August 6, 2025 • 14 mins
Whilst usual host Merryn Somerset Webb is still out on holiday, John Stepek is joined by Bloomberg Opinion columnist Marcus Ashworth to discuss America's tariff war vs Switzerland, the latest UK fiscal blackhole estimates and Rachel Reeves' job security.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to the Merton Talks Money Market rap, where we
talk about the biggest moves in markets this week and
wat's driving them. I'm joined Steppick, senior report and author
of the Money Distilled newsletter. Merin is still off on holiday.
I mean, I don't know where she gets all these
days from. So as always we've invited Marcus Ashworth, Bloomberg
opinion columnist Marcus Guru, very good friend of the show.
(00:43):
Always pleasure, Marcus, nice to have you here again.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well my pleasure. I mean it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
There's been quite a lot of stuff for August thinking
about it because usually this is like you know, the
kind of the dead zone, the and of opinion columnists.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And it's been more interesting than no normal because the
markets aren't moving necessarily. But there's a lot of other
stuff going on, obviously tariffs, bit of politics, yeah, and
a few other sort of stuff which is I think
making it more of a not quite so many silly stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
It's usually daft things in August then is not to do.
This week it's been the Swiss and the Fighting Lane.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Yeah, very funny cartoon in one of the Swiss press
basically saying, basically, we come to the conclusion that your
American F thirty fives aren't expensive enough. I we know
we're going to have to pay up and look big.
I mean the famous story of that was always in Japan,
when somehow one of the trading houses Whi's got the
contract to supply the Japanese Air Force or naval air Force,
managed to at the end they work, that's thirty five
(01:48):
times the list price that Lockie put on this F
sixteen or whatever it was. So yeah, there is there
is a history of overcharging, should we say, for supply
contracts and all the rest other things. So I wonder
how the Swiss going to get around this one. But yeah,
I mean they're going mob handed to see Trump and
shower him with gifts, just as the EU are saying
(02:09):
that actual fact, maybe we won't quite deliver on the
six hundred billion of whatever the things we've been thrown,
or seven to fifty of the energy. I lose track
which ones which which? I think The comments coming back
from the States are, ah, how was about fifteen thirty
five percent?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well that's because the Swiss swift good. What is it
tootly five was a thoroughly name, isn't it so random number?
Why has he pecked on the Swiss?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
And that's because well, the charity one a non charitable version.
The non charitable version he does not realize that all
the shenanigans being on in gold which require a lot
of gold to be melted down ships across the States
and put into sizes. It's the comex future delivery will
accept because there's a squeeze on the contract there. It's
going nothing to do with the Swiss per se. It's
(02:56):
just the way that you know, shifting of gold across
from the States to the States, from Switzerland and various
other places. Yeah, but that's the untracted version of the charitable version,
is that he's just looked at this and gone, look,
very very rich country. You've got roach nev artists, you know,
nesle making lots and lots of money out of the
(03:17):
American consumer. Why aren't you making the espresso capsules and
indeed all the pharmaceuticals in the US. And that's the
big pushrus is behind this is that is that he's
also threatening on pharmaceuticals, which will affect the Swiss. Double
Lisa not just thirty nine percent everything, but also the
fact that it could be up to one hundred and
fifty and even two hundred and fifty percent pharmaceutical tariff,
(03:40):
which of course both the Irish and Swiss economies are
going to find extremely painful. In the German to be
fair as well. So you know there are French huh
oh in the UK anyway, So what is this one's
coming down the pipe? It's been longcoming that what he's
going to do on pharmaceuticals. But the Swiss have got
thirty nine steps bumbum to try and make come more
(04:01):
offers of the stuff they will buy, which will clearly
be maybe some energy, but certainly I would think defense spending.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
That's kind of track you for our neutral, famously neutral country.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, well, neutrality is of meaningness to I mean, the
EU are slightly smirking behind the they're veil on this
one because I think they feel that the Swiss has
ever it's been accused of playing from both sides, and
I think neutrality is not relevant here as far as
Trump is concerned. So we'll see a play out, but
I think there is. I think the Swiss are pretty
(04:32):
confident they will be able to get some form of
sensible answer to this one.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
So let's jump a little man to the farmer say
the things, because I think it's interesting to talk about
what Trump is actually trying to achieve with tards, because
I mean, I guess there's two elements to this. There's
what he wants to achieve, and then there's what it
actually achieves. And they're kind of miss stand to focus
on I will actually it means it's attacks on the
(04:57):
US consume. Oh blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Well, they don't know, and they've been pro proven that
the actual synopsis is not playing out, and they don't
know when they'll play out. But the simple rule is
I think people would understand is that all things been equal,
a tariff imposed by your country will make your goods
into your own consumers more expensive. Now that will be
ameliorated by margin pressure, which is clearly coming through. It's
(05:21):
been a lot of greedflation in the last year or
two post COVID, and there is plenty of margin room
to say soften the blow for the consumer. But you know,
we're seeing some signs, particularly on Ponferral report and various
other different things, IM and other manufacturing purchasing sort of
and servicing surveys that we are seeing, you know, a
(05:43):
potential uptic in inflation. Yeah, clearly the Fed's focused on that.
