Serious question. Why does British debt to GDP ratio of 97% indicate imminent meltdown when France at 115% and Italy 137% doesn't?
That's the advantage of being in the Euro.
It's also the advantage of borrowing at 3.5% rather than 5.1%.
France's 115% of debt is costing less than 4% in interest, we are paying 5%.
Yes which comes about from having the ECB as the lender of last resort.
Larger monetary systems (Euro, Dollar) can get away with more - smaller ones need to run a tighter ship.
It largely comes from having lower central bank interest rates presently. Default risk is not the biggest factor either here or in the Eurozone at the monent.
Though the UK has a “soft default” risk - the exchange rate.
Serious question. Why does British debt to GDP ratio of 97% indicate imminent meltdown when France at 115% and Italy 137% doesn't?
Good answers below, but also a reminder that France spends 35% more on welfare than we do. The welfare argument is a false dichotomy when it comes to borrowing costs, as is this need for massive tax cuts.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands all manage ok.
Assuming he follows through I have to say I'm very impressed by Streeting's "actually run against the leader" approach to running against the leader as opposed to everyone else's "scheme and bitch and brief the press a lot" approach.
What I can’t get out of my head is that if Streeting *does* resign and run tomorrow (and assuming he’s got the numbers). Even if he wins how is his position going to be stable? Even if he beats a Burnham-adjacent candidate on the list (say Rayner or Milliband) that is not the same as having beaten Burnham.
There is nothing I have seen from Burnham’s character that suggests in the event of a Streeting win he’ll just slope off to Manchester Town Hall and get on with the job. To be sure a Streeting PM may get some period of grace - but assuming he faces the same or similar brickbats that Starmer has (lets be honest the fiscal maths won’t have changed - and may have got worse) how long before Burnham (and his related fans) starts agitating for a seat? And the farce goes on.
Back in the day we used to mock the Belgium for being ungovernable. However, ever since the Brexit referendum the Belgium appears to be the exemplar of stability. What has gone wrong in UK politics?
Burnham's fans can certainly agitate. But
1. Streeting, if PM, has powers of patronage to try and keep Burnham's supporters happy and might be better at recognising the value of this than SKS has been.
2. The current leadership crisis is very much focused on the personal failings of SKS e.g. his incapacity to communicate and do politics. Burnham, as with all the other contenders, looks viable as an alternative because they aren't as incapable. Replace SKS with someone more competent and Burnham is going to have to offer something more substantive as an alternative and viable platform for solving the country's and Labour's difficulties. I'd be delighted if any Andy Burnham fans can explain what this would be.
3. Burnham's term as Manchester Mayor ends in May 2028. There's going to be pressure on Burnham to serve out his term as that clock ticks down. Why should everyone go through the gymnastics of accommodating the ambitions of the King of the North when he can step down and return via a by-election once his term has ended and before the next general election?
All fair points - I guess I am less sure about whether a Streeting PM will genuinely change the game (although given the current tight situation and unreasonable expectations from media, backbenchers, etc not sure anyone would). He will have powers of patronage and some amount of honemoon period. So that may get him to 2027 relatively unscathed - and at that point your third point does become more salient.
Either way the fact that Streeting will not have beat the “full field” (as the Burnham fans would have it) will surely leave him open to easy criticism. (It would also help my betting book if Starmer stays on longer)
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
How many political parties in Canada are advocating magic money tree, as opposed to fiscal restraint?
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
So then the Labour PM has to persuade Labour MPs to vote for the most severe welfare cuts since thatcher. Or beyond. How many will vote for that?
Very few. Political stasis ensues. But the bond markets won’t wait. Cue: General election as the only way to break the deadlock
They won't, Labour MPs will tell them tough, they have paid for their big spending with tax rises and aren't budging even if every bond trader and half the FTSE100 company HQs moves abroad. Labour has a big majority for 5 years, which you helped give them and now if you get pure raw socialism with Rayner, Ed Miliband or Burnham don't say you were not warned!
