Reeves's fearsome challenge: to balance backbenchers and bond markets
Even Donald Trump, that most wilful of politicians, has been forced to retreat in the face of bond market moves in recent months, ditching the most extreme of his 'reciprocal' tariffs after US Treasury yields jumped.
And despite the traditional status of US Treasuries (government bonds) as a safe haven for global investors, it is still not clear how well financial markets will be able to swallow the $3.3tn increase in debt coming down the tracks if Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is passed.
So when investors dumped gilts (UK government bonds) on Wednesday, as Rachel Reeves wept in the Commons, it was an abrupt reminder that Labour backbenchers were not the only audience the government must placate.
Like many other major economies hit by a succession of shocks in recent years, the UK's relatively large debt pile means policymakers have to keep one eye on the markets they are relying on to fund their borrowing.
And some analysts argue that the UK appears particularly vulnerable to crises of investor confidence, after the Liz Truss debacle of 2022.
Given this backdrop, Reeves's team have always said their strict fiscal rules are not 'self-imposed' but there to prevent the government running up against the real-world constraints of the bond markets. As the chancellor put it in a recent speech, 'it is not me 'imposing' borrowing limits on government. Those limits are the product of economic reality.'
Wednesday bond market moves supported her point, with the yield (in effect the interest rate) on government debt ticking up, as Keir Starmer appeared to hesitate in giving the chancellor his full backing.
The market move suggested that, while Reeves may have lost credibility with Labour backbenchers after what many see as catastrophic misjudgments over winter fuel and welfare cuts, she does, apparently, retain the confidence of the bond markets.
That matters, because this Labour government is operating in a very different, much more constrained fiscal environment than its predecessors.
Government debt in the UK was running at about 30% of GDP in the early 00s, when Tony Blair was prime minister. Then came the global financial crisis, prompting multibillion-pound bailouts and a deep recession, and more than doubling the debt-to-GDP ratio to 70% by the time Labour left office.
The decade and a half since has been marked by sickly economic growth, and another two 'once in a lifetime' economic shock: Covid, and the energy crisis prompted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Government debt is now close to 90% of GDP and is heading higher. The interest on that has cost the taxpayer more than £100bn in the last fiscal year – as much as 8% of public spending.
In other words, what appear to be tiny moves in interest rates, if sustained, can cost taxpayers billions.
The fact that Reeves's 'headroom' against her fiscal rules evaporated between the autumn budget and March's spending review was caused more by rising interest rates on government debt than a slowing economy – and this was driven as much by global events, including US tariffs chaos, as by decisions at home.
Reeves hopes the squeeze on the public finances will ease as economic growth picks up – but that feels challenging, given the highly uncertain international context and the unavoidably long-term nature of many of Labour's pro-growth policies.
By Thursday, the jump in gilt yields had partly reversed, after Starmer made clear Reeves continued to have his backing – perhaps not surprisingly, as there is scant evidence he wants to abandon her broad approach.
Some of the chancellor's allies argue that she has emerged strengthened for the internal rows ahead, because she can point to investors' jitters to show there are limits to what the markets will tolerate.
