Share this post:
It seems we must now add journalists to the list of those misleading the public about the United Kingdom’s economy.
Yesterday (Thursday, September 4, 2025), I caught a BBC business presenter claiming that a rise in government bond yields means the Treasury will have to pay more on past debt. That is simply wrong.
Interest on existing bonds is fixed at the time they are issued. Yields move in the secondary market — they don’t increase the coupon that the government has already promised to pay.
I’m laughing as I type this, because BBC News is now running an advert about how its reporters attack “disinformation”. Funny!
But the problem goes deeper, as a Guardian editorial demonstrates.
What the Guardian got wrong
The Guardian argued (on September 3, so before the BBC transmission) that the UK should stop worrying about “imaginary bond vigilantes” — speculators supposedly punishing governments for borrowing too much. The paper compared the UK to Japan, suggesting that if Japan can run deficits without punishment, so can we.
This is profoundly misleading, because:
-
The Bank of England is working against the UK government: unlike Japan’s central bank, which has worked with its government to keep yields under control, the Bank of England has deliberately pushed yields higher through quantitative tightening. That is the bank’s policy.
-
Markets follow signals: this issue isn’t about shadowy vigilantes waiting to pounce — it’s about how central banks, governments and investors interact. The rise in UK yields isn’t random market panic; it’s the direct result of choices taken by the Bank.
-
The public gets the wrong message: by dismissing the issue as fantasy, the Guardian leaves readers with the impression that debt costs don’t matter, or that anyone who raises concerns is crying wolf. That’s as unhelpful as the BBC’s mistake about past debt.
Why accuracy matters
Together, these examples show how the press is failing us.
Ordinary people are told simplistic stories that don’t reflect reality.
Then, when politicians claim “the markets” will punish spending, voters are more likely to accept austerity measures that are really not necessary.
This isn’t about ideology; it’s about accuracy.
Misreporting makes it easier for governments and central bankers to dodge accountability.
Conversely, here at Vox Political, I try to give you the truth as clearly as possible.
If the Bank of England is forcing up borrowing costs through policy, we should say so.
If journalists get the basics wrong, we should call them out.
It is only with accurate reporting that we can have an honest debate about whether Rachel Reeves really needs to hold back on spending.
Without that, the country is being stabbed in the back – not by markets, but by the institutions that claim to inform us.
Share this post:
Backstabbed by bad reporting: why we need accuracy on the economy
Share this post:
It seems we must now add journalists to the list of those misleading the public about the United Kingdom’s economy.
Yesterday (Thursday, September 4, 2025), I caught a BBC business presenter claiming that a rise in government bond yields means the Treasury will have to pay more on past debt. That is simply wrong.
Interest on existing bonds is fixed at the time they are issued. Yields move in the secondary market — they don’t increase the coupon that the government has already promised to pay.
I’m laughing as I type this, because BBC News is now running an advert about how its reporters attack “disinformation”. Funny!
But the problem goes deeper, as a Guardian editorial demonstrates.
What the Guardian got wrong
The Guardian argued (on September 3, so before the BBC transmission) that the UK should stop worrying about “imaginary bond vigilantes” — speculators supposedly punishing governments for borrowing too much. The paper compared the UK to Japan, suggesting that if Japan can run deficits without punishment, so can we.
This is profoundly misleading, because:
The Bank of England is working against the UK government: unlike Japan’s central bank, which has worked with its government to keep yields under control, the Bank of England has deliberately pushed yields higher through quantitative tightening. That is the bank’s policy.
Markets follow signals: this issue isn’t about shadowy vigilantes waiting to pounce — it’s about how central banks, governments and investors interact. The rise in UK yields isn’t random market panic; it’s the direct result of choices taken by the Bank.
The public gets the wrong message: by dismissing the issue as fantasy, the Guardian leaves readers with the impression that debt costs don’t matter, or that anyone who raises concerns is crying wolf. That’s as unhelpful as the BBC’s mistake about past debt.
Why accuracy matters
Together, these examples show how the press is failing us.
Ordinary people are told simplistic stories that don’t reflect reality.
Then, when politicians claim “the markets” will punish spending, voters are more likely to accept austerity measures that are really not necessary.
This isn’t about ideology; it’s about accuracy.
Misreporting makes it easier for governments and central bankers to dodge accountability.
Conversely, here at Vox Political, I try to give you the truth as clearly as possible.
If the Bank of England is forcing up borrowing costs through policy, we should say so.
If journalists get the basics wrong, we should call them out.
It is only with accurate reporting that we can have an honest debate about whether Rachel Reeves really needs to hold back on spending.
Without that, the country is being stabbed in the back – not by markets, but by the institutions that claim to inform us.
Share this post:
you might also like
A happy new year to all my readers!
Oppressing ordinary people in a new dark age!
Police State Britain: Tories would arrest you for looking at them in a funny way