Connect with us

Published

on

There are at least three things Joe Biden’s new tariffs on Chinese goods are intended to achieve.

Interestingly enough, preventing Chinese goods from entering the United States (typically the main purpose of tariffs) is arguably the least important of them.

That’s because the most eye-watering of all the new tariffs – a 100% rate on electric vehicles – is being imposed on a category where China doesn’t really compete all that much. Consider: last year the US imported nearly $19bn worth of electric cars. Of those imports, a mere $370m came from China – less than 2% of the total.

Money latest: The fast food appearing on menus at Michelin starred restaurants

That’s not to say that China is not already a world leader when it comes to making electric cars.

Right now a large chunk of electric cars being bought in Europe and elsewhere besides are Chinese. You might even be driving one today, because most of the Chinese cars being sold on these shores don’t actually have Chinese badges – like BYD. If you have a Tesla Model 3, a Tesla Model Y, an MGs or a Polestar… you’re driving a Chinese car.

Back when cars were all about their internal combustion engines, China never used to be a motoring manufacturing powerhouse. But thanks in large part to enormous support packages, China has achieved dominance of electric car manufacture.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How China dominates Western business

It has done so in part because it has invested so much not just in making those cars but, even more importantly, in making the batteries inside them – not to mention the chemicals and minerals that go inside those batteries. Look at the global electric vehicle business and China has dominance all the way down the supply chain.

It’s a similar story in much of the green technology sector. China makes the vast majority of the world’s solar panels. It’s staking out a leading position in making wind turbines, not to mention green hydrogen electrolysers and carbon capture technology.

This helps explain why the tariffs announced by the White House today are not just focused on electric cars.

There will also be a doubling of tariffs on solar panels to 50%, as well as further tariffs on steel and aluminium. The justification for the latter two is that Chinese steel and aluminium is produced with more carbon emissions than elsewhere.

Joe Biden. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Joe Biden has maintained US pressure on China’s sprawling manufacturing sector that began under Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters

They are part of a broader Biden strategy. Many assumed there would be a big shift in economic diplomacy when Mr Biden took over from Donald Trump, and that he would rescind the tariffs and rules the Trump White House imposed on Beijing.

However in reality, the Biden White House has, if anything, doubled down. They have introduced a host of new subsidies on the production of green technology (the Inflation Reduction Act) and semiconductors (the CHIPS Act), fighting China at its game.

The back story here is that the world is on the brink of a new industrial revolution. As countries around the globe push towards net zero, it necessitates a panoply of new industries – to provide the green energy and cleaner products necessary to hit that goal. And the US is determined not to allow China to win the race to build out these new industries. Hence why the White House is now going one step further with tariffs.

Image:
The Biden tariff regime also targets Chinese-made solar panels. File pic

Economists dislike tariffs. They fret about what happened in the 1930s, when the global economy slid into depression as countries around the world followed “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies of ever-increasing tariffs. They fear this might happen again, and, frankly today’s tariffs from the White House probably make such an outcome more likely.

So why is this administration, whose Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is hardly what you’d call a radical economist, going to such lengths? That brings us back to the other two things these new tariffs are intended to achieve.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The first is to do whatever it takes to give the US a fighting chance at competing with China at producing electric cars and solar panels. Today’s measures might be construed as a tacit admission that the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act aren’t helping enough in and of themselves. Whether these tariffs help anymore is an open question. China’s lead is extensive. But we’re about to find out what happens when the world’s two economic superpowers pull out all the stops to compete with each other.

The final reason for these tariffs is more prosaic – but it might actually be the most important of all (at least for Mr Biden himself). They are intended as a political message to show how tough he is on China, and to outdo Donald Trump himself. These tariffs are aimed as much at appealing to the American electorate ahead of the election as they are to affect trade with China.

Nonetheless, they will doubtless provoke some tit-for-tat tariffs from China. Trade – and industrial strategy – have never been so dramatic, or interesting.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells reveals her fundamental defence

Published

on

By

Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells reveals her fundamental defence

Paula Vennells arrived at the Post Office public inquiry a former chief executive, a former Church of England lay preacher and an ex-CBE, with only her reputation, and perhaps her liberty, left to defend.

After more than five hours of questioning she has done very little to restore the former, with the latter still very much a live issue.

While she was giving evidence her nemesis Alan Bates was meeting the Metropolitan Police to discuss their ongoing investigation.

Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells’ evidence as it happened

The day went horribly for Ms Vennells from the moment she stepped from her car in torrential rain and was met by the sort of media scrum reserved for superstars and the shamed.

Navigating hordes of cameras and reporters is the 21st century’s version of the public stocks.

Having avoided scrutiny for nearly nine years, during which time the Post Office she ran has been revealed as deceitful, vindictive and shambolic, she should have expected nothing less.

More on Post Office Scandal

Inside she faced an audience of around 150 sub-postmasters, the toughest of crowds for the person ultimately responsible for sending many of them to jail for crimes they didn’t commit.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ex-Post Office boss asked to compose herself

After a reminder from the inquiry chair Sir Wynn Williams about her right to avoid self-incrimination, her opening gambit was an apology.

