Having sealed her chancellor’s fate, the markets could seal the prime minister’s fate

Published

3 years ago

October 14, 2022

admin

So farewell, then, Trussonomics.

The demise of the country’s second shortest-lived chancellor also brings with it the demise of the country’s shortest-lived economic movement.

Liz Truss came into office promising to boost the country’s growth rate through a forensic combination of tax cuts, reforms to the country’s supply side (for which read: things like planning reform) and spending restraint. This was, if you squint a little bit, not dissimilar to the kinds of policies espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Tory MPs turn on Truss as PM scrambles to save job after sacking chancellor – latest updates

It always looked risky – especially at such a fragile point for the global economy. We are coming to the end of a 12-year period of cheap money, something which is causing a near-nervous breakdown in financial markets. Central banks are in the process of raising interest rates and trying to feed the glut of bonds they bought during the financial crisis back in the market.

As if that weren’t enough, Europe is facing one of its bleakest economic winters in modern memory, with a war raging in Ukraine and energy prices touching historic highs. It is hard to think of many less auspicious periods to attempt an untested new economic manifesto.

Yet Ms Truss and her former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng pushed on all the same. And unlike Thatcher, whose first few budgets were grisly austerity packages which no one much enjoyed, Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng aimed to turn Thatcherism on its head. Instead of fixing the public finances first and then cutting taxes second, they opted to spend the fruits of economic growth before that growth had even been achieved.

The mini-budget of 23 September was a small document with extraordinarily large consequences. Ironically, the more expensive the measures were, the less controversial they turned out to be. The scheme to cap household energy unit costs will potentially cost hundreds of billions of pounds, yet (and we know this because it was pre-announced long before the mini-budget) investors barely batted an eyelid. They carried on lending to this country at more or less the same or equivalent rates.

The same was not the case for the rest of the mini-budget’s policies. Shortly after they were announced – everything from the abolition of the 45p rate (actually quite cheap in fiscal terms) to the cancellation of Rishi Sunak’s corporation tax rise – markets began to lurch in what was, for Ms Truss, and most UK households, the wrong direction. The pound sank, the yields on government debt, which determine the interest rates across most of the economy, began to climb.

That was bad enough. When Mr Kwarteng announced gleefully a couple of days later on television that he had more tax cuts up his sleeve, the trot out of the country became a stampede. The pound fell, briefly, to the lowest level against the dollar in the history of, well, the dollar.

Even more worryingly, those interest rates on government bonds rose at an unprecedented rate, causing all sorts of malfunctions throughout the money markets.

The most obvious – and the one that perhaps will have the longest legacy – is the rise in mortgage rates. But the unexpected consequences were even more worrying, among them a crisis in funds used by pension schemes. That sparked a “run dynamic” which compelled the Bank of England to step in with an emergency support scheme.

Even at this point, we were into unprecedented territory. Never before had the Bank been forced to intervene quite like this. Never before had it had to do so as a result of a government’s Budget.

The intervention, however, had some success, bringing down the relevant interest rates and bringing markets back from the edge. But there was a sting in the tail: a deadline. Today, 14 October.

In hindsight perhaps it’s obvious that this, then, would always have been the day when the government might face another existential crisis. Investors were always going to be nervous ahead of the Bank’s withdrawal from this neck of the bond market. And that is precisely what happened: after the governor reiterated, on a panel in Washington, that he was indeed serious, all eyes then turned to the chancellor. Could he say something to reassure markets?

In the event, the answer was: no. But something else changed matters: growing rumours of a U-turn. That brings us to this morning. The chancellor, pulled back from Washington early, was dismissed. The U-turn began. The corporation tax freeze is to be abandoned. The coming medium-term fiscal plan will involve austerity and a big dose of fiscal pain. The upshot is that Trussonomics, which was hinged clearly on tax cuts like these, is dead in the water.

However, the bigger question concerns what happens next. Those markets, which Ms Truss said explicitly were the reason for her U-turn, are still pretty frantic. No one knows how they’ll fare on Monday, but, whether right or wrong, another grisly day will almost certainly be seen as a sign of the government’s failure. And, having sealed the fate of her chancellor, the markets could well seal the fate of the prime minister.

But that’s a few days away – a long time in both politics and markets.

In the meantime, here is something to dwell on: an alternative version of history. In a parallel universe, Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng did things slightly less hastily. They decided their emergency Budget would simply deal with the energy price shock coming this winter. They promised an OBR statement and hatched plans for a growth-generating budget in a few months’ time.

