Reader Q&A: Rafael Behr answers your questions – live

It’s 10 years since Brexit – and it’s also another one of those weeks in British politics … Guardian columnist Rafael Behr is online now answering your questions about Burnham, Starmer, Brexit and more. Sign up here to join the discussion and post your questions mspiggy asks: 1. Given the external factors of the economic situation + Trump (Iran etc), will/can the impact on the UK general public of a Burnham or even a Polanski administration be any different to the outgoing Starmer/Reeves administration? 2. Would you advise a Burnham administration to relax Labour’s fiscal rules? What do you think the outcome would be of doing so/not doing so? Raf: 1: The defence and security partnership with the US is extremely tight and bundled very deep. Much of the UK’s defence capacity really relies on the Pentagon. In this respect the “special relationship” is hard-wired in. That isn’t an argument for just sucking up to Trump regardless of what he does, but it does explain why Starmer had to tread very carefully indeed. There is a case for seeking much more strategic autonomy from Washington but that’s a challenge to be met over a generation. Can’t be done quickly and is very expensive. 2: The fiscal rules thing is both more complex and simpler than often presented. Ultimately everyone involved, including the bond traders, know it is an artificial construct, but the rules do function as a commitment to recognise finite budget capacity, which matters. Yes, there are arguments for borrowing more to invest in the productive capacity that will generate more revenue in the future, through higher growth. By this mechanism, we should be able to loosen the reins a bit on the understanding that the benefits will accrue soon enough. Bond traders understand the macroeconomic logic of that argument but they don’t necessarily trust the politicians to really be thinking about the long term.

It could too easily sound like the chancellor is saying “I want to borrow a load more money so I don’t have to make hard spending/cuts choices in the run up to an election, but I promise I’ll get it all sorted the moment after polling day.” If you don’t have credible revenue projections, the market is going to be very sceptical. As it was with Liz Truss. Ultimately the bond market is just the mechanism by which the UK government borrows money and, like any lender, it sets the terms according to how confident it is in the reliability of the borrower. The fiscal rules are a convenient badge of seriousness for a country that has, sadly, been rather too unserious in the recent past. Raf: No. I don’t hate him either. I was sceptical to begin with, then started extending the benefit of the doubt, then stretched it as far as it would go – some might say too far – and accepted, eventually, that he wasn’t up to it. I find the levels of vitriol directed at him perverse and demoralising. He has become a receptacle for many years of disappointment with successive prime ministers. Something about the nature of his failure, the way he set himself up as the totem of Change and then delivered what felt so much like more of the same, seems to have distilled public disappointment into an exceptionally potent venom. He came to be seen as the archetypal deceiving politician who promises it all and delivers nothing, and ended up suffocating under a weight of incumbency that covered not just his own government but every government that preceded it. A tragic fate, in some ways. Continue reading...