Bank of England chiefs tipped to cut interest rates twice more before the end of the year to aid growth
CUTS 'ON CARDS' Bank of England chiefs tipped to cut interest rates twice more before the end of the year to aid growth
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
INTEREST rates will be slashed twice more by the end of the year to aid growth, says global finance agency the IMF.
The Washington-based body believes the rate will come down from 4.25 per cent.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
2
Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the IMF forecasts show the UK remains the G7's fastest-growing European economy despite global challenges
Credit: PA
However, the pace of reductions around the world will be slower than previously forecast.
The Bank of England is set to make its decision on rates next week.
The IMF also upgraded its global growth rate marginally to 3 per cent for this year.
It predicted the UK would be the third fastest growing G7 economy this year and in 2026.
There has been a marginal upgrade to UK growth which is expected to rise by 1.2 per cent this year, which is 0.1 per cent higher than expected back in April.
The global upgrade since April was largely driven by US tariffs being lowered since higher rates were first announced by Donald Trump.
Warnings were also sounded over conflict in the Middle East, with possible risks to global shipping and trade, which could push up oil prices.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'The IMF's forecasts show that the UK remains the fastest-growing European economy in the G7 despite the global economic challenges we are facing.'
Workers' pay across the UK has slowed as businesses face increased staffing costs making an interest rate cut next month "more likely".
Average weekly earnings, excluding and including bonuses, rose by 5% between March and May, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Raising taxes will kill off growth, Reeves warned as she pledges to rip up business red tape
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
11 minutes ago
- STV News
Aberdeen to make final decision on proposed 7% tourist tax
Councillors in Aberdeen are set to make a final decision over a proposed 7% tourist tax next week. It is hoped the introduction of a visitor levy would generate up to £7.5m per year, adding around £5 on top of the cost of an average hotel room in the city per night. In February, councillors agreed to press ahead with plans to introduce the levy and launch a public consultation on the scheme, giving residents and local businesses the chance to have their say on it. Now, those consultations have come back to the council for consideration, and the local authority's finance and resources committee is due to make a final decision on Wednesday, August 6. Councillors say that the additional income could help bring events like the World Rally Championship and Tall Ships Races back to Aberdeen. The cash could also be spent on improvements across the city, such as upgrades to the Winter Gardens and replacement Christmas lights. If the levy is approved, it is estimated that it could be in place by April 2027 at the earliest. 'I think this visitor levy, if we did choose to implement it, would offer a real opportunity in terms of boosting the Aberdeen and local economy,' said Alex McLellan, convener of the finance and resource committee at Aberdeen City Council. 'To contextualise, you're talking about the price of a coffee. You're talking about a few pounds on top of your cost per night, which could really boost the local economy in Aberdeen. 'The visitor levy offers a real opportunity for the council to generate additional revenue, which can be used to boost the visitor economy, bring people here, bring major events here, and really put Aberdeen on the map as a destination in Scotland.' The rate would apply to all overnight accommodation in the city, including hotels, hostels, guest houses, B&Bs and self-catering lets. Camping sites and caravan parks would also charge the fee. Exemptions would be made for homeless people, asylum seekers and refugees, and those who receive benefits, payments or allowances for disabilities. Those who are travelling to the city for medical appointments would also be excluded from paying the levy. Stephen Gow, general manager of the Chester Hotel in Aberdeen, said a visitor levy is 'not an unusual thing to have'. 'You go to most European cities and you'll find that there's a levy on the visitors coming in,' he said. 'We have to be careful that the percentage is not misinterpreted. The rates in Aberdeen are perhaps lower than they are in the Central Belt, who have suggested that they're going to have a lower percentage, but the actual amount of money paid will be higher.' The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill was passed in May last year, allowing councils across the country to charge a fee or tax on overnight stays. Glasgow's new tourist tax has already been given the go-ahead, with visitors to be charged on average £4.83 per night from January 25, 2027. Edinburgh councillors approved a similar 5% visitor levy in January, which will take effect from July 24, 2026. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer and Reeves should consider wealth tax, says former shadow chancellor
