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. 

United Kingdom: bills keep piling up with prices that are rising almost on a monthly basis

For many people, the way rates of inflation are calculated is an absolute mystery that bears no relationship with the their cost of living. The cost of utilities and the cost of the shopping basket (itens that you need to buy or buy because you could not possible be without) is rising and often by 100%. 

No sooner you are trying to digest the cost of recent increases you get another letter informing you about additional costs to be introduced next month. In my mind, this amounts to devaluation. You are getting less for your monies. Your pounds are worth less and less and less and there is end in sight.

Another issue that should have more and more people worried is the fact that house prices are dropping and for those who have mortgages and loans used to acquire the property that live this means the certainty of having to deal with negative equity - when the value of the assets is less than the financial commitments you signed for in order to acquire the said assets.

You could have a mortgage for 1,000,000 Pound when in fact your property value is now 700,000 Pound. Even if you sell your property you will still owe the lender the amount of 300,000 Pound. No property left. Just debts. Those who have been faced with negative equity can tell you that it is not a nice experience.

For you is a very bad experience. For the financial system it could be even more catastrophic. Northern Rock was bankrupted. Many of the big banks had to be rescued with taxpayers monies. When Gordon Brown made the decision to rescue the banks, he did it because the alternative was financial paralysis.

If peoples incomes go down because of additional taxation, rising cost of borrowing and inflation, it is to be expected that disposable income will go down dramatically thus affecting consumption. Less consumption, more unemployment and more support needed to keep the unemployed and those do not earn enough alive.

We have not seen the nex budget being prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey. The Prime Minister says that increases in defense expenditure will not happen at the expense of welfare and of vital services. The cost of public debt is rising and the country is left with unsavoury alternatives - more borrowing, tax increases and budget cuts.

Argentinian President Javier Milei: The winds of change

 

Argentina: The Winds of Change

President Javier Milei finds himself talking about the "Winds of Change" and winds there are many when it comes to the South Atlantic on the way to Antarctica.

What did not happen in 1982 under a Military Junta could happen under a democratically elected President. Britain was not in the best position in 1982, but Britain is in a much worse position in 2026 and we still have not seen the numbers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, former Secretary for Defense John Healey, is going to provide. It will not be nice. Mr Healey might have even less monies for Defense than the monies he was offered by Rachel Reeves and the reason he resigned his post as Secretary for Defense. What is essential or not essential in terms of training is a debatable subject. Argentina just announced that it will be new military installations that will give Argentina better access to Falkland Islands, and Falkland Islands are not the only islands under British control in the South Atlantic. In 1982, Britain was not caught up with a conflict in Europe for which it is not well prepared. President Trump has been found laughing about British military power and he might not offer Britain any support should there be a conflict, once again, in the South Atlantic.

I would say that for Britain things are much worse than they ever were in 1982. Equipment that Britain had and that made the difference in a conflict that happened more than 40 years ago has not been updated nor replaced.

Argentina does not need military forces on mainland Argentina for internal puposes or as a precaution because of strained relationships with Chile at the time when the invasion happened. President Allende did support Margaret Thatcher and Chilean support in 1982 was for Britain a sine qua non. President Kast, shares President Milei´s ideology and so that President Trump that is visibly involved in developing American influence in Latin America.

So things have changed exponentially and not in a favourable way for Britain.

The USA, and not just those who support President Trump, have good reasons to support Argentina. As members of the American Administration stated very openly, Europe is no longer a priority. China is. So countries that are closer to the USA, where China has been playing an ever greater role, are also a priority. With Venezuela "under control", Panama controls the passage between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, which is a crossing of fundamental strategic importance for the USA - a passage that was built by the USA.

So where is Britain in all this? What is happening with the geopolitical agenda? What is happening with trade? Britain has a limited presence in Antarctica, but so do other countries. Undoubtedly, British Islands in the South Atlantic are relevant as a gate to Antarctica. For Argentina, it is obviously a bonus. It is about asserting Argentinian influence. This is for Argentina a James Monroe Moment. Just imagine what it would mean for the Argentinian peoples and for President Milei himself. Imagine what it would mean to be seen as the Argentinian President that "recovered the South Atlantic Islands".

So we keep following developments. This could be the ultimate slap on the face of Britain. So President Trump is using it. "You did not help me with Iran. I would not help you in the South Atlantic."

In Brazil, President Lula da Silva is campaigning for a presidential election in which the son of the now former President Bolsonaro is standing, but with or without a Bolsonaro as Brazilian President, the winds of change are not blowing in favour of Britain. 

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham: calming the markets....?

 

The Guardian, the London newspaper talks about Prime Minister Andy Burnham trying to calm bond market, as more and more investors are getting rid of bonds of public debt. It must be said that it is not just Britain that might be losing its capacity to borrow billions of US Dollars (althougn bonds might be valued in Pounds) to paid a public debt that amounts to trillions US Dollars.

