Borrowing costs have surged above 6% – their highest level in nearly three decades (Image: Getty)

Labour is facing a brutal economic storm as Government borrowing costs soared above 6% – reaching levels higher than those seen during Liz Truss’s infamous mini-Budget. In a major blow for Prime Minister Andy Burnham, long-term gilt yields reached the 6% milestone on Thursday as a global bond sell-off hit debt markets.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss wasted no time twisting the knife, gloating on social media as borrowing costs under Labour surpassed the peaks recorded during her tumultuous 2022 tenure. Sharing a post on X, Ms Truss took a direct swipe at Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey with an apparent play on words, asking: “Gilt yields hit 6%. Will the Bank of England Bailey the Government out again?” In an apparent reference to a financial “bailout,” her pun targeted Mr Bailey following his decision to launch an emergency bond-buying package to stabilise markets during her own brief premiership in 2022.

Truss gloated on X as gilt yields hit 6%, asking if Governor Andrew Bailey would “Bailey” [bail] the Government out (Image: Getty)

Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

Invalid email

You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.

Critics are now accusing the Governor of a double standard, claiming he was quick to intervene previously while downplaying higher borrowing costs under Labour.

Opposition commentators and political rivals immediately pounced on the figures to claim Labour has lost control of the nation’s finances.

Reacting to The Times report, one widely shared post on X declared: “Labour has crashed the economy. Borrowing costs are way above what they were under Liz Truss and they’re getting worse by the hour.”

The surge comes just a day after the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee warned that the global economic outlook has deteriorated since July. The central bank cautioned that persistently high yields will tighten mortgage and credit conditions for households and businesses, increase market volatility and severely restrict the Treasury’s ability to respond to future economic shocks.

‘Labour Just Crashed the Economy’ – Disaster for Burnham as Even Liz Truss Is Gloating

Britain’s economic debate has taken a dramatic turn after government borrowing costs climbed above 6 per cent, giving opposition politicians fresh ammunition to challenge Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s economic strategy. Former prime minister Liz Truss joined the criticism, mocking the government as financial markets reacted to a combination of global uncertainty, rising energy prices and concerns about the UK’s public finances.

For Burnham, the timing could hardly be more politically sensitive. Having promised a new direction for Britain, he now faces questions about whether his spending ambitions can be delivered without placing additional pressure on taxpayers or undermining confidence in the government’s financial plans.

But the claim that Labour has simply “crashed the economy” needs careful examination. Rising borrowing costs are a serious warning sign, yet they do not by themselves prove that one government has caused an economic collapse. The reasons behind the market movement are more complicated, and the political arguments surrounding it are becoming increasingly fierce.

Liz Truss Seizes the Opportunity

Truss wasted little time responding when the yield on 30-year UK government bonds passed 6 per cent in early October. In a pointed social media post, she questioned whether Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey would once again come to the government’s assistance, using a pun on his surname to draw attention to the central bank’s intervention during the turmoil that followed her 2022 mini-budget.

The comparison is politically awkward for Labour. Truss’s short premiership became synonymous with a severe market reaction after her government announced substantial unfunded tax cuts. Investors questioned the credibility of the plans, borrowing costs surged, mortgage products were withdrawn and the government was forced into a rapid policy reversal.

The circumstances in 2026 are not identical. Nevertheless, the rise in borrowing costs has revived memories of that episode and prompted renewed scrutiny of the relationship between government promises, public spending and financial credibility.

For Truss, the moment provides an opportunity to challenge the idea that the economic problems associated with her premiership were unique to her government. Her critics, however, argue that a rise in bond yields does not erase the consequences of the 2022 mini-budget or establish that the two episodes have the same causes.

The argument is therefore about more than one market statistic. It concerns who is responsible for Britain’s financial vulnerabilities and whether successive governments have done enough to address them.

Why Borrowing Costs Matter

Government bonds, commonly known as gilts in Britain, are a central part of the financial system. When investors demand higher yields to lend money to the government, the Treasury faces more expensive financing conditions.

The impact is not necessarily immediate across every area of public spending. Existing debt has different maturities, and the government does not refinance all its borrowing at once. But persistently higher yields can increase the cost of replacing maturing debt and financing new deficits over time.

That creates a difficult problem for any chancellor. More money spent on debt interest leaves less room for public services, investment or tax reductions. If the government wants to preserve its fiscal rules, it may have to reconsider spending plans, increase revenue or accept less flexibility in responding to future crises.

Households can also feel the effects. Government bond yields influence the wider interest-rate environment, including some fixed-rate mortgage products and business borrowing. The relationship is not automatic, because mortgage rates also depend on expectations for Bank of England policy, funding costs and competition between lenders. Even so, sustained increases in market rates can make borrowing more expensive.

For businesses already dealing with high energy costs and uncertain demand, that additional pressure can affect investment decisions. Companies may postpone expansion, reduce hiring or demand higher returns before committing capital.

This is why financial markets matter to ordinary families. The consequences of higher borrowing costs can gradually reach household budgets, public services and employment prospects.

Has Labour Actually Crashed the Economy?

The phrase has become a powerful political slogan, but it is not a complete economic diagnosis.

The rise in gilt yields occurred during a broader international bond-market sell-off. Higher oil prices, geopolitical tensions and concerns about persistent inflation contributed to pressure on government debt markets. Investors were reassessing the outlook for interest rates and the amount of compensation they required to hold long-term bonds.

Britain also has domestic vulnerabilities. Its public debt burden is substantial, and the government has limited room to increase borrowing without confronting difficult questions about future taxes and spending. Markets can react particularly sharply when global pressures coincide with uncertainty over a country’s fiscal outlook.

