Conventional Take
@conventionaltake.bsky.social
Higher unemployment caused by a rise in u* rather than weaker demand should not lead to a monetary policy response
u* has risen due to 1/ NICs 2/ min wage hikes and possibly 3/ anticipation of stricter employment regulations in the employment rights bill
u* has risen due to 1/ NICs 2/ min wage hikes and possibly 3/ anticipation of stricter employment regulations in the employment rights bill
Powell said if employment is contracting, you dont want policy to be pushing it lower. SOMEONE HAVE A WORD WITH THE BOE
December 16, 2025 at 9:25 AM
Higher unemployment caused by a rise in u* rather than weaker demand should not lead to a monetary policy response
u* has risen due to 1/ NICs 2/ min wage hikes and possibly 3/ anticipation of stricter employment regulations in the employment rights bill
u* has risen due to 1/ NICs 2/ min wage hikes and possibly 3/ anticipation of stricter employment regulations in the employment rights bill
Yes! See also (and more egregiously) Tim Davie and whoever was the producer of the Panorama in question!
I think this is a mistake and it sums up what's wrong with accountability in the British state. Why does he take 'full responsibility'? Surely the person who actually *manages the OBR's website* should take some responsibility:
Head of UK fiscal watchdog quits after Budget leak
Office for Budget Responsibility chair Richard Hughes resigns following critical report
www.ft.com
December 1, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Yes! See also (and more egregiously) Tim Davie and whoever was the producer of the Panorama in question!
Exactly right- the Labour Party campaigned as New Labour (minus the charisma) and are governing as Ed Miliband (minus the charisma)
Indeed. Just as a point of fact, Starmer wanted to do two child last year! It is true to say that Reeves has what can only be described as an aversion to increasing welfare spending in particular, but that does not change that this was a Millibandite government this year and last year!
November 27, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Exactly right- the Labour Party campaigned as New Labour (minus the charisma) and are governing as Ed Miliband (minus the charisma)
Is Taylor Swift exploiting people?
More generally, the most high profile billionaires are entrepreneurs- who sell products that people are free to not buy. (Much more sympathetic to this argument in respect of inherited wealth)
More generally, the most high profile billionaires are entrepreneurs- who sell products that people are free to not buy. (Much more sympathetic to this argument in respect of inherited wealth)
As my colleague Chris Giles put it: "The economics of this is pretty simple. 1. You should be a billionaire if you're worth it 2. Probably, no one is 3. If you're not worth it and a billionaire - you've got your money from rent exploitation - which should be stopped/taxed"
November 24, 2025 at 2:46 AM
Is Taylor Swift exploiting people?
More generally, the most high profile billionaires are entrepreneurs- who sell products that people are free to not buy. (Much more sympathetic to this argument in respect of inherited wealth)
More generally, the most high profile billionaires are entrepreneurs- who sell products that people are free to not buy. (Much more sympathetic to this argument in respect of inherited wealth)
Hmmm “austerity/spending cuts weren’t that unpopular with the electorate” has to be high up the list.
Oh, for sure. I think 'understanding David Cameron's 2015 re-elect' is vital in part to understanding 'what exactly is the nature of the mess you're trying to fix?'
November 18, 2025 at 11:50 AM
Hmmm “austerity/spending cuts weren’t that unpopular with the electorate” has to be high up the list.
On the OBR- it’s possible to do away with it + replace the current “forecast based” fiscal rules with rules based on current data (eg run a primary surplus when unemployment is lower than 5%) but this would be 1/ more volatile 2/ not credible as the political desire for deficit bias is too high
On your comment about forecasting. It's not some nasty trap perpetrated by economists. It's a fact of life. You can't not use forecasts to decide on policies that have implications for the future! The forecasts are what tell you whether the policy is going to do good things or bad things.
November 15, 2025 at 4:41 PM
On the OBR- it’s possible to do away with it + replace the current “forecast based” fiscal rules with rules based on current data (eg run a primary surplus when unemployment is lower than 5%) but this would be 1/ more volatile 2/ not credible as the political desire for deficit bias is too high
A good reminder for the OBR haters that your real quibble is with the bond market, and arithmetic
November 14, 2025 at 8:17 AM
A good reminder for the OBR haters that your real quibble is with the bond market, and arithmetic
This is true- but the extent to which fiscal problems today are the predictable consequence of society aging it follows that the Blair era expansion of the welfare state created implicit promises about public services which were not supported by Blair era tax rates
It’s because no-one likes admitting they’ve got older: if states were having to spend more for the same results because, say, AI meant that students needed to stay in school much longer, wouldn’t be as much widespread denial about it IMO.
