The Treasury can't sell gilts during the Olympics because no traders are going to work

The Olympics' reverse Midas touch strikes again.

The Financial Times reports that the Government is suspending its weekly auctions of Treasury gilts for a four-week period between mid-July and mid-August over fears that "too many bond traders will be working from home – or not at all – during the Olympics."

Norma Cohen writes:

A spokesman for the DMO confirmed that the prospect of so few gilts traders being at their desks with trading screens switched on had caused it to take the unusual step of rescheduling auctions.

Such thin staffing raises the prospect of a "sloppy" auction that could force the Exchequer to pay more to borrow. "Why take operational risk when you don’t have to?" the DMO spokesman said.

The two lines which are expected to be unusable during the Games are the Central and Jubilee lines, which serve Stratford station, the main access for the Olympic stadium. They are also the main routes, respectively, to Bank and Canary Wharf stations, the two with the highest concentration of bankers. Worse, many stations used in commutes to those destinations are also expected to be affected. London Bridge station, an interchange between many commuter rail lines and the Jubilee, is expected to be "exceptionally busy" between 7 and 9:30 in the morning and 4 and 10:30 at night. Bond Street, as an interchange between the two key lines, carries warnings that it may take up to an hour to get from street level to the platforms.

Cohen adds:

The absence of new gilts auctions may have a serious knock-on effect, economists said. If, as expected, the Bank of England gives the go-ahead this week for another round of gilts purchases to help boost the economy, it may have to slow these down because of the Olympic effect.

Buying gilts in a market where no new securities are being issued could distort interest rates in unpredictable ways, economists warned.

The Olympics' reverse Midas touch continues.

The Olympic stadium and the Orbit thing. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.