Some analysts have questioned whether Burnham’s expansive policy agenda is adequately funded. At the Labour conference, he outlined proposals involving greater public control of utilities, a National Care Service and other significant changes to the role of the state. Such plans could have substantial long-term costs, although their ultimate impact depends on how they are designed, financed and implemented.

Opposition politicians argue that the government must explain how its commitments will be paid for before investors are asked to accept additional financial risks. Their concern is that promises made without sufficiently detailed funding plans could weaken confidence in the public finances.

The government, by contrast, has argued that Britain entered this period with structural economic weaknesses and high debt partly inherited from previous administrations. It has also pointed to international conditions as an important factor in the latest market turmoil.

Neither political explanation should be accepted without examining the evidence. The relevant questions are how much of the increase in borrowing costs can be attributed to global conditions, how much reflects UK-specific concerns, and what the government can realistically do to reduce its exposure.

A bond yield passing 6 per cent is a significant development. It is not, on its own, proof that the economy has collapsed or that Labour is solely responsible for the increase.

Burnham’s Spending Plans Face a Tougher Test

Burnham entered office promising a different approach to economic management, arguing that Britain needs higher growth, stronger public services and a more active role for the state in strategic sectors.

His supporters believe that investment in infrastructure, energy and public services can improve productivity and help the economy escape a prolonged period of weak growth. They argue that governments cannot solve Britain’s problems simply by cutting spending and hoping private investment will fill every gap.

The challenge is that public investment must be financed, and investors will want to know whether the government can meet its commitments while maintaining sustainable public finances.

The proposed National Care Service illustrates the difficulty. Burnham has suggested changing the state pension’s triple-lock mechanism after April 2030 to generate savings that could help fund the service. The existing triple lock increases the state pension by whichever is highest: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.

The proposal has prompted criticism from pensioners’ representatives and opposition politicians, who question whether the projected savings will be sufficient and whether the revised pension formula will provide adequate protection over time. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the savings could be too small to fund universal social care on their own.

This means the government must explain the complete financial picture. If the savings are insufficient, will the Treasury contribute additional money? Will taxes change? Will the service be introduced gradually, or will eligibility be limited?

The answers matter because markets and voters alike need to understand the difference between an announced ambition and a fully funded policy.

Why the Comparison With Truss Is So Sensitive

The 2022 mini-budget remains a reference point for Britain’s financial credibility. Truss’s government announced tax reductions without providing a sufficiently convincing account of how the package would be funded. Investors reacted sharply, and the resulting turmoil forced a series of reversals.

The lesson often drawn from that episode is that governments must show their calculations, explain the trade-offs and demonstrate that their fiscal plans are credible.

Critics of Burnham argue that his programme risks making a similar mistake if expensive commitments are announced before their funding arrangements are clear. Shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith has stressed the importance of identifying where money will come from and explaining how the government’s accounts will balance.

However, the comparison also has limits. The economic context, policy details and sources of market pressure differ between 2022 and 2026. The latest increase in gilt yields has occurred amid global inflation concerns and higher energy prices, not simply in response to one domestic fiscal announcement.

It is therefore more useful to compare the underlying principles than to assume the two episodes are identical. Both raise questions about investor confidence, fiscal transparency and the costs of making promises that markets consider difficult to sustain.

The critical test for Burnham is whether his government can provide detailed, credible funding plans and maintain confidence while pursuing its policy objectives.

The Coming Budget Could Prove Crucial

The government’s next major opportunity to address these concerns will be the autumn Budget, expected on October 28. Chancellor John Healey will face pressure to explain how the government intends to fund its priorities while responding to higher debt-servicing costs and a challenging economic environment.

Investors will be watching the government’s fiscal forecasts, revenue assumptions, spending commitments and plans for managing public debt. Businesses and households will also want clarity on potential changes to taxes, energy costs and support for investment.

A credible Budget would need to do more than announce headline policies. It would have to show how the measures fit together, identify the assumptions behind expected savings and acknowledge the risks if economic conditions deteriorate.

There may be difficult choices. Protecting public services, increasing investment, reducing taxes and limiting borrowing costs cannot always be achieved simultaneously. If the government promises all four without explaining the trade-offs, scepticism is likely to persist.

Equally, an excessive response to market pressure could undermine investment or place further strain on public services. The government must balance fiscal credibility with the need to support economic growth.

The task is not easy, but transparency is essential. A detailed plan can help investors distinguish between a temporary international shock and a deeper problem with Britain’s public finances.

Conclusion: A Warning Sign, Not the Whole Story

The surge in UK borrowing costs has created a difficult political moment for Andy Burnham and handed Liz Truss an opportunity to revisit the debate over her own economic record. It has also raised legitimate questions about the government’s spending ambitions and the credibility of its financial plans.

But declaring that Labour has “crashed the economy” goes beyond what the bond-market movement alone can establish. Global energy prices, inflation expectations, interest-rate forecasts and concerns about Britain’s public finances all form part of the picture.

Burnham now needs to demonstrate that his policies are affordable, that the government understands the risks and that the Treasury has a credible strategy for managing debt. His opponents, meanwhile, must distinguish between a genuine weakness in the government’s plans and a market movement driven by international factors beyond Westminster’s control.

The wider lesson is that Britain cannot rely on political slogans to solve a financial challenge. Whether the government chooses greater public investment, tighter spending controls or a combination of measures, it must explain the costs and consequences clearly.

The real test will be whether the government’s next decisions improve confidence, protect essential services and create conditions for sustainable growth. Until the evidence becomes clearer, the clash between Labour and its critics is likely to continue.