Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
The point of bonds is that they are paid back in a relatively short period of time. They are not a permanent increase in spending, but a means of bringing future spending forward.
War bonds don't though. iirc when we issued them in WW1 there was no pay back settlement date at all on them. Finally paid in 1970s (might have that wrong).
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
The point of bonds is that they are paid back in a relatively short period of time. They are not a permanent increase in spending, but a means of bringing future spending forward.
Sure, but we've been doing that for nearly two decades. Which is why debt is bubbling around 100% of GDP.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
The point of bonds is that they are paid back in a relatively short period of time. They are not a permanent increase in spending, but a means of bringing future spending forward.
Sure, but we've been doing that for nearly two decades. Which is why debt is bubbling around 100% of GDP.
Just after the 2001 election, when Gordon and Prudence got divorced.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
Given that the non white population of Makerfield is around 2% (not all of them eligible to vote), I would suggest that the current Reform supporters able to be won over may be double figures. It's women Restore are targeting in Makerfield.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
One thing is clear there isn't room for 3 right wing Parties and the tired old one of the 3 is Kemis Tories
Not hard to see more Tory defections.
The Tories have a stark choice become the third choice Fringe right wing Party under Kemi or target the centre ground, sensible One Nation Tory Party under Cleverly or Hunt.
There is a lot of fertile ground there that would not touch the current Tory Leadership with a barge pole
You are correct
There is not room for 3 right wing parties, but then there are only 2 right wing parties, Reform and Restore, whilst Kemi is centre right and not only Kemi will lead the party of the centre right over the next 3 years but she will overtake the other 2 and in the process I fear you will combust
A couple of questions, if you don't mind me asking:
1 Thinking about the current shadow cabinet, they've shifted to the right compared with (say) Cameron's shadow cabinet before 2010, or Thatcher's cabinet in 1990, haven't they? I'm not aware of anyone whose politics map onto say Caroline Spelman, George Young or Ken Clarke... let alone John Gummer or Chris Patten. The "centre" in "centre-right" feels like it's in much fainter type than it used to be- isn't it?
2 Why does Kemi Badenoch get three years to turn things around (because her party is not doing well at the moment), when that allowance doesn't seem to be made to anyone else? What's the source of your confidence that she will?
The 1990 cabinet who eventually royally fucked up the ERM situation, and then chose the successor who ended up with a massive defeat in 1997 IN SPITE of economic feel good....
Perhaps those proto centrist Dads were the root cause of the Tory failure....
I'd have taken my chances with Portillo, Howard and Redwood persuing a 90s Thatcherism any day.....
Thatcherism was a one-off. You can only sell off the council houses, on the cheap, once. You can only sell off the public utility companies, on the cheap, once. You can only steal Scotland's oil once.
Or, just perhaps, no one else has had the imagination and intellectual confidence to try and replicate it.
This 'stealing Scotland's oil' is particularly objectionable. The country INCLUDES Scotland; we bailed them out to achieve it, and have been bailing them out consistently since....
The problem with this line of argument is that Scotland (and Wales and NI and Cornwall) should be given independence so we can pay Triple Lock/Benefits. It's the political equivalent of a soon-to-divorce couple shouting "Your nothing without me"
Unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty convinced that Burnham will win, and my gut feeling is that Restore will not do that much (maybe 4%) but that Reform will lose by a bigger margin than that.
I don't want this outcome, but at the moment this seems most likely. Yes I think there are a lot of shy Reform voters, but sometimes shyness in vox pops and polls translates to shyness in actually voting. Being cowed is a multi-pronged process.
More can obviously happen during the course of the campaign, so who knows.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty convinced that Burnham will win, and my gut feeling is that Restore will not do that much (maybe 4%) but that Reform will lose by a bigger margin than that.
I don't want this outcome, but at the moment this seems most likely. Yes I think there are a lot of shy Reform voters, but sometimes shyness in vox pops and polls translates to shyness in actually voting. Being cowed is a multi-pronged process.
More can obviously happen during the course of the campaign, so who knows.
I'm assuming a sizeable chunk of postal votes will go in this weekend. It means the black swan has to be a much bigger beastie than previously to change the outcome.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
Indeed.
You can give government borrowing any fancy name you wish.
Its the interest rate that the borrowing pays out which is important, not its name.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
My local pub (in Dubai) is opening at 5am to show the match! They’re not licenced at that time, but I’m sure that won’t stop a few flasks finding their contents emptied into a glass of cola.