You have the economic literacy of the average Labour MP
You can’t say “tough” to the bond markets, no more than you can ignore the laws of gravity or mathematics. Britain runs a huge deficit and debt is now about 100% GDP. We are entirely reliant on the kindness of strangers to keep paying for the NHS and the army and the pensions and the bennies of 3m foreigners on UC
So if you say “tough” to the market they stop lending to us. That’s it. How do we then pay for the indebted British state? The only choice is to print our own money but then, if we still keep spending and don’t do savage cuts, we swiftly become Argentina, then Zimbabwe, then Weimar Germany and then a British Hitler takes over
You forget the key point, while Labour MPs have a majority in parliament they decide the PM and government and they aren't going to vote for another election while Reform lead polls.
You talk about deficit but Labour MPs can say big spending funded by big tax rises does not lead to further deficit. Indeed some nations like Sweden or Denmark or Cuba spend more as a percentage of their gdp even than we do but they largely do so with more tax than we have
The difference with Scandi is that people on average salaries pay higher taxes. Presumably Lab's idea is simply to tax the "rich" more
Farage to be investigated by the parliamentary standards commissioner
Popcorn shortage becomes critical.
This is blatantly political. This is how they bring down genuine, talented right wing leaders. They pinned some absurd crime on le pen. They’re trying it on bardella. They had a go at Hitler, openly mocking his paintings. They did lawfare on Trump
Who the hell hasn’t sometimes taken a multi million pound gift from a Thai tycoon with a weird name change. It’s what happens. Life goes on. Leave nigel alone
Assuming he follows through I have to say I'm very impressed by Streeting's "actually run against the leader" approach to running against the leader as opposed to everyone else's "scheme and bitch and brief the press a lot" approach.
What I can’t get out of my head is that if Streeting *does* resign and run tomorrow (and assuming he’s got the numbers). Even if he wins how is his position going to be stable? Even if he beats a Burnham-adjacent candidate on the list (say Rayner or Milliband) that is not the same as having beaten Burnham.
There is nothing I have seen from Burnham’s character that suggests in the event of a Streeting win he’ll just slope off to Manchester Town Hall and get on with the job. To be sure a Streeting PM may get some period of grace - but assuming he faces the same or similar brickbats that Starmer has (lets be honest the fiscal maths won’t have changed - and may have got worse) how long before Burnham (and his related fans) starts agitating for a seat? And the farce goes on.
Back in the day we used to mock the Belgium for being ungovernable. However, ever since the Brexit referendum the Belgium appears to be the exemplar of stability. What has gone wrong in UK politics?
I cannot express how much I hate the idea of this government implementing any form of digital ID
Its already there. I use it for child care allowance etc. You probably have a driving licence and the photo is stored electronically. You have a passport. And on and on.
The issues are about WHO can access your data and WHY. That's where the safeguarding needs to be.
It’s the utterly mental scope creep every time.
An ID card system could be *one* table in a database - might need a bit more, but not much.
Simple website to access the data. A few endpoints.
But not sexy then.
The scope creep isn't the ID card, that scope creep already exists with One Login - it's just most people haven't picked up on it yet.
Oh sure. The same mentality at work.
But the ID card schemes become attempts to speed run decades of this. Every time.
Yup. Watch how quickly it goes from being only for employment, taxes, and benefits, to being the only allowable form of ID for utilities, banks, phones, car registrations, alcohol purchases, even hotel check-ins, domestic flight tickets, perhaps even intercity trains.
Because that will all happen within a decade, and the direction of travel should be blindingly obvious.
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
So then the Labour PM has to persuade Labour MPs to vote for the most severe welfare cuts since thatcher. Or beyond. How many will vote for that?
