The British Pawnshop: This is no way to run the British Economy

Quantitative Easing or QE became a buzzword when governments wanted to increase cashflows to keep the economy going. The Covid Pandemic was one of those periods. QE was not meant to be a permanent way of dealing with circulation but, I am afraid, it keeps going on. But there is another factor. At one point, the British government decided to recover public bonds by buying them back to reduce the wait of public debt. This should be the most normal thing to do. What happened now? Imagine buying something by paying 100 Pounds for it and soonafter selling it for 50 Pound. Selling bonds of public debt at discounted prices means selling bonds making losses. Why should the British government want to do that? Well, interest rates payed for bonds are rising and many investors are not so interested in buying public blonds without getting higher returns. So I guess that lowering prices of bonds is a way to incentivise investors to take bonds of public debt. But what does this mean for the Treasury and the Bank of England?

In a few days time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to produce the Autumn Budget and he will be doing so at a time when variables are changing so fast that by the time the Autumn Budget is printed most of the calculations in it will have to be remade. I do not khow how much will the Government be able to keep to deal with emergency adjustments, but given the nature of the British budget there will have to be substantial amounts kept as reserves to deal with emergencies. In March 2025, Wes Streeting made statements confirming that Health was going to be substantially supported in the budget as one of the number one priorities. I do suppose that Wes Streeting, now in charge of Defense will be expecting important increments of the Defense Budget. Isn´t it that the now Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey went as far as resigning his post because the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves did not allocate enoughs funds for Defense? Some talking about increasing the amounts from Defense up to 3.5% of the national budget, or even up to 5% of the national budget.

Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat Leader, said that the Liberal Democrats are preparing themselves for a snap election. Before Andy Burnham become Prime Minister there was talk about a snap election as a way to give Andy Burnham a national mandate even at the expense of coming back to the House of Commons with a lesser number of Labour MPs. Why? Because given the measures that the Prime Minister will have to implement, having a big majority can be a liability and could lead to internal wrangglings. Imaging having to tell your own MPs that austerity policies that they so much hate will have to implemented.

Under Keir Starmer, the man that won a historical majority for the Labour Party, there was a series of upheavals. I lost count of the many times the Labour Cabinet had to re-reshuffled. Ultimately, the Prime Minister himself had to go and so he did by leading to a by-election to choose a new Member of Parliament. Labour avoid a leadership by getting Andy Burnham onboard when he won a by-election in Makerfield to be able to apply to be the Labour Party Leader and become Labour Prime Minister, something that he managed to do without any challengers. The Labour Party was desperate to show the country an image of unity. Unfortunately, that could happen only before the announcment and implementation of real policies, something that is bound to open wounds in the Labour Party.

So will Andy Burnham call a snap Parliamentary Election to cement his leadership even at the expense of having less MPs in the House of Commons? Many say that he will not take such a risk. Others says that if he has to confront the Trade Unions and party members with very unpopular policies, he will have to be stronger as a leader. Any rebellions, any upheavals, any confrontation with trade unions, could led him to face the same challenges his predecessor Keir Starmer had to face and that ultimately led to Keir Starmer´s political demise.

Some in the Labour Party have said that Andy Burnham is the Labour Party´s last opportunity to keep the hope of winning the next General Election. What they do not mention is how difficult it will be for a Labour Leader to please all segments of the Labour Party. 

The approval of the so called Made in Europe legislation could prove to be very negative for the British Economy. Made in Europe is designed to counter Chinese competition that is creating massive job losses in the European Union. It is not meant to damage British interests, but it isnot meant to promote British interest either. The fight for markets is intensifying. War in Europe and in Middle East does not benefit Britain either. The volatility of energy prices is costing Britain dear. Everything will have to be taken into account when writing the new Autumn Budget.

All eyes on John Healey: Government advised to slow down or to halt sale of bonds of public debt

 

UK Government advised to slow down or to halt sale of bonds of public debt

The latest reports indicate that economists have stated that to prevent an acceleration in terms of the growth of British public debt, selling less bonds of public debt or stopping sales altogether would be the safe thing to do.

This would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer with two options: more taxes or budget cuts or both options at the same time.

This is a dangerous time for the British economy because as inflation rises, more resources will be needed. Every time inflation rises, salaries are devalued and the currency is naturally devalued. You can buy less and less with the monies that you have in your pocket or the monies that you are bound to receive. This can mean, once again, industrial action.

Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides to slow down or to halt the sale of bonds of public debt, the fact remains that Britain needs money to pay for its budget. The news that the European Union could be about to implement legislation designated as Made in Europe to deal with Chinese increasing competition that could lead to the lost of more than 300,000 jobs across the European Union is not good news for Britain as this could restrict British investments in the European Union.

Things are not becoming any easier for branches of the public sector like the National Health Service that are asked to create redundancies to ease out the pressure on the budgets run by NHS Trusts. Local and regional authorities have been dealing with deficits in their public finances as asking for more financial support from the Treasury as a way not to raise local and regional taxes that could put families that are already under pressure due to rising taxes and rising inflation. The official rate of inflation that was 2.9% (0.9%) is now thought to be 3.1 per cent and could go as high as 4%. Why is this important? Because much of public debt is indexed - linked to inflation rates. So when inflation rates go up, public debt goes up.