My local pub (in Dubai) is opening at 5am to show the match! They’re not licenced at that time, but I’m sure that won’t stop a few flasks finding their contents emptied into a glass of cola.
I hope no one reports them, I know licensing officers and they wouldn't care but if told would be obligated to do something.
One Stop enters the competition for worse PR of the year:
A woman who said she was sacked for challenging a shoplifter at the Merseyside convenience store where she worked has described the decision to dismiss her as "very harsh".
Eileen Fox, 56, said she confronted the suspected thief - who she described as a regular shoplifter - and grabbed hold of her coat sleeve.
The suspect, who collided with a metal stand, then ran out of the One Stop Shop in Randall Drive, Bootle, on 27 April while carrying packets of bacon. She is not believed to have been injured in the incident.
One Stop told the BBC it asked its colleagues "never to risk their own safety" and provided training "on how best to respond to any incidents".
Fox was sacked in writing on 12 May after an investigation by One Stop management found she had "put the business at risk".
Must say I do like some of the rule changes for the World Cup, and including the officials rulings being broadcast to the crowd a la American Football, as that's long be an american innovation I thought we could learn from.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Does that not also help Farage cannibalise the Tory vote though? Since everyone can see the real disreputable types won't even touch Reform, which makes it harder for Kemi to claw back more centre-right types.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
I actually meant to quote Eabal. I don't know how Kinabalu's little bit got in there.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
(Mostly) spent pretty effectively though it seems.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
That's mostly the Boris wave (with Jenrick and Braverman prominently involved).
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Neither really. Not in themselves – it was doing all this after explicitly bypassing the TLA "adults in the room". That is why Rachel Reeves' first budget was delayed so the OBR could give it the thumbs up. Who'd have thought a George Osborne wheeze to trap Labour would turn round and bite the Tories?
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Lol, I take it you don't work in the bond market.
Lol, I explained further on that I quoted the wrong post, lol.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
'millions must go' is a clear sign of how far politics has come along in the last 10 years, or even 5 years - even if is a position only held by Restore voters, that it is on the table signals what a different environment we are in.
David Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people repeatedly voted for restrictions on immigration, but instead the government invited millions more into the country. It seems hard to argue that wanting to reverse that shouldn't be a democratically legitimate opinion.
I didn't say it shouldn't, I said that it was now being offered was a signal of how things had changed. I don't agree with it and hope it is not a very popular opinion, but I think there has been a change and more than just Restore want it, even if only Restore will say it.
And I am skeptical of the connection between Cameron era promises and current anger, since people get re-electing governments even when failing on those targets. I think if there wasn't a wider sense of decline people would still not care, but there is and more now do.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
The Soviet Union was a bigger threat than China through its existence. The collapse of the USSR coincided with China gettings its shit together in manufacturing.
Russia has left itself very exposed to a predatory China. If Putin's economy continues on its downward spiral, China might come to his aid - but at a high price.
China hasn't proved itself to be the threat that polonium and Novichok in our cities have been from Russia. Putin has no scruples and should be treated accordingly.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
I keep saying we need to ban algorithmic feeds. They are such a danger at this point. People are spending their lives perpetually wound up in furious anger: it's not healthy.
Eighty-four years is a good, healthy life in America. How much progress has been made in reducing poverty over one person’s lifespan?
A lot, according to new research from Richard Burkhauser of the Civitas Institute and Kevin Corinth of the American Enterprise Institute. They have assembled the longest poverty data series that accounts for taxes, transfer payments and health insurance, stretching 84 years from 1939 to 2023.
It provides some astonishing good news. Over that entire time span, no matter what baseline they chose, the absolute poverty rate fell by at least three-quarters. When including the value of health insurance, poverty fell by up to 97 percent.
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
I keep saying we need to ban algorithmic feeds. They are such a danger at this point. People are spending their lives perpetually wound up in furious anger: it's not healthy.
Also sin tax this stuff. And rather than investing billions in obsolete weapons invest those in educating the population how to use modern technology healthily.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Lol, I take it you don't work in the bond market.
Lol, I explained further on that I quoted the wrong post, lol.
The bond markets are so dangerous they can force misquotations and hide explanations.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Not so. Truss put two fingers up to the bond market. Reeves is too cautious and has been captured by the orthodoxy.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
Ukraine has turned on Donald Trump? When did that happen?
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
One Stop enters the competition for worse PR of the year:
A woman who said she was sacked for challenging a shoplifter at the Merseyside convenience store where she worked has described the decision to dismiss her as "very harsh".