But the other thing, which is also pretty much undeniable,
that even if the inflation doesn't come through anywhere as
much as it could come through on the consumers say
from the United States, that the exporting countries will suffer
a deflationary pressure. And then I think some of the
is what the European Central Bank and other central banks
(06:04):
particularly are blindly ignoring. But you know there is this
is going to cause pressure on exporting companies and that
will affect both the inflation and the economy of those countries.
And that that I think is which Trump doesn't care
about because he's trying to change the cus I mentioned before,
the corporate US tax code, and the best way he
thinks of doing so he won't be able to get
the Congress, is to do it via inflicted on the
(06:26):
rest of the world. Along with a long long held
view that ever since the two thousand and one introduction
of China back into the well into the World Trade Organization,
that this has been exploited not just by China but
by peripheral countries Vietnams, Indonesias, et cetera, but equally by
the European Union and the Swiss. So you know they get.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Because I suppose there's the there's the difference here between
sticking a tada for see fifteen percent or whatever on
blanket goods from the EU. So to imamained, you're not changing.
We are the manufacturer on this dine. You're just increasing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
The government is hidden in a genera.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, but I'm just thinking like that. But if you're
putting two hundred and fifty percent tariffs on pharma, then
that does feel like, actually, no, I expect the factory
that is currently in Switzerland to be moved to wherever.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Little Switzerland, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, exactly, Yeah, you know it is that feels like
I suppose it's that thing where like, on the one hand,
it's okay, well, we're still going to buy your stuff
because in the world have just put the price up,
it's still cheaper and less hassle than actually manufacturing in
the US. Whereas if you're putting a two hundred and
fift percent tariff on something, that feels like that's a
(07:40):
very explicit instruction. No, you need to build this stuff here. Yeah,
I don't think does that make any sense. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
What it does for the United States perhaps, but that
were to take place, it would course push the cost
drugs within the US sky high, and these initially and
take quite some while before that was a mini Actually
he's we've seen that with the cot for tariffs, which
he's had to correct already. So I mean, but the
whole point is it's chop change chaos for a reason.
You know. Ultimately, the tariff revenues, which he's clearly starting
(08:10):
to get to see some uptick in, are going to
be redispersed in theory to lower the tax taxes on
on on, you know, up to one hundred thousand and
five thousand whatever it may be earning regular Americans, which
of course, along with lots of lovely new manufacturing jobs
which probably won't shut up. Let's just imagine they are
means that you don't very democrat you know in the
red you know, sorry, the sort of blue collar areas
(08:35):
which you know, the states, because they always fight over
you know, for your Michigan Wisconsins, in your Pennsylvanias, etcetera.
