What you need to know is this. The budget has not gone down well in financial markets. Indeed, it’s gone down about as badly as any budget in recent years, save for Liz Truss’s mini-budget.
The pound is weaker. Government bond yields (essentially, the interest rate the exchequer pays on its debt) have gone up.
That’s precisely the opposite market reaction to the one chancellors like to see after they commend their fiscal statements to the house.
In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.
After all, the new government just committed itself to considerably more borrowing than its predecessors – about £140bn more borrowing in the coming years. And that money has to be borrowed from someone – namely, financial markets.
But those financial markets are now reassessing how keen they are to lend to the UK.
More on Budget 2024
Related Topics:
The upshot is that the pound has fallen quite sharply (the biggest two-day fall in trade-weighted sterling in 18 months) and gilt yields – the interest rate paid by the government – have risen quite sharply.
This was all beginning to crystallise shortly after the budget speech, with yields beginning to rise and the pound beginning to weaken, the moment investors and economists got their hands on the budget documentation.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:33
Chancellor challenged over gilt yield spike
But the falls in the pound and the rises in the bond yields accelerated today.
This is not, to be absolutely clear, the kind of response any chancellor wants to see after a budget – let alone their first budget in office.
Indeed, I can’t remember another budget which saw as hostile a market response as this one in many years – save for one.
That exception is, of course, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget of 2022. And here is where you’ll find the silver lining for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
The rises in gilt yields and falls in sterling in recent hours and days are still far shy of what took place in the run up and aftermath of the mini-budget. This does not yet feel like a crisis moment for UK markets.
But nor is it anything like good news for the government. In fact, it’s pretty awful. Because higher borrowing rates for UK debt mean it (well, us) will end up paying considerably more to service our debt in the coming years.
Image: Rachel Reeves leaving 11 Downing Street before the budget. Pic: PA
And that debt is about to balloon dramatically because of the plans laid down by the chancellor this week.
And this is where things get particularly sticky for Ms Reeves.
In that budget documentation, the Office for Budget Responsibility said the chancellor could afford to see those gilt yields rise by about 1.3 percentage points, but then when they exceeded this level, the so-called “headroom” she had against her fiscal rules would evaporate.
In other words, she’d break those rules – which, recall, are considerably less strict than the ones she inherited from Jeremy Hunt.
Which raises the question: where are those gilt yields right now? How close are they to the danger zone where the chancellor ends up breaking her rules?
Short answer: worryingly close. Because, right now, the yield on five-year government debt (which is the maturity the OBR focuses on most) is more than halfway towards that danger zone – only 56 basis points away from hitting the point where debt interest costs eat up any leeway the chancellor has to avoid breaking her rules.
Now, we are not in crisis territory yet. Nor can every move in currencies and bonds be attributed to this budget.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Markets are volatile right now. There’s lots going on: a US election next week and a Bank of England decision on interest rates next week.
The chancellor could get lucky. Gilt yields could settle in the coming days. But, right now, the UK, with its high level of public and private debt, with its new government which has just pledged to borrow many billions more in the coming years, is being closely scrutinised by the “bond vigilantes”.
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
Image: A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Image: Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Image: Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Image: Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Image: Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
Image: An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Image: Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”
A spokesperson for Temu told Sky News: “We welcome UK manufacturers and businesses to explore a low-cost way to grow with us. By the end of 2025, we expect half our UK sales to come from local sellers and local warehouses.”
Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water provider, has been hit by a record fine by regulator Ofwat.
The company has been fined £122.7m following Ofwat’s “biggest and most complex” investigation.
It follows two investigations related to Thames Water’s wastewater operations and dividend payouts.
Of the total fine, £104.5m – 9% of Thames Water‘s turnover – has been levied for breaches of wastewater rules – just below the maximum 10% of turnover that Ofwat could have applied.
Another £18.2m penalty will be paid for breaches of dividend payment rules.
It is the first time Ofwat has fined a company for shareholders’ payments which do not “properly reflect” its performance for customers and the environment.
The fine will be paid by Thames Water and its shareholders, Ofwat said, rather than customers.
‘Unacceptable’ environmental impact
The regulator was highly critical of Thames Water’s handling of wastewater, describing it as having an “unacceptable” impact on the environment.
Its investigation of treatment works and the wider wastewater network uncovered failings which “amounted to a significant breach of the company’s legal obligations” and caused that unacceptable environmental impact.
The company announced a 40% spike in sewage spills in December for the period from January to September 2024.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
The fine was so large because Ofwat’s chief executive, David Black, said Thames Water “failed to come up with an acceptable redress package that would have benefited the environment”.
“This is a clear-cut case where Thames Water has let down its customers and failed to protect the environment,” Mr Black said.
“Our investigation has uncovered a series of failures by the company to build, maintain and operate adequate infrastructure to meet its obligations.”
As a result, Thames Water is required to agree to a remediation plan with Ofwat within six months.
Another investigation by the Environment Agency into environmental permits at sewage treatment works is ongoing.
Bad news for Thames Water finances
Thames Water serves 16 million customers across London and the South East and has just about fended off effective nationalisation, having secured an emergency £3bn loan. Its debts now top £19bn.
These fines were not factored into Thames Water’s financial planning for the next five years. The company’s chief executive, Chris Weston, told a recent sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee that Thames Water’s future was dependent on Ofwat being lenient with fines.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
A Thames Water spokesperson said: “We take our responsibility towards the environment very seriously and note that Ofwat acknowledges we have already made progress to address issues raised in the investigation relating to storm overflows.
“The dividends were declared following a consideration of the company’s legal and regulatory obligations. Our lenders continue to support our liquidity position and our equity raise process continues.”
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Image: Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Image: Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
Image: A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Image: Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Image: Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
Image: An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Image: Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”