Morning Bid: UK red tape, red ink, and Rachel's rules
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Vidya Ranganathan
Britain's government gets another report card on its efforts to curtail spending while Germany, in contrast, goes for a final vote on its big borrow-to-spend splash on Friday.
Get a look at the day ahead in European and global markets with the Morning Bid Europe newsletter. Sign up here.
The UK government finances report should show how deeply in the red the government is as the financial year draws to a close and just days ahead of finance minister Rachel Reeves's budget update on March 26.
Government departments have been tightening their purse strings to help Reeves meet her budget reduction goals, which have been trammelled by rising gilt yields and a slowing economy.
Last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to "hack back the thicket of red tape" suffocating the economy and the British government abolished NHS England, bringing the health service back under direct ministerial control.
Reeves has set herself an ambitious target of balancing day-to-day spending and tax revenues by the 2029-30 financial year. She is expected to announce she has rebuilt a 9.9 billion pound ($12.83 billion) fiscal buffer, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday citing an unnamed source.
In Germany, on the other hand, investors have been celebrating the almost certain passage on Friday of legislation to create a 500 billion euro ($542 billion) fund for infrastructure and higher spending on defence.
The plan was approved this week in the lower house Bundestag, giving conservative leader and chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz a huge boost and investors reason to hope for a recovery in Europe's largest economy.
The legislation goes today to the Bundesrat upper house but appears certain to pass there.
Meanwhile in broader markets, Wall Street's (.SPX), opens new tab bullish momentum earlier this week, inspired by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's view that the economy is in good shape and tariff-related price rises will be transitory, seems to have fizzled out.
Treasuries and the dollar are up, indicating a broader "risk-off" tone at play, as is gold, which has already rocketed 16% this year to record highs.
Policymakers across the globe have struck a cautious note in a week filled with central bank meetings as uncertainty in global economics and politics grew. The U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank Of Japan and the Bank of England all held rates steady.
Key developments that could influence markets on Friday:
DATA: UK public finances (February), Euro zone current account (January), Euro zone consumer confidence (March, flash estimate), Canada retail sales (February)
SPEAKERS: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee, New York Fed President John Williams, European Central Bank's Jose Luis Escriva at an event in Barcelona.
($1 = 0.9221 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
25 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in ‘ludicrous and insulting' blunder
Falklands war veterans slammed the error, which BA promised to investigate FALKLANDS FURY Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in 'ludicrous and insulting' blunder BRITISH Airways has been branded disgraceful for using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falklands Islands on in-flight entertainment screens. The UK's flag carrier airline refers to Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino. Advertisement 3 Port Stanley is the Falkland Islands' only city Credit: Rex 3 255 British military personnel died in the 74-day conflict in 1982 Credit: Getty The British title is relegated to a set of brackets underneath. Ed West, of The Spectator magazine, spotted the blunder and said: 'Curious wording for a British Airways in-flight map.' Last night, BA promised to investigate as the error was described as 'ludicrous' and 'insulting' by Falklands war veterans. Argentina still claims sovereignty but its invading forces lost the 74-day conflict in 1982. Advertisement British forces scrambled halfway around the world to put down General Leopoldo Galtieri's troops after they took Port Stanley in a surprise raid. This Saturday is the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory. Former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, said the name error was 'disrespectful' to islanders. He told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful. Advertisement 'The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. The New British Airways First Class Seat 'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.' Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk by Argentine forces, added: 'I don't know why they would do it. Advertisement 'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley. 'They should change it back as soon as possible. 'This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' In all, 255 British personnel lost their lives defending the islands. Advertisement In 2017 Argentina's senate voted to rename Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino and celebrate Sovereignty Day there if it is ever recaptured. The in-flight map shows only the names of world capitals and not countries' names. It means BA does not reference the Falklands by its Argentinian name Islas Malvinas. British Airways' parent company, International Airlines Group, is based in Spain. Advertisement A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are grateful this has been brought to our attention. 'We'll be reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
NI hotels join compensation action against Booking.com's ‘anti-competitive' practices
The action — involving more than 25 European countries and which could cost millions of euros — follows the judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on September 19 last year, which found that the platform's parity clauses breached EU competition law. However, has previously said it is unaware of any pending legal action and suggested the case appeared to be based on 'incorrect and misleading' information. 'This is a chance for hoteliers to stand up for their rights, recover financial losses, and promote a fairer online marketplace,' said Janice Gault, Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation (NIHF). 'This legal action is unprecedented, and the Federation is supporting it on behalf of its members to secure full compensation for hotels affected by anti-competitive practices. 'For over 20 years, the platform's parity clauses have posed serious challenges for the local hotel sector, leading to significant financial harm through inflated commission fees. 'This is not only about exposing unfair business conduct but also about seeking meaningful financial redress.' In 2021, unilaterally terminated corresponding compensation negotiations with the German Hotel Association (IHA) and started legal proceedings against several hundred German hotels before the Amsterdam District Court. An interim result of this (pending) process is the ruling of the European Court of Justice from September 19 2024, which confirmed findings of the German Federal Cartel Office that the platform's parity clauses breached EU competition law. This has resulted in claims for damages for hotels throughout Europe, which are now to be asserted with the class action supported by HOTREC, an umbrella group representing hotels, restaurants and cafes in Europe. The federation said that over the past 20 years, these parity clauses placed Northern Ireland hotels at a significant competitive disadvantage and that they suppressed price competition between and other online platforms, leading to inflated commissions paid by hotels. In addition, the clauses restricted hotels from offering better prices or availability on their own websites, limiting direct sales and autonomy. The federation added that use of anti-competitive parity clauses caused 'substantial financial harm to hotel businesses across Northern Ireland'. Under the general principles of European competition law, hotels in Northern Ireland are entitled to claim compensation from for the financial losses suffered. Affected hotels may also be eligible to recover a significant portion of commissions paid to in any period from 2004 to 2024, plus interest. The NIHF said they are actively working with affected hotels, guest accommodation providers and guesthouses across Northern Ireland to guide them through the next steps in joining the collective legal action against The case will be led and handled by a team of competition lawyers, litigators, and competition economists, who have already successfully achieved the ECJ's judgment last September. The legal claim will be brought before the courts in the Netherlands, with hotels having until July 31 to sign up to the damages litigation. The Irish Hotels Federation is one of dozens around Europe involved in the action. In a statement to RTÉ News last week, said it is 'not aware of any European wide legal action being taken by hotels'. It added that: 'The ECJ judgment relates specifically to questions asked by the Amsterdam District Court in relation to litigation between and some German hotels disputing the legality of price parity clauses in Germany between 2006 and 2016 — the court did not conclude that German parity price clauses were anti-competitive or had an effect on competition. The Amsterdam Court will now need to make a decision specifically on German parity clauses only.'
