Money

This week has seen much talk – again – of the ‘Treasury View’, and how that rarely defined set of values might be influencing this government’s approach to migration. First, let’s kill off some conspiracy theories that exist about the Treasury View. In general terms the Treasury View stands for cautious conservatism (with a small C) surrounding the payback from public spending, a belief in free trade, and in free markets. The Treasury View also extols the virtue of a steady currency, low and stable inflation, and soundly managed public finances. Former Treasury Permanent Secretary, Lord Nick Macpherson, in a speech in 2014, placed these amongst ten propositions for what

Keir Starmer says it is a ‘fantastic, historic’ day after signing a trade deal with the United States, but is the agreement really something to celebrate? Ten per cent tariffs, announced last month, still apply to most UK goods entering the US The government is no doubt cock-a-hoop to be the first country to get a trade deal with President Donald Trump over the line, and there are a few wins: tariffs will come down for cars, steel, and potentially for pharmaceuticals, exempting UK exporters from the worst of the tariffs imposed on the oddly-named ‘Liberation Day’. But while, despite the dire warnings of some, we won’t be seeing chlorinated

Keir Starmer has ruled out a U-turn on the government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment, with the Prime Minister’s spokesman insisting there ‘will not be a change to the government’s policy’. This came after a report in the Guardian suggesting No.10 was considering softening the £1.4 billion cut, possibly by raising the threshold that defines who qualifies as poor enough to receive it. We can’t keep living in a state totally consumed by propping up its welfare system That a U-turn was even floated reflects two pressures: disquiet among Labour’s backbenchers, and the electoral warning shot fired by Reform UK in last Thursday’s local elections and by-election. In Runcorn, where

Keir Starmer’s government has taken some important first steps to bring the welfare budget under control. But expenditure on disability and incapacity benefits is still set to increase to almost £100 billion by the end of the decade, so more changes are needed. Every aspect of the welfare system must be examined to see if it is actually helping those it was designed to assist. The Motability scheme should be Starmer’s next target. Britain cannot afford a gold-plated scheme providing a subsidised car to many who simply do not need one Introduced in 1977, Motability was set up with admirable intentions: to provide vehicles, scooters and powered wheelchairs to disabled

Nigel Farage declared earlier this year that ‘economics might be bigger than immigration for us at the next election’. Most people at Westminster didn’t take him particularly seriously. After all, Reform UK is all about immigration, right? Westminster didn’t take Farage seriously. After all, Reform UK is all about immigration, right? When Farage based his local election campaign on an overt pitch to working-class Labour voters by talking about trade unions and reindustrialisation, some parts of the political village were still dismissive. How could a Thatcherite public schoolboy and former City trader ever sell left-wing economics to the electorate? The results of those elections, and the by-election in Runcorn, mean that Reform’s economic

Britain borrowed nearly £152 billion in the financial year to March – almost £21 billion more than at the same point in the last financial year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The latest public finance figures reveal that borrowing in March was the third highest since records began in 1993. Crucially, it’s also nearly £15 billion more than what the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had expected for this point in the financial year. The £9.9 billion headroom Rachel Reeves left herself at the Spring Statement already looks to be in serious doubt. The current budget deficit, which is borrowing to fund day-to-day spending and the metric

Donald Trump loves Britain and loves the King; therefore we can expect a trade deal. That is the gist of J.D. Vance’s interview with UnHerd. Whether that means anything in practice is another matter. Evidently, the President’s love and affection was not enough to spare us from a 10 per cent tariff on exports to the US (and 25 per cent for cars). While Trump changed his mind last week and delayed most tariffs for 90 days there was no delay to the introduction of the 10 per cent tariffs, which will apply to all countries. All that happened as a result of last Thursday’s pullback was that Britain lost

China has retaliated against Donald Trump by raising duties on all American imports to 125 per cent from 84 per cent, declaring that it has no interest in responding further to what it calls a ‘joke’ policy. The higher rate will come into force from tomorrow. The announcement comes after the White House’s clarification that tariffs on Chinese exports have climbed to 145 per cent this year – a move China’s commerce ministry described as ‘economically meaningless’ and a tool for ‘bullying and coercion’. The world’s two largest economies exchange goods worth around $700 billion annually. Beijing has made it clear that it considers American goods effectively unmarketable within its

A Harley-Davidson will cost you a little more in France; Florida orange juice will be more expensive in Germany and American soybeans will go up in price everywhere across Europe. The European Union has decided to start taking the fight back to President Trump with a round of retaliatory tariffs. The trouble is, it is making a big mistake. Sure, we can all understand the desire to stand up to what it sees as bullying. But it is not going to win this battle.  In the wake of President Trump’s decision to impose a 20 per cent tariff on everything the EU sells in the United States, some form of

The FTSE-100 is up by a couple of hundred points. Germany’s DAX has added 400 points, and in Tokyo the Nikkei 225 rose by 6 per cent overnight. After the wild trading ever since President Trump announced the imposition of huge tariffs on all of America’s major trading partners, some stability appears to have returned to the financial markets. Is the worst of the slump over? It is far too early to predict that with any confidence – but there are two reasons for thinking it might be. It remains to be seen how the markets unfold over the next few days. There could well be a bankruptcy or two

This afternoon, Keir Starmer recommitted to not raising income tax, VAT or employee National Insurance for the duration of this parliament. At the same time, he reiterated his support for Rachel Reeves’s ‘ironclad’ fiscal rules. Are both possible? Answering a question from GB News’s Chris Hope at a visit to the Jaguar Land Rover factory in the West Midlands the Prime Minister said: ‘We made that commitment in the manifesto and we were absolutely clear about it going into the Budget and the Spring Statement, and that is a commitment we’ve made and a commitment we will keep.’  In response to an earlier question from Sky, he also stood by

Donald Trump has sown the wind – and now America must reap the whirlwind. Beijing has today announced plans to slap an additional 34 per cent tax on all US imported goods from next Thursday. China had already applied tariffs – ranging from 10 to 15 per cent – to a range of American agricultural products after the last round of charges from the Trump administration. But now, after Chinese goods were hit by this week’s hike, taking the rate to 54 per cent (the US had existing tariffs on China), Beijing has delivered fresh retaliation. Export controls have been imposed on seven rare earth elements critical to the production