That that that that'll will swing it JB events as
way or whatever it is in the next elections.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
And so so when I guess things, we're talking about
deficits and tax takes and allistic because obviously we are
going John, Yeah, there's the definitely something in the US
is want of the B but is something that we.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Had enough thing to worry about here. It's nothing that's
perfully fine, nothing at all.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
So there's this new report coming from one of the
more the better an knowing think tanks, and I yes
this morning as we're recording this on Wednesday, and it's
said that basically Rachel is going to have to find
fifty one billion because the black hole has somehow grown
from twenty two billion to forty one billion, and if
(09:28):
she wants to keep ten billion fiscal Hendron, which is
still a tiny, tiny child, she's going to have to
do something.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
So the National Step for Economic and Social Research used
to be viewed, obviously is used to be perceived as
as sort of one of the left leaning and someone
was quite left leaning. However, recently it seems to be
not that way leaning at all. I will politely say
these numbers are clickbait for the summer silly season, which
(09:57):
I said, there wasn't too bad this year, but I
think this one is just big NUMBERUS. It's getting lots
of free publicity. Our economists, for what it's worth, view
a twenty billion hole plus the ten A round they
and that's sort of their worst case scenario. So I
would say fifty is Look, the scenario isn't great at
(10:18):
the moment, but you know, she's high bound by these
ridiculous fiscal rules. You know, the Office for Budget Responsibility
is doing a job it wasn't really ever meant to do,
and it's given an importance and a credence which I
don't think are irrelevant really in a modern society. It's
it's it's hairshirt stuff. It's ridiculous. She's worse, she's she's
(10:38):
just she's now completely beholden to them. I think she
does have some wiggle room in the context of obviously
we talked before fiscal drag winding out those income tax
sort of frozen at fifty thousand, whether tax kicks in
for ever more, and definitely on pensions, I think, you know,
cutting the percentage relief and the allowances annually and things
(10:59):
like that, that there are ways and means of doing
things which will fulfill some of those back holes. But
she's going to have to raise tax elsewhere as well.
I don't think personally she's going to go at capital
gains tax for two reasons. One it would be stupid too.
She said that she won't do anymore. She should have
sorted that already, so that would be you know, really
going back recent.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Changes cut it. So I mean, you certainly can't cut
the allans much farther because don't need three key.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
No, well, I forget that, you'll touch I was talking
about more the sort of the rates in twenty four
percent and eighteen the for lower tax band. But you know, look,
all things are possible, I'm sure, but I think people
are getting a little bit silly on this, and I
think there are ways and means of doing other stuff.
But you know, look, she will come after the individual
(11:46):
taxpayer for sureless time round, as opposed to having gone
off the employer last time round, principally. And so a
lot of stuff that we wrote, you know last year, rinse,
repeat and dust it down and change the data and
it comes again.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
The thing adventure. So this this trail emma that they
talk about, which is we are that she's she feels
she can't break us firstcool rules. She can't break the
manifest or promise not to. Is in a employee in
a B A T the big taxes And well, she
can't cut spending because the back benches of all already
(12:24):
made it very explicit that they won't counting them say
any spending.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Can and she will cut spending. But the question is
whether we believe the previous government. They say there's all
sorts of forward tax spending cuts a part of me
which never never manifests. So I think she will have
to cut spending, and she'll she'll she'll have to show
that she's cutting spending just on nothing, which perhaps back
bench is quite so much. But I also think at
some point they're going to have to launce that boil
(12:49):
because they cannot last the rest of this term of
parliament without addressing it, and I don't think the ABI
will allow them. I that and the OBI has made
some fairly unsubtle signals, as as Bank of England as
indeed has the insue fiscal studies and clearly Anaesia SR
as well that you know what, her current scenario doesn't float,
and I think she's going to have to be more
(13:10):
aggressive with approaching what's happening with government spending.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
When last question Plasente Droid's do you think are the
chances of her lasted until the end of this year?
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Yeah, definitely, and I don't. I think she's got more
We've got room than perhaps people are prepared to think
that she has. And I think the alternative for Starma,
particularly after the quasi quarteng trust, sort of doesn't work well.
And also I think she, you know, is a human shield,
so in that sense for Starmer himself, and if he
(13:44):
were to change her, it would come with a wholesale
approach change and I think that would mean dropping the
fiscal rules, and it would have to bring someone in
of credibility and a whole different approach, and I think
that would be a seismic shock, which I don't think
he's got that type of political chops for or once,
so personally I think he will, you know, muscle out.
(14:05):
That's his style.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Fascinating. Thanks very much, Marcus. That's all for this show,
So thanks for listening to this week's Merlton Talks Money Debrief.
If you like the show, rate review and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Moses
and Dam and Summer Sadi Special thanks to Marcut sash Wath.
