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.
Global financial markets gave a clear vote of no-confidence in President Trump’s economic policy.
The damage it will do is obvious: costs for companies will rise, hitting their earnings.
The consequences will ripple throughout the global economy, with economists now raising their expectations for a recession, not only in the US, but across the world.
The court ruled to uphold the impeachment saying the conservative leader “violated his duty as commander-in-chief by mobilising troops” when he declared martial law.
The president was also said to have taken actions “beyond the powers provided in the constitution”.
Image: Demonstrators stayed overnight near the constitutional court. Pic: AP
Supporters and opponents of the president gathered in their thousands in central Seoul as they awaited the ruling.
The 64-year-old shocked MPs, the public and international allies in early December when he declared martial law, meaning all existing laws regarding civilians were suspended in place of military law.
Image: The court was under heavy police security guard ahead of the announcement. Pic: AP
After suddenly declaring martial law, Mr Yoon sent hundreds of soldiers and police officers to the National Assembly.
He has argued that he sought to maintain order, but some senior military and police officers sent there have told hearings and investigators that Mr Yoon ordered them to drag out politicians to prevent an assembly vote on his decree.
His presidential powers were suspended when the opposition-dominated assembly voted to impeach him on 14 December, accusing him of rebellion.
The unanimous verdict to uphold parliament’s impeachment and remove Mr Yoon from office required the support of at least six of the court’s eight justices.
South Korea must hold a national election within two months to find a new leader.
Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main liberal opposition Democratic Party, is the early favourite to become the country’s next president, according to surveys.
While the UK’s FTSE 100 closed down 1.55% and the continent’s STOXX Europe 600 index was down 2.67% as of 5.30pm, it was American traders who were hit the most.
All three of the US’s major markets opened to sharp losses on Thursday morning.
Image: The S&P 500 is set for its worst day of trading since the COVID-19 pandemic. File pic: AP
By 8.30pm UK time (3.30pm EST), The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 3.7%, the S&P 500 opened with a drop of 4.4%, and the Nasdaq composite was down 5.6%.
Compared to their values when Donald Trump was inaugurated, the three markets were down around 5.6%, 8.7% and 14.4%, respectively, according to LSEG.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Worst one-day losses since COVID
As Wall Street trading ended at 9pm in the UK, two indexes had suffered their worst one-day losses since the COVID-19 pandemic.
The S&P 500 fell 4.85%, the Nasdaq dropped 6%, and the Dow Jones fell 4%.
It marks Nasdaq’s biggest daily percentage drop since March 2020 at the start of COVID, and the largest drop for the Dow Jones since June 2020.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
‘Trust in President Trump’
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN earlier in the day that Mr Trump was “doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term”.
“To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump,” she told the broadcaster, adding: “This is indeed a national emergency… and it’s about time we have a president who actually does something about it.”
Later, the US president told reporters as he left the White House that “I think it’s going very well,” adding: “The markets are going to boom, the stock is going to boom, the country is going to boom.”
He later said on Air Force One that the UK is “happy” with its tariff – the lowest possible levy of 10% – and added he would be open to negotiations if other countries “offer something phenomenal”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:27
How is the world reacting to Trump’s tariffs?
Economist warns of ‘spiral of doom’
The turbulence in the markets from Mr Trump’s tariffs “just left everybody in shock”, Garrett Melson, portfolio strategist at Natixis Investment Managers Solutions in Boston, told Reuters.
He added that the economy could go into recession as a result, saying that “a lot of the pain, will probably most acutely be felt in the US and that certainly would weigh on broader global growth as well”.
Meanwhile, chief investment officer at St James’s Place Justin Onuekwusi said that international retaliation is likely, even as “it’s clear countries will think about how to retaliate in a politically astute way”.
He warned: “Significant retaliation could lead to a tariff ‘spiral of doom’ that could be the growth shock that drags us into recession.”
It comes as the UK government published a long list of US products that could be subject to reciprocal tariffs – including golf clubs and golf balls.
Running to more than 400 pages, the list is part of a four-week-long consultation with British businesses and suggests whiskey, jeans, livestock, and chemical components.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Thursday that the US president had launched a “new era” for global trade and that the UK will respond with “cool and calm heads”.
It also comes as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a 25% tariff on all American-imported vehicles that are not compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal.
He added: “The 80-year period when the United States embraced the mantle of global economic leadership, when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect and championed the free and open exchange of goods and services, is over. This is a tragedy.”