Today, the Bank of England will have to decide if it keeps the present official interest rate. This can have a direct impact on how much the financial sector - especially the banking sector - can charge for loans and mortgages. Under pressure, asking prices for sale of properties are falling in an effort to find new buyers. As much of the British economy depends on the capacity of banks to lend and on the capacity of buyers to acquire loans and mortgages, there is financial uncertainty. Financial institutions borrow to lend to potential buyers. If at any point buyers cannot make payments, leading to defaults, then the full weight of having to pay back credits falls on the banks shoulders. Some years ago, the British government had to rescue the banking sector and used government reserves to that end. For the British government to be able to do the same, once again, there would be not enough reserves available.

The British government wants to invest more in Defense, but this means taking resources away from other areas of the public administration. With limited sources of income and facing the prospect of having to pay more to keep public services as they are, there is very little or no room to maneuver.

There is always the danger of increasing industrial unrest and rising unemployment that automatically increases pressure on the so called Welfare State that needs to support those who are unemployed. Already, about 60% of those aged between 18 and 25% have little chances of finding a job to pay the bills and a growing number depend on parental financial support.

All eyes on John Healey: As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is the Gatekeeper

 

John Healey is the Gatekeeper. All eyes now focused on the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to decide who gets what

The honeymoon over, Labour must now focus on delivering what was promised. This is a time when national politics and geopolitics could not be more closely linked. The former Secretary for Defense that resigned when the now former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves did not deliver the monies that he needed to beef up Defense. Now, he has his hands on the public purse and resigning is not a viable option.

As always, the promise was 3% for Defense, but what is the timetable and how is it going to be achieved. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has stated that health and other vital public services will not have to suffer budget cuts and he was adamant about it. Words like Austerity, according to Labour thinkers, can only be found n the Conservative Lexicon.

Financial institutions ie Banking sector are already getting in touch with the economics team, afraid of taxes imposed on the banking sector. Lets remember than some years ago the Treasury had to intervene to save the financial sector, including the banking sector, from total destruction. Thanks to that intervention, the financial institutions that survived and did not go the way of Northern Rock, did somehow prospered. Now, it is the State´s time to survive more borrowing at higher interest rates, with less economic activity and rising unemployment. Even the Armed Forces that an inyection of cash should beef up are told to "limit training activities to what is absolutely essential because we need to save money". How is the now mythical 3% going to be spend, if it ever reached? 

And there is the issue of the Welfare State. For a myriad of reasons, local and regional authorities have been forced to pay for uncontrolled migration that includes asylum seekers. The burden is pretty obvious with local and regional authorities dealing with people as if they were pingpong balls, simply because there are not enough resources. Because of immigration with migrants often put at the top of the list for accommodation, waiting lists get longer and longer and Britons complain about the fact that they are often unable to have access to social accommodation "because migrants and refugees are given priority".

There are not enough jobs, there is not enough accommodation, and public services are being squeezed, but due to budget shortages people are not able to work because there is not enough money to fill up vacancies. Even outsourced services are being cut off with contracts that are not renewed. For all the talk about apprenticeships, none other than the BBC had to tell apprentices that there would not be jobs at the end of the line. So you might be training for a job that will not exist when you finish your training. The buzzword when it comes to real jobs that pay real money is "layoffs". Companies are laying off workers to deal with balancesheets.

So the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with the biggest balancesheets. October is just round the corner and this is the time when all will be revealed. 

Rachel Reeves: trying to make numbers fit in is proving to be an impossible task

 

While Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Secretary for Defense John Healey, and other members of the British government can go around making all sorts of promises that they might not be able to deliver, it is up to Rachel Reeves to do all sorts of malabarismos to make numbers add up.

When she talked about pension reforms, she thought that would get more than 160 billion Pound to spend, but recent calculations show that the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have available is less than 11 billion. 

In the meantime, John Healey, Secretary for Defense, has spoken publicly about building 6 munition factories, 12 nuclear submarines and so forth. More than 10 billion Pound are going to be paid to Mauritius for the transfer of the Chagos Islands. Billions of Pound are going to out to support military efforts in Ukraine, including training and sending of more than 100,000 drones (such is the number promised by Prime Minister Keir Starmer when he spoke about a tenfold increase. But there is a lot more. 

In the meantime, there is constant talk about budget cuts affecting Education, the NHS, the benefits system, the Civil Service, the BBC and so forth, on top of cuts for the elderly, the disabled and for those who look after the elderly and the disabled. But the list is a lot longer than that.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting around the table on a daily basis, including Sundays, negotiating with interested parties that are not happy with salary increases and cuts being proposed. So being Chancellor of the Exchequer in these circumstances is not the best post in the British Cabinet. When the Home Office, the Secretary for Defense, the local and regional authorities and whoever else asks for money, she is the one on the spot. The question is how long Rachel Reeves will endure the present state of affairs, before she herself decides that it is an impossible task.