Very few. Political stasis ensues. But the bond markets won’t wait. Cue: General election as the only way to break the deadlock
They won't, Labour MPs will tell them tough, they have paid for their big spending with tax rises and aren't budging even if every bond trader and half the FTSE100 company HQs moves abroad. Labour has a big majority for 5 years, which you helped give them and now if you get pure raw socialism with Rayner, Ed Miliband or Burnham don't say you were not warned!
You have the economic literacy of the average Labour MP
You can’t say “tough” to the bond markets, no more than you can ignore the laws of gravity or mathematics. Britain runs a huge deficit and debt is now about 100% GDP. We are entirely reliant on the kindness of strangers to keep paying for the NHS and the army and the pensions and the bennies of 3m foreigners on UC
So if you say “tough” to the market they stop lending to us. That’s it. How do we then pay for the indebted British state? The only choice is to print our own money but then, if we still keep spending and don’t do savage cuts, we swiftly become Argentina, then Zimbabwe, then Weimar Germany and then a British Hitler takes over
You forget the key point, while Labour MPs have a majority in parliament they decide the PM and government and they aren't going to vote for another election while Reform lead polls.
You talk about deficit but Labour MPs can say big spending funded by big tax rises does not lead to further deficit. Indeed some nations like Sweden or Denmark or Cuba spend more as a percentage of their gdp even than we do but they largely do so with more tax than we have
The difference with Scandi is that people on average salaries pay higher taxes. Presumably Lab's idea is simply to tax the "rich" more
Rayner would certainly go back to 'taxing the rich until the pips squeek' as the 1970s Labour government did, Burnham and even Ed Miliband would head in that direction. Though yes taxes would likely need to rise on average earners too not just freezing their tax thresholds
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 34m It’s going to be Streeting vs Rayner, then; I think Starmer won’t stand, nor will Miliband; Burnham will complain but won’t be let in
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 32m There may be other candidates (John Healey, Darren Jones, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell), but it will come down to Streeting and Rayner
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
So then the Labour PM has to persuade Labour MPs to vote for the most severe welfare cuts since thatcher. Or beyond. How many will vote for that?
Very few. Political stasis ensues. But the bond markets won’t wait. Cue: General election as the only way to break the deadlock
They won't, Labour MPs will tell them tough, they have paid for their big spending with tax rises and aren't budging even if every bond trader and half the FTSE100 company HQs moves abroad. Labour has a big majority for 5 years, which you helped give them and now if you get pure raw socialism with Rayner, Ed Miliband or Burnham don't say you were not warned!
You have the economic literacy of the average Labour MP
You can’t say “tough” to the bond markets, no more than you can ignore the laws of gravity or mathematics. Britain runs a huge deficit and debt is now about 100% GDP. We are entirely reliant on the kindness of strangers to keep paying for the NHS and the army and the pensions and the bennies of 3m foreigners on UC
So if you say “tough” to the market they stop lending to us. That’s it. How do we then pay for the indebted British state? The only choice is to print our own money but then, if we still keep spending and don’t do savage cuts, we swiftly become Argentina, then Zimbabwe, then Weimar Germany and then a British Hitler takes over
You forget the key point, while Labour MPs have a majority in parliament they decide the PM and government and they aren't going to vote for another election while Reform lead polls.
You talk about deficit but Labour MPs can say big spending funded by big tax rises does not lead to further deficit. Indeed some nations like Sweden or Denmark or Cuba spend more as a percentage of their gdp even than we do but they largely do so with more tax than we have
The difference with Scandi is that people on average salaries pay higher taxes. Presumably Lab's idea is simply to tax the "rich" more
And the tax burden lands on individuals rather than businesses. And unionisation means most workers are on the kind of salary where they pay tax, not get benefits.
