On a scale of one to 10, I would normally say 11 or 12. But that still understates the scale of the threat. There are no sensible numbers for it. Ultimately, it would run into billions or trillions. I’m talking pounds, obviously. Because that’s the kind of money we'd lose if she and her boyfriend ever make it across the doorstep of No 10. And that nightmare scenario could be upon us within weeks, as Labour leadership contenders battle to replace PM Keir Starmer.
Right now, the race is between Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, Ed Miliband, Red Ange and Starmer himself. As PM, Sir Keir is a known quantity. As in: known to be hopeless. But the others aren’t much better. Burnham doesn't even get how the bond market works, even though we rely on it to stay afloat. Miliband doesn't understand basic physics. He thinks that if we burn imported fossil fuels, they don't count as carbon emissions. Whereas UK ones do. Yet Rayner remains the spookiest of the lot.
She may have escaped punishment over her stamp duty swerve, but the public hasn’t forgotten it. There are all sorts of reasons why she isn't fit for high office. Including smashing a Parliamentary door in a drunken fit last week. And now she's just given us three more.
The Labour leadership race will become a bidding war to please the hard left with promises the country simply cannot afford. Streeting looks the most economically literate, which probably rules him out immediately. I don’t fancy Burnham’s chances in a leadership contest that starts with a by-election against Reform. And I genuinely can’t bear the thought of Miliband reaching No 10. My head would explode, followed shortly afterwards by Britain’s finances.
So far the candidates have avoided spelling out too many policies, but Rayner dropped three giant hints this week. First came more nationalisation. Train companies, water companies, energy companies, whatever.
She didn’t explain where the money would come from. Nor why Britain should dump more liabilities onto a national balance sheet that already groans under mountains of debt. Either way, Britain has far bigger priorities than reviving failed 1970s economics. Her other ideas look just as dangerous.
Second, Rayner wants another jump in the minimum wage. That sounds lovely in theory. I’d love workers to earn more too.
But Rachel Reeves has already hiked the minimum wage twice in two years by inflation-busting amounts. Combined with her disastrous jobs tax, businesses can't afford to hire. Youth unemployment has soared and economists expect another 160,000 job losses this year.
Push wage floors even higher and more employers will simply stop recruiting altogether. Others will replace staff with AI faster than they already planned. Finally, Rayner wants higher taxes on the rich. Has she noticed Reeves already piled roughly £70billion of tax rises onto the economy and still can’t balance the books?
The top 1% already shoulder around 30% of income tax. Squeeze them much harder and more will leave Britain altogether, taking their money and tax revenues with them. Running a modern economy requires serious judgement and basic financial literacy. Instead, Labour risks handing power to somebody who couldn’t even settle her own tax affairs without lawyers and an HMRC dispute.
And if markets finally lose confidence in Britain altogether, lawyers won’t save us. The bond market will simply cut off the country’s credit line. At that point, we will be totally screwed.
