UK interest rates set to fall at Bank of England meeting on Thursday
The cost of borrowing is expected to fall to its lowest point in more than 18 months on Thursday.
Senior economists at the Bank of England will announce whether they are cutting the UK's base interest rate, which currently sits at 4.75%.
Most experts predict a quarter point reduction to 4.5%, continuing a series of cuts which started last summer.
The base rate helps dictate how expensive it is to take out a mortgage or a loan, while it also influences the interest rates offered by banks on savings accounts.
Hikes in recent years, designed to combat skyrocketing inflation, have left mortgage rates much higher than was normal for most of the last decade.
The base rate rose as high as 5.25% in late 2023, but the Bank's policymakers cut it to 4.75% over the course of several months last year.
The Bank typically raises interest rates when inflation is high to discourage people from spending money, thereby slowing the rate of price rises.
Now, inflation – which measures how fast prices are rising across the economy – is much lower than the highs of recent years, at 2.5% per year.
And economic growth is stagnating across the UK, leading to predictions of another rate cut, which would encourage more spending and stimulate the economy.
However, some recent announcements have indicated that inflation could be on the way back up, albeit more gradually, posing a potential problem for the Bank.
On Wednesday, a survey of companies in the service sector, which includes everything from shops and pubs to finance firms and lawyers, found that cost inflation in the industry nudged up in January.
Most economists think these signs of rising inflation are unlikely to put policymakers off cutting rates on Thursday, but it could lead them to be more cautious at future meetings in March and May.
Chris Arcari, an analyst at finance firm Hymans Robertson, said the Bank will have to 'walk a tightrope' when it comes to more rate cuts later this year.
He said that while the economy currently leaves space for a 'modest reduction', the Bank will likely 'adopt cautious messaging' about the future.
The rise in cost inflation is partly to do with the effect of policies announced at the October Budget.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves raised national insurance contributions (NICs) for companies in October.
The move was designed to give the Government more money to spend on public services like the NHS.
But some companies have complained it is pushing up costs and contributing to rising inflation.
Matthew Ryan, an analyst at finance firm Ebury, added that with economic growth stagnating but inflation rising, the Bank 'will have to make a judgment call about which risk is likely to dominate over the course of the year'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Letting banks loose is back on the agenda as UK politicians chase growth at any cost
As the old ways of turning a profit become more difficult – from assembling cars to selling soap powder – politicians of all stripes want the City to inject some dynamism into the economy. From Labour to Reform, the siren call of London's financial district is strong. If only, they ask, the wheels of the banking industry could be cranked to spin faster, surely much more money could be generated and we would all be rich. While Rachel Reeves boasted of the huge benefit to economic growth from public investments in rail and renewable energy as central pillars of the government's spending review, in truth it is not enough to propel the economy forward. To generate the kind of income that will pay for the next 30 years of an ageing society, plans to link Manchester and Liverpool by a marginally faster and more reliable train, though good in itself, is not the answer. The Treasury knows it is just an upgrade to existing services and will deliver only incremental returns. To turbocharge growth, the chancellor wants private money to take the lead, partnering government to share the burden of building bridges and tunnels and spurring investments in whizzy new ventures. And as a start, the Treasury wants the shackles taken off the bankers so they can become more inventive in the way they make money, taking risks that were previously frowned upon, if not banned, and rewarding themselves accordingly. It is 18 years since Northern Rock's high-risk mortgage lending began to unravel and 17 years since Lehman Brothers went bust. Long enough, it seems, for memories to fade, and with them concerns about the damaging consequences of light-touch regulation. That said, it's easy to see why the temptation to let the banks loose is back on the agenda. UK banks are among the most profitable in Europe and London plays host to the largest number of foreign banks. The UK's unicorn businesses – those privately held startup companies worth more than £1bn – rank in number behind only the US, India and China. Some startups are considered to be at the forefront of the financial technology boom, including Revolut and Monzo. What could be better for Britain than to leverage a fintech industry that already has a worldwide reputation? Revolut has championed handling funds invested in cryptocurrencies, and for this service, and its banking and wealth management, it has emerged as the most successful European fintech of the past decade. It was valued at $45bn last year. And there is no stopping the chief executive, co-founder and 25% owner, Nikolay Storonsky. He plans to expand into mortgages and consumer lending to challenge the major lenders, as well as growing in the US. Monzo is the digital bank best known for its coral pink debit cards. After 10 years, the company announced its first profit last year, of £15.4m, after more than doubling revenues to almost £900m. Reeves also wants pension funds to take more risks, which is a boon for an asset management industry that has fallen out of favour with the public in recent years due to its high charges and failure to deliver returns that better passive investments. Last week, the House of Lords financial services regulation committee gave Labour's mission a boost. It attacked the main City watchdogs – the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority – for having 'a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion'. In a report that the Treasury will have privately welcomed, the committee said the regulators were partly to blame for holding back economic growth. If the FCA and PRA, which have already pledged to reduce the paperwork and oversight of the City, become more trusting of its ability to manage risk, there is likely to be a sugar rush of activity, much as there was during the noughties. Labour has helped get the ball rolling by lifting the bankers' bonus cap, to allow publicly listed banks to join the bonanza of rewards enjoyed by executives in Revolut and Monzo. Monzo may have made only £15.4m profit but this modest sum was not to be re-invested. It was enough to warrant big payouts, including a £12m bag of cash and shares that Reuters said most likely went to the chief executive, TS Anil. Underscoring how light-touch regulation is matched by executive pay bonanzas, a report last month by the jobs website eFinancialCareers found that bonuses in the UK's investment banks had risen by 26% year on year, beating their equivalents in Asia, Europe and the US. The average bonus payout for a City executive was about £110,000. And the trickle-down effect works in finance. At junior levels, bonuses increased by as much as 133%, the survey found. Labour's backbench MPs know how this play ends. After all the partying and profit-making, there will be a severe hangover. And when that happens, the taxpayer is asked to save the day. Somehow, the profits of the financial sector belong to the bosses and the losses belong to the people.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves has bet all our money on Wes Streeting saving the NHS
The thinking behind Rachel Reeves's spending plans for the next three years was revealed in her statement on Wednesday. It is crude and probably correct. Of the government's three priorities, there is only one that ministers can control so she will throw money at that one. The voters care about the cost of living, immigration and the NHS. There is not much the governmen t can do about the first. It has to talk about growth and hope for the best. We are at the mercy of Donald Trump, various wars and the bond markets. Nor do ministers think, in their heart of hearts, that there is much they can do about the Channel crossings. They have to talk about falling legal immigration, a trend they inherited from the Conservatives, while getting cross with the French for not doing enough to stop the small boats – but not so cross that the gendarmes shrug and fold their arms. That leaves the NHS. The chancellor has put all her chips on the blue and white oblong on the casino table. The health service received the most generous settlement on Wednesday, planned to grow by three per cent more than inflation over this parliament. There are those – and Nigel Farage is one of them – who will mutter 'bottomless pit' and 'good money after bad'. Those of us who are a bit more sophisticated will mention the NHS productivity crisis. Before the spending review, for example, I pointed to figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing huge increases in the numbers of doctors and nurses in the NHS over the past five years, and small increases in the number of patients seen. But I also cited evidence that NHS productivity was improving after the one-off shock of the pandemic and now there is more hopeful news to share. Reports are beginning to emerge about what is in the 10-year plan for the NHS to be published by Wes Streeting, the health secretary, next month. It sounds like a good and ambitious plan to shift incentives so that patients are kept out of hospitals and needless in-person appointments are abolished. Speaking to The Times, Streeting said: 'Much of what's done in a hospital today will be done on the high street, over the phone, or through the app in a decade's time.' It might seem a bit slow. He has been in government for nearly a year and is only now coming up with a plan? Government is slow – Keir Starmer has taken to asking repeatedly, 'Why not today?' – but it is important to get big changes right, and Streeting has thrown himself at a lot of the less visible work in his first 11 months, including abolishing the NHS England bureaucracy and taking the NHS back under the direct control of his department. He has learned the lessons from the last time Labour saved the NHS under Tony Blair, including bringing back some of the key people who did it: Alan Milburn, Blair's health secretary, and Michael Barber, the head of his delivery unit. The blueprint is all there in a new book, The Art of Delivery by Michelle Clement, my colleague at King's College London. It is based on Barber's diaries and is the fullest account of how the public services were turned around in Blair's second term as prime minister. The book makes clear what ought to be obvious, which is that it takes time for the combination of more money and reform to start to change measurable outputs, and even longer before the general public notices an improvement. Nor is improvement a steady upward gradient, because there are policy mistakes and personality clashes along the way. One of Barber's greatest strengths was his ability to manage relationships put under strain by politicians' impatience for delivery. When one permanent secretary ranted at him for giving his department a traffic-light rating in a note to Blair without consulting him, Barber said: 'This has always happened. I'm just telling you.' Now it is happening again. The good civil servants and NHS managers will realise that it helps them to have objective performance indicators and stretching targets if the whole service is starting to move in the right direction. Barber had to persevere for two years before the indicators started to shift, but in the NHS the momentum of change gathered pace thereafter. By 2004, Barber told the cabinet that an episode of EastEnders showed Ian Beale complaining that 'people spend at least five hours in A&E', to which Jane, his wife, responded, 'It's a lot better nowadays.' Barber began to talk confidently about how the changes in just three years were becoming 'irreversible' – a claim that was mocked by the parsimony and incompetence of the Tory years, which managed to reverse the Labour gains eventually. The point is that the NHS can be changed in a single parliament. The challenges are different now, and so are the technologies. But the principles are the same: more money accompanied by devolution of power to successful managers and aligning staff incentives with the interests of patients. Time is already running out for this government, and the stakes are high. Most cabinet ministers understand that. One of them was quoted anonymously by The Times today. If it wasn't Streeting himself, it was someone who thinks just like him: 'The truth is there are a lot of people whose lives have been shit for a long time. They rolled the dice with Brexit, they rolled the dice with Boris and then they rolled the dice again with us. They need to see results otherwise they will roll the dice again with Reform.' Time is running out, but Streeting is one of the few cabinet ministers to have made good use of it so far.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos surrender ‘will cost £5bn more than feared'
Sir Keir Starmer's deal to hand over the Chagos Islands will cost taxpayers £5 billion more than previously feared, the Tories have claimed. The Prime Minister last month signed the agreement to cede the archipelago to Mauritius and then rent back the military base on Diego Garcia, its biggest island. It had been calculated that the lease for the airbase, to be paid over the course of almost a century, would set the UK back at least £30 billion. But ministers have now admitted that the inflation figure they are using to calculate payments for future years is higher than previously thought. Mauritius, which has a GDP roughly the size of Leicester's, is going to use the huge windfall to deliver massive income tax breaks for its people. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said: 'Rachel Reeves has been unmasked as the 'spend today, tax tomorrow' Chancellor. 'It's a damning indictment of this government that not only are British taxpayers footing the bill for Mauritians to have their income tax cut but the costs of this terrible deal grow day by day. 'It is yet another kick in the teeth for hard-pressed British taxpayers who are already preparing for another tax raid later this year thanks to Labour's incompetence.' Downing Street has claimed Treasury calculations show the total cost of the Chagos deal will come in at £3.4 billion in real terms over 99 years. However that figure has been widely disputed, with critics saying the true tally once inflation and other payments are taken into account will top £30 billion. Those calculations were based on inflation averaging out at the Bank of England's target rate of 2 per cent across the entire century of payments. But this week Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said that for most of the period the Treasury is assuming inflation will run at 2.3 per cent. That would add £4.8 billion more than expected, according to Tory calculations, taking the final bill to the taxpayer up to just over £35 billion. Ministers have confirmed in response to written questions that the cash will come out of the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office budgets. It could therefore count towards the Government's aim of spending at least 3 per cent of GDP on defence by the middle of the next decade, as well as any Nato targets. Under the deal, the UK has given up sovereignty over the Chagos, a remote Indian Ocean archipelago, to Mauritius after 200 years of British rule. Mauritius has agreed to lease back Diego Garcia, the biggest island in the chain and home to a British-US airbase, for the next century. The agreement has been criticised over both the cost and security implications, with Mauritius growing closer to China, Iran and Russia in recent years. Ministers have justified the pact by arguing the UK could have lost a future international court case brought by Mauritius, which claimed sovereignty. They said that would have put the future of the base, which was used by jets operating during both Gulf wars and the Afghanistan war, in doubt.