Zero chance of that happening in the UK, even though it’s a much better system.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 34m It’s going to be Streeting vs Rayner, then; I think Starmer won’t stand, nor will Miliband; Burnham will complain but won’t be let in
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 32m There may be other candidates (John Healey, Darren Jones, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell), but it will come down to Streeting and Rayner
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 34m It’s going to be Streeting vs Rayner, then; I think Starmer won’t stand, nor will Miliband; Burnham will complain but won’t be let in
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 32m There may be other candidates (John Healey, Darren Jones, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell), but it will come down to Streeting and Rayner
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
Just ignoring the OBR was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. Fiddling with the BoE is that on steroids.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
Just ignoring the OBR was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. Fiddling with the BoE is that on steroids.
You don’t do it directly. You do via your choice of Governor and Board members. Trouble is, that’s long term planning that requires you to stay PM for a while.
The person who wrote "Can We Fix It!" for "Bob the Builder" is called Paul K Joyce. He does lots of orchestrations these days, including for a new album by the progressive rock group Yes, Aurora, which I am enjoying.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
So you think we could nick him again, like we did after he’d learnt to be a central banker and a BoE vacancy came up?
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
The power of the gilt market is real and has to be taken seriously - Truss showed what happens if you don't - but the constant bigging up of 'bond strike' and 'IMF bailout' and obsessing about where the 10 year yield is today is mainly just another way in which right-wingers try and frighten people off left leaning politics.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Is that the election where Pierre Poilievre lost his seat? SOMETHING I TIPPED AT 14/1
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
My main point being is that those obsessing over the “rules” are following the same process-filled mind gunk of the public sector. “The process says no, sorry”. Sometimes the process needs setting aside so a decision can be made completely and efficiently.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
As far as I am aware, there’s no rule of law that the Prime Minister needs to be in Parliament, never mind in the Commons. It’s just a convention and conventions can be broken.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
On top of the current £130odd billion ?
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same. Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Because Canada has a much better budget deficit and much better economic growth.
Debt is not the only thing that matters. Neither is deficit, nor growth. All 3 combined represent how stable your finances are.
With deficits, more than debt, arguably being the most significant of all. You can manage debt, so long as you can manage your finances, but if you can't manage your finances your debt will spiral out of control.
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
Just ignoring the OBR was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. Fiddling with the BoE is that on steroids.
What exactly would happen? Bond yields wouldn't spike much if at all because the bank's reduction in QT and maybe return to QE would depress them.
The pound would fall, but the average voter wouldn't notice that much unless the fall was quick and catastrophic. That probably wouldn't be the case if the reduce QT schedule were phased in subtly, quietly and gradually. The Truss budget was none of those.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
As far as I am aware, there’s no rule of law that the Prime Minister needs to be in Parliament, never mind in the Commons. It’s just a convention and conventions can be broken.
I mean you're right. If Andy Burnham could command a majority he wouldn't need to be in Parliament at all. But he couldn't be Labour Party leader. Or Tory for that matter.
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
Just ignoring the OBR was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. Fiddling with the BoE is that on steroids.
What exactly would happen? Bond yields wouldn't spike much if at all because the bank's reduction in QT and maybe return to QE would depress them.
The pound would fall, but the average voter wouldn't notice that much unless the fall was quick and catastrophic. That probably wouldn't be the case if the reduce QT schedule were phased in subtly, quietly and gradually. The Truss budget was none of those.
If you were an investor would you take a risk on a new left wing government which has overruled the independent BoE? I wouldn't at current bond prices, would definitely need to be lower and I think it would put us on negative watch with the ratings agencies (though this is a political issue more than it is a monetary/fiscal one).
We're really going to get chaos with Ed aren't we. Sigh.
Or anarchy with Ange
All very exciting. What is certain is a hideous civil war, lasting months, which sends the bond markets mad and probably leads to a gennylec and then Prime Minister Big Nige by Christmas Eve
Heh
Labour has a big majority, even if we had 99% unemployment and an economy consisting solely of EDI officers, human rights lawyers and civil servants Labour MPs still wouldn't vote for an early general election
You don’t understand the mechanics
If there is a bond strike (really quite possible now) and Britain teeters towards bankruptcy, the markets will demand massive brutal cuts in benefits. As that’s the only way to grow the economy and therefore service the debts. Massive tax hikes will just make it all worse
I'm not sure that's true.
