The Bank of England decided this week to get rid of £100bn of bonds over the next year, £20bn more than last. I agree they should not buy more bonds to replace the ones that mature, like the ECB. I strongly disagree with their aggressive policy of selling bonds at big losses which would lose us less money if they held them to maturity. They have notched up £24 bn of losses, all paid for by the Treasury , this year since April. They have provided no good reason why they do this.
Maybe they want to qualify as one of the worst bond managers in the world. They certainly paid sky high prices for the bonds when rates were near zero. They then hiked rates and sold bonds to force the prices down so they could make colossal losses. They defend the rate rises on the good grounds they needed to do that for monetary policy purposes, as their bond buying and low rates had proved very inflationary. They tell us selling the bonds has little impact on anything, so why do it?
It is difficult to believe what they say. They say buying the bonds at ultra high prices was essential to buttress the economy and help output, but apparently selling them does not do the opposite! Buying stimulates, selling does nothing!
They say their sales, large and low priced as they are, does not depress the market. Of course it does. They point out the prices do not particularly dip on the days of the sales. That is because the sales have been well heralded in advance and are carried out to a stated timetable, so they are in the price. Last autumn when they first announced a big £80 bn bond reduction programme it was followed by bond meltdown, exacerbated by the LDI collapse it helped trigger. The Bank had to reverse policy and buy bonds again to stabilise the market. This showed Bank buying and selling has a big impact as they are the dominant presence in this market.
The public finances ex Bank of England are badly damaged by the extent of the losses, which the needless selling makes worse. As the Bank does not think the sales make any difference, why do them when their balance sheet will come down as the bonds mature? More likely these sales have raised longer term interest rates, have weakened bond prices further and very visibly have worsened the public spending and borrowing figures ex Bank of England. Why do other MPs ignore £24 bn of losses so far this year with so many more to come?
September 15, 2026
they are banning fish and chips as a school meal option, they are banning crisps in packed lunches, the revolution cannot be far off, real people are not going to accept any more of this crap
September 15, 2026
Indeed the native population is indeed being pushed beyond the limit. Bit what is wrong with good fish and chips though I do tend not to eat much of the batter. Also I do rather like my home made Daal Curry and Chana Masala with flat breads occasionally and indeed my lentil du Puy with smoked bacon and a little garlic and cream.
Flogging the bonds off early at a loss is, I suppose, in effect, just yet more rather & expensive borrowing by the bank that will further worry the band markets. It was the dire Gordon Brown and made the bank “independent” and the Dire Osborne who gave us the dire Carney and the dire Javid who saddled us with the appalling Bailey.
I see that the Blair Brown devolution disaster now means that all three “countries” now want to leave the UK.
September 15, 2026
The problem is that our children (and adults) are fat / obese. Compared to the 1950’s. This is all down to added sugar, mainly.
Fatness in our population leads to all kinds of ill-health (mental and physical), dysfunctional behaviour, addictions, lower productivity. And so costing our business leaders, economy and middle-class tax payers a fair fortune.
So it’s a case of some (sugary brands) benefiting from this for short-term game at the long-term loss of business leaders, the economy and middle-class tax payers in general.
This isn’t a case of political philosophy but of logic / maths (do the maths – our middle-classes would be much wealthier overall without all this excess sugar).
Btw way fat is not the real issue – but sugar.
September 16, 2026
And the problem with fish and chips is that back in the 1950’s, our bodies could absorb all the cr-p in the average fish and chips. So what is the problem with fish and chips today (again this ties in with how unhealthy eating is eating into our productivity and economy overall and increasing taxes for middle classes regarding NHS – both physical and mental illness as well as more people being on social welfare etc).
The prob with fish and chips (for overly obese children / adults and adults swimming in insulin / excess sugar):
1. Our country is already obese / high levels of insulin. Fish and chips hugely adds to this (the chips quickly convert to sugar).