Eileen Fox, 56, said she confronted the suspected thief - who she described as a regular shoplifter - and grabbed hold of her coat sleeve.
The suspect, who collided with a metal stand, then ran out of the One Stop Shop in Randall Drive, Bootle, on 27 April while carrying packets of bacon. She is not believed to have been injured in the incident.
One Stop told the BBC it asked its colleagues "never to risk their own safety" and provided training "on how best to respond to any incidents".
Fox was sacked in writing on 12 May after an investigation by One Stop management found she had "put the business at risk".
One wonders what the training consists of. Holding the door open and wishing the shoplifter to have a nice day and oh have you considered taking this item on your way out?
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
There would be a lot of very unhappy Restore members if that were to happen
Restore voters do not want to be thought of as pseudo-Fukkers.
Truthfully, it is probably in the interests of Refuck for Burnham to be elected now anyway. If he is elected now, becomes leader and blows up spectacularly as Starmer has (which he will) that leaves Labour no excuses and no way forward for 2029. If he puts it off until 2028 and is elected and calls an election in the first flush of optimism that would be a lot more damaging for Reform - bearing in mind given Frogface's age he will only have one shot at this.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy. , just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
Recent experience. I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing. So far, so good. My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town. I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him. Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
Bet he spends most of his days on social media.
I've heard there's even some weirdos who still spend way too much time on obscure blog sites.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy. , just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
There's a certain irony in suggesting anyone stay 'vaguely in touch with the facts' about Liz Truss, who was the nearest leader of this country to Trump or Putin in terms of lack of grasp of basic reality this country has ever had.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
There would be a lot of very unhappy Restore members if that were to happen
I'd imagine that, whatever the pep talks about winning, this by-election is basically a training & team-building effort for Restore.
SImpler than that, I reckon. Restore have taken on board the dictum that your opponents are merely your opponents. Your near-allies are your true enemy.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Not so. Truss put two fingers up to the bond market. Reeves is too cautious and has been captured by the orthodoxy.
Yes so.
Higher Yield Levels: In May 2026, the 10-year gilt yield breached 5.18%, a level not seen since the 2008 global financial crisis and consistently above the 4.6% one-day peak reached during the Truss mini-budget crisis. Long-Term Pressure: The 30-year gilt yield briefly hit 5.8% in May 2026, the highest level since 1998, indicating deeper concern over long-term fiscal sustainability.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy. , just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
The facts are that Liz Truss willfully did a stupid thing, which had bad consequences. Why should anyone afford her the benefit of the tiniest doubt? She deserves every bit of blame in her direction, and to the extent she involved the Conservative Party in her shenanigans, so do they.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Not so. Truss put two fingers up to the bond market. Reeves is too cautious and has been captured by the orthodoxy.
Yes so.
Higher Yield Levels: In May 2026, the 10-year gilt yield breached 5.18%, a level not seen since the 2008 global financial crisis and consistently above the 4.6% one-day peak reached during the Truss mini-budget crisis. Long-Term Pressure: The 30-year gilt yield briefly hit 5.8% in May 2026, the highest level since 1998, indicating deeper concern over long-term fiscal sustainability.
AI - dyor
AI - dyor
The UK is not acting in isolation. Global bond yields (including US Treasuries and European bonds) have surged across advanced economies. This has been driven by persistent global inflation, aggressive central bank monetary tightening, and massive energy shocks sparked by geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
Oh yes it was a deep state conspiracy in luckyville, wasn't it. Few things aren't, let's face it.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Permanently, or temporarily?
(The losses, not the feelings)
Permanently (so far). Not a great pension obviously. Fortunately I have others.
It's incredible the amount of publicity Restore are getting. How long before they become the revolutionaries' choice, while Nigel gets dismissed as a staid old establishment has-been. It's in the air. And a high-profile defection to Restore can't be far off.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Basic logic fail, but OK.
Could you explain? You said Russia is China's proxy and expressed concern about China. Surely defending our ally (or perhaps proxy) against their proxy must be a good thing ?
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
I lost a quarter of the value of one of my pensions, on supposedly low risk investments, thanks to Liz Truss.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
Nobody is asking you to feel warm and fuzzy. , just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
The facts are that Liz Truss willfully did a stupid thing, which had bad consequences. Why should anyone afford her the benefit of the tiniest doubt? She deserves every bit of blame in her direction, and to the extent she involved the Conservative Party in her shenanigans, so do they.
Dear Lord in heaven above, sorry to shout, but BOND YIELDS ARE HIGHER NOW THAN THEY WERE DURING THE WORST OF THE LDI/MINIBUDGET CRISIS.