The current higher bond interest rates are due at least as much to the masochistic policy of quantitative tightening for no apparent reason (and much faster than the the Fed is doing), as to the government's admitted complete incompetence.
So, rather than welfare cuts, the immediate way to get interest rates under control would be to pause QT. I think the Labour Party would be more likely to override the BoE's independence on this issue than allow welfare cuts if push came to shove.
But of course they are completely financially incompetent and economically illiterate, so you never know with this shower.
I'm not sure there's anyone in the Labour party who would actually understand what you've written. I also think undermining BoE independence won't be consequence free, investors will absolutely demand a risk premium.
Just ignoring the OBR was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. Fiddling with the BoE is that on steroids.
What exactly would happen? Bond yields wouldn't spike much if at all because the bank's reduction in QT and maybe return to QE would depress them.
The pound would fall, but the average voter wouldn't notice that much unless the fall was quick and catastrophic. That probably wouldn't be the case if the reduce QT schedule were phased in subtly, quietly and gradually. The Truss budget was none of those.
The specifics and mechanics don’t really matter. It’s the signal it sends. Government in desperate position intervenes in independent central bank rather than dealing with taxes and spending.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
WCML is at capacity - ECML is at capacity likewise Midland Mainline.
As I said the problem started on the day of the announcement of HS2 when they talked about speed as the extra benefit rather than the bonus it is.
Because that's the other bit no one picked up on, the faster the train, the fewer train sets needed to provide a regular service and the more services that can run along the track (because they all travel at the same speed).
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
WCML is at capacity - ECML is at capacity likewise Midland Mainline.
As I said the problem started on the day of the announcement of HS2 when they talked about speed as the extra benefit rather than the bonus it is.
Because that's the other bit no one picked up on, the faster the train, the fewer train sets needed to provide a regular service and the more services that can run along the track (because they all travel at the same speed).
And the real benefit isn't actually at the big cities where HS2 stops, it will be the far more frequent services that will be runnable on the ECML, WCML and similar now the express services don't use 2 timeslots.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
As far as I am aware, there’s no rule of law that the Prime Minister needs to be in Parliament, never mind in the Commons. It’s just a convention and conventions can be broken.
I mean you're right. If Andy Burnham could command a majority he wouldn't need to be in Parliament at all. But he couldn't be Labour Party leader. Or Tory for that matter.
He could. The NEC could change the rules, and I think they should. It benefits nobody to have someone agitating from the North West coast that a not insignificant number of MPs and members would prefer. If he loses he loses.
I still think it would better to see if he can win a byelection against the tide first.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
On top of the current £130odd billion ?
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same. Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
£50Bn is about 5% of total spend. Given that we can print money and there are places to go for cuts without doing a Greece 2011, I think a rational analysis would say “yeah ok”.
But the problem is, as you say, what you do with it, and convincing people you aren’t going to do the same thing every year. So as you say, capital works or defence shouldn’t worry anyone, if bounded. Other things should.
Thats why I think there’s something in the idea of “defence bonds”, and why we should have a more adult national conversation on capital investment.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Capacity doesn't require a thoroughly over-specced line, though.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Welcome to an argument lost nearly two decades ago.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Is that the election where Pierre Poilievre lost his seat? SOMETHING I TIPPED AT 14/1
Though has now won another seat after a by election
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
WCML is at capacity - ECML is at capacity likewise Midland Mainline.
As I said the problem started on the day of the announcement of HS2 when they talked about speed as the extra benefit rather than the bonus it is.
Because that's the other bit no one picked up on, the faster the train, the fewer train sets needed to provide a regular service and the more services that can run along the track (because they all travel at the same speed).
