefits?
If Reeves’s plan works, the financial sector will celebrate. But will a nurse in Stockton, a warehouse worker in Gateshead, or a single parent in South Shields feel the benefit? The North East doesn’t need another trickle-down promise. It needs real investment in public infrastructure, affordable housing, and long-term job creation – not a rebranded version of 1980s economics.
A government elected on the promise of change…
A government elected on the promise of change now seems oddly fixated on reviving the past. Rather than breaking with the failed economic orthodoxies of the Thatcher era, Rachel Reeves appears to be recycling them – deregulation dressed as innovation, individual risk marketed as empowerment. In doing so, Labour risks not just political disillusionment, but economic déjà vu.
If this is the beginning of a new chapter, we might start by asking not just what Sid would buy – but why Labour is selling it.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
