Britain is not just stagnating. It is biased against the future.

Joe Reeve's recent X article, _The Great Betrayal_, is worth reading in full because it names a pattern British politics still tries to split into separate complaints. Housing, wages, debt, weak growth, blocked development, and the closing-down of ordinary ambition are not five unrelated annoyances. They are symptoms of a country that has become too comfortable making the future pay for the present.

That is the power of Reeve's framing. It gives people permission to say that the settlement itself is the problem. Britain has built too many incentives around incumbency, paper wealth, veto power, and managed decline, then acted surprised when younger workers, renters, founders, builders, and families feel the ladder moving away from them.

Future Union should amplify that diagnosis and widen the coalition around it. The enemy is not a birth year. Plenty of older people want homes built, infrastructure delivered, businesses started, and their children to inherit a country that still knows how to make room. The dividing line is between a politics of permanent veto and a politics willing to build for people who have to live with the consequences.

That matters strategically. An age-war frame can burn hot, but it is too small for the job. A pro-future coalition can include renters, young families, under-housed workers, builders, entrepreneurs, civic operators, pro-housing campaigners, and older allies who understand that a country which stops building eventually stops deserving what it inherited.

The policy shape follows from that. Housing abundance over scarcity politics. Delivery systems over bureaucratic theatre. Growth that raises productive capacity, not just asset values. Open evidence over ritual blame. Local proof over national hand-waving.

Reeve names the pattern. Future Union's job is to help turn that pattern into counted pressure, public receipts, and institutions that are biased toward the future again.