I was at the Walthamstow Wetlands Centre for a family gathering today. I noticed this scene:
In the background, there might be hope for a high-rise future, for some. In the foreground is the reality of Labour's approach to the collapsing social safety net, abandoned to the supposed whims of financial markets according to Rachel Reeves, writing in the Observer today, when she justified the austerity she is very obviously now committed to by saying:
[I]t was made clear to me that unless I acted urgently, market confidence in the UK's fiscal position could be seriously undermined. That would have meant higher debt, higher mortgages and higher prices in the shops. I was not prepared to let that happen.
I may well discuss this comment again, tomorrow. For now, I make clear that her message, when decoded, is that she is very sorry that she thinks that people are going to have to die to pacify the financial markets, but when given the choice between them dying and keeping the markets happy, she chose the markets and threw away the lifebelts required by those in need.
The same was apparently also happening at the Wetlands Centre both more obviously but, I hope, with less consequence. The mindlessness of both situations does leave me angry.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I picked out the same paragraph on the Youtube Owen Jones interviewed with Danny Blanchflower.
Would the the markets do this? Should they?
A Labour Minister is now arguing that if the winter fuel allowance had not been cut, the economy could or would have collapsed. Could someone parse that for me please and explain how the direct effect of the WTF cut would have led directly to the “collapse” of the whole economy; and how that collapse, specifically is manifested. Is this supposed to be responsible government, or does the silly season never end?
Having been out all day, I am going to sleep on this one before commenting further.
Well said.
Reeve’s view that you can do the wrong thing more rightly or better is mind-numbingly bad – proof that she is playing to her own limited field rather than to the country as a whole.
But also, it is worth noting yet another fear narrative being used by a British politician to justify the worst option.
Is that all they’ve got?
“I]t was made clear to me that unless I acted urgently, market confidence in the UK’s fiscal position could be seriously undermined.”
I think we should be told just who made this clear and what authority they had to do so. It sounds very much like a threat from undisclosed actors to destabilise the country if their wishes are not pandered to.
Agreed
This angers me. We’d only have to have a couple of cases of Mpox in the country and they would suddenly find tens of billions for their next lockdown/mass vaccination charade.
Or the US may tell the UK we’ve got to underwrite more fighter aircraft for Ukraine, or supply a load more weapons for Israel’s genocide.
And Starmer and Reeves would just do it. The country isn’t going to collapse and they all know it.
@ Roseane Edwards
This country DID collapse. It caved in.
Churchill was in many ways a buffoon, but greatly loved by history as the saviour of “Great” Britain. Have we had a respected Prime Minister since? I won’t accept Thatcher because she was so divisive (And stupid in my opinion, but I know that’s not the popular view because she had a chemistry degree so she must have been clever – yeah right).
If the job of government is merely to convey the whims of bond traders, can’t we dispense with elections and pare parliament down to a few MPs on minimum wage in a portakabin somwhere?
A political party in opposition is full of wonderfully positive ideas.
As soon as they are in government the good ideas dissipate.
Can it be that the real power lies behind politicians who are obliged to conform?