**【编者按】** 一场看似遥远的中东战火，正悄然逼近英国人的钱包。英国公共政策研究所（IPPR）最新报告拉响红色警报：倘若美国与伊朗的冲突持续升级，英国经济将面临“高通胀+低增长”的滞胀噩梦，家庭能源账单、油价、乃至国债利率都将全线承压。报告直指前首相特拉斯2022年能源危机处置的惨痛教训，提出一套价值50亿英镑的“应急护盘”方案。别以为这只是国际新闻——每一美分油价的跳动、每一次央行的加息，最终都会落到你的生活成本上。请细读这份来自智囊团的紧急药方（本文保留英文原文HTML标签，内容未经改动）：
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has issued an urgent warning that the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran could inflict severe damage on Britain’s economy and public finances.
According to new analysis from the think tank, a prolonged Middle Eastern war risks costing the Treasury as much as £8billion annually through increased debt servicing costs and diminished tax receipts.
The IPPR’s modelling suggests that without government intervention, consumer price inflation could surge to 5.8 per cent under a protracted stalemate scenario, far exceeding the Bank of England’s two per cent target.
Economic growth would also suffer significantly, with real gross domestic product (GDP) potentially slowing to just 0.3 per cent.
More than a quarter of UK Government debt is linked to inflation, meaning each additional percentage point directly increases borrowing costs.
To address the crisis, the IPPR has proposed a temporary energy price cap set at £2,000, designed to curb inflationary pressures whilst still encouraging consumers to reduce their usage.
The think tank also recommends a temporary reduction in fuel duty of 10 pence per litre to counteract soaring oil prices.
These measures would be accompanied by policies aimed at cutting energy consumption, such as reduced speed limits on roads.
To finance the support package, the IPPR suggests implementing targeted and progressive taxation, including bolstered windfall levies on energy company profits.
The overall cost of these interventions would reach up to £5billion annually, depending on how severe the economic shock becomes. Despite the substantial upfront costs, the IPPR’s fiscal analysis indicates the intervention could prove financially advantageous in the longer term.
In the worst-case scenario, the policy package would be broadly cost-neutral, with expenditure balanced by reduced borrowing costs and safeguarded tax revenues.
However, should the measures successfully prevent lasting economic scarring or head off steep interest rate increases, the Government could ultimately save between £6billion and £10billion annually compared with taking no action.
The report’s authors explicitly draw comparisons with the previous administration’s handling of the 2022 energy crisis.
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss’s response to that shock ultimately cost taxpayers £76billion, and the IPPR argues its proposals reflect hard-won lessons from that experience about effective crisis management.
William Ellis, senior economist at IPPR, said: “The UK cannot afford to sit back and let another energy shock drive up inflation and damage the economy.”
He noted that the Bank of England is poorly positioned to respond given the time lag before interest rate changes affect demand, adding that the central bank indicated last week it would likely raise rates to combat inflation expectations, particularly if hostilities intensify.
Sam Alvis, associate director at IPPR, said: “The lesson from Liz Truss is clear: it’s not intervention that spooks markets, it’s poor policy design and an ignorance of investors’ concerns. With the right approach, the Government can act decisively and responsibly at the same time.”