(14:29):
Questions and comments on the show and all the shows
are always welcome. The show email is medon money at
bloomberd dot net and also yes, do leave a five
star review if you liked it. It enables us to
get more incredible, expensive guests like Marcus on
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to the Merton Talks Money Market rap, where we
talk about the biggest moves in markets this week and
wat's driving them. I'm joined Steppick, senior report and author
of the Money Distilled newsletter. Merin is still off on holiday.
I mean, I don't know where she gets all these
days from. So as always we've invited Marcus Ashworth, Bloomberg
opinion columnist Marcus Guru, very good friend of the show.
(00:43):
Always pleasure, Marcus, nice to have you here again.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well my pleasure. I mean it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
There's been quite a lot of stuff for August thinking
about it because usually this is like you know, the
kind of the dead zone, the and of opinion columnists.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And it's been more interesting than no normal because the
markets aren't moving necessarily. But there's a lot of other
stuff going on, obviously tariffs, bit of politics, yeah, and
a few other sort of stuff which is I think
making it more of a not quite so many silly stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
It's usually daft things in August then is not to do.
This week it's been the Swiss and the Fighting Lane.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Yeah, very funny cartoon in one of the Swiss press
basically saying, basically, we come to the conclusion that your
American F thirty fives aren't expensive enough. I we know
we're going to have to pay up and look big.
I mean the famous story of that was always in Japan,
when somehow one of the trading houses Whi's got the
contract to supply the Japanese Air Force or naval air Force,
managed to at the end they work, that's thirty five
(01:48):
times the list price that Lockie put on this F
sixteen or whatever it was. So yeah, there is there
is a history of overcharging, should we say, for supply
contracts and all the rest other things. So I wonder
how the Swiss going to get around this one. But yeah,
I mean they're going mob handed to see Trump and
shower him with gifts, just as the EU are saying
(02:09):
that actual fact, maybe we won't quite deliver on the
six hundred billion of whatever the things we've been thrown,
or seven to fifty of the energy. I lose track
which ones which which? I think The comments coming back
from the States are, ah, how was about fifteen thirty
five percent?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well that's because the Swiss swift good. What is it
tootly five was a thoroughly name, isn't it so random number?
Why has he pecked on the Swiss?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
And that's because well, the charity one a non charitable version.
The non charitable version he does not realize that all
the shenanigans being on in gold which require a lot
of gold to be melted down ships across the States
and put into sizes. It's the comex future delivery will
accept because there's a squeeze on the contract there. It's
going nothing to do with the Swiss per se. It's
(02:56):
just the way that you know, shifting of gold across
from the States to the States, from Switzerland and various
other places. Yeah, but that's the untracted version of the charitable version,
is that he's just looked at this and gone, look,
very very rich country. You've got roach nev artists, you know,
nesle making lots and lots of money out of the
(03:17):
American consumer. Why aren't you making the espresso capsules and
indeed all the pharmaceuticals in the US. And that's the
big pushrus is behind this is that is that he's
also threatening on pharmaceuticals, which will affect the Swiss. Double
Lisa not just thirty nine percent everything, but also the
fact that it could be up to one hundred and
fifty and even two hundred and fifty percent pharmaceutical tariff,
(03:40):
which of course both the Irish and Swiss economies are
going to find extremely painful. In the German to be
fair as well. So you know there are French huh
oh in the UK anyway, So what is this one's
coming down the pipe? It's been longcoming that what he's
going to do on pharmaceuticals. But the Swiss have got
thirty nine steps bumbum to try and make come more
(04:01):
offers of the stuff they will buy, which will clearly
be maybe some energy, but certainly I would think defense spending.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
That's kind of track you for our neutral, famously neutral country.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, well, neutrality is of meaningness to I mean, the
EU are slightly smirking behind the they're veil on this
one because I think they feel that the Swiss has
ever it's been accused of playing from both sides, and
I think neutrality is not relevant here as far as
Trump is concerned. So we'll see a play out, but
I think there is. I think the Swiss are pretty
(04:32):
confident they will be able to get some form of
sensible answer to this one.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
So let's jump a little man to the farmer say
the things, because I think it's interesting to talk about
what Trump is actually trying to achieve with tards, because
I mean, I guess there's two elements to this. There's
what he wants to achieve, and then there's what it
actually achieves. And they're kind of miss stand to focus
on I will actually it means it's attacks on the
(04:57):
US consume. Oh blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Well, they don't know, and they've been pro proven that
the actual synopsis is not playing out, and they don't
know when they'll play out. But the simple rule is
I think people would understand is that all things been equal,
a tariff imposed by your country will make your goods
into your own consumers more expensive. Now that will be
ameliorated by margin pressure, which is clearly coming through. It's
(05:21):
been a lot of greedflation in the last year or
two post COVID, and there is plenty of margin room
to say soften the blow for the consumer. But you know,
we're seeing some signs, particularly on Ponferral report and various
other different things, IM and other manufacturing purchasing sort of
and servicing surveys that we are seeing, you know, a
(05:43):
potential uptic in inflation. Yeah, clearly the Fed's focused on that.