But after this week's welfare climbdown, her autumn budget looks like a fearsomely difficult balancing act, between restive backbenchers and sceptical investors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Scott Bessent spars with CNN host over whether Trump's tariffs count as trade deals
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reignited his feud with Elon Musk on Sunday during an interview with CNN, where the Cabinet secretary also quibbled with a host over whether the president had made the '90 deals in 90 days' he had promised the American public. Bessent's comments come as the administration is set to hit many U.S. trading partners this month with 'reciprocal' tariffs following the end of a 90-day pause. During that period, the White House discussed the types of trade agreements Donald Trump and his team were set to negotiate with China, the U.K., Canada, and dozens of other countries, which the president has accused of engaging in unfair trade practices. The majority of those deals did not materialize, except for a handful of exceptions. Many issues continue to divide U.S. and Chinese officials, but some export controls instituted by Beijing were lifted after an agreement was inked in late June. On Sunday, Bessent echoed a familiar line from the administration: the insistence that the tariffs Trump was imposing in the absence of formal agreements with foreign governments constituted the 'deals' promised by the White House. 'The president has a reputation, a self-described dealmaker, so why haven't we seen the kind of deals that he promised in the last 90 days?' asked CNN's Dana Bash. "Again, he didn't promise this,' countered Bessent. In reality, it was Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, who set this goal during a Fox Business interview. 'And when we send out the 100 letters to these countries, that will set their tariff rate. So we're going to have 100 done in the next few days,' he continued. Bash responded: 'But that's not a deal. That's a threat.' 'No, that's the level,' said the Treasury secretary. 'That's the deal.' 'President Trump's going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on August 1st, you will boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level.' The White House initially announced a slate of 'Liberation Day' tariffs in early April, setting individualized tariff rates for dozens of U.S. trading partners, including some as high as 50 percent. Markets immediately engaged in a sell-off, prompting panic and a reversal by the president. But the end of Trump's 90-day pause is fast approaching, with the official deadline on Wednesday, July 9. So far, administration officials have not indicated that another pause is likely. Administration officials are currently negotiating with the EU, which is among the U.S. trading partners still seeking to avert a massive tariff hike. Before the president was re-elected, the average tariff on goods from the EU imported to the U.S. was just 2 percent. Trump has threatened to mark up tariffs as high as 50 percent. Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Germany's Berenberg bank, said the most likely outcome of the trade talks is that 'the US will agree to deals in which it takes back its worst threats of 'retaliatory' tariffs well beyond 10 percent'. Bessent's support of tariffs was one of several issues that led to his conflict with Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO and former DOGE overlord who joined the administration as a temporary appointee in January. The two argued frequently and even had one physical confrontation, according to news reports, and emerged as sharp personal rivals in addition to being political foes. On Sunday, the Treasury secretary made it clear that there was no love lost between the two men after Musk, who left the administration in May, publicly blew up at the president in a series of Twitter posts about a legislative package Trump had endorsed — the 'big, beautiful bill.' Musk was, and still is, a furious critic of the bill's deficit spending, which is projected to add trillions to the national debt over 10 years, and threatened last week to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. His threats did not work, and it passed with only a few Republicans dissenting. 'The principles of DOGE were very popular. I think, if you looked at the polling, Elon was not,' Bessent told CNN.
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Aldi is bringing BACK its DryRobe dupe in stores this week – and it's half the price of branded version
ALDI is bringing back its DryRobe dupe in stores this week and it's a half the price of the branded version. Shoppers are flocking to the retailer's middle aisle to snap up the bargain buy while stocks last. 2 2 Dryrobes have been all the rage in the last few months with many making it an outdoor essential alongside swimsuits and suncream. If you've not heard of them before, they're designed to provide warmth and privacy when you need to change your clothes outdoors. But the price means shoppers have been searching around for cheaper alternatives. Luckily, you can get your hands on Aldi's 'Changing Robe' for just £39.99 which has sent shoppers into a frenzy. It's a dupe of Dryrobe's outerwear staple and comes in at more than double the price. They're loved by many who hope to keep themselves warm and dry after a dip in the sea but you'll have to pay £90 for the Dryrobe Full-Zip Organic Towel Robe. Dryrobe have less pricey versions of the product too but the cheapest robes still cost £60. So it's little surprise that Aldi shoppers are racing to the nearest branch to snap up the replica SpecialBuys version. But you better be quick, as with all SpecialBuys, once they're gone, they're gone. Aldi's windproof and quick-dry robes are made from 100% polyester with a cosy fleece lining and are an essential for those looking to enjoy a British staycation. Featuring full front zippers, Velcro fasteners at the sleeves and plenty of pockets, they're designed to keep shoppers comfortable, whatever the weather. Adults sizes S-XL cost £39.99 while children's sizes, which range from 5 to 14 years, costs £27.99. One advantage the branded version has is the greater selection of colours available with the Aldi version only coming in Black/Blue. It's also made out of 