I am really struggling to see what part of this you don't understand. There is a higher premium for lending to Starmer and Reeves than there was for lending to Truss and Kwarteng. And that's without an energy price shock, or the Bank of England deciding to flog off £80bn bonds.
I don't particularly wish to relitigate the minibudget - by all means think as you wish, I am merely saying that the borrowing position is worse now.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Basic logic fail, but OK.
Could you explain? You said Russia is China's proxy and expressed concern about China. Surely defending our ally (or perhaps proxy) against their proxy must be a good thing ?
You appear to think it's a brilliant wheeze that we are using Ukraine as a drain on Russia's military strength, yet you profess no understanding of the fact that China is equally and oppositely using Russia to drain the West's military strength. That's a pretty comprehensive logic fail wouldn't you say?
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Basic logic fail, but OK.
Could you explain? You said Russia is China's proxy and expressed concern about China. Surely defending our ally (or perhaps proxy) against their proxy must be a good thing ?
You appear to think it's a brilliant wheeze that we are using Ukraine as a drain on Russia's military strength, yet you profess no understanding of the fact that China is equally and oppositely using Russia to drain the West's military strength. That's a pretty comprehensive logic fail wouldn't you say?
So you're suggesting we let China's proxy do what it wants to us and our allies?
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
The announcement of the policy was upstaged by the Queen.
I wonder if just the fact Burnham isn’t Starmer mean Labour will do well. Before Starmer declared war they were miles ahead and I can’t see much has changed in that time.
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
That's about £5.5 billion a year which is the equivalent of around 9 % of the current defence budget. Not really a small sum of money.
Incredible value for money though given it's actually being used to destroy our primary adversary's army and economy. £60 billion on defence doesn't even get us an operating attack sub; you'd be mad to send more money that way instead of Ukraine.
That's a completely circular argument though, given that we decided Russia was 'our' number 1 adversary, pretty much because they were the USA's number 1 adversary.
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
Not circular at all - unlike you I do think Russia is our enemy and therefore smashing them via our Ukrainian allies is great stuff.
You can think they're the main threat if you wish to, the issue comes with thinking they're the only threat - or that the others are insignificant. Russia is (especially these days) acting as China's proxy. It seems unwise to say the least to blow all the resources on the monkey whilst leaving the organ-grinder untroubled.
So Ukraine is currently hammering China's proxy? Nice!
Basic logic fail, but OK.
Could you explain? You said Russia is China's proxy and expressed concern about China. Surely defending our ally (or perhaps proxy) against their proxy must be a good thing ?
You appear to think it's a brilliant wheeze that we are using Ukraine as a drain on Russia's military strength, yet you profess no understanding of the fact that China is equally and oppositely using Russia to drain the West's military strength. That's a pretty comprehensive logic fail wouldn't you say?
So you're suggesting we let China's proxy do what it wants to us and our allies?
That depends if you are talking long or short term.
In the long term, personally I think the great game is to get Russia into the bosom of the EU, giving Europe the resource and strategic heft of Russia, and Russia the civilising and professionalising influence of Europe. I also think that has been the US' nightmare, but oh well.
In the short term, I just think we need (and have always needed) to understand that Ukraine is not the only, or even the overriding security concern for Britain. We are practically defenceless. In that context, 9% going abroad is a vast commitment. Let's continue to work with Ukraine but in a mutually beneficial way.
Just back from Makerfield having spent nearly 5 hours there today. Canvassed in middle class part of Orrell and working class Platt Bridge. Impression more positive for Labour than during my first visit, even allowing for the fact that canvassing was selective. Every Labour promise spoken to with a PV had voted. Observed garden stake/poster count from about 10 miles travelled across the constituency: Labour 35, Reform 25, Restore 4, Green 1, quite different to the first visit when fewer were up but Reform winning 2-1, Reform don't appear to have added that many since 2 weeks ago whereas Labour have. Labour are no longer asking canvassers to find garden stake sites because they have literally run out, posters only now. Massive Labour volunteer turnout, couldn't find a parking space within 100 yards of campaign HQ (which itself has 40 parking spaces).
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
I actually meant to quote Eabal. I don't know how Kinabalu's little bit got in there.
Oh sorry. Missed this. Too late to edit my tart reply in response. Ah well. It happens.
However I'm not very happy about 'little bit'. It was a full fat paragraph.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
The announcement of the policy was upstaged by the Queen.
HM expressed her opinion on the policy by expiring on the spot...