The Treasury should consider a wealth tax to close the growing gap in the public finances, according to a Labour former shadow chancellor. Anneliese Dodds, who held the role under Keir Starmer in opposition, said ministers must have a 'full and frank discussion' with the public about the 'really big decisions' they had to take at this autumn's budget. With Rachel Reeves aiming to fill a financial hole that economists say could exceed £20bn, the senior Labour MP said there was 'no silver bullet' to funding big-ticket items such as defence but the chancellor should consider tax rises. Dodds quit her post as international development minister in February over a decision to slash the aid budget to pay for increased defence spending – a move she said was a mistake that would have a big impact on global security. With Russia and China already stepping into the gap to boost their own global influence, she said now was not the time for the UK to be 'walking back' from using soft power. In her first interview since standing down, Dodds told the Guardian: 'It's important that we have a longer-term approach. That does mean asking and confronting difficult questions around our fiscal position, around taxation. But if we're open and honest about the nature of the challenge that we face, we cannot duck that. 'Now is a time when we're seeing forces outside our country's control impacting on our security. It's important to have an open conversation with the public and say that means we will need to change when it comes to tax. That needs to be done in a way where those with the broadest shoulders take more responsibility.' While she did not set out exactly where wealth taxes might fall, Dodds urged the Treasury to 'look carefully' at the work of economist Arun Advani, whose wealth tax commission in 2020 recommended a one-off levy on millionaire households as a better way of raising revenue than increasing taxes on workers or consumers. She joins a growing chorus of Labour MPs, not all from the left of the party, calling for further wealth taxes this autumn. However, proposals for an annual 2% tax on assets over £10m have been denounced as 'daft' by the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds. Government insiders have questioned whether it would raise any funds. Dodds acknowledged there would be consequences from any new wealth tax and said she did not underestimate the challenges involved. However, she played down suggestions the policy would automatically lead to a reduction in the tax base as people moved assets overseas. She added: 'There's no silver bullet here, and I've been quite cautious about claims in the past that there's one single change to tax that could suddenly, immediately inject enormous amounts of money into the government coffers without any further implications. That's simply not the case. There will be consequences.' Dodds also suggested that Reeves should look again at her fiscal rules to help deliver an increase in defence spending, rather than through further cuts to aid. The government has pledged to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence from 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next parliament. It has not said how this would be paid for. She said it would be very difficult for the UK to change its fiscal rules to borrow more to invest in defence, as Germany – which was in a stronger economic position – did when it loosened its 'debt brake' in March. But she added: 'There's no route forward without some risk and without some cost.' Forecasts twice a year from the Office for Budget Responsibility have ended up driving fiscal policy, injecting more uncertainty into the system, she said. The IMF has suggested the government should consider having the public finances formally assessed only once a year instead. Dodds said she had little doubt the government would have to further increase defence spending. But she said this could not come from further cuts to the aid budget without an impact on global security and migration patterns. 'I believe the public know that also,' she said. 'We need to have a really full and frank discussion now nationally about how we will deliver that more secure country, but also about the challenges of doing that at the same time as getting our public services up off their knees. 'We did see a reduction in our soft power, and we saw a reduction in what makes our country stronger. Especially now with the rise of China, Russia, becoming far more involved in the continent of Africa, and many other geopolitical pressures, now isn't the time to be walking back from those commitments. 'We will also see the impact on global security. We also see the impact of it in population movements. It's no surprise that the number of people seeking asylum in the UK from Sudan, for example, has increased. There is eventually that knock-on impact. There's no question about that.' Dodds said there was 'no magic wand' to bring down the number of asylum hotels, which have been funded from the aid budget. Suggestions that the government could make big savings from quick closures were 'just not credible'. She did not criticise Starmer directly for his 'island of strangers' remarks, which the prime minister has since said he regretted, and said it was 'right to acknowledge people's concerns' about small boat crossings but she urged ministers 'to be clear that we are talking ultimately about human beings'. As a former Labour chair, Dodds suggested the party had to do more to explain what it stood for to take on the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. She said: 'What I find time and again when I speak with people who are considering Reform is that they want politicians to say what they think. They want politicians who are upfront about what they believe and who act on their beliefs.' She described Jeremy Corbyn's new movement as 'a bit like the People's Front of Judea' from Monty Python's Life of Brian but warned that it could end up splitting the vote: 'We have seen in some other countries, a splintering of the left, and centre-left parties doing very badly.'
New Statesman
41 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
