For now at least, talk of an “exodus” from UK debt and a “Gilts strike” looks premature.
Allowing me the freedom to take my pension as a lump sum on retirement will, likely as not, mean that I neglect my very old self in favour of my newly retired self.
There’s nothing especially political about it. It’s a hard-nosed calculation that weighs up the costs of higher average inflation on the one hand, against the benefits of more stable inflation and real activity on the other.
UKIP, the SNP and the Greens cut through all the complexity and noise. They say quite simple things, in straightforward ways. They’re clear. They’re economical. They’re succinct – and they look like they mean it.
* Many bankers are still overpaid
* The Chancellor’s Help to Buy subsidies are not a good idea
* Banks should not be broken up
* Narrow banking (ordinary deposits all backed by ultra-safe government bond) would be “too risky”
* Higher equity buffers for banks will result in less credit for the real economy
A policy that goes in the right direction risks being branded economically illiterate or dishonest by association.
People in continuous employment always see pay rise faster than all employees and this is neither surprising nor new.
Yes, the UK economy has recovered. But the evidence of high fiscal multipliers when interest rates are low and trading partners are also retrenching suggests it would have done better since 2010 without the Chancellor’s front-loaded tax hikes and capital spending cuts.
If you object to more cuts “after the books are balanced” why did you not refuse to sign up for budget surpluses in 2018-19 and 2019-20?
What if the surplus was only 0.7% of GDP, rather than 1%, as the Tories’ rhetoric now seems to suggest? A simple extrapolation, using the Treasury’s calculations, suggests public debt would be £63bn higher in 2035-36.
Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter