February 2026 roundup
Making the case for a new economic agenda that can tackle wealth extraction, reform our tax system and restore trust in democracy
This month, we’ve published new polling, interviews and commentary, focused on the impact of wealth inequality on our economy and society. From our ‘Making or Taking?’ research to our call for donation caps in the Elections Bill and our work on student loans, the message is clear: if we want a stronger economy and a healthier democracy, we must privilege wealth creation over wealth extraction, and not allow extreme wealth to distort politics itself.
Last week, we released new nationally representative polling that explored public attitudes to wealth creation and extraction. Overall we found that:
A clear majority (64%) of the British public support entrepreneurship and genuinely innovative companies
Around 2/3 oppose business models based on natural monopolies or enabled by tax avoidance, with majority opposition across every voting bloc
Only 10% of respondents consider business models based on exploiting scarcity (e.g. ticket touting) or tax loopholes to be acceptable
When people are asked why they consider some business models negatively, by far the most popular reason is that “they are exploiting consumers, workers, or society more broadly”
We believe that the overall pattern suggests a clear mandate for policymakers to support genuine wealth creation, while cracking down on extractive and exploitative practices that undermine fairness and public trust.
The findings will contribute to our focus this year on wealth creation and extraction, and how both are linked to inequality. It’s a subject that is receiving a growing focus within Parliament, including from MPs such as Yuan Yang, who has suggested that there are too many companies in her constituency that make money from wealth extraction instead of innovation or producing valued services. A forthcoming report from the Labour Growth Group will argue that Britain has become an “extraction economy”.
The issue has been the subject of a range of previous reports, including from the New Economics Foundation in its report ‘Ending Extraction in the UK Care System’ and from Common Wealth in its excellent interactive report ‘Who Owns Britain?’. It’s an issue that is at the heart of a fairer economy, and one which we intend to explore at length in the months ahead.
In our recent contribution to Bearly Politics, we argue that the Mandelson–Epstein affair should not be understood simply as an individual scandal, but as a warning sign of a deeper structural problem in British democracy: the growing ability of extreme wealth to shape political decision-making.
Read the full article here:
We explore how this dynamic undermines democratic trust and can become self-reinforcing over time, as rising wealth inequality translates into growing political inequality. We argue that practical reforms, including caps on political donations and stronger lobbying rules, are needed to reduce the spillover effects of economic inequality on political power and restore confidence that government acts in the public interest.
It’s a diagnosis shared with Tax Justice UK, who accurately describe the challenge when they say that the scandal “is not the personal failings of a few individuals, but the structural rot of a political system that no longer serves the public, but the private interests of a powerful and privileged few.”
In making those arguments, we drew on the research of transparency and corruption campaigners who have been sounding the alarm on this issue. For example, Spotlight on Corruption have found that businesses are 23 times more likely than civil society groups to get meetings with Treasury officials. That study is backed by US research which shows that if the wealthy support a policy, it has a 45% chance of becoming law, but if they oppose a policy, the likelihood of it making it onto the statute book is just 18%.
The public have a keen sense of some of these challenges. According to the ONS, 69% of people say they have no say in what the government does, while our own polling shows that 75% of people are concerned that people with net wealth of £10m or more have too much influence on the political sway.
After the events of the last week, it seems unlikely that the scandal provoked by the Epstein files will fade any time soon.
In our response to the Government’s Representation of the People Bill, we welcomed the opportunity to make the UK’s democratic system fairer, but helped to sound the alarm about the absence of a cap on political donations. In refusing to include this widely supported measure, the Government has missed a key opportunity to rebalance our political system by reducing the disproportionate influence of extreme wealth on decision-making.
The reality is that without a cap, wealth will continue to buy disproportionate influence in politics. While the Bill strengthens checks on donations and ensures that donors are genuinely connected to the UK, these measures fall short of securing an equal voice for all.
Together with Transparency International UK, we’ve previously written about how fair politics needs fair limits, including through an annual cap of £50,000. The call reflects the findings of the the independent Hayden Phillips Review and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and is supported by 67% of the public.
Radix Big Tent provided a full rundown of the reactions to the Bill from pro-democracy and anti-corruption campaigners as they emerged, and the consensus is clear: the Bill falls short in protecting our democracy. Over the coming months, we’ll be working with campaigners of all stripes to make the case that caps on political donations are essentially to safeguarding public faith in our democracy.
In Getting Down to Brass Tax, our Chief Executive Will Snell sat down with Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Helen Miller to explore how the UK’s tax system can be reformed to support long-term investment and wealth creation while maintaining fairness and public trust.
Will and Helen discussed where the tax system currently falls short, as well as some of the reasons why more ambitious reforms don’t make more progress in our current system - including in the recent Budget. They also discussed the distinction between wealth creation and wealth extraction, and how to encourage innovation while addressing economic rents. AI and automation also featured in the conversation, as did a consideration of the remaining evidence gaps on inequality and whether economics has focused too much on efficiency.
A reminder that Will’s interview with Helen is part of our monthly series with interviewees working across issues related to a fair economy.
Last month, the Chancellor provoked consternation and anger among graduates when she described the student loan system as “fair and reasonable”. It’s a view that doesn’t appear to be widely shared. In fact, it was loudly repudiated, not least by the millions of graduates - particularly those on Plan 2 loans in England and Wales - who were aghast at the idea that such a system could be considered fair.
Given the unfair impacts of the changes made in the Budget for graduates, we spoke out in The Observer, calling for the Chancellor to reverse the freezes to repayment thresholds which will hit lower earners hardest. The Intergenerational Foundation has found that lower-earning graduates will repay 68% more across their lifetimes as a result of those changes.
In contrast to the Chancellor’s comments, it appears totally unreasonable to many people that a graduate is expected to earn £66,000 just to start paying down the capital of their loan.
The Government maintains that since graduates can expect to earn over £100,000 more over their lifetime than non-graduates, they should be expected to make a contribution to the cost of their studies. Yet many graduates would argue they will do so anyway as higher earners through progressive taxation.
They also point to the use of RPI to calculate interest on student loans as particularly unfair, given that it is generally discouraged by the ONS. Equally, many students feel they were duped and mis-sold student loans at a young age, when they lacked the financial capability to make such a significant decision. It’s a cause that has been backed by consumer expert Martin Lewis.
Campaigners like Rethink Repayment are rightly shining a light on this issue, and campaigning for a better deal for graduates and students. We think the Government should listen to their demands and commit to meaningful reform before an entire generation loses faith in the system altogether.