She said sorry to the sub-postmasters and families whose lives had been ruined. She said sorry specifically to Mr Bates and Lord Arbuthnot, their Parliamentary champion, and the investigators from Second Sight, who exposed the Post Office’s failings on her behalf and she shut down for their trouble.

The respite lasted as long as it took Jason Beer KC to clear his throat. The lead counsel to the inquiry’s principal weapon was irony and it was devastating, the more so for apparently being lost on Ms Vennells.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sub-postmasters react to Vennells’ tears

“Are you the unluckiest chief executive in history?” he asked.

After a pause, the first of many, she replied: “One of my reflections on all of this is that I was too trusting.”

That captured her fundamental defence, which is that during 12 years at the Post Office, seven of them as chief executive, she was entirely unaware of the multiple issues that led to the biggest miscarriage of justice in British legal history.

After listing the multiple things she claims in her 775-page witness statement not to have known, from bugs in the Horizon computer system to instructions to shred documents, Mr Beer asked: “Was there a conspiracy, lasting 12 years, involving different people over time to deny you documents and falsely reassure?”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

After careful consideration she concluded conspiracy might be going too far. “My deep sorrow is that individuals, myself included, made mistakes, didn’t see things, didn’t hear things,” she said.

Throughout the hearing she claimed not to have been aware of fundamental issues. For example she said she did not know the Post Office could investigate and prosecute its staff, a power it has had since the 17th century, until she became chief executive.

When confronted with clear evidence she ought to have been aware of issues, in the form of emails and documents she admitted to sending and receiving, she claimed not to have understood their true meaning at the time.

Several times she was moved to tears. More frequently she was stunned into silence by questions, struggling to summon answers when trapped by the contradictions in her evidence.

The sub-postmasters meanwhile struggled to contain their disdain, hollow laughter greeting several answers.

There was no laughter when she was challenged about suicide of sub-postmaster Martin Griffiths, and an email in which she appeared to attribute it to his mental health, rather than the actions of Post Office investigators who were pursuing him.

“Sorry is not an adequate world, I am just very sorry that Mr Griffiths is not here today,” she said.

She has two more days in the witness stand, and on this evidence, nowhere to go.

Continue Reading

Business

Election campaign to derail multibillion NatWest retail offer

Published

on

By

Election campaign to derail multibillion NatWest retail offer

Plans for a multibillion pound mass market sale of the government’s stake in NatWest Group have been derailed by Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a summer general election.

Sky News can reveal that a proposed retail offer of shares in the taxpayer-backed bank will be scuppered by the timing of the poll.

The Treasury has been preparing for months for a retail offering, with several billion pounds-worth of NatWest shares to be offloaded at a discount to the prevailing market price.

Under the government’s plans, it would have taken place alongside an institutional placing of shares, with taxpayers’ stake to be reduced to as little as 10% after the combined sale.

Money latest: June interest rate cut blow after inflation data

Several sources confirmed while the prime minister addressed the country from Downing Street that the NatWest retail offer was “now in the deep freeze”.

Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, announced in last year’s autumn statement that he would explore a mass-market share sale “to create a new generation of retail investors”.

More from Business

Since that point, further buybacks by the bank and stock sales by the government have reduced the taxpayer’s stake to around 28% – worth about £7bn at NatWest’s current valuation.

A retail offer could yet be revived after the general election, with Labour not ruling out support for the idea in recent months.

However, the delay induced by the general election is likely to postpone the timing of the government’s full privatisation of NatWest, 16 years after it was rescued from the brink of collapse with £45.5bn of public money.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Shares in NatWest have risen by more than 20% over the last year despite the turbulence surrounding the debanking row involving Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader.

Mr Farage, who has threatened to launch legal action against the bank, recently declared his fight with the lender “far from over”.

The government’s stake in NatWest has been steadily reduced during the last eight years from almost 85%.

NatWest, which changed its name from Royal Bank of Scotland Group in an attempt to distance itself from its hubristic overexpansion, was rescued from outright collapse by an emergency bailout that Fred Goodwin, its then boss, likened to “a drive-by shooting”.

NatWest declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Sub-postmaster victims and Royal Mail’s Dame Moya Greene alike don’t believe Paula Vennell’s account

Published

on

By

Sub-postmaster victims and Royal Mail's Dame Moya Greene alike don't believe Paula Vennell's account

The account of the Post Office’s former chief executive about what she knew during key years of the firm’s scandal is not believed by the former CEO of Royal Mail, the inquiry into the injustice has heard.

Paula Vennells has been giving evidence as part of a three-day appearance at the inquiry into the impact of faulty Horizon accounting software, which led to the prosecution of more than 700 sub-postmasters.

Read more:
Key questions ex-Post Office boss must answer
Paula Vennells breaks down in tears during questioning

In addition to the wrongful convictions for theft and false accounting, many more sub-postmaster victims generated large debts, lost homes, livelihoods and reputations and suffered ill health. Some died by suicide.