And stations like Waverley and Glasgow Central are at capacity too. Sticking a new line and new stations up the middle of the country opens up room for local services across the whole of the UK.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
As far as I am aware, there’s no rule of law that the Prime Minister needs to be in Parliament, never mind in the Commons. It’s just a convention and conventions can be broken.
I mean you're right. If Andy Burnham could command a majority he wouldn't need to be in Parliament at all. But he couldn't be Labour Party leader. Or Tory for that matter.
He could. The NEC could change the rules, and I think they should. It benefits nobody to have someone agitating from the North West coast that a not insignificant number of MPs and members would prefer. If he loses he loses.
I still think it would better to see if he can win a byelection against the tide first.
It always was. Will say it one more time. Blocking him in Gorton and Denton was the single stupidest thing Starmer and his cronies ever did. And it's a competitive field.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If HS2 had been purely about capacity, it would already have been built, and delivering passengers to Manchester and Leeds.
I cannot express how much I hate the idea of this government implementing any form of digital ID
Its already there. I use it for child care allowance etc. You probably have a driving licence and the photo is stored electronically. You have a passport. And on and on.
The issues are about WHO can access your data and WHY. That's where the safeguarding needs to be.
"It's already there" isn't an argument in its favour. Not at all.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
On top of the current £130odd billion ?
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same. Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
£50Bn is about 5% of total spend. Given that we can print money and there are places to go for cuts without doing a Greece 2011, I think a rational analysis would say “yeah ok”.
But the problem is, as you say, what you do with it, and convincing people you aren’t going to do the same thing every year. So as you say, capital works or defence shouldn’t worry anyone, if bounded. Other things should.
Thats why I think there’s something in the idea of “defence bonds”, and why we should have a more adult national conversation on capital investment.
And even that’s a false percentage - it’s £50 billion spread across hundreds of years, not per year.
There was Corbyn and four other affiliates (Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan, Iqbal Mohamed), who formed the Independent Alliance grouping in Parliament, and some of whom are now in Your Party (Corbyn, Adam, Khan; but continuing to sit as independents in Parliament for reasons).
And then there was also Alex Easton who won North Down. He had been in the DUP, but had fallen out with the party and stood as an independent (but the DUP didn't stand against him).
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
I thought you were going to Morpeth, that's just north Newcastle, there are still 2 LNER stations further North (Alnmouth and Berwick) until you hit Scotland.
Berwick has a great bookshop with a tea cake I divert to to purchase, Alnmouth has Alnwick Castle
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If HS2 had been purely about capacity, it would already have been built, and delivering passengers to Manchester and Leeds.
Possibly even on budget, almost.
It hasn't been built because of nimbyism and incompetence, not based on whether it's about capacity or speed.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If HS2 had been purely about capacity, it would already have been built, and delivering passengers to Manchester and Leeds.
Possibly even on budget, almost.
HS2 is about capacity, speed is just a factor in that capacity, faster trains = shorter journey time so fewer train sets required and / or a more frequent service is possible,
The problem for HS2 is that it was hated by the people who were impacted by it but didn't get the benefit from it. I half suspect we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if CrossRail had followed the original route to Aylesbury.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If HS2 had been purely about capacity, it would already have been built, and delivering passengers to Manchester and Leeds.
Possibly even on budget, almost.
HS2 is about capacity, speed is also a factor in capacity, faster trains = shorter journey time so fewer train sets required and / or a more frequent service is possible,
The problem for HS2 is that it was hated by the people who were impacted by it but didn't get the benefit from it. I half suspect we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if CrossRail had followed the original route to Aylesbury - given the MPs who have been most vocal about it and cost so many billions in changes to pacify.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
On top of the current £130odd billion ?
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same. Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
£50Bn is about 5% of total spend. Given that we can print money and there are places to go for cuts without doing a Greece 2011, I think a rational analysis would say “yeah ok”.