100% organic cotton approved by the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) compared to Aldi's polyester. You can purchase a Dryrobe online in a variety of colours depending on which robe you choose, from Black Red to Slate Grey Pink. How to get the best deals at Aldi Another cheaper DryRobe alternative is Next 's 'Swim Changing Robe.' But priced at £99, the Aldi version is still 60% cheaper, meaning shoppers can save themselves an impressive £59.01. Asda's own clothing brand, George, also sells their own 'Changing Robe Jacket' but they're only available for kids. They have five different robes available for boys and girls with two currently on offer for as little as £16. There's a whole range of other SpecialBuys that have hit the shelves this weekend too. The popular discount chain has revealed 24 summer essential products, including the Dryrobe dupes. Prices start at just 1.99 with several bargain buys at a fraction of the cost you would pay at big-name shops. With temperatures set to soar again next week, you can get your hands on several offers ranging from summer clothes to beach accessories. How to compare prices to get the best deal JUST because something is on offer, or is part of a sale, it doesn't mean it's always a good deal. There are plenty of comparison websites out there that'll check prices for you - so don't be left paying more than you have to. Most of them work by comparing the prices across hundreds of retailers. Here are some that we recommend: Google Shopping is a tool that lets users search for and compare prices for products across the web. Simply type in keywords, or a product number, to bring up search results. Price Spy logs the history of how much something costs from over 3,000 different retailers, including Argos, Amazon, eBay and the supermarkets. Once you select an individual product you can quickly compare which stores have the best price and which have it in stock. Idealo is another website that lets you compare prices between retailers. All shoppers need to do is search for the item they need and the website will rank them from the cheapest to the most expensive one. CamelCamelCamel only works on goods being sold on Amazon. To use it, type in the URL of the product you want to check the price of.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Terrorists teaching prisoners how to make bombs
Terrorists inside British prisons are teaching organised criminals how to make bombs, according to a study. In return, extremist inmates are learning from gang members how to launder money, use the dark web and obtain weapons that could be used in terror attacks. It comes amid increasing warnings about the rising threat of Islamist gangs following attacks on prison officers in jails. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'Extremists and career criminals now operate with near impunity inside some of this country's highest-security prisons. 'That is a complete failure of leadership – and a dangerous abdication of one of the state's core duties: maintaining order behind bars. 'When Islamist terrorists and organised crime figures are left to forge alliances, we aren't just witnessing a security lapse – we're watching a national threat incubate in plain sight. This cannot be allowed to continue.' Prisons have often been thought of as operating like universities of crime, with inmates learning how to become more accomplished thieves, fraudsters and even drug dealers. But according to a new report, that knowledge exchange is starting to take place between ordinary criminals and terrorist inmates. Described as the prison crime-terror nexus, a study has found terrorists are learning illegal financial techniques to better fund their operations, while gang members and organised criminals are discovering how to assemble devastating new weapons to use against their rivals Drawing on interviews with prison officers, former governors, counter terror officials and prisoners, the research suggests divisions that may have once existed between terrorists and other inmates are beginning to break down. Dr Hannah Bennett, author of the study, said: 'Some prisoners are coming out knowing how to make a bomb. Others are learning how to use the dark web or commit financial crime. For many, it's about protection – but it's also about opportunity.' The study warns that a failure to identify and disrupt these exchanges risks allowing violent alliances to flourish both inside and beyond the prison walls. In some cases, released prisoners have continued hybrid activity – either joining gangs with ideological leanings or aiding terror networks in evading surveillance. The report points out how the terrorists behind the devastating 2004 Madrid bombings financed the operation through drug dealing while al-Qaeda operatives have also been known to raise money through sophisticated credit card fraud operations. Dr Bennett warned that the most fertile institutions for such a crossover are maximum security prisons where there is evidence of corruption, violence and a lack of oversight. She described these prisons as 'black hole' environments, adding: 'Where you have violent, chaotic prisons with no consistent regime and inmates who are co-located without proper oversight, the risk is exponentially higher.' One inmate who was interviewed for the study said the authorities seemed oblivious to what was going on. He said: 'We are blind to it. There are prisoners coming out more radicalised, more connected and more capable – and no one's clocking it.' Prof Ian Acheson, a former prison governor who also served in the Home Office as the director of community safety, said: 'We have several 'black hole' prisons where a combination of weak authority, inexperience and poor leadership means the state has effectively surrendered the environment to prisoners. 'The Chief Inspector of Prisons keeps identifying these places and it is extremely concerning to see some of our high-security prisons are in that number. 'Here, ideologically inspired offenders and organised crime leaders can mix freely. Where you have such lethal capacity cheek by jowl with people with the capability to obtain weapons and help escapes there is an enduring risk to national security. 