But the other thing, which is also pretty much undeniable,
that even if the inflation doesn't come through anywhere as
much as it could come through on the consumers say
from the United States, that the exporting countries will suffer
a deflationary pressure. And then I think some of the
is what the European Central Bank and other central banks
(06:04):
particularly are blindly ignoring. But you know there is this
is going to cause pressure on exporting companies and that
will affect both the inflation and the economy of those countries.
And that that I think is which Trump doesn't care
about because he's trying to change the cus I mentioned before,
the corporate US tax code, and the best way he
thinks of doing so he won't be able to get
the Congress, is to do it via inflicted on the
(06:26):
rest of the world. Along with a long long held
view that ever since the two thousand and one introduction
of China back into the well into the World Trade Organization,
that this has been exploited not just by China but
by peripheral countries Vietnams, Indonesias, et cetera, but equally by
the European Union and the Swiss. So you know they get.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Because I suppose there's the there's the difference here between
sticking a tada for see fifteen percent or whatever on
blanket goods from the EU. So to imamained, you're not changing.
We are the manufacturer on this dine. You're just increasing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
The government is hidden in a genera.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, but I'm just thinking like that. But if you're
putting two hundred and fifty percent tariffs on pharma, then
that does feel like, actually, no, I expect the factory
that is currently in Switzerland to be moved to wherever.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Little Switzerland, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, exactly, Yeah, you know it is that feels like
I suppose it's that thing where like, on the one hand,
it's okay, well, we're still going to buy your stuff
because in the world have just put the price up,
it's still cheaper and less hassle than actually manufacturing in
the US. Whereas if you're putting a two hundred and
fift percent tariff on something, that feels like that's a
(07:40):
very explicit instruction. No, you need to build this stuff here. Yeah,
I don't think does that make any sense. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
What it does for the United States perhaps, but that
were to take place, it would course push the cost
drugs within the US sky high, and these initially and
take quite some while before that was a mini Actually
he's we've seen that with the cot for tariffs, which
he's had to correct already. So I mean, but the
whole point is it's chop change chaos for a reason.
You know. Ultimately, the tariff revenues, which he's clearly starting
(08:10):
to get to see some uptick in, are going to
be redispersed in theory to lower the tax taxes on
on on, you know, up to one hundred thousand and
five thousand whatever it may be earning regular Americans, which
of course, along with lots of lovely new manufacturing jobs
which probably won't shut up. Let's just imagine they are
means that you don't very democrat you know in the
red you know, sorry, the sort of blue collar areas
(08:35):
which you know, the states, because they always fight over
you know, for your Michigan Wisconsins, in your Pennsylvanias, etcetera.
That that that that'll will swing it JB events as
way or whatever it is in the next elections.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
And so so when I guess things, we're talking about
deficits and tax takes and allistic because obviously we are
going John, Yeah, there's the definitely something in the US
is want of the B but is something that we.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Had enough thing to worry about here. It's nothing that's
perfully fine, nothing at all.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
So there's this new report coming from one of the
more the better an knowing think tanks, and I yes
this morning as we're recording this on Wednesday, and it's
said that basically Rachel is going to have to find
fifty one billion because the black hole has somehow grown
from twenty two billion to forty one billion, and if
(09:28):
she wants to keep ten billion fiscal Hendron, which is
still a tiny, tiny child, she's going to have to
do something.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
So the National Step for Economic and Social Research used
to be viewed, obviously is used to be perceived as
as sort of one of the left leaning and someone
was quite left leaning. However, recently it seems to be
not that way leaning at all. I will politely say
these numbers are clickbait for the summer silly season, which
(09:57