Widely not believed

The inquiry heard that Dame Moya Greene, the former Royal Mail CEO whom Ms Vennells worked alongside for many years, texted Ms Vennells in January of this year to express her disbelief at the wrongdoing denials.

Ms Vennells has long maintained – and reiterated on Wednesday – that she was unaware of the extent of flaws with Fujitsu’s Horizon software.

More on Paula Vennells

Sub-postmasters listening to the inquiry in the Fenny Compton village hall in Warwickshire, where dozens of sub-postmasters met for the first time in 2009 as they began their fight for justice, also said they did not believe Ms Vennells.

“She is blatantly, utterly lying, and it’s got to stop,” former sub-postmaster Sally Stringer told Sky News.

Dame Moya texted Ms Vennells after the airing of the ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, which reinvigorated interest in the scandal, saying: “When it was clear the system was at fault, the Post Office should have raised a red flag. Stopped all proceedings. Given people back their money, and then tried to compensate them from the ruin this caused in their lives.”

When Ms Vennells replied that she agreed, Ms Greene said: “I don’t know what to say. I think you knew”.

“I want to believe you. I asked you twice. I suggested you get an independent review reporting to you. I was afraid you were being lied to. You said the system had already been reviewed multiple times. How could you not have known?” her text said.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Why she says she didn’t know

The question of how it was that she couldn’t have known was taken up the the inquiry’s lead barrister Jason Beer KC.

Ms Vennells core argument emerged early in questioning: she said she wasn’t informed of bugs because of the way information flowed within the organisation. She accepted that as CEO she was in charge of how information was communicated.

“I was too trusting,” she said.

Vennells asked to compose herself at Post Office inquiry

Emotional testimony

Ms Vennells broke down in tears numerous times during her evidence, the first of which was when Mr Beer read out details of sub-postmasters who were not convicted, as juries accepted there were flaws with Horizon.

The inquiry had just been presented with evidence of Ms Vennells telling MPs in 2012, “Every case taken to prosecution has found in favour of the post office. There hasn’t been a case investigated where the horizon system has been found to be at fault”.

This belief, Ms Vennells said, was “a representation of the information that I was given” rather than proof of an unwavering belief that nothing had gone wrong.

‘Wait and see’ accusation

Criticism came from Mr Beer over the fulsomemess of Ms Vennells cumulative 798-page witness statement.

He asked if she was adopting a “wait and see” approach: “Let’s see what comes out in evidence. See what I’ve got to admit and then I’ll admit that?”

“Given you provided a 775-page witness statement that took seven months to write, could you not have reflected on what you should have done fully and differently within the witness statement?” he added.

Post Office Horizon IT scandal inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC. Pictured on 26/04/24 while questioning Angela van den Bogerd. Pic: Screen grab from inquiry live stream.
Image:
Post Office Horizon IT scandal inquiry lead counsel Jason Beer KC.

Ms Vennells’ statement said that with the benefit of hindsight, there were “many things” she should have “done differently”, but she would wait for the inquiry to conclude to expand on that detail.

But she denied adopting a “wait and see” approach.

Rather, “It was simply a matter of time,” she said. “The inquiry asked me, I think, over 600 questions to 200 or 300 with subquestions in each. I went through probably hundreds of thousands of documents.”

Evidence to Parliament in 2015

A major question going into the inquiry was how Ms Vennells was able to tell Parliament in 2015 there was “no evidence” of “miscarriages of justice”.

On Wednesday morning, Ms Vennells said that was what she had been told “multiple times” by Fujitsu – that nothing had been found in Horizon.

Comic relief

Back in the village hall in Fenny Compton there were moments of laughter when Mr Beer asked Ms Vennells if she was “the unluckiest CEO in the United Kingdom?”

His question was asked “In the light of the information that you tell us in your witness statement you weren’t given… the documents that you tell us in your witness statement that you didn’t see. And in the light of the assurances that you tell us about in your witness statement that you were given by Post Office staff”.

‘Exculpatory’ remembering

Another line of questioning from Mr Beer was that Ms Vennells had a better memory of events and records that made her and the Post Office look good and a worse recollection of things that made her and her organisation look bad.

“Why is it that in your witness statement, when you refer to a recollection of a conversation that’s unminuted, undocumented, not referred to in any email there are always things that exculpate you that reduce your blameworthiness?” he asked.

That wasn’t her approach, Ms Vennells said.

Signing off a £300,000 legal bill to go after a £25,000 loss?

Sub-postmasters and those following the scandal likely will be listening out to see if Ms Vennells approved the legal bill to prosecute Lee Castleton, who was featured as a victim in the ITV drama.

Earlier this month former managing director Alan Cook told the inquiry Ms Vennells approved legal costs of £300,000 to prosecute Mr Castleton for a supposed £25,000 shortfall when she was a network director at the Post Office.

Continue Reading

Trending