Hello,

Promises, promises. A week ago I asked you when it is forgivable, if ever, for politicians to break their election pledges. This matters to all democracies, but the specific context is bumbling Britain. Its economy is painfully short of confidence, just as the government’s coffers lack funds. Slow growth is the result of many things (among them, that foolish Brexit), but timid leadership and uncertainty about tax rates put off investors, employers and others.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government is neither brave nor wise. It gave up on much-needed efforts to curtail wasteful public spending because it fears the rising support for Reform UK, the party of Nigel Farage. Yet Reform is surging ahead in the polls in any case. Now Sir Keir is apparently backing away from a touted plan to put up income tax in the budget on November 26th. Raising the tax rate would have meant breaking a manifesto pledge, and thus invited plenty of criticism. But it would have also shown a spark of decisive leadership. Labour had a chance to demonstrate it is serious about getting public finances into better shape, instead of tinkering at the margins. Sir Keir could have encouraged stability, something investors and lenders like, and thus growth. 

Most of you who wrote in response to my question also favoured the bold approach, even if that meant breaking a promise. (Not least because everyone knew, when it was made, that the promise was almost impossible to keep.) But it seems Britain’s centrists are going down the same path that French politicians favour: keep avoiding hard economic choices, and hope you might be able to borrow more or that something unknown will come along and help. That way more trouble looms.

My Sunday newsletter wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t recommend the stories we’ve published this weekend. Our commodities editor examines the astonishing surge in the price of gold. The only plausible explanation won’t reassure investors. Our Jerusalem correspondent analyses Israelis’ feelings about their country after the war in Gaza. We’re also looking ahead to the deliberations of America’s Supreme Court on whether Donald Trump can deploy the National Guard as and when he likes (we think the justices may say no). And on a cheerier note about Britain, we report on the country’s ambitions in quantum computing.

I’m travelling this week, so will end with a question about the Russian army’s efforts of more than a year to take the town of Pokrovsk, on the front line in Ukraine. I’d like your views on whether this potential gain on the battlefield is significant: is it a moment when Vladimir Putin can trumpet some success (despite enormous loss of lives) and consider a ceasefire? Or will this only encourage more aggression? Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com