🔥 WATCH: Jonathan Reynolds nails it 😂 “For a political party that doesn’t like foreigners much, Reform does seem to have a soft spot for foreign cash.” The Business Secretary says the allegations go “absolutely to the top of Reform” before delivering his verdict on Farage’s interview: “He was just so shifty.” What do you think?

🚨 The Sunday Times business pages explain what its political pages chose to conceal: the bond sell-off is global. It was driven by war, oil prices, inflation fears, interest-rate expectations and enormous borrowing by AI corporations, not Britain’s welfare bill. Using a global shock to demand cuts to pensions and benefits is not market analysis. It is austerity advocacy dressed up as market instruction. Yet when gilt yields rise, we are told the “markets” demand that British pensioners, disabled people and public services must pay. Britain’s debt and refinancing costs are serious. But debt at roughly 94% of GDP does not automatically mean “IMF territory”. Britain issues sterling and most of its government debt is denominated in sterling. We have not suddenly run out of pounds. Indiscriminate austerity would make matters worse. Cutting investment, suppressing growth and weakening tax receipts makes the debt-to-GDP ratio harder 👉not easier, to manage. “We must impoverish the country because the country is becoming poorer” is not an economic strategy. Borrowing to conceal failure is dangerous. Borrowing to strengthen energy security, food production, water, transport, housing and industry creates assets, expands productive capacity and reduces our exposure to future shocks. And Britain cannot achieve credible growth while maintaining trade barriers with its nearest and largest market. Rejoining the Single Market would support exports, investment and productivity. That is how we strengthen our capacity to manage debt, not by administering more gruel to an already weakened country.