2. Most oil used for fish and chips is used again and again which is terrible for health.
Again, fish and chips is not a problem at all if you’re a child or adult in the 1950’s but it is today when so many people are obese / high insulin levels etc. And it’s a crisis compared to the 1950’s. And I am primarily NOT making the argument for health but of MONEY. That all this ill health is costing our business leaders in general and economy and tax payer billons and billions. We all lose out. Whilst the only ones gaining are some sugary brands (whilst other non-sugary, healthy brands lose out too!).
So it’s actually kind of MARXIST not to challenge the sugary brands in the general sense of Marxism where something is an imperative to business and the economy doing well in general and middle-class voters having to pay more for the poor-choice lifestyle of people in general that affects public services / pushes up the costs of public services (NHS, social welfare etc).
September 16, 2026
So yeah (see my argument below) anyone who doesn’t challenge the sugary brands is a MARXIST!
(I’m being controversial because it’s amazing how the sugary brands are allowed to get away with being an imperative to growth in business and our economy in general – because excess sugar leads to higher bad health both mental and physical – whilst, also, hugely pushing up the costs for middle-class tax payers – having to pay far more for NHS, social services and more because of the negative affect of excess sugar on the body and mind). So a double-whammy (and also an imperative on healthy, non-sugary food brands as well!).
Again, this is not about political philosophy but maths. Do the maths why excess sugar is costing our economy and middle-class tax payers billions more each year!
September 16, 2026
if you travel to other countries you will see that in many places sugar free, low sugar, and decaffeinated options are far less available than they are here. we dont do that badly.
the main thing I have a problem with is sink social housing estates which only have one supermarket within easy travelling distance, they become monopoly suppliers locally, and the residents get little choice.
September 15, 2026
This social engineering (banning things) started with the car safety belt …..the state will look after you
September 15, 2026
I agree.It is madness
September 15, 2026
Why is the Treasury not asking the Bank to explain itself? Why has the treasury minister or the Chancellor not demanded an explanation? Why is Patliament not demanding an explanation from the relevant minister?
September 15, 2026
It goes on and on – from Guido…
Public Sector Swells to Record Size & Far Outstrips Private Sector Wage Growth
In a slew of labour market statistics this morning the ONS reports that employment in the public sector has increased by 33,000 to 6.21 million, up 0.5% on last year. Almost one in five employed persons in the UK is on the government payroll….
The ONS also said:
“Employment in central government was at a record high, at an estimated 4.08 million in June 2026, an increase of 7,000 (0.2%) compared with March 2026 and an increase of 34,000 (0.8%) compared with June 2025; the main contributors to the increase since the previous year were some local authority schools becoming academies and an increase in employment in the Civil Service.“
The Civil Service has swelled by 1.1% – 6,000 – since June 2025. That’s despite repeated Labour promises to trim staff numbers…
Concurrently, annual average regular earnings growth was 6.3% for the public sector but 2.9% for the private sector. The public sector wage spiral continues in earnest – no one look at its productivity statistics, though…
3.9% average wage growth means the state pension will rise by that percentage too. Where’s the money?
I would ask were are the earnings going to come from?
Then you get – 10-year gilt yields have climbed to 5.41% this morning and 30-year gilts up to 5.93%.
… and also the familiar pitch “Chancellor John Healey’s allies are attempting to claim that he and Burnham didn’t know how bad the British fiscal position was until they got inside the Treasury.” Correct about Burnham, but John Healey? he was part of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet – so what is the point of Cabinet? Remember he resigned as Defence Minister because the Cabinet would give him more money. Or do we have a collection of Numpties going around making, answerable to no one and implementing their own ‘dreams’ ?
September 15, 2026
144 illegals arrived yesterday
September 16, 2026
yes indeed immigration legal and illegal is the defining issue of the age, history will not look back fondly on a ruling class which has turned the country into a bankrupt sub third world hell hole.
September 15, 2026
In other news –
‘The London Mayor was one of 26 people given a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer when the ex-Prime Minister left No10 in July.’ https://www.gbnews.com/politics/sadiq-khan-house-of-lords-abolition-sworn-in