Any budget must be based on reliable data, but nowadays data has a habit of changing even before any budget is formulated. So by the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey (former Secretary for Defense) rises in the House of Commons to deliver the so called Autumn Budget all numbers in it might be totally outdated. Without the capacity to borrow more then taxing more and budget cuts could be the only way left to adjust public expenditure. Both options are deeply unpopular because they both go for one word: Austerity.

For a Labour Prime Minister having to start by imposing new taxes and cutting budgets because there is no money to go around is not what was promised during the first short campaign for an election that never happened. When the amount of monies available is significantly reduced, the impact of increasing defense expenditure makes cuts in other areas of the public administration even more painful. As Paul Samuelson, the American Economist stated, it is butter or cannons. You cannot have them both in equal measure. Something has to go. Will it be welfare payments? Whatever the previous Prime Minister did that was considered to be done against Labour values will be nothing compared with the limitations the new Prime Minister will have to impose.

Suddenly, recent electoral successes in Makerfield and Manchester will feel like a pyhrric victory. The joy and celebratons might turn into a funeral. More taxes will certainly means less buying power in the pockets of already suffering taxpayers. Budget cuts will mean more unemployment. But in actual fact both measures can accelerate the rise of unemployment. If you raise taxes, you cut private investment and consumption. Taxes will be higher but the amount of monies collected will be reduced due to less economic activity. Keir Starmer´s exit from Parliament will help him distance himself from then nightmare that is coming and Andy Burnham´s time as Prime Minister could be cut short.

Right after Andy Burnham was appointed, there were rumours that he would go to the country, that he intended to have his own Parliamentary majority, even by losing many of the seats that Labour managed to win in 2024. Going to the country, having a General Election preceded by a whole bunch of bad news does not look, sound and feel like a good idea. Labour MPs that did not want Keir Starmer as Leader and Prime Minister made the choice to remain under Keir Starmer not to risk losing their seats.

When Andy Burnham threw his hat on the right they could have rocket the boat and go for internal elections in the Labour Party. Instead, they chose to have Andy Burnham appointed without any contest. The idea was pure and simple. No contest to challenge Andy Burnham would show the Labour Party as something that the Labour Party is not: a united Party. When the new budget is presented in the House of Commons, factional rivalries will reappear. 

Having a majority in Parliament might look like a blessing, but having too many MPs might be inconvenient. A majority that cannot be controlled becomes a liability.

At a distance, Labour MPs that are no longer Cabinet Members could have been disappointed, hurt because they were no longer at the forefront of the Labour government. Now, many of them like Rachel Reeves might be congratulating themselves because they do not have to face the mess the new government will have to deal with. She was being forced to calculate and recalculate budgets before they were even presented in Parliament. Now the man who complained and even resigned as Secretary for Defense because he was not getting enough money for defense will have to face reality. Now, it is John Healey´s time to face the music.

Sue Gray did not last long as Chief of Staff under Keir Starmer. She said that she felt that she was being spied on, that her private conversations were being recorded and leaked to the mass media. Has the political environment inside the Labour government changed overnight? As pressure mounts, one can expect that internal tensions will rise. As the expression goes "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer". 

 

  

John Healey: if the money to support serving military personnel and their families was available, why no support was given until Reform appeared to be winning elections?

 

John Healey: if the money to support serving military personnel and their families was available, why no support was given until Reform appeared to be winning elections?

It is significative important to remark that just a few weeks ago there was massive austerity to the point the winter allowances for pensioners and welfare benefits were being cut, Now, after Reform won against Conservative and againts Labour, suddenly, out of the blue, there is money for everything.

So Rachel Reeves is willing to throw everything out of the Treasury to prevent Reform for winning elections. Sixteen times the Prime Minister mentioned Nigel Farage in a recent political gathering. Nigel Farage stated that he was happy to be living in the Prime Minister´s mind for free without having to pay rent.

Trust? What Trust? We have got a government that is willing to ruin Britain to keep itself in power. So, apparently, there was a budget gap left by the Conservatives. Well, a lot more than that has been spent or promised. More than 10 billion Pound for Mauritius, a very similar amount for Ukraine, 22 billion Pound for Ed Milliband Eco Projects, and now the promiss made by the Secretary for Defense that Britisn expenditure will rise exponentially to pay for defense? Where is the money coming from? From the 22 billion budget gap that Labour said that the Conservatives left behind. Ah, lets not forget billions of Pound promised for transport projects. 

Are you buying British debt bonds? Are you lending money to the British government? Are you afraid? I reckon you should be extremely afraid. One thing is to have to rescue the financial system. Another thing is to have enough money to rescue Britain which, as we know, would be something impossible to do given the size of the British economy.