Latest news with #Covid-style
The Herald Scotland
08-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Blackford: The markets are in charge now, not the Chancellor
We can debate how we got here. However, the harsh reality is that the Chancellor has the responsibility to chart a course off the current path. Given spending commitments and the lack of fiscal headroom, tax rises are coming again. Indeed, we now know that Rachel Reeves has told the Cabinet this. The pattern of the last few years is recurring, although tax rises cannot be matched by another increase in borrowing. The financial markets will punish the Chancellor if she tries to increase borrowing, and she knows this. Put simply, the financial markets will largely determine the fate of the Chancellor and our fiscal future. The consistent increase in tax and borrowing over the last 17 years is not sustainable. The party is over. We had the spending. Get set for the financial hangover. The Government's own forecasts suggest tax will rise to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28, the highest tax-to-GDP ratio of all time. Higher and higher is not a compelling mantra. We ought to be focusing on how to turbocharge economic growth as a source of tax receipts, using growth receipts to invest in public spending and, over the longer term, seeking to pay down debt. What is missing is a material programme to drive up growth and investment. Where is the sense of urgency that recognises an acceleration of growth over a sustained period is the only way of improving finances and allowing for the investment in public services we all want to see? It is the lack of consistent, material economic growth over the last 17 years that led to increased Government spending as a shock absorber for the financial crisis, Covid, and the impact of the cost of living. That is what has resulted in today's high-debt, high-tax outcome. Heaven help us if we face another external shock, given UK PLC's balance sheet. I shudder to think how the UK could finance another Covid-style crisis. When Labour was last in power from 1997 to 2010, reasonable economic growth allowed for public sector investment to grow without increasing Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Indeed, the ratio fell from 37.4% of GDP to 36.3% of GDP between 1997 and 2007. The financial crisis of 2008 saw the Government having to stand behind the financial system, and by 2010 the debt ratio had increased to 70.3%. It has climbed continuously since, reaching 96.4% in May 2025, a record for any May, up from 95.9% the previous year. Never mind the ratio. Our debt now sits at a mouth-watering £2,867 billion and results in debt servicing costs of over £100 billion. That is a lot of cash that could have been invested in public services. International comparisons make clear that investors impose a risk premium on UK debt. The current 10-year UK Government gilt yield is 4.5%. In Germany, it is 2.6%. In Switzerland, a modest 0.4%. Our neighbour Ireland has a rate of 2.8%. We are paying a price for the perception of investors of a lack of financial competence. We make jokes about Liz Truss and her cataclysmic approach to financial management, but her predecessors and successors hardly earn an A-plus. The financial markets have delivered their judgment on UK PLC. We are all paying the price. High interest rates crowd out public spending and also have a knock-on effect for business borrowers. The UK pays a premium and a higher cost of capital — additional costs that feed into higher prices. If I were the Chancellor, I would be concentrating not just on the budget for the coming year but on addressing the structural weaknesses that are self-evident in the UK. Hoping for growth will not do. For the public, the catastrophic failure to deliver an economic policy that supports sustainable growth has meant declining living standards. The last Westminster Parliament was the first in the post-war period during which living standards fell. I would not bet on this Parliament delivering a different outcome. It is little wonder the Tories paid a price at the UK General Election. But what next if Labour fails to deliver in this Parliamentary cycle? With an increasingly discontented population, the potential for populist parties is plain to see. The rise of Reform ought to worry all of us in the mainstream parties. The threat of a Reform government cannot be discounted. What does this mean for Scotland? For the SNP Government, whose budget is largely based on Barnett consequentials, it means an ongoing squeeze on real-terms spending. The 2026 election will largely focus on devolved responsibilities, but the capacity to deliver over the next Parliament will be constrained by the UK financial settlement. Politics ought to be about hope. The SNP can seize the opportunity to paint a landscape showing how things could be different in Scotland. I have previously argued for the establishment of an industrial council. It is much needed. Or, if one is not to be established, the SNP at the very least needs to set out how it will drive a step change in investment, jobs, and growth. We have the opportunity to drive economic opportunity from our massive potential in green energy. Not green energy in itself, but using that power to create a sustainable green industrial future — building on our strategic opportunity to create a competitive advantage from affordable green energy. Doing our bit for net zero while creating the circumstances for a sustainable increase in economic growth. When we talk about independence, it is not about an abstract concept. It is about transforming life chances. More of the same within the UK — low growth and public services under pressure — can be broken. The SNP needs to spell out how it can change the landscape and unlock economic growth by harnessing our natural resources and, of course, our human capital. There is a better way. It is up to our leaders to chart it. Ian Blackford was SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber from 2015 to 2024, and served as the party's Westminster leader from 2017 to 2022.
