Labour loves to remind voters how Liz Truss ‘crashed the economy’, but Rachel Reeves is making the exact same mistake. She’s asking the markets to lend the Government vast sums and they’re telling her where to get off, says Kate Andrews in the Spectator. Here’s an excerpt.
The last week has shown that there doesn’t have to be any kind of grand plot against a politician for the markets to take a disliking to the Government’s economic agenda. Their verdict isn’t some ideological rebuke or criticism of any particular philosophy. Rather, it’s an indication that the numbers in your Budget aren’t adding up. If anything, this latest crisis mirrors the 2022 crisis more than either Truss or Reeves would like to admit. In both cases, they insisted that their plans to borrow and spend were responsible. In both cases, markets decided they were not.
Re-reading analysis from the time in question is probably a better way of walking down memory lane. But it’s worth reminding ourselves of the key differences between 2022 and the start of 2025. These are not identical situations.
Truss’s decision to cut out practically every branch and institution in Government from knowing the details of her mini-Budget meant that the response to it was far more explosive (many members of her senior team in No. 10 didn’t know what was coming). Markets were mainly reacting to Truss’s request to borrow roughly £100 billion in one year to subsidise all household energy costs – just as borrowing was becoming much more expensive. Interest rates were rising around the world in response to the inflation crisis.
Markets decided this was an expensive bet, and borrowing costs surged. …
Reeves also opted for significant borrowing, asking for £140 billion more over the next five years, with spending increases front-loaded into the first two years of Government. A staggering figure, even bigger than Truss’s request. But unlike 2022 these plans were briefed out months in advance, and significant tax hikes were also announced alongside the plans, making it the biggest tax-and-borrow Budget in about 30 years.
The tax increases – while very painful almost immediately in political terms – bought the Government a little more time, as markets watched to see what the forthcoming ‘growth’ measures would be, and to see whether the Government was going to get serious about finding savings and slashing waste in the upcoming Spending Review.
The time Labour bought came at a very high price, and it didn’t last long. Time seems to have run out. Borrowing costs were drifting up as early as September last year (when details of the Budget were first coming to light). Then costs rose again after the Budget announcement. Now costs have surpassed where they were at the peak of Truss’s mini-Budget fallout.
So the circumstances were different, but the underlying cause of rising borrowing costs is largely the same. Neither party really ‘crashed the economy’ (though Labour could be facing other accusations on that front in the future, if the economy continues to shrink). The fatal error, for both Reeves and Truss, was making the assumption that markets would see their long-term strategy, understand the need for investment, and be willing to ‘finance the transition’. In both cases, this turned out to be a grave misreading of how the markets would interpret their Budgets.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anything that gives the Kimono Clad Baseball Bat wielding Fox Killer a poke in the eye is ok with me
What! Me no understand!
Chicken coop, fox, JM in kimono + baseball bat, ex-fox.
He does seem to be better at gouging people than Law. I read that his success rate is through the floor.
Given this judgement has considerable implications for charities across the board, LGBA’s CrowdJustice link here –
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-lgb-alliances-charity-sta/
Be warned – there’s also a Crowdjustice fundraiser for Mermaids with the (probably deliberately) dissembling title ‘Appeal LGB Alliance’s charity status’. Creeps.
It would be interesting to know whether ‘Mermaids’ now has to pay LGBA’s legal costs.
Maybe kimono-boy could sell his windmill.
This is the sort of problem you get when you allow lobby groups to have charitable status. On the TV news last night there was the Welsh head of a children’s charity saying that the government should bail out parents over the summer. When asked by the presenter what parents could do she said that they could approach other charities for actual help. Nothing to do with her, guv.
Charities are popping up like popcorn representing areas such as trans and more. I can’t see anything remotely charitable about them though. They are enablers of ideologies flying under the radar and getting quite a bit of the public money’s to undermine that same public. They are effectively lobbying groups with financial benefits.
Not much into any of the details in this story as I’m sure many wouldn’t be, except, when I here the chant “we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re coming for your children”
Then it’s time for responsible gays to pick a side, because that is a hill I will die on!
Language is a beautiful thing — trans charity, organization which claims to be charitable despite it certainly isn’t.