As the Guardian reports this morning:
If Keir Starmer is toppled, key Labour power brokers believe it wise to keep Rachel Reeves as chancellor, to reassure nervous City investors.
There, in a nutshell, is all you need to know about why Labour should not be governing.
As I argued earlier this week, Labour is now in office to keep bankers and not workers happy. And that is why it needs to go.
Government should never be run for the interests of finance and not people, but Labour now believes the City comes first, proving why it has long since passed its usefulness.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
My comments on this would probably be blocked by the profanity filter before they got to Richard
Unbelievable! And who are these unelected and secret “power brokers” who seem unaware of just how much damage Rachel Reeves is doing to the economy?
Reeves is as much the problem as Starmer! We’re been governed by second rate middle managers without an original thought in their heads. How much more tone death media must we live through. A dear friend once said our economy has moved from an economy of needs to an economy of wants. With so many in poverty or just about keeping their heads above water, it’s time we focused on ensuring everyone has their basic needs met, not the bond markets. And if that’s a radical socialist viewpoint, I remain unapologetic.
Apparently bond yields are up. Which is to say, given most gilts bear fixed interest, that the capital value of the gilt has fallen, so new gilts might need to be issued either with a higher interest rate or at less than 100p in the pound.
There are about £2.6 trillion of gilts in issue. £2,600 billion. Annual issuance is about £300 billion. About 11%. And for what it is worth UK GDP is about £2.8 trillion.
Beats me why we treat the short term valuation expectations of people who buy and sell gilts for a living as such a key component of the economy.
Genuine Question.
WHY might “new gilts NEED to be issued”?
RobertJ,
I read Andrew’s comment to mean not that new gilts might need to be issued for some special reason, but rather that any new ones that are issued (as I presume they regularly are) might need to have higher interest rates etc…
Proof that politics is now nothing but a virtual gaming world for high, unaccountable and international finance and that people like Reeves and Starmer are not real politicians at all – they are nothing but avatars – more akin to computer generated puppets playing out the Neo-liberal fantasies of the rich.
Italian guy here, I’ve been following your blog for a while.
Honestly, it’s incredible to see how both the Conservatives and Labour are producing a steady stream of politicians, each more incompetent than the last. Or is it really that easy to deceive the public with nothing but fluff marketing? It’s truly shocking!
Why do we need to issue bonds on a one for one basis?
I believe the uk introduced this “rule” – Gordon Brown, perhaps?
Reduce the supply, price goes up, interest rates go down – isn’t that what we want?
Or perhaps I don’t understand something?
There is now a massive disconnection between the Labour Government and their co-conspirators at all levels, and the ordinary Labour members at grassroots. Many of my local Labour are living in hope of a reset, and doing great community work. It has long ceased (2020) to be a party for citizens.
The first thing I thought when I heard that Wes Streeting was going to challenge Starmer was that this looks like and Establishment bait and switch. Streeting is a permitted challenger, to give the illusion of change, but we all know he will be completely ineffective at best, deeply damaging at worst. Labours’ power brokers will try anything rather than admit that their neoliberal, centre right politics is over.
Tom B
I think that the power brokers do know what they are doing. People controlling LINO deliberately lie to the public to continue sucking wealth from the rest of us.
By chance I heard some of Lord Prem Sikka’s response to the King’s Speech. It sounded very good to me: policies of care and dealing with taxation inequality, some well-argued proposals on nationalisation and dealing with government needs for cash. I would love to see him with a significant role in government.
We aren’t friends without reason.
As far as I’m concerned Likud-Labour is not just beyond its Sell-by date, but beyond its shelf life.
The Food Standards Agency has a hierarchy in the matter, starting with Sell-by date
What it means: A stocking guide that tells the store how long to display a product for sale.
Consumer impact: You should buy the product before this date expires, but it remains perfectly fine to consume at home for several days”
Followed by
Best Before Date (or Best if Used By)
Who it’s for: Consumers.
What it means: A guideline about quality, not safety. After this date, the food or product may lose some of its flavor, color, or texture.
Consumer impact: Products past this date are usually safe to eat. Check using sensory cues (sniffing, looking for mold, or testing) before throwing it away.
And finally ending with
Shelf Life
Who it’s for: Manufacturers & Consumers.
What it means: The total length of time a product is expected to remain stable, retain its required characteristics, and stay fit for use.
Consumer impact: It encompasses the entire lifespan from production to degradation. “Best Before” and “Use By” dates are just the estimated end of a product’s shelf life.
I hope the above demonstrates why I argue that Labour is well past its shelf life.