RTÉ News
06-06-2025
- Sport
- RTÉ News
Hurling Nation: Head and heart conflicted for Munster final
Good morning Hurling Nation. A big weekend with three important games. The Munster final throws in tomorrow. Yes, a Munster final, at tea-time on a Saturday evening in early June. That will always feel unnatural. Anyway, and luckily, Cork and Limerick are a good story. The Treaty host the Rebels at the same venue they beat them by 16 points only 21 days ago. Some have gone from wondering if Cork would canter to an All-Ireland, to now writing them off. Pat Ryan knows how quickly the mood changes, and often, He also knows that things aren't as dark as they are painted. For some reason, Cork were loose and disorganised three weeks ago in Limerick. At times they gave away space without Limerick having to demand it. Five points down in three minutes, 15 points down by half-time, Limerick playing to settle the score after two losses to Cork last year and knowing a win would put Clare in deep trouble. Desire isn't always evenly shared, on that day it wasn't even close. To win tomorrow, Cork need to find energy and aggression from the throw-in. Marking cannot be Covid-style social distancing. Cian Lynch can't be allowed conduct the orchestra. There must be a way around the state-of-the-art surveillance and response unit that has Kyle Hayes at number six. The Cork full-forward line needs to show. The middle third has to be a battlefield with fire coming from both trenches this time. Cork could do all that and still lose. What's been most impressive about Limerick this year is their contunied growth. Thay have the experience. They have embedded new faces who have been on the panel for two or three years been readied for this. They have the most comprehensive team of substitutes that we can remember a top team having and they have two brains working in one with Kiely and Kinnerk. A good fight, Cork to narrow the gap. The heart even says Cork might eliminate that gap, but the head says, a storied seven in a row for Limerick. Sunday's Leinster final doesn't carry the same weight, but still, could be a serious contest. After the limp showing against Kilkenny in the first round, Galway have grown into the championship since. They weren't bothered much by Offaly, Wexford and Antrim, and then went on to Parnell Park and beat Dublin convincingly, scoring 29 points into the bargain. While Micheál Donoghue used 37 players in the national league, Kilkenny are more settled. A win on Sunday will give them a six-peat in Leinster, but won't cut too much mustard in Kilkenny. Derek Lyng knows an All-Ireland is the minimum requirement, but to be fair, he hasn't the luxury of the raw materials that his predecessor had. With an eye to the All-Ireland series, both sides would be as concerned with performance levels as much as winning the silver. The stripey ones, narrowly. Before the Leinster final, we have the Joe McDonagh Cup, a pairing that could only be more novel if the GAA had chosen to shoehorn New York hurlers in, like they diod the Lory Meagher. A few weeks back, Laois would have been the favourites here, but Kildare's progress has been rapid. After a narrow first-round loss to Kerry, they beat the big guns of Carlow and Laois to get here. The McDonagh Cup finals are invariably entertaining games. Hard to call this one, but we'll go for the cup to be passing through curragh of Kildare on Sunday evening. Sin é a chairde. Two big days, enjoy them. The feast will finish soon enough.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump might claim China tariff victory – but this is Capitulation Day
Donald Trump will inevitably claim Monday's temporary truce in the US-China trade war as a victory, but financial markets seem to have read it for what it is – a capitulation. Stocks were up and bond yields were higher after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent's early morning press conference in Geneva, where he has been holding talks with China. As with the UK 'trade deal' last week, the US is not reverting to the status quo before Trump arrived in the White House. Related: China and US agree 90-day pause to trade war initiated by Donald Trump Instead, tariffs on Chinese goods will be cut from 145% to 30% – initially for a 90-day period. In return, China has cut its own tariffs on US imports to 10%, from the 125% it had imposed in retaliation against the White House. That still marks a big shift in the terms of trade between the two countries since before Trump came to power, but falls far short of what was in effect a trade embargo. The two sides have pledged to keep talking, but there was no reference in the statement put out by the White House to other gripes it has previously raised about China, including the weakness of the yuan. Instead, the statement hailed 'the importance of a sustainable, long-term and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship'. The language was rather different to Trump's Liberation Day speech, about the US being 'looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far'. In other words, the president has caved. He may have been swayed by market wobbles but it seems more plausible that dire warnings from retailers about empty shelves – backed up by data showing shipments into US ports collapsing – may have strengthened the hands of trade moderates in the administration. Confronted with warnings of a shortage of toys, Trump told reporters that children should be happy with 'two dolls instead of 30 dolls', and they might 'cost a couple bucks more' than usual. But it is difficult to imagine even this most bullish of presidents withstanding the attacks that would come his way if he began to be seen as responsible for Covid-style shortages of key goods in the world's largest economy. Instead, the White House seems to have opted for tactical retreat. The China-US conflict was always the hottest theatre of confrontation in Trump's trade war, with a longer history and deeper public support than his quixotic attacks on Mexico and Canada. If Trump is indeed ready to give in even with Beijing, it sends a signal that some of the other aggressive aspects of his trade policy may be negotiable. What Bessent and his Chinese counterparts have not erased, however, is the corrosive uncertainty that has gripped investors across the global economy since Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement. China tariffs have only been slashed temporarily, for now and many other countries are still awaiting negotiations on where their tariff levels will end up, after that other 90-day pause, on Trump's 'reciprocal' levies, due to end in July. Meanwhile, companies throughout the global trading system are left wondering which particular iteration of the policy is likely to stick, and may well be tempted to continue working around the US, where possible. And with 30% tariffs remaining on Chinese exports to the US, the bigger picture remains of two great economic powers pulling apart.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump might claim China tariff victory – but this is Capitulation Day
