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.
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.
More on Liz Truss
Related Topics:
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.
Advertisement
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
3:22
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.
Image: 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.
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.
The investment firm which has become this year’s most prolific buyer of high street chains in Britain is targeting a takeover of a privately owned footwear retailer.
Sky News has learnt that Modella Capital is in advanced talks to buy Wynsors World of Shoes, which trades from approximately 50 standalone shops across the north of the country.
Retail industry sources said that Modella was now the likeliest buyer of Wynsors, with a deal potentially being struck before the end of the year.
Wynsors has been exploring a sale for the last two months, and hired the accountancy firm RSM to explore interest from prospective bidders.
The chain also trades from about 40 concession sites, and employs roughly 440 people.
It has a particular focus on the children’s school shoes segment of the footwear market.
Like many retailers, it is understood to have seen its recent performance adversely affected by the labour cost pressures heralded by last year’s Budget.
More from Money
If the deal is completed, it would add Wynsors to a stable of brands which includes TG Jones, the new name for WH Smith’s high street chain; Hobbycraft; and The Original Factory Shop.
Modella was also one of the bidders for Poundland, which was sold during the summer to Gordon Brothers, another specialist retail investor.
A spokesman for Modella declined to comment, while RSM has been contacted for comment, and Wynsors could not be reached for comment.
A senior executive at Netflix is among the contenders vying to become the next boss of Channel 4, the state-owned broadcaster.
Sky News has learnt that Emma Lloyd, the streaming giant’s vice-president, partnerships, in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, is one of a handful of media executives shortlisted to replace Alex Mahon as Channel 4’s chief executive.
Ms Lloyd, whose previous employers included Sky, the immediate parent company of Sky News, also served on the board of Ocado Group, from which she stepped down this month after nine years as a non-executive director.
She is understood to be a serious contender to take the helm at Channel 4, with other candidates understood to include Jonathan Allan, the interim chief executive who has also been its chief commercial officer and chief operating officer.
The identities of others involved in the recruitment process was unclear this weekend.
The appointment of a successor to Ms Mahon, Channel 4’s long-serving boss, comes at an important time for the company, and the broader public service broadcasting sector.
Recruitment to the board of Channel 4 is technically led by Ofcom, the media regulator, in agreement with the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, although the process to land a new chief executive is being steered from within the company.
More on Channel 4
Related Topics:
In September, Geoff Cooper, who chairs the online electrical goods retailer AO, was named Channel 4’s next chairman.
He replaced Sir Ian Cheshire, the former Kingfisher boss, who held the role for a single three-year term.
Channel 4 saw off the prospect of privatisation under the last Conservative government, with Ms Mahon a particularly vocal opponent of the move.
Nevertheless, Channel 4, which is funded by advertising revenues, faces significant financial challenges amid shifting – and in many cases waning – consumption of traditional television channels.
In the aftermath of a sale of the company being abandoned, its board last year unveiled Fast Forward, a five-year strategy designed to “elevate its impact across the UK and stand out in a world of global entertainment conglomerates and social media giants”.
“While getting ourselves into the right shape for the future is without doubt the right action to take, it does involve making difficult decisions,” Ms Mahon said at the time.
“I am very sad that some of our excellent colleagues will lose their jobs because of the changes ahead.
“But the reality of the rapid downshift in the UK economy and advertising market demand that we must change structurally.
“As we shift our centre of gravity from linear to digital our proposals will focus cost reductions on legacy activity.”
Ms Mahon’s departure earlier this year saw her quit to run Superstruct, a music festival business owned by private equity backers.
In recent weeks, her name has been linked with the BBC director-general’s post, which is soon to be vacated by Tim Davie.
Mr Davie announced this month that he would step down amid fierce criticism of the Corporation’s handling of a misleadingly edited speech made by President Donald Trump, which was included in an edition of the current affairs programme last year.
The public service broadcasting arena will also undergo significant change if a prospective bid by Sky for the television arm of ITV progresses to a definitive transaction.
Talks between the two companies emerged earlier this month.
In addition to the corporate developments in British broadcasting, the government has also confirmed a Sky News report that a search for a successor to Lord Grade, the Ofcom chairman, is under way.
On Saturday, Netflix declined to comment on Ms Lloyd’s behalf.
The government is lining up bankers to conduct a review of options for Britain’s embattled steel industry amid calls for ministers to orchestrate mergers between some of the sector’s biggest players.
Sky News has learnt that Evercore, the independent investment bank which now employs George Osborne, the former chancellor, was expected to be appointed in the coming weeks to oversee a strategic review of the sector.
If its appointment is confirmed, Evercore will report its findings to Peter Kyle, the business secretary, and UK Government Investments (UKGI), the Whitehall agency which manages taxpayers’ interests in a range of companies, including the Post Office and Channel 4.
The talks with Evercore come as the steel industry contends with the impact of President Trump’s tariff war and the prospect of retaliatory measures from the European Union.
The move to recruit bankers for a key review of Britain’s struggling steel sector also comes during a period when the government has significant financial exposure to all of the country’s three largest steel producers.
Last year, ministers agreed to provide £500m in grant funding to Tata Steel, the Indian company, to install an electric arc furnace at its Port Talbot steelworks in Wales.
The new facility is expected to be operational in 2027, but has been bitterly opposed by trade unions infuriated that the new funding was effectively used to drive through thousands of redundancies at the plant.
More on British Steel
Related Topics:
In April, the then business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, moved to seize control of British Steel after its Chinese owner, Jingye Group, threatened to close the UK’s last-remaining blast furnaces at its site in Scunthorpe.
The move sparked a diplomatic row with Beijing, with Jingye considering various legal options in an attempt to secure compensation for its shares in the company.
Last month, ministers disclosed that the cost of taking control of British Steel had risen to £235m, in addition to a £600m bill for preserving its future in 2019 and 2020 when the company fell into insolvency under its previous owner.
The government’s move prevented the immediate loss of more than 3,000 jobs, although there remain questions about the company’s viability as a standalone entity.
Some advisers believe that a combination of British Steel with other industry players, including Sheffield Forgemasters, which is also in government control, will be a necessary step to preserving steelmaking capacity in the UK.
People familiar with the plans said that a newspaper report this month suggesting that bankers were being recruited by the government to sell British Steel was “wrong”.
“The UK government doesn’t own British Steel; it’s hard to sell an asset you do own,” they said.
Nevertheless, it remains conceivable that the government will at some stage be able to determine the future ownership of the industry’s second-largest company, amid recent suggestions that Beijing could be willing to cede Jingye’s claim to the company in return for Sir Keir Starmer’s approval of a controversial new Chinese embassy in Central London.
“We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel,” Chris McDonald, the industry minister, said in a statement to parliament this month.
“Our long-term aspiration for the company will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, safeguard taxpayers’ money and retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe.”
Britain’s third-largest steelmaker, Speciality Steels UK (SSUK), is also effectively in government hands, having been placed into compulsory liquidation during the summer.
The business was part of Liberty Steel, which is owned by GFG, the metals empire of businessman Sanjeev Gupta.
In August, a judge declared SSUK as “hopelessly insolvent”, with a special manager now overseeing an auction of the business, which employs about 1,500 people.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) said: “This government sees a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking in the UK, and we’ll set out our long-term vision for the sector in our upcoming Steel Strategy.”
Sources said that that strategy was likely to be published either next month or early in the new year.