UK's economic growth prospects to get verdict from OECD — follow live
Good morning and welcome to our live business coverage. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will give its latest forecast on Britain's growth prospects at 8am. In March, the OECD, which represents 38 advanced economies, downgraded UK GDP growth this year and next due to escalating tariff wars.
It forecasts growth would be 0.3 percentage points lower than forecast this year at 1.4 per cent in 2025 and 0.1 percentage points lower next year at 1.2 per cent. Inflation forecasts were unchanged at 2.7 per cent this year and 2.3 per cent in 2026. Trade tensions have eased since then, but have started to ratchet up the end of last week.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, will give evidence before the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee about last month's interest rate decision and monetary policy report at 10.15.
The MPC was split, with five members voting to reduce rates to 4.25 per cent from 4.5 per cent. Two members backed a half-point cut due to global trade disruption and lower energy prices, while another two voted to leave borrowing costs unchanged.
• Commercial landlords have been warned they may have to repay 'massive' sums received from insurance commissions after a High Court judge told the owner of London's Trocadero Centre to return payments to a tenant.• The pay of Stuart Machin, Marks & Spencer's boss, climbed to £7.1 million thanks to an improved performance at the retailer before a cyberattack that is expected to hit profits by £300 million.• The government's plan to build up to 12 attack submarines and invest £15 billion in its nuclear warheads programme has boosted shares in UK defence companies.• House prices rose more than expected in May and are now back to within a whisker of the record reached three years ago, with April's decline looking increasingly like a blip.• The world's largest private equity firms could hold the key to London's efforts to jump-start its flagging IPO market, City sources believe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
36 minutes ago
- BBC News
Housing plans on edge of village spark objections
Plans for a new housing development on the edge of a Surrey village have been met with opposition. The developer, Mac Mic Strategic Land Limited, proposes to build 250 homes in Blundel Lane, south of the Polyapes Scout Camp in Stoke D'Abernon.A spokesperson for the company said: "The development aims to create a well-planned, connected and integrated sustainable extension to Stoke D'Abernon."According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, nearly 90 objections oppose the application, with one saying the scheme - called The Paddocks - was an "inappropriate urban development". One objector said the site would impact existing residents who use local amenities. "The environmental and ecological impact will also be significant with the loss of trees and the destruction of habitat for wildlife," they documents reveal the development includes highway improvements and new pedestrian crossings. 'Least affordable places' Councillor David Lewis said the new development could see a "40% increase in the village's population".He said the changes were "completely unworkable" for the current infrastructure and added the development would create an "urban sprawl on the green belt and could merge into Oxshott".In line with council policy, Mac Mic plans to deliver 125 affordable homes at the development site. The company website states: "The Borough of Elmbridge is one of the least affordable places to live in England with the highest median house prices outside of London."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Cambridge University ‘discriminates' against white job seekers
The University of Cambridge has been accused of discriminating against white job seekers. Guidance issued at the world-leading university advises departments to 'try to ensure' that at least one candidate from 'underrepresented groups' is invited for every interview. The 'diverse recruitment framework' further encourages recruiters to readvertise positions if the longlist of candidates 'is not diverse', is all white or male. The guidance, currently in use at the university, also says interview panels should be 'diverse both in gender and race' and composed of individuals who have taken training courses in equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI) and unconscious bias. Edward Skidelsky, the lecturer in philosophy at the University of Exeter and director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, said the policies were 'tantamount to discrimination against white applicants'. 'This is one of the worst cases we have come across of EDI interference in what should be a purely academic process,' he said. 'Favouritism towards women and non-whites demeans them, and encourages the very prejudices it is intended to overcome.' Documents seen by The Telegraph show the guidance, first issued in 2019, is copied word for word in 'hiring instructions' sent to academics involved in recruitment processes at the university. The framework advises academics that recruitment panels should not be made up entirely of 'white males' or 'people with a particular career track record'. It reads: 'Conduct the shortlisting with more than one person on the panel, ideally forming the panel that is diverse both in gender and race if possible. 'Research shows that when the final applicant pool has only one minority candidate, they are unlikely to be offered the position: try to ensure that more than one candidate from under-represented groups is invited to [the] interview stage. 'If the longlist is not diverse, you do not have to appoint someone immediately, consider readvertising the position to encourage a more diverse shortlist.' Elsewhere, it says all members of recruitment panels 'must have completed the online University modules on E&D [equality and diversity] and Understanding Unconscious Bias'. Those involved in hiring decisions are also told to 'reflect' on the university's EDI commitments, 'their own biases' and the potential for 'implicit bias' before interviews and after selecting a favoured candidate. A source familiar with the workings of Cambridge's EDI committee said members were told 'don't worry about it' when they raised questions about the policies' legality. The source said: 'I joined the committee, wanting to see what was actually going on and maybe prevent things from going off the rails. 'When I got there, I discovered it was already off the rails.' The source added: 'If you criticise it, you're just seen as a bad person.' They went on to claim they had witnessed colleagues from non-underrepresented backgrounds – such as white people and men – being actively discouraged from applying to positions because of their race or sex. A spokesman for Cambridge denied that applicants were told this, saying it was 'not a view held by the university, relevant committees or senior management and is directly prohibited in law and our own policies'. Prof David Abulafia, the professor emeritus of Mediterranean history at the University of Cambridge, said the guidance was 'arrant nonsense'. He said: 'The sheer fanaticism of the bureaucracy at Cambridge and the craven submission of academics to their arrant nonsense spells the end of a once great university.' Prof John Marenbon, the philosopher and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, added: 'Academic appointments should be made solely on the basis of academic merit. Academics who do otherwise betray their calling.' The university's EDI 'plan for action' includes a target to increase ethnic minority applications to 'academic and research posts to 8 per cent or higher' and 'for professional services roles to 30 per cent'. A spokesman for the University of Cambridge said: 'Every candidate is recruited based on merit. We have no quotas for staff recruitment and strongly refute claims of discriminating against white and male job applicants 'Our 'diverse recruitment framework' is a guidance document aimed at ensuring that all suitably qualified candidates are encouraged to apply for roles at Cambridge – not to dictate the outcome of recruitment. 'Use of this guidance, including training recommendations, is not mandated in our recruitment policy.'
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.