Donald Trump will inevitably claim Monday's temporary truce in the US-China trade war as a victory, but financial markets seem to have read it for what it is – a capitulation. Stocks were up and bond yields were higher after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent's early morning press conference in Geneva, where he has been holding talks with China. As with the UK 'trade deal' last week, the US is not reverting to the status quo before Trump arrived in the White House. Related: China and US agree 90-day pause to trade war initiated by Donald Trump Instead, tariffs on Chinese goods will be cut from 145% to 30% – initially for a 90-day period. In return, China has cut its own tariffs on US imports to 10%, from the 125% it had imposed in retaliation against the White House. That still marks a big shift in the terms of trade between the two countries since before Trump came to power, but falls far short of what was in effect a trade embargo. The two sides have pledged to keep talking, but there was no reference in the statement put out by the White House to other gripes it has previously raised about China, including the weakness of the yuan. Instead, the statement hailed 'the importance of a sustainable, long-term and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship'. The language was rather different to Trump's Liberation Day speech, about the US being 'looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far'. In other words, the president has caved. He may have been swayed by market wobbles but it seems more plausible that dire warnings from retailers about empty shelves – backed up by data showing shipments into US ports collapsing – may have strengthened the hands of trade moderates in the administration. Confronted with warnings of a shortage of toys, Trump told reporters that children should be happy with 'two dolls instead of 30 dolls', and they might 'cost a couple bucks more' than usual. But it is difficult to imagine even this most bullish of presidents withstanding the attacks that would come his way if he began to be seen as responsible for Covid-style shortages of key goods in the world's largest economy. Instead, the White House seems to have opted for tactical retreat. The China-US conflict was always the hottest theatre of confrontation in Trump's trade war, with a longer history and deeper public support than his quixotic attacks on Mexico and Canada. If Trump is indeed ready to give in even with Beijing, it sends a signal that some of the other aggressive aspects of his trade policy may be negotiable. What Bessent and his Chinese counterparts have not erased, however, is the corrosive uncertainty that has gripped investors across the global economy since Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement. China tariffs have only been slashed temporarily, for now and many other countries are still awaiting negotiations on where their tariff levels will end up, after that other 90-day pause, on Trump's 'reciprocal' levies, due to end in July. Meanwhile, companies throughout the global trading system are left wondering which particular iteration of the policy is likely to stick, and may well be tempted to continue working around the US, where possible. And with 30% tariffs remaining on Chinese exports to the US, the bigger picture remains of two great economic powers pulling apart.
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump might claim China tariff victory – but this is Capitulation Day
Donald Trump will inevitably claim Monday's temporary truce in the US-China trade war as a victory, but financial markets seem to have read it for what it is – a capitulation. Stocks were up and bond yields were higher after US treasury secretary Scott Bessent's early morning press conference in Geneva, where he has been holding talks with China. As with the UK 'trade deal' last week, the US is not reverting to the status quo before Trump arrived in the White House. Instead, tariffs on Chinese goods will be cut from 145% to 30% – initially for a 90-day period. In return, China has cut its own tariffs on US imports to 10%, from the 125% it had imposed in retaliation against the White House. That still marks a big shift in the terms of trade between the two countries since before Trump came to power, but falls far short of what was in effect a trade embargo. The two sides have pledged to keep talking, but there was no reference in the statement put out by the White House to other gripes it has previously raised about China, including the weakness of the yuan. Instead, the statement hailed 'the importance of a sustainable, long-term and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship'. The language was rather different to Trump's Liberation Day speech, about the US being 'looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far'. In other words, the president has caved. He may have been swayed by market wobbles but it seems more plausible that dire warnings from retailers about empty shelves – backed up by data showing shipments into US ports collapsing – may have strengthened the hands of trade moderates in the administration. Confronted with warnings of a shortage of toys, Trump told reporters that children should be happy with 'two dolls instead of 30 dolls', and they might 'cost a couple bucks more' than usual. But it is difficult to imagine even this most bullish of presidents withstanding the attacks that would come his way if he began to be seen as responsible for Covid-style shortages of key goods in the world's largest economy. Instead, the White House seems to have opted for tactical retreat. The China-US conflict was always the hottest theatre of confrontation in Trump's trade war, with a longer history and deeper public support than his quixotic attacks on Mexico and Canada. If Trump is indeed ready to give in even with Beijing, it sends a signal that some of the other aggressive aspects of his trade policy may be negotiable. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion What Bessent and his Chinese counterparts have not erased, however, is the corrosive uncertainty that has gripped investors across the global economy since Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement. China tariffs have only been slashed temporarily, for now and many other countries are still awaiting negotiations on where their tariff levels will end up, after that other 90-day pause, on Trump's 'reciprocal' levies, due to end in July. Meanwhile, companies throughout the global trading system are left wondering which particular iteration of the policy is likely to stick, and may well be tempted to continue working around the US, where possible. And with 30% tariffs remaining on Chinese exports to the US, the bigger picture remains of two great economic powers pulling apart.
