A financial expert warns that Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ economic strategy, known as Securonomics, restricts entrepreneurship and undermines the free market in the UK. Bob Lyddon, founder of Lyddon Consulting Services, argues in his detailed analysis that this approach expands government involvement to create a “stable, predictable, and secure base” for private investment, but it ultimately consumes resources and eliminates space for true market dynamics.
Understanding Securonomics
Securonomics, introduced in the November 2025 Budget, shifts away from Thatcher-era privatizations without full renationalization. It directs private companies in sectors like energy, water, transport, education, health, and other critical industries to align with government goals through regulations, incentives, and penalties. The oil and gas industries face restrictions, while Net Zero objectives drive policy decisions.
Lyddon states: “Rachel Reeves may appear not to have an economic credo, or to have any idea about how businesses and markets work, or to understand how businesses react to government intervention, high taxation, and high regulation. There is a credo, though, and Reeves’ lack of apparent grip derives from her adherence to it. It is called Securonomics. Labour’s plans spell the death of the free market, of wealth creation, and of economic freedom.”
Massive Investment and State Expansion
The strategy involves £1.64 trillion in investments over the next decade, representing 57% of the UK’s 2024 GDP. Combined with the existing 42% public sector share, this could push government influence to nearly 60% of economic activity. Lyddon explains: “The government’s ‘investment’ plans amount to nearly £1.7 trillion (60% of the UK’s 2024 GDP) to be spent on its Net Zero/Clean Energy, Infrastructure, and Industrial strategies over the next 10 years. Public policy objectives – not market opportunities – determine where the money will be spent.”
Such heavy intervention resembles the EU’s model, which Lyddon describes as stagnant. He cautions that the UK’s alignment with EU-style policies under Labour could hinder growth, especially as Europe recognizes these shortcomings. Lyddon adds: “Reeves’ implementation of Securonomics is the most insidious element in the government’s EU Re-set: it will make the UK’s economy work exactly like the stagnant EU.”
Net Zero Challenges and Global Risks
At the heart of Securonomics lies the Net Zero agenda, aimed at shielding the UK from energy disruptions like those from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, Lyddon points to vulnerabilities, including the ban on new North Sea exploration licenses, which overlooks supply chain risks, and the high costs of renewable energy transitions. A recent reports the Institute of Economic Affairs highlights these transition expenses, despite government claims of positioning the UK as a “clean energy superpower.”
Lyddon notes: “Net Zero, with its huge allocations of money and resources as well as its huge body of regulations, is intrinsic to Securonomics: supposedly ensuring abundant supplies of cheap, home-produced energy as part of our stable, predictable, and secure economic base.”
Global developments add pressure. With U.S. policies under Donald Trump boosting oil and gas production, market prices could plummet—propane has already fallen 13% from 2024 averages. Nations relying on fossil fuels may gain trade advantages, disadvantaging high-cost Net Zero adopters like the UK. Increased borrowing under this plan crowds out private investment, further squeezing the free market.
Early Signs of Economic Strain
Recent job market data supports these concerns, with vacancies dropping sharply after the Budget—the steepest decline since the pandemic. While the Treasury emphasizes stability and a capped 25% corporation tax, businesses grapple with escalating costs and regulatory burdens. Lyddon concludes: “Spending 6% per annum of current UK GDP for 10 years will bloat the size of the ‘state-directed’ sector of the UK economy to 15-20% of the whole, on top of the 42% that is already the public sector. That results in 60% of all economic activity being controlled by the state. There is no elbow room for a private sector in that economy.”