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
I actually meant to quote Eabal. I don't know how Kinabalu's little bit got in there.
Oh sorry. Missed this. Too late to edit my tart reply in response. Ah well. It happens.
However I'm not very happy about 'little bit'. It was a full fat paragraph.
Don't feel slighted, I am sure it was of average or above average size, and anyway, it's what you do with it that counts.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
I'd say no. Perhaps they are partly fungible.
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
I'd agree.
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
Exhibit A:
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters - Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants - Death Penalty - Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end - Jenrick + Zahawi
Apart from here on PB, are there any old wise men left in the country beyond David Attenborough (Who is amazingly wise)?
Martin Lewis is the next one we produced but he is only 54. On that basis there should be an 8 year old coming through the ranks somewhere we should watch out for.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
I don't know why we're still using the Truss episode as the nadir of bond market instability when things now (afaik) are far worse. It is Reeves and Starmer who get the gold medal.
Because our borrowing costs have largely moved in the same direction as everyone else for the last 3 years, wherelse with Truss there was an enormous, idiosyncratic spike which we have never fully recovered from.
Yes it was a hairy 48 hours or so. Domino selling. Real panic. Not because any particular % of gdp borrowing number was breached. It was because of the cavalier way it was done. Rushed. No process. No narrative. No pitch-rolling. Complete amateur hour at the very top of government involving enormous sums of money. It spooked the markets bigtime.
I don't think this has even a whisper of plausibility as an explanation, but thanks for the effort.
The mistake people make, is thinking that the ‘mini-budget’ was the cause of the bond spike, rather than the massive energy bill subsidies announced a couple of days previously.
Which was awful politics, as the Tories got zero credit for even having had the idea.
I think we can all agree that the Truss era was characterised by disastrously bad politics. My disagreement lies with the argument that the minibudget was a bad budget.
Comments
Ref UK have many tribes.
I do not see all the grumpy Labour and Conservative voters currently supporting going for Rupert's concentration camps, for example, or all of Reform's ethnic minority supporters.
Which is why debt is bubbling around 100% of GDP.
It's women Restore are targeting in Makerfield.
I don't want this outcome, but at the moment this seems most likely. Yes I think there are a lot of shy Reform voters, but sometimes shyness in vox pops and polls translates to shyness in actually voting. Being cowed is a multi-pronged process.
More can obviously happen during the course of the campaign, so who knows.
You can give government borrowing any fancy name you wish.
Its the interest rate that the borrowing pays out which is important, not its name.
But if you can't give Haiti a going over, you don't deserve to be there....
"Aye, but they used voodoo on us - we had 11 zombies on the pitch...."
"And the excuse for 11 zombies on the pitch when you don't play Haiti?"
There used to be the 'joke', that "not all Reform voters were racist, but all racists voted Reform".
Clearly Farage has been very, very good at making people feel like they're not racist, despite spending his political life stoking fear of "others". However, all that hard word has helped create an environment where a lot more people don't care if they're seen as racists - and Restore have capitalised.
https://bsky.app/profile/lukeknox.me/post/3mo6e27kdsk26
A woman who said she was sacked for challenging a shoplifter at the Merseyside convenience store where she worked has described the decision to dismiss her as "very harsh".
Eileen Fox, 56, said she confronted the suspected thief - who she described as a regular shoplifter - and grabbed hold of her coat sleeve.
The suspect, who collided with a metal stand, then ran out of the One Stop Shop in Randall Drive, Bootle, on 27 April while carrying packets of bacon. She is not believed to have been injured in the incident.
One Stop told the BBC it asked its colleagues "never to risk their own safety" and provided training "on how best to respond to any incidents".
Fox was sacked in writing on 12 May after an investigation by One Stop management found she had "put the business at risk".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75ywgnlq4no
Rupert Lowe has posted leaflet showing how Restore define Reform to voters
- Scale of deportations: "millions must go" inc legal migrants
- Death Penalty
- Disagrees with Farage warning on "alienating the whole of Islam" [to tackle extremism] saying "Islamification" must end
- Jenrick + Zahawi
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mo64dqe6hc2s
Horrible, but very effectively done.
Or vice versa
That made sense for the USA - Russia was a hostile nuclear power, sitting on a lot of energy, and funding regimes opposed to US interests. It always made rather less sense for the UK and Europe. Yes Russia is an authoritarian state with a particularly nasty line in brutality, and yes they are a threat to their neighbours, but they are not alone there, and I don't think that under normal circumstances (ie when we are not in a proxy war) they're even close to being the UK's top security threat.