But the problem is, as you say, what you do with it, and convincing people you aren’t going to do the same thing every year. So as you say, capital works or defence shouldn’t worry anyone, if bounded. Other things should.
Thats why I think there’s something in the idea of “defence bonds”, and why we should have a more adult national conversation on capital investment.
If we were having adult conversations, we wouldn't be where we are. Every increase in borrowing over decades has been about sugar rush policy to appease voters.
It's always "we're the 5th/6th/4th richest country in the world so there's no excuse not to fund x/y/z.."
Having a separate borrowing capacity would likely be taken advantage of for more of the same.
The idea of a defence fund is just envy of the EU €150bn defence loan scheme, which allows any chancer/member nation to borrow at 3%.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
I thought you were going to Morpeth, that's just north Newcastle, there are still 2 LNER stations further North (Alnmouth and Berwick) until you hit Scotland.
Berwick has a great bookshop with a tea cake I divert to to purchase, Alnmouth has Alnwick Castle
Leaping in with my first ever PB opening to be pedantic about railways. Alnmouth was renamed Alnmouth for Alnwick in 2003. God that felt good.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I really do think one of the issues with the OBR is that just looks at the overall budget and that we don't have separate figures for day to day spending and investment projects. Now that latter pot would be a grade A disaster zone with the nuclear power stations and HS2 but at least it would be clear that it's for investment projects...
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
The point of HS2 was to add capacity and increase speed at the same time, which seems an entirely sensible idea to me.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
On top of the current £130odd billion ?
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same. Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
£50Bn is about 5% of total spend. Given that we can print money and there are places to go for cuts without doing a Greece 2011, I think a rational analysis would say “yeah ok”.
But the problem is, as you say, what you do with it, and convincing people you aren’t going to do the same thing every year. So as you say, capital works or defence shouldn’t worry anyone, if bounded. Other things should.
Thats why I think there’s something in the idea of “defence bonds”, and why we should have a more adult national conversation on capital investment.
And even that’s a false percentage - it’s £50 billion spread across hundreds of years, not per year.
It's not if you're talking about borrowing an extra £50bn every year. Which is what we're discussing.
I assume Streeting definitely has the numbers to trigger a leadership race? It would be truly hilarious if he was the only one over the top and then he couldn't get enough backing to trigger the race.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
Comments
Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands all manage ok.
Either way the fact that Streeting will not have beat the “full field” (as the Burnham fans would have it) will surely leave him open to easy criticism. (It would also help my betting book if Starmer stays on longer)
The opening act made me cry. It traced a gay couple and their life together through Eurovision history. It was simply and beautifully done.
The male host is channeling 1970s porn star in his look.
It is just the campfest I need right now
The songs are meh. But you can't have everything
Who the hell hasn’t sometimes taken a multi million pound gift from a Thai tycoon with a weird name change. It’s what happens. Life goes on. Leave nigel alone
It really could end up being Miliband, IMHO.
Streeting 4.6
Burnham 5
Rayner 6
Miliband 6.4
After that, some money for Al Carns who is now clear in 5th position:
Carns 20
Mahmood 23
Farage 26
Cooper 29
Because that will all happen within a decade, and the direction of travel should be blindingly obvious.
That was me sarcastically commenting on his "I can't be bought" message.
Zero chance of that happening in the UK, even though it’s a much better system.
That is much more interesting then.
And aligns with the "it's a grift, Nigel doesn't really want to be PM" theory.
Though it would be ludicrous
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETEGJTM6plw
Well not quite, Lady Megan knew my grandfather.
It's not impossible that this could end up with suspension, recall and a Clacton by election.
It might be in all their interests to do just that mind.
But he didn't have to.
Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
Another £10bn, quite possibly..
Another £50bn, probably not, if it were just spent on more of the same.
