John Springford

Psychotic humans are so much more frightening that psychosis-infected humans.

Saw 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple this evening. In a state of utter shock, even though I covered my eyes for most of the first half.

I'm agnostic on Starmer being ousted, but the market reaction should have little bearing on the decision *unless* MPs think it likely that a left-wing Liz Truss will be selected. In which case, get a new selection process.

Excited, and a little nervous about the polite grilling from esteemed panelists. Come along!

Need a bit of caution on gilt/sterling wobbles I think. As much about increased uncertainty at this point as anything else.
If Starmer goes - initial market reaction will almost certainly be “UK govt shifting left, sell”.
1/2

Screenshot of event page

Right - @johnspringford.bsky.social and I are doing a big event to discuss our essay Getting Britain out of the hole.

With a stellar panel ft. Stephanie Flanders, Soumaya Keynes and Robert Colville.

You should come! It is free and so are the drinks. Sign up here:
www.nesta.org.uk/event/gettin...

The pessimist who became a prophet Michael Sandel was ignored by a generation of political optimists. Now he is searching for a way out of the mess he saw coming

Great discussion between @martinsandbu.ft.com and Michael Sandel on the rise of technocratic liberalism and the populist counter-revolution
www.ft.com/content/7804...

They axed the unfunded tax cuts.

Near-term growth. There is an adjustment to lower employment because employers face higher firing costs. Other policies can act to raise employment (tax credits, eg), but in isolation ...

Sex and snacks, but no seat at the table: the role of women in Epstein’s sordid men’s club Files reveal a world of flattery and fratboy tones, where rich men are cultivated and women provide services

'The Epstein files reveal a patriarchy in action. This is a world where the men are rich and powerful, and the women are not. The emails showcase the private behaviour of a male ruling class, as they network, joke and trade information.'

If I were a betting person, I'd buy gilts as markets reprice fiscal risks a bit, in the expectation that prices would rise again.

Starmer camp warns leadership challenge risks economic chaos Investors also signal concern at prospect of a more leftwing government

It seems unlikely that a new leadership would loosen fiscal policy. There might be changes that are both bad for near-term growth (more tax rises and labour rights) and good (watered down immigration policies).
www.ft.com/content/c855...

I remember an EU official telling me after the referendum that joining the EU often led to a lot of political instability because of the painful trade-offs involved, and that leaving would be similar.

May, Johnson and Sunak also had bad conditions to govern in, but a large chunk of that was a consequence of their own decisions.

The simplest answer is a bad hand, owing to the inheritance, ageing, geopolitics etc, played badly.

"The fact that the EU and UK were pretty circumspect and then ultimately rolled over with a deal, it convinced Trump that #tariffs work and that repeated threats are going to work", says @johnspringford.bsky.social on the latest #CERpodcast.

Full episode here: buff.ly/z30mXwQ.

FT exclusive:

“The US state department is set to fund Maga-aligned think-tanks and charities across Europe to disseminate Washington’s policy positions and challenge perceived threats to free speech.”

via @annasophiegross.bsky.social and colleagues

Yes absolutely. I think it has to be about the size of prospective losses of jobs/income. But it'd be good to have a high bar

The ideal would be subsidies/procurement of imports is fine if the country reciprocates. If not, it isn't. But obviously that has to be on a case by case basis, because EU govts can't buy all their paperclips in the EU, which makes the fight about what products. Then it's discretion, not rules.

The fiscal cost to EU governments is the borrowing cost (SAFE is not a grant from EU taxpayers to Ukraine). So the fair calculation would be the UK paying its share of borrowing costs, multiplied by the euro amount of purchases of UK production.

The only way Labour can win the next election is by governing well.
That might not be enough, but it’s the bare minimum.
The questions to be asking about any potential new PM are “what is their agenda and can they achieve it?”
Not “do they currently poll well?”
Or “can they handle a media round?”

Yes definitely. I was trying to set out a more sensible proposal above.

Thinking about positive externalities - Ukraine will buy arms that are needed against Russian invasion methods. This will raise industrial production for the arms Europe as a whole needs to deter Russia from more invasions. So UK might want a high ceiling, if not Treasury-brained about it

Sathnam Sanghera: Help! I’ve fallen out of love with reading The writer stopped picking up a book for pleasure some time ago, choosing box sets and social media instead. Here’s how he got over his reader’s block

My guide to getting over reading block in @thetimes.com

www.thetimes.com/article/12c0...

If the EU's worried about too many purchases of UK arms, and the UK's worried about open-ended liability for EU borrowing costs, a ceiling on purchases from the UK will stop that. This isn't difficult, really
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/f...

It's obviously fair that Britain contributes to the cost of EU borrowing for Ukraine weapons if UK companies get orders under SAFE. And it's easy to calculate, contra this, just not in advance. Share of contracts times borrowing costs as the programme rolls on.

Yes but that was an investment in future agency decisions

Sorry. I hesitated then did it anyway.

If a piece of research doesn't engage with (good quality) literature that leads to different conclusions, it's best to read it as a politician's speech. [Norman Rockwell pic]

There’s a Schumpeter quote that’s something like “the achievement of capitalism is not the manufacture of silk stockings; queen Elizabeth had silk stockings. The achievement of capitalism is to put them in reach of factory girls.”