“Someone else can pay for it”ism seems to have infected huge swathes of British politics. Left variants include wealth tax, more tax on the ultra rich, “debt doesn’t matter”, etc. Right variants include deporting people on welfare, “efficiency” cuts, etc.
November 3, 2025 at 11:15 AM
This is true- but the extent to which fiscal problems today are the predictable consequence of society aging it follows that the Blair era expansion of the welfare state created implicit promises about public services which were not supported by Blair era tax rates
Reeves had the option of saying- “this is a Tory pre election bribe, it is not sustainable and we will reverse it”
That she didn’t is on her and her team
That she didn’t is on her and her team
The first thing she can do is not take office immediately after someone who cut 20bn off national insurance.
October 24, 2025 at 9:52 PM
Reeves had the option of saying- “this is a Tory pre election bribe, it is not sustainable and we will reverse it”
That she didn’t is on her and her team
That she didn’t is on her and her team
No one believes this but for the record C/O basically got back to the pre-GFC relative position of public vs private sector wages
October 6, 2025 at 9:07 PM
No one believes this but for the record C/O basically got back to the pre-GFC relative position of public vs private sector wages
This may be true, but makes it even more mad that the Labour Party (successfully!) opposed the Gove-led initiative to reform “nutrient neutrality” regulations in 2023
Labour's infrastructure and planning reform plans are good, it's just a bit crackers to have a theory of the case for 2029 that is 'there are some more cranes starting to appear in the sky' but all of this does help whoever is in power after 2029.
October 6, 2025 at 11:06 AM
This may be true, but makes it even more mad that the Labour Party (successfully!) opposed the Gove-led initiative to reform “nutrient neutrality” regulations in 2023
This is true BUT
1/ experience suggests the government will reduce the yield (has more objectives than profit maximisation)
2/ it seems that gilt yields are (for the first time in a long time) a function of expected issuance. So the cost of large additional issuance is on existing debt too
1/ experience suggests the government will reduce the yield (has more objectives than profit maximisation)
2/ it seems that gilt yields are (for the first time in a long time) a function of expected issuance. So the cost of large additional issuance is on existing debt too
I see references to the 'cost' of nationalising things again, now Burnham has started talking about it. Need to bear in mind that this is the price of an asset that might have a yield. The 'cost' is the difference between the interest rate on the loan and that yield. Which could be +ive or -ive.
September 25, 2025 at 10:23 PM
This is true BUT
1/ experience suggests the government will reduce the yield (has more objectives than profit maximisation)
2/ it seems that gilt yields are (for the first time in a long time) a function of expected issuance. So the cost of large additional issuance is on existing debt too
1/ experience suggests the government will reduce the yield (has more objectives than profit maximisation)
2/ it seems that gilt yields are (for the first time in a long time) a function of expected issuance. So the cost of large additional issuance is on existing debt too
This is very depressing but I (as a mixed ethnic minority) have not experienced any racism IRL this year. I hope my experience is typical (seems from the replies I am not alone).
Quite. So many Labour people on this website visibly have no idea of just how bad things have got for ethnic minorities since they came on, and how their visible indifference lands.
Also frankly I am quite desperate! A party that’s at best ambivalent on the question of whether I’m English and wants to deport my friends is 9 points ahead in the polls and the current leader is floundering and visibly out of his depth!
September 25, 2025 at 8:01 AM
This is very depressing but I (as a mixed ethnic minority) have not experienced any racism IRL this year. I hope my experience is typical (seems from the replies I am not alone).
What polls are you talking about?
September 7, 2025 at 10:59 AM
What polls are you talking about?
Somewhat tangential, but thinking about the 2010-24 governments as “one government” is not accurate in a way which was not true for Thatcher-Major or Blair-Brown
Guys will advocate for processes that by their own account have brought tragedy and misery, that everything we know suggests will make everyone involved worse off and less secure, rather than admit that maybe the 2010 to 2024 government failed through no-one's fault but its own.
Incredible things are happening on the other place (this is about the UK).
September 4, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Somewhat tangential, but thinking about the 2010-24 governments as “one government” is not accurate in a way which was not true for Thatcher-Major or Blair-Brown