Debt would become increasingly expensive to roll over, resulting in a definite end to "indefinitely"
The political problem is that another £10bn would only significantly change a couple of smaller things, unless it was (for example) direct infrastructure investment, and the benefits might well be outweighed by extra borrowing costs imposed by the market.
And
"Rejoice!"
Debt is not the only thing that matters. Neither is deficit, nor growth. All 3 combined represent how stable your finances are.
With deficits, more than debt, arguably being the most significant of all. You can manage debt, so long as you can manage your finances, but if you can't manage your finances your debt will spiral out of control.
The pound would fall, but the average voter wouldn't notice that much unless the fall was quick and catastrophic. That probably wouldn't be the case if the reduce QT schedule were phased in subtly, quietly and gradually. The Truss budget was none of those.
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
If Andy Burnham could command a majority he wouldn't need to be in Parliament at all.
But he couldn't be Labour Party leader. Or Tory for that matter.
How many were elected as Independents
3? 4?
As I said the problem started on the day of the announcement of HS2 when they talked about speed as the extra benefit rather than the bonus it is.
Because that's the other bit no one picked up on, the faster the train, the fewer train sets needed to provide a regular service and the more services that can run along the track (because they all travel at the same speed).
As I said the problem started on the day of the announcement of HS2 when they talked about speed as the extra benefit rather than the bonus it is.
Because that's the other bit no one picked up on, the faster the train, the fewer train sets needed to provide a regular service and the more services that can run along the track (because they all travel at the same speed).
And the real benefit isn't actually at the big cities where HS2 stops, it will be the far more frequent services that will be runnable on the ECML, WCML and similar now the express services don't use 2 timeslots.
I still think it would better to see if he can win a byelection against the tide first.
But the problem is, as you say, what you do with it, and convincing people you aren’t going to do the same thing every year. So as you say, capital works or defence shouldn’t worry anyone, if bounded. Other things should.
Thats why I think there’s something in the idea of “defence bonds”, and why we should have a more adult national conversation on capital investment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Battle_River—Crowfoot_federal_by-election
Will say it one more time.
Blocking him in Gorton and Denton was the single stupidest thing Starmer and his cronies ever did.
And it's a competitive field.
Possibly even on budget, almost.
There was Corbyn and four other affiliates (Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan, Iqbal Mohamed), who formed the Independent Alliance grouping in Parliament, and some of whom are now in Your Party (Corbyn, Adam, Khan; but continuing to sit as independents in Parliament for reasons).
And then there was also Alex Easton who won North Down. He had been in the DUP, but had fallen out with the party and stood as an independent (but the DUP didn't stand against him).
Berwick has a great bookshop with a tea cake I divert to to purchase, Alnmouth has Alnwick Castle
Oh Kemi, what have you started?
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I'd always assumed Zak was the child of one of the three Crawleys who played first class cricket in the 90's.
The problem for HS2 is that it was hated by the people who were impacted by it but didn't get the benefit from it. I half suspect we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if CrossRail had followed the original route to Aylesbury.
The problem for HS2 is that it was hated by the people who were impacted by it but didn't get the benefit from it. I half suspect we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if CrossRail had followed the original route to Aylesbury - given the MPs who have been most vocal about it and cost so many billions in changes to pacify.
Every increase in borrowing over decades has been about sugar rush policy to appease voters.
It's always "we're the 5th/6th/4th richest country in the world so there's no excuse not to fund x/y/z.."
Having a separate borrowing capacity would likely be taken advantage of for more of the same.
The idea of a defence fund is just envy of the EU €150bn defence loan scheme, which allows any chancer/member nation to borrow at 3%.
Alnmouth was renamed Alnmouth for Alnwick in 2003.
God that felt good.
No, I don’t really understand that either.
Ahem.
Sarah Montague on WATO, she is very angry with Starmer and the Labour Government for dividing the nation.
Why can't we have a Conservative Government for Sarah? She is married to a peer of the realm who is friends with David Cameron don't you know?
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.