In that parallel universe, interest rates probably wouldn’t have risen so high. The rises would, anyway, have been blamed on the Bank of England, not the government. The government would have enjoyed some kudos for having prevented energy-related penury this winter and made merry in their honeymoon. Things could have been oh-so different.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Now, all of this is of course imponderable. But it does rather underline an important point: none of this was inevitable. This wasn’t a crisis like 1992 – where the UK faced monetary pressures suffered by nearly every other nation in Europe. It was simply a succession of very unfortunate decisions at precisely the wrong moment.

At a time of market turmoil and war in Europe, Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng chose to take a gamble. It did not pay off.

:: The new chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, will talk to Sky News tomorrow morning. Tune in from 7am on Saturday.

Business

Magnum debut suffers a chill as Ben & Jerry’s row lingers

Published

22 hours ago

December 8, 2025

admin

Magnum debut suffers a chill as Ben & Jerry's row lingers

Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.

Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.

It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.

Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.

The company is also listed in London and New York.

Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane

Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.

The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.

The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.

But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.

Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.

The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.

Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.

A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.

Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.

TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.

It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.

An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.

The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.

Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”

Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.

“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”

Business

Netflix takeover of Warner Bros ‘could be a problem’, Donald Trump says

Published

1 day ago

December 8, 2025

admin

Netflix takeover of Warner Bros 'could be a problem', Donald Trump says

Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.

The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.

Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.

Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane

It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.

The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.

But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.

The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.

“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.

“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.

“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”

Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.

The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.

Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.

On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”

Business

Young people may lose benefits if they don’t engage with help from new £820m scheme, government warns

Published

1 day ago

December 8, 2025

admin

Young people may lose benefits if they don't engage with help from new £820m scheme, government warns

Young people could lose their right to universal credit if they refuse to engage with help from a new scheme without good reason, the government has warned.

Almost one million will gain from plans to get them off benefits and into the workforce, according to officials.

Latest updates from the Politics Hub

It comes as the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) has risen by more than a quarter since the COVID pandemic, with around 940,000 16 to 24-year-olds considered as NEET as of September this year, said the Office for National Statistics.

That is an increase of 195,000 in the last two years, mainly driven by increasing sickness and disability rates.

The £820m package includes funding to create 350,000 new workplace opportunities, including training and work experience, which will be offered in industries including construction, hospitality and healthcare.

Around 900,000 people on universal credit will be given a “dedicated work support session”.

That will be followed by four weeks of “intensive support” to help them find work in one of up to six “pathways”, which are: work, work experience, apprenticeships, wider training, learning, or a workplace training programme with a guaranteed interview at the end.

However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has warned that young people could lose some of their benefits if they refuse to engage with the scheme without good reason.

“Doing nothing should not be an option,” he told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

“If someone just took that attitude, yes, they would then be subject to, you know, the obligations that are already part of the system.”

“What I want to see is young people in the habit of getting up in the morning, doing the right thing, going to work,” he added.

“That experience of that obligation, but also the sense of pride and purpose that comes with having a job.”

The government says these pathways will be delivered in coordination with employers, while government-backed guaranteed jobs will be provided for up to 55,000 young people from spring 2026, but only in those areas with the highest need.

However, shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately, from the Conservatives, said the scheme is “an admission the government has no plan for growth, no plan to create real jobs, and no way of measuring whether any of this money delivers results”.

She told Sky News the proposals are a “classic Labour approach” for tackling youth unemployment.

“What we’ve seen today announced by the government is funding the best part of £1bn on work placements, and government-created jobs for young people. That sounds all very well,” she told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

“But the fact is, and that’s the absurdity of it is, just two weeks ago, we had a budget from the chancellor, which is expected to destroy 200,000 jobs.

“So the problem we have here is a government whose policies are destroying jobs, destroying opportunities for young people, now saying they’re going to spend taxpayers’ money on creating work placements. It’s just simply the wrong answer.”

Ms Whately also said the government needs to tackle people who are unmotivated to work at all, and agreed with Mr McFadden on taking away the right to universal credit if they refuse opportunities to work.

But she said the “main reason” young people are out of work is because “they’re moving on to sickness benefits”.

Ms Whately also pointed to the government’s diminished attempt to slash benefits earlier in the year, where planned welfare cuts were significantly scaled down after opposition from their own MPs.

The funding will also expand youth hubs to help provide advice on writing CVs or seeking training, and also provide housing and mental health support.

Some £34m from the funding will be used to launch a new “Risk of NEET indicator tool”, aimed at identifying those young people who need support before they leave education and become unemployed.

Monitoring of attendance in further education will be bolstered, and automatic enrolment in further education will also be piloted for young people without a place.