Rather than fixing our frayed social contract, successive governments have merely tinkered with the public finances, doing just enough to keep the ship afloat. This deck-chair rearranging cannot continue forever.

New research from the Adam Smith Institute projects that, without serious reform of our spending commitments, the UK will soon fall into a debt spiral. By 2033, the UK's debt-to-GDP will begin increasing at an accelerating rate. Even if this Government stays within its fiscal limits, our sclerotic economy will be unable to sustain ever-growing spending. To keep the cash flowing, the Government will have to take on even more debt.

Left unchecked, this trajectory sees public sector net debt soar to 330% of GDP by 2075—a patently unsustainable scenario. And we can already see a few early warning signs. Lenders are already losing confidence in the UK, as shown by our relatively high bond yields. If this continues without correction, it could trigger a financial crisis. A once rich country can decline rapidly through political and fiscal mismanagement; just look at Argentina.

Some accelerationist libertarians might welcome this as a catalyst for a Milei-style revolution. But why should the public endure decades of stagnation just to restore some semblance of economic credibility? Britons deserve a functioning government now, not decades in the future.

The good news is that our fate is not yet sealed. Sensible and targeted spending cuts can still prevent disaster. The ASI's modelling shows that, to keep net public debt below 120% of GDP until 2075, permanent spending cuts equal to 4% of GDP must begin in 2026.

Cuts of this scale are not, on the surface, a vote-winner. In fact, serious reforms to our major spending commitments remain politically toxic. Although they represent an eye-watering 43.3% of spending, our welfare and healthcare commitments remain politically sacrosanct. The NHS and the triple lock on state pensions (by far our biggest welfare commitment) are firmly ensconced as pillars of the UK's welfare state.

Understandably, many voters will be reluctant to relinquish benefits they feel entitled to. But spending restraint is no longer optional. Our healthcare and pensions systems were designed for a much younger country with a broader tax base. As our population continues to age, this post-war structure will inevitably collapse under its own contradictions, leaving the most vulnerable without adequate care or pensions.

So, how can we reform our social contract without alienating voters or destroying it altogether?

Sweden, that apparent idyll of social democracy, provides a model for common-sense pensions reform. Recognising the impending demographic transition, it eased into a fully-funded pension system rather than a "pay-as-you-go" model. Instead of scrapping the old system altogether, it created an adapted transition plan. This meant older generations, who lacked the time to pay into private schemes, were not left in the lurch. Crucially, it also reduced the strain on young workers and consolidated the security of their future pensions.