beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,535
maybe normal, also quite different. shows borrowing for each quarter, while the previous diagram is cumulative over the year.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
Indeed. Generally speaking cumulative will always go up - unless they actually start paying off the national debt, which is rare.
But what it shows is that it's fairly normal PSBR, and nothing outrageous - which the FT graph was implying (at least I assume that's why @TomandJerry posted it anyway). I also note that the FT graph states that it was in March 2025. April's commentary from the OBR actually says that net borrowing will be lower than earlier forecast. https://obr.uk/monthly-public-finances-briefing/
And in fact, looking at the FT graph again - it actually says that net borrowing for this year (2025-26) is forecast to be lower than the actual for last year. So, even the FT graph is a positive step?
Greenbag50
Well-known member
- Jun 1, 2016
- 617
Seems a funny time for him to mention this, when the rate of increase has quite clearly slowed considerably, and the current rate is lower than it was in January, and lower than at several points during Sunak's tenure.
Isn’t it all relative to global treasury markets? For the benchmark 10 year treasury bonds, France’s current yield is similarly higher just now than when Truss resigned, the US too (just two examples checked). We don’t operate in a bond markets island.
So this does not mean that Reeves strategy is being attacked by the bond markets, more than their view of Trussonomics.
So this does not mean that Reeves strategy is being attacked by the bond markets, more than their view of Trussonomics.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
It absolutely is. There's a certain irony in the nativists posting links criticising Labour for this when the cause for this is the direct result of idiotic (and not to mention unpleasant and dangerous) nativism: Trump's tariffs and 'big beautiful bill' which has sent US gilts through the roof and because we're plugged into the global economy and our gilts track the US'.
The difference with the Trussterfuck budget is that UK gilts departed from this global tracking.
The nativists will just carry on however. They're on a role and enjoying it, and we may have to suffer the full consequences of their time in the limelight, like we did in the 1930s and 1940s.
PS love the bolded comment
If only there was some sort of fairly well known individual who throws spanners into the works of the global economy every few weeks, which is causing the whole system to be jittery. I’m sure there is one, I just can’t think of it. Although I’m sure my memory will trump my forgetfulness in time.
Last edited:
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
A bit of fun in The Torygraph today, after doing the crossword thought I might give this a bash.
I reckon over 7 years old and you should be fine.
I reckon over 7 years old and you should be fine.
Not funny to mention if you are a relentless right wing twit
Surprisingly confident and ebullient presentation by the chancellor.
Among many statements, an end to hotelling asylum seekers in this parliament.
I am astonished by the lack of barracking from the opposition benches.
Stand by for Badenough to witheringly take credit for all the good ideas, and sneer at Labour's solutions to problems Sunk, Lettuce and Johnson only made worse.
Among many statements, an end to hotelling asylum seekers in this parliament.
I am astonished by the lack of barracking from the opposition benches.
Stand by for Badenough to witheringly take credit for all the good ideas, and sneer at Labour's solutions to problems Sunk, Lettuce and Johnson only made worse.
Not many of them?
Too few to constitute a minority?
Fantastic news just on skills investment. Mentioned by me here many times, neglected by all governments since Major's government since the early 90's. All the way up to 1990ish, technical colleges churned out engineers and skilled trades people.
Also on affordable homes, which is linked to my first point.
Feels like the UK is getting moving, and we're not in a plate tectonics zone.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Fantastic list of spending, who's paying the bill?
The first response you could literally hear the redness of face of whoever it was claiming this was the worst budget since the middle ages, and will lead to immediate war, famine pestilence and death, a deliberate strategy of the most foolish, misguided and frankly treacherous chancellor this proud nation has ever had the tragic misfortune to endure.
Of course the Chancellor was 'playing' (doing? engaging with?) politics. You can't stand up in parliament without playing politics. If political points were not made she would have been steamrollered by the political points made by the red-faced opposition.
That's how our parliament works.
The proof of the pudding will be what happens over the next few weeks months and hopefully years. And of course we cannot evaluate that today. A bit of hope is what I'm looking for
(If you want someone like David Dimbleby as chancellor, and I'm not saying that wouldn't be nice, he wouldn't last five minutes fending off the torrent of horsepiss incoming from the opposition. Particularly this lot of has-beens and never-weres. If you can recall and name a chancellor that was able to decry spin and rhetoric and still left the opposition stunned and silent, and the nation gasping in awe and admiration, I'd be happy to be schooled.)
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,473
I’ll be very interested to see how the £39billion will be used in social housing. When I started my career, working as. trainee QS for Rice & Son in Brighton they built a lot of council accommodation. Sites in Hollingdean, Kemp Town, Moulsecoomb and central Brighton were all built on Council land directly for and funded by Brighton Borough Council. The standard of building was high and all the houses / flats are still in occupation. Now they are talking about taking bids for the social housing developments with direct government funding. Will this mean that the government will be the client with a government body of architects, engineers, building control and surveyors etc overseeing and running individual projects, employing building contractors who have made a successful bid after the government has acquired suitable sites? I don’t think so. Where will the land come from? If it’s land already owned by developers they will want the market price as if it were for their own private developments. One of the reasons Council housing dried up is because local authorities sold their own land banks to developers ending their source of “cheap” land. If the government is just going to ask developers to build social housing on their own land banks, the bids will include the full commercial value of the land together with cost of construction with a mark up and the management company costs. The standard of new builds is already appalling as sub-contractors are paid bottom dollar and so cost cut where they can. Ideally it would great to return to Local Authority housing, but I can’t see that happening, meaning that homes will be built but not in the numbers or standards that they would’ve in the past for an equivalent budget.