1. The UK is especially exposed to bond markets because of the specific ways government has chosen to organise its financial institutions. This a political architecture that turns gilt-market movements into immediate pressure on policy; it’s not just “it’s economics”. Here’s why:
2. Firstly, the Bank of England. Its independence and strict 2% inflation remit mean markets don’t assume the central bank will simply accommodate government borrowing. (Which it is actually obliged to by law.) That helps control inflation, but…
3. it also means fiscal policy is constantly judged against monetary “credibility”. This is a shifting sand and not logically straightforward. Its value judgments based on “sentiment” and not mathematical precision.
4 Then there is the Debt Management Office. The UK funds itself through regular, transparent gilt issuance. That predictability supports credibility, but it also means the state is always visibly asking markets to absorb its debt. Therefore, Yields become a political signal.
5. The OBR adds another layer. When gilt yields rise, the OBR turns that into changes in debt-interest forecasts and “fiscal headroom”. A market move is therefore converted into a headline political constraint: less room to spend, invest, or cut taxes.
6. That’s a self imposed constraint, again, not a law of economics that is irrevocable..
The structure of the gilt market matters too. The UK has a large stock of index-linked debt, significant overseas ownership, and a shrinking domestic pension base…
7. that once provided steady demand for long gilts. That makes adverse repricing harder to ignore.
8. Bond markets are often treated as if they reveal the hard limits of what is economically possible.
BUT the reality is more political: UK has built a fiscal and monetary system that turns gilt market signals into institutional alarm, media panic, and political self restraint.
The UK has built institutions that translate market movements into political discipline: OBR “headroom”, Bank of England credibility, gilt market anxiety, media panic, and government self-restraint.
It’s self imposed and can be changed if there is the political will. However
As usual it all falls back to whom the politicians are running the system for, and judging by a fairly consistent past 47 years, it seems that the system is designed to extract profit by the extreme financialisation of everything, not for the welfare or good of society.
@threadreaderapp please unroll.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
80% of landlords own only 29% of the rental homes in the uk
Meanwhile, 20% of landlords own about 71% of uk rental homes.
This is where the debate about landlords slides around because of the misunderstanding and deliberate muddying of these ratios in to semantics.
There’s no registration require for rental properties and non to be a landlord. So these figures are based on a collection of gov sources and surveys. Any statistic about the median income of landlords is flawed because only 1-2% of all landlords are actually in dataset!
The dataset for rental income is a sub set of a sub set of a sub set. Only landlords using registered deposit schemes are surveyed (30% of all properties), of those only 9000 replied out of 512,000. That’s estimated at 1-2% of all landlords. But there could be millions.
“Mass deportations” - it gets the red paint flag waving kind very excited, but means nothing. It means what ever the hearer thinks it means, and thus garners support for the one offering it. It sounds a strong solution, but it’s amorphous—
Mass - who? Maybe “illegals”- I’ll take it to mean all who arrive by small boats; but most over estimate how many ‘illegal’ arrivals are, and underestimate how many legal migrants of ALL kinds there are. It’s not internationally recognised
Arrival by any means with the intention of seeking asylum as a refuge is not and should never by illegal. But the supporter of mass deportation may suggest we’re over run with people who are here illegally. We’re not. Sure they may exist, but we don’t know. No one
The UK’s #OnlineSafetyAct shows nativity and stubbornness of MPs asserting parliamentary sovereignty over technical expertise.
MPs and ministers were warned REPEATEDLY that secure client-side scanning is not technically possible. Yet, they legislated for it anyway.
Encryption experts, civil society groups, and former intelligence officials described the Act’s surveillance powers as “magical thinking.” The proposed powers would require the impossible: encryption backdoors usable only by the state, and safe from abuse. They do not exist.
Despite this, government ministers insisted they could compel platforms to develop or source “accredited” scanning technologies even while conceding such tools are currently unavailable.
In short: they passed law on the assumption that reality would bend to Parliament’s will.
Key appraisal‐stage disciplines (clear options, full monetisation of costs & benefits, sensitivity testing, equality analysis, review plan) are either missing or so thin that policy-makers, Parliament and disabled people cannot rely on the numbers.
One GLARING issue is that benefits cells are literally “£XX m” placeholders!
Range of options are binary “do nothing” or “do it our way”.
There has been no independent quality check carried out on this. And it looks unlikely that this will ever officially happen.
The restriction of disability support in the bill has raised alarms that the UK government may be violating both its domestic equality duties and its international human rights commitments to disabled people.
Equality Act 2010 (UK) – Under the Equality Act, disability is a protected characteristic, and public authorities must not discriminate against disabled people and must advance equal opportunity.
the reforms undermine these obligations. The advocacy network Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) contends that “abolishing the WCA is discriminatory and breaches the Equality Act 2010, which requires equal treatment and protection for disabled individuals.”
At present benefit levels, disabled households are disproportionately in poverty – 4.7 million people in families with a disabled member cannot meet basic needs, and disability now accounts for over half of all poverty in the UK
Stop the disability bill now.
Cutting these benefits will push more households below the poverty line. Internal government analyses cited by MPs show that in some hard-hit constituencies (e.g. Liverpool Walton, Blackpool South), around 5,000 people per area could lose PIP support, ….
draining millions of pounds from local economies . A coalition of charities projects that 700,000 additional households containing a disabled person will be driven into poverty due to the planned cuts.