Having sealed her chancellor’s fate, the markets could seal the prime minister’s fate
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Analysis: PM’s new tax U-turn
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.
Liz Truss appoints Jeremy Hunt as chancellor. Pic: Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street
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.
As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.
The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.
In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.
Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.
Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.
For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.
The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.
That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How US ports are coping with tariffs
The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.
The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.
Read more: Could Trump tariffs tip the world into recession?
That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
IMF downgrades UK growth forecast
Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.
That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.
You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.
Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens
“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.
That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.
Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.
Water regulators and the government have failed to provide a trusted and resilient industry at the same time as bills rise, the state spending watchdog has said.
Public trust in the water sector has reached a record low, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on the privatised industry.
Not since monitoring began in 2011 has consumer trust been at such a level, it said.
At the same time, households face double-digit bill hikes over the next five years.
The last time bills rose at this rate was just before the global financial crash, between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Regulation failure
All three water regulators – Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Drinking Water Inspectorate – and the government department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) have played a role in the failure, the NAO said, adding they do not know enough about the condition or age of water infrastructure and the level of funding needed to maintain it.
Since the utilities were privatised in 1989, the average rate of replacement for water assets is 125 years, the watchdog said. If the current pace is maintained, it will take 700 years to replace the existing water mains.
The NAO said the government and regulators have failed to drive sufficient investment into the sector. File pic: PA
Water firms have grappled with leaky pipes and record sewage outflows into UK waterways in recent years, with enforcement action under way against all wastewater companies.
Despite there being three regulators tasked with water, there is no one responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater to prevent environmental harm, the report found.
Instead, regulation is reactive, fining firms when harm has already occurred.
Financial penalties and rewards, however, have not worked as water company performance hasn’t been “consistent or significantly improved” in recent years, the report said.
‘Gaps, inconsistencies, tension’
The NAO called for this to change and for a body to be tasked with the whole process and assets. At present, the Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors water coming into a house, but there is no entity looking at water leaving a property.
Similarly no body is tasked with cybersecurity for wastewater businesses.
As well as there being gaps, “inconsistent” watchdog responsibilities cause “tension” and overlap, the report found.
The Environment Agency has no obligation to balance customer affordability with its duty to the environment when it assesses plans, the NAO said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
Company and investment criticism
Regulators have also been blamed for failing to drive enough funding into the water sector.
From having spoken to investors through numerous meetings, the NAO learnt that confidence had declined, which has made it more expensive to invest in companies providing water.
Even investors found Ofwat’s five-yearly price review process “complex and difficult”, the report said.
Financial resilience of the industry has “weakened” with Ofwat having signalled concerns about the financial resilience of 10 of the 16 major water companies.
Most notably, the UK’s largest provider, Thames Water, faced an uncertain future and potential nationalisation before securing an emergency £3bn loan, adding to its already massive £16bn debt pile.
Read more from Sky News:
Hundreds of jobs at risk as The Original Factory Shop launches survival plan
Government to decide on ‘postcode pricing’ plan for electricity bills by summer
Water businesses have been overspending, with only some extra spending linked to high inflation in recent years, leading to rising bills, the NAO said.
Over the next 25 years, companies plan to spend £290bn on infrastructure and investment, while Ofwat estimates a further £52bn will be needed to deliver up to 30 water supply projects, including nine reservoirs.
The NAO said regulators do not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets
What else is going on?
From today, a new government law comes into effect which could see water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills imprisoned for up to two years.
Such measures are necessary, Defra said, as some water companies have obstructed investigations and failed to hand over evidence on illegal sewage discharges, preventing crackdowns.
Meanwhile, the Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, is carrying out the largest review of the industry since privatisation.
What the regulators and government say?
In response to the report, Ofwat said: “The NAO’s report is an important contribution to the debate about the future of the water industry.
“We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC’s wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the National Audit Office in producing this report and welcome its substantial contribution to the debate on the future of water regulation.
“We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”
A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight.
“We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act, with new powers to ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses and bring tougher criminal charges against them if they break the law.”
Water UK, which represents the water firms, has been contacted for comment.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway