
UK business confidence is rising but it's not party time just yet
Something curious and rather unexpected is happening. Two prominent surveys of UK business confidence, published in recent days, show that optimism is rising strongly.
At a time when firms have just been clobbered with a big increase in national insurance (NI), that is something of a surprise. Yet, sure enough, Lloyds Bank's business barometer showed an 11-point rise in May to its highest level for nine months, with optimism about the economy up by 16 points.
Nine of the UK's 12 regions and nations reported stronger business confidence, the survey showed, with the biggest rises being in Northern Ireland, the East Midlands and the South-West, and significant gains also in Wales and Yorkshire & the Humber.
The Institute of Directors (IoD) also revealed a strong rise in confidence for last month, with its main measure rising by 16 points, also to the highest since August last year. Firms are concerned about higher employment taxes but slightly less than they were, and worries about the economic outlook have abated to an extent.
Investment intentions and export prospects both showed an improvement. It is not yet party time, and confidence remains below where it was at the time of last summer's general election. But as Anna Leach, chief economist at the IoD, puts it: 'It's good to see a recovery in business confidence under way, with our headline measure moving up three months in a row.'
At Lloyds Commercial Banking, senior economist Hann-Ju Ho said: 'The rebound in business confidence suggests that firms might be in a stronger position for the next quarter. The rise in confidence is driven by a sharp increase in economic optimism, reflecting the recovery in financial markets amid the easing of global trade tensions.'
Firms have had plenty to worry about in recent months, including those higher taxes but also, most notably, the threat of a global trade war, triggered by America's lurch towards the most protectionist policies since the 1930s.
President Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs, unveiled on April 2, confirmed the worst fears of many businesses. The recovery in confidence in the past few weeks is thus mainly a reflection of the fact that business people decided those worst fears were perhaps not justified. Not only did Trump announce a 90-day pause in most of the tariffs, he or his negotiators reached an accommodation with China on lower tariff rates, for now at least. US tariffs on imports from China were reduced from 145 to 30 per cent. Not only that, the British government signed a trade deal with America, as well as a 'reset' deal with the European Union and a new deal with India. Things, it seemed, were not so bleak after all and a descent into the abyss had been avoided.
Except, of course, we are dealing with a US president whose love for tariffs appears to know no bounds, notwithstanding the fact that they will badly damage the US economy, hit American consumers hard and are the biggest current threat to the global economy.
The perception that Trump will always draw back when the extent of the damage becomes apparent or when he is forced into it by the treasury market — the market for US government bonds — has not just buoyed UK business confidence. It helps explain why America's S&P 500 equity market index is up nearly 20 per cent from its lows in the wake of the April 2 tariff announcement. On Wall Street, as you may know, they have an acronym for this, Taco (Trump always chickens out) and I had to admire the reporter who put this to him during an Oval Office press conference, prompting a long, hurt and somewhat confused response.
We know, however, that Trump can do and say some stupid things without provocation and the risk is that the 'Taco' label, now he knows about it, is like poking a hornets' nest. Within days, in a speech in Pittsburgh, he announced a doubling of steel and aluminium tariffs to 50 per cent. A defeat for his 'state of emergency' general tariffs in the US Court of International Trade appears only to have emboldened him.
The tariff danger is not yet over. It is not, of course, the only danger. With the UK government's public expenditure review looming, businesses are only too aware that all the pressure is for higher spending, not lower taxes. Curbing winter fuel payments was never going to save much money, so a U-turn on that is more of a political than an economic issue. Taken together with pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap and reverse cuts in disability benefits, however, it starts to add up to real money.
An even bigger issue is defence spending, and the hole in this week's strongly worded strategic defence review — the question of where the extra cash is coming from to pay for Britain's enhanced needs — is big enough to be seen from outer space. Some firms will benefit from higher defence spending, and the government has emphasised the potential economic benefits, but others will fear that they have to pick up the bill.
At a time when the public finances are already under pressure, even with the big increase in employer NI announced last year and implemented in April, businesses have reason to be worried. They can take comfort from the prime minister's comment this week that you can't tax your way to economic growth and, to a lesser extent, Rachel Reeves's assurances that she would not be repeating last year's big tax-raising budget this autumn.
Such assurances only go so far, however, particularly when taken alongside the chancellor's apparent determination to avoid direct tax increases on 'working people'. Businesses will be hoping that history does not repeat itself and that any action to fix the public finances can be delayed. Who knows, maybe by then the 'growth fairy' will have come along and waved her magic wand. But when it comes to tax, firms have learnt not to rely on fairy tales.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its ' deeply problematic ' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Full list of signatories Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
How much the average house price has changed in your region
Halifax reports a 0.4 per cent drop (£1,150) in average UK house prices between April and May, but property values have increased by over £7,000 in the last year. The annual rate of house price growth slowed to 2.5 per cent in May, down from 3.2 per cent in April, contrasting with Nationwide 's report of a 0.5 per cent increase in property values. Halifax indicates the housing market is largely stable, with average prices down only 0.2 per cent since the start of the year, absorbing the spring stamp duty surge. Tom Bill from Knight Frank notes that demand was front-loaded due to April's stamp duty deadline, leading to downward pressure on house prices. Halifax states the average house prices around the country include East Midlands (£244,754), Eastern England (£334,720), London (£542,017), North East (£175,174), North West (£240,823), South East (£391,253), South West (£304,519), West Midlands (£260,118), Yorkshire and the Humber (£213,983).


Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
What if Russia attacked the UK? Submit your questions for team behind The Wargame podcast
What would happen if Russia attacked the UK? Our new podcast The Wargame pits a fictional British government against an imagined Kremlin, taking you to the heart of the crisis. To coincide with the launch we're holding a Q&A with the team behind the podcast - send us your question below.