Even for USA, knocking out Russia was pretty much a stepping stone on the way to knocking out China, who have always been the bigger threat. Now we've expended a vast amount of cash in the effort to oust Mad Vlad, we're far weaker in the face of China, and anyone else who wants to take us down. Just because we have self-id'd Russia as the big enemy, it doesn't mean the other enemies are going to play along.
I was in our local pub the other day, chatting with a friend, a chap with vaguely similar political views to myself, although he's a lot more committed to Labour, when someone younger, whom we both know joined us. A mutual acquaintance had just died, to whom the younger chap was quite close, so we gave him our condolences, and asked how the widow was doing.
So far, so good.
My friend bought the young man a drink and he joined us. I can't recall how the subject came up, but we were then told that Islamification was a real problem, there were areas of Britain under Sharia law etc etc. We asked for examples, and told that it was happening in London, although the chap didn't know where, and was 'starting to happen' in Colchester, our nearest large town.
I then had to leave; my evening meal would be ready, and my friend rang me later to tell me that our young friend had continued his unsupported assertions, and someone else had joined in to support him.
Reform won a recent Council by-election in this ward but I've never before personally seen such evidence of their presence.
And I am skeptical of the connection between Cameron era promises and current anger, since people get re-electing governments even when failing on those targets. I think if there wasn't a wider sense of decline people would still not care, but there is and more now do.
Russia has left itself very exposed to a predatory China. If Putin's economy continues on its downward spiral, China might come to his aid - but at a high price.
China hasn't proved itself to be the threat that polonium and Novichok in our cities have been from Russia. Putin has no scruples and should be treated accordingly.
Ben Walker
@BNHWalker
Two 5pt leads for Burnham in Makerfield now. But both show Restore getting a larger share of the vote than 5pts. If there was a time for Restore to make an intervention and endorse Kenyon, this would be the weekend.
https://x.com/BNHWalker/status/2065780792345710975
Some people will be annoyed by this good news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/06/08/declaring-war-poverty-isnt-what-made-it-decline/
https://www.aei.org/research-products/working-paper/poverty-and-dependency-in-the-united-states-1939-2023/
Others will be surprised, but not me, since I am old enough (82) to have seen much of it with my own eyes.
What caused the decline? Mostly, economic growth.
https://x.com/Parody_PM/status/2065747066723147965?s=20
Reeves is too cautious and has been captured by the orthodoxy.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy towards her.
(The losses, not the feelings)
Truthfully, it is probably in the interests of Refuck for Burnham to be elected now anyway. If he is elected now, becomes leader and blows up spectacularly as Starmer has (which he will) that leaves Labour no excuses and no way forward for 2029. If he puts it off until 2028 and is elected and calls an election in the first flush of optimism that would be a lot more damaging for Reform - bearing in mind given Frogface's age he will only have one shot at this.
, just to stay vaguely in touch with the facts.
And that includes George III and Henry VI.
Long-Term Pressure: The 30-year gilt yield briefly hit 5.8% in May 2026, the highest level since 1998, indicating deeper concern over long-term fiscal sustainability.
The UK is not acting in isolation. Global bond yields (including US Treasuries and European bonds) have surged across advanced economies. This has been driven by persistent global inflation, aggressive central bank monetary tightening, and massive energy shocks sparked by geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East.
I am really struggling to see what part of this you don't understand. There is a higher premium for lending to Starmer and Reeves than there was for lending to Truss and Kwarteng. And that's without an energy price shock, or the Bank of England deciding to flog off £80bn bonds.
I don't particularly wish to relitigate the minibudget - by all means think as you wish, I am merely saying that the borrowing position is worse now.
Yes, incredible. Incredible in the same sense that Hitler's NSDAP membership number was 555 despite being the 55th member to join.
They've already been squeezed like a near-empty tube of toothpaste.
In the long term, personally I think the great game is to get Russia into the bosom of the EU, giving Europe the resource and strategic heft of Russia, and Russia the civilising and professionalising influence of Europe. I also think that has been the US' nightmare, but oh well.
In the short term, I just think we need (and have always needed) to understand that Ukraine is not the only, or even the overriding security concern for Britain. We are practically defenceless. In that context, 9% going abroad is a vast commitment. Let's continue to work with Ukraine but in a mutually beneficial way.
However I'm not very happy about 'little bit'. It was a full fat paragraph.
That said, aren't there very few people of a different hue in the constituency? "And we want to keep it like that..."