'It's a perfectly rational partnership for those whose only interest is profit. And it can happen in prisons where ferocious violence and staff retreat is becoming the norm.' The findings come after several high-profile attacks on prison officers and reports of drones delivering drugs into prisons. In April, Hashem Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber, who is serving life for 22 murders, attacked three officers in a separation unit at the high security HMP Frankland, in Co Durham. And in May, Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, allegedly threw boiling water from his kettle over an officer at HMP Belmarsh. Dr Bennett's report calls for urgent reform of prison intelligence strategy, including improved staff training, a clear operational definition of the prison nexus threat, and a structured assessment tool to identify high-risk jails. She concluded: 'The risk is not just ideological or criminal – it's both. If we continue to treat them in silos, we're going to miss what's happening in the overlap.' Ministers must pay attention to this insight into how terrorists and criminals work together in prisons By Prof Ian Acheson Prisons are traditionally places where alliances are made between criminals who see incarceration as an occupational hazard. Criminologists find this opportunistic behaviour, if distasteful, perfectly rational. When I worked in the prison service in the 1990s, an inordinate amount of my time was spent trying to disrupt and deter organised criminals and paedophiles from networking to extend their power on either side of the prison walls. This cosy old paradigm has been changed forever by the inclusion in the prison population of increasing numbers of terrorist offenders. People who kill for ideas are very different from those after money or sexual deviants. But the idea they cannot cooperate is dangerously naive and woefully under researched. This is why newly released research into the Prison Crime Terror Nexus by Dr Hannah Bennett is so significant. Dr Bennett is one of those rare researchers who combines theoretical and operational experience. We met at the University of Staffordshire and I have supported her work which I am glad to see published. Ministers should pay great attention to this study. Today's prison environment is poisoned by drugs and extreme violence. Terrorists attacks on prison staff have avoided death by millimetres and seconds. The potential for those with the capability to give support to those with the capacity for terrorism is not an abstract idea, it is a real and present danger. Dr Bennett has offered an insight into how terrorists and criminals work together in the prison environment for mutual benefit. Her findings are the result of multiple interviews with prisoners and prison professionals, many detailing a chilling degree of mutual cooperation and a high degree of dysfunction in intelligence collection and dissemination from the front line to the HQ boardrooms. In part this breakdown reflects the different objectives of the prison service and policing. I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to get senior officials at the headquarters level to understand their primary role in protecting national security. Too many prison professionals at senior levels subscribe to a kind of 'reclamation theology' that puts saving souls ahead of hard nosed threat management. This cultural blindness contributes to what Dr Bennett calls with rather more delicacy than I am capable as the 'intelligence capability gap'. This lack of appetite to join the dots and do something about it is most apparent in how Dr Bennett adopts and extends the theory of 'black hole prisons'. These places are akin to failed states where rampant instability, weak or absent authority, corruption, poor leadership and a rampant drugs economy create voids of power quickly filled an exploited by stronger forces such as gangs and extremists. Dr Bennett has taken this theory and applied it to identify the meeting points of organised crime and terrorism in some of our allegedly most secure prisons. These are places like HMPs Belmarsh, Long Lartin, Whitemoor and Frankland that hold the majority of our terrorist offenders in close proximity to crime family bosses and postcode gang leaders. These are not places where it possible to say the state is fully in control. Cooperation between these groups is likely when shared opportunities and goals transcend ideological differences or any adverse consequences. This is not an altogether new phenomenon. In 1994 at Whitemoor prison, shortly after it opened, IRA terrorists escaped the prison briefly with a London gangster Andy Russell. Russell was serving a sentence for hijacking a helicopter to spring two prisoners from HMP Gartree some years before. All had been held in the special security unit (SSU) a supposedly escape proof prison within a prison. Staff there had been so intimidated the gang was able to smuggle in weapons and explosives. In some of the high-security prisons I have listed today, cell window drone deliveries make it at least theoretically possible that the drugs payload they have controlled by organised criminals could have weapons and ammunition included. We are closer to ths reality than any official is prepared to admit. Dr Bennett has offered a framework for prison bosses to identify where this nexus is likely to emerge. 'Prisoners are in control' When I worked in prison order and control at a national level, our preoccupation was identifying the characteristics of prisoners who would cause riots and ensuring that there was a balanced mix across all establishments to prevent disorder. It is somewhat paradoxical that the threat or widespread disorder has receded today in large part because prisoners are in control of an environment where drugs are easily available and authority is in retreat. This Faustian pact will not hold where ideologically motivated prisoners are located. For many, not all of these terrorist offenders, the war against the state goes on and the targets have merely changed from civilians to the men and women in uniform looking after them. It is vital that meticulous research like Dr Bennett's is seen and considered by ministers and not through the lens of bureaucrats who have allowed this nexus to flourish. Terrorists and organised criminals have worked together before and will do so again. The stakes are very high.
