Rachel Reeves is whimpering as Britain groans under weight of Labour debt

Rachel Reeves wants to bring in her own dramatic expansion of the City of London, just like Nigel Lawson did in 1986. The "Big Bang" changes announced back then brought down the costs of financial transactions and led to a surge of new capital and talent coming into the City to compete. The City grew quickly and extended its global reach. Many reputable overseas banks and investment houses decided to set up here or expand their offices as the markets were transformed.

But the Rachel Reeves package looks more like the little whimper. She will hope it does not become the Big Crunch with things collapsing inwards. In tonight's Mansion House speech, she is announcing a few more mortgages for people on lower incomes. In what reads like an advert for Nationwide, the Government release tells us to expect 10,000 more mortgages under Nationwide's Helping Hand brand. We are told there could be up to 36,000 extra mortgages generally available with her change to allow people to borrow more than 4.5 times their salary.

Critics worry that this is dragging people into too much debt and into paying too much for homes. Others will welcome any attempt to get more people on the housing ladder. It is far from a major transformation. The truth is mortgages are limited both because house prices and mortgage rates are high. Too few people can afford their first or better home.

Under Rachel Reeves the cost of government borrowing for 10 years has gone up to well above the worst Truss levels she often complains about. This has happened because the Chancellor has increased public spending substantially and raised the deficit or amount the government has to borrow a lot.

Markets have become cautious about lending so much to the state, and are demanding a higher price for the money. There is a knock-on effect to the cost of mortgages. The Bank of England has ridden to the government's assistance by announcing at the same time its plans to make it easier for banks to compete to lend money on mortgages.

I have no worry about the Bank and Treasury co-ordinating policy to try to promote more prosperity. I just wish they would stop pretending the Bank always acts independently, when this looks like another example of coordinated action. Just as the Chancellor says mortgage lenders should take more risk, so the Bank is saying to medium-sized banks they should be freer to compete in the mortgage market.

It is saying to all banks there will be another year to implement the tougher new rules planned internationally on how much money they need to have in reserves. Smaller banks will be treated more lightly to help them expand faster. It is all very technical and it does not add up to a prosperity revolution of the kind the Chancellor wants. There is a huge gap between her fine aspirations and what is being offered.

I agree with her wish to have a "better-off Britain". It would be great to see "renewal of Britain in every home and every High Street". A possible additional 36,000 mortgages and a bit more risk being taken by some smaller banks is not going to bring that about. So what would? Getting mortgage rates down would help. That requires cutting out wasteful and undesirable spending to get government borrowing under control. Start with proper control of our borders and with welfare reform.

It needs lower taxes on jobs, not the big tax hikes on businesses, family farms and employing people of the last budget. It needs more transactions to boost the London market. Why not raise money to expand non-UK BBC Commercial? We are good at media but BBC global needs billions of extra capital to compete with the US giants. Why not craft infrastructure investments to sell directly in the London share markets?

It needs a willingness to allow people to make money on their savings by buying shares and receiving dividends, not taxing them more for daring to want to be better off. It doesn't need getting banks to take more risk by spending too much. It needs to unleash an ownership revolution where many people want to own shares and homes, and can afford to do so.

The Big Bang was not just a City revolution. It was a movement to create millions more homeowners and shareholders. Today we are a long way off empowering millions and opening the door to a more prosperous UK. So far these proposals fall far short of the popular ownership we let loose in 1986.