–Leading a western country dominated by questionable markets isn’t easy, especially if you are trying to hide the truth from the people who voted you in
Opinion by Mathew Carr
Nov. 26, 2025 — I’ve spent the past few hours trying to put myself in the position of Rachel Reeves, the British Labour government’s purse holder.
She’s doing a government budget later today, one delayed because of the tricky geopolitical situation.
She hates inequality, she says (FT).
Yet, she’s scared the financial markets will deploy a Liz Truss-type reaction onto her and Britain … and her boss Keir Starmer.
So, what’s she gunna do?
Because Britain has evolved (sunk?) into a situation where national debt is sky high, her options are limited, according to most of the corporate bully boy commentators.
She THINKS markets are in control, so she needs to attack the people she promised to protect (the poor and middle class…the families grappling with tough poverty and mental health issues, massive inflation).
The Starmer/Reeves govt (the Bank of England) has spent more than $130 billion EXTRA on US treasury assets (US govt bonds etc) since it got into office … probably to boost the bank’s ability to defend any market reaction later today (treasuries are liquid, you see).
That $130 billion is more than three times the £30 billion ($40 billion) “fiscal gap” Reeves needs to fill with her “tight budget”.
By attacking special-needs kids? Really?
The extra spent at Donald Trump’s Treasury takes UK’s US treasuries’ capacity to £865 billion in Sept. 2025 (US treasuries data) vs when the administration got into power last July. (I ran and lost to be MP for City of London and Westminster at the time, BTW. Labour won that seat)
So while we wait, Reeves is saying she does not have much wiggle room to boost spending so she probably has to curb welfare spending (leaks yesterday show she actually might be a little generous here, for instance to allow bigger families to get welfare for more than two children).
An extra tax on houses above £2m makes sense. (Apparently only on the amount above £2m).
Time to invest in a property valuation business!
She also says she needs to raise other taxes. A straw man idea to raise income tax, leaked during climate talks probably to deflect the press, quickly burned down. Could 50 taxes get raised, made more progressive today? That would be good.
Voters are all-too aware that Reeves recently sought to cut back welfare, pushing measures that would have made life even more difficult for families with special needs, education or health related, for instance.
That push failed in July, partly because Labour MPs and the general public smelled a rat. Even the corrupt corporate press did.
Bullying markets dropped slightly, even then, and even if Reeves’ tears on July 2 were due to something else. To be sure, equities only slipped 1.3%, so Reeves might stand up to the bullying markets, this time?
Unpopular
Now, Starmer’s administration is unpopular, with even the Greens are nipping at its heels in voter polls.
It seems completely insane to be spending so much on US Treasuries while crying poor to the electorate that put you into office. (I know I know, it’s the BoE.)
That seems monstrous, at least superficially.
Yet, it’s also kind of understandable because Britain has become so indebted — national net borrowing is at £2.9 trillion (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) vs GDP at a similar level last year (Commons Library).
But is it understandable? Really?
I’m picking on US treasuries partly because of recent commentary that US President Donald Trump has been labelled a monster and the most corrupt US President in history.
I’m not saying that. I’m reporting it. Please don’t sue me, Donald.
The BBC is under attack (again) for its monstrous censorship...this time for removing that factoid about corruption from a speech that it broadcast yesterday (Tuesday).
So UK taxpayers (BoE) spent an additional $130 billion or so under the new Labour government to support convicted felon Donald Trump’s coffers …while Trump bullies the BBC for $1billion to $5 billion. UK taxpayers are sending billions of dollars to Trump’s warmongering machine to kill brown-skinned babies in Gaza? As America’s war in Ukraine kills even more babies [There, I said it]?
Really?
While Trump gets (?) the BBC to do hit jobs on China during the climate talks’ climax? While Trump gets (?) the BBC to censor plain statements about Trump’s plain corruption?
Really?
What I hope Reeves has learned from all this is that humans, climate and nature are more important than markets. Kids are, especially.
I hope, and as a taxpayer I expect, her budget will reflect the needs of humans over markets.
It’s the people’s place to choose policy, market structure, budgets, money supply and taxes. And to regulate corporations and markets PROPERLY in the interests of mums, dads, kids and voters generally.
Markets and billionaires are not in charge. People are.
Letting the wrong people win IS cowardly, maybe even treacherous and monstrous.
I’m not saying juggling these conflicted interests is easy.
But you, Rachel, are choosing bond vigilantes and Mr Trump? Really?
If some rich people lose some money later today because they bet against the people… against decent government, so be it. No big deal.
Don’t be a monster, nor a coward. Don’t hide the truth.
If you do, it might be the end of democracy.
—-
[…] Monstrous, cowardly (?) choices in Britain: Special-needs kids vs preparing for market chaos (people… […]