Frances Smith

This story below reveals the true extent of Angela Rayner's cluelessness when it comes to economics, the public finances and financial markets. I say that not with glee - but deep alarm and regret. If this is really how the probable next Prime Minister of the UK thinks - betting markets put a more than 50% chance on leadership coup by June - then the ousting of Starmer/Reeves by Rayner (or Miliband) is likely to spark an instant spike in gilt yields, from their already elevated levels. Just the fact that Rayner has said what she has below will put yet more upward pressure on the market-driven borrowing costs – whatever the Bank of England says is these days mere mood – that drive the interest rates faced by firms and households. I have nothing against more social housing – on the contrary, the arguments in favour of building more are at the heart of my book "Home Truths", along with policy mechanisms that could get that done. But if you think that, in the current environment, hard-nosed international creditors do - or even should - give a monkey's about the "social benefits" of subsidised housing then you are utterly and dangerously deluded. Again, I say this in sorrow, not glee. I knew plenty of smart people at the top of successive Blair governments. The architects of New Labour – at least the Blairites – always made sure there were financially literate and market-savvy people in the room when big decisions were made. That was important back then - when the national debt Britain had to service was 35pc of GDP. Now – with the same metric pushing 100pc of GDP and Britain paying more than Morocco to borrow money – it is absolutely vital. It seems that there is no-one – NO-ONE AT ALL – near the top of today's Labour government who has the first clue about the realities of public accounts and global finance. These are – once again – NOT tribal or party-political points, but statements of cold fact ....

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.