Economy

Well, would you look at Mark Carney. Just three months ago I described the incoming prime minister of Canada and former governor of the Bank of England as ‘a fish-out-of-water technocrat’ who made little public impact over here and was swiftly forgotten after he left in 2020. When I once came across him hunched and dark-suited in the Pret queue at King’s Cross, midway through his Bank tenure, I actually felt sorry for him. But here he is, beer-swigging in an Ottawa bar with Sir Keir Starmer; cutting Donald Trump short in a press call before the G7 meeting; shedding his eco-credentials to champion Canadian oil and gas; and generally

The rate of inflation remained flat at 3.4 per cent in May – still well above the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target. Bizarrely, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in their figures released this morning, claims this is down from 3.5 per cent the month before, even though just a couple of weeks ago they admitted that figure was overstated due to an error. Because of a policy not to revise inflation figures, that error lives on – leading them to announce the fiction that inflation has fallen. The reality is it has not. The result of stubbornly sticking to this no-revisions policy is a slew of misreporting

Rachel Reeves may finally have seen sense. A report in this morning’s Financial Times suggests she is ‘exploring’ performing a 180 on the changes to inheritance tax rules which meant non doms would have to pay the death tax on their global assets – even on wealth earned before they came to the UK. As I explained in our magazine cover piece last month, the fact that these changes – which came into force in April – would apply retroactively is what really sent non-doms over the edge and led them to flee the country in large numbers, taking their wealth and not insignificant tax revenues with them. Rachel Reeves has to deal

As missiles fly across the Middle East as Israel and Iran embark on what could well become a wider regional conflict, you might expect turmoil in the financial markets. After all, if the beginning of a third world war doesn’t knock a few dollars off the Apple share price it is hard to know what would. But it turns out that investors, at least for now, appear indifferent. Investors, at least for now, appear indifferent Looking at a trading screen this morning you would probably think not much was going on in the world. The FTSE100 was up 30 points. Overnight, the Nikkei was up by 1.2 per cent; and

Motability, the scheme set up to provide vehicles, scooters and powered wheelchairs to disabled people, has become something of a monster. By the end of 2024, Motability supported a staggering 815,000 vehicles, up by 200,000 in the last two years alone. It is clear that the scheme has extended way beyond its original purpose and is in dire need of reform. But Motability is determined not to give up its lucrative business model without a fight. Only five per cent of Motability cars are adapted for those with physical disabilities Andrew Miller, the scheme’s chief executive, has hit back at criticism of Motability. ‘We’ve been a business all along. Any sense

Rachel Reeves’s spending review was the ‘most incomprehensible speech I’ve ever heard from a chancellor’, according to Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He spoke to me on today’s edition of Coffee House Shots. In this special episode, I was also joined by Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, to take a wider look at Britain’s fiscal and economic problems. Why, despite record tax levels, do our public services feel as if they’re in managed decline? Why do voters’ expectations of the state seem so out of whack with what we actually deliver? We discussed whether Ruth’s predecessor, Torston Bell, was right to claim Labour has ended

Writing about Britain’s spending plans has started to feel a bit like swimming through treacle. It’s not that there aren’t lots of interesting observations to make about Wednesday’s £300 billion spending announcement. Such as the fact that the NHS sucks up the bulk of the resource spending with a 3 per cent rise in real terms, while every other department combined only grows by 0.2 per cent. Or that the health service will soon take up nearly half of all day-to-day government spending on services. Or that only 13 per cent of Rachel Reeves’s capital spending increase is classed as ‘growth-focused’. It’s hard to pay attention to this because of the sense

Rachel Reeves’ Spending Review does more than set budgets. It exposes a contradiction at the heart of Labour’s approach to government: a party that wants to rebuild the state won’t take the hard decisions needed to make that possible. The review was more painful that it needed to be for Labour, because Labour MPs have shied away from serious welfare reform. Two mistaken ideas dominate much of the progressive conversation about the public finances. The first is that the state can go on doing more and spending more forever, with no real constraint. The second is that all talk of welfare reform is right-wing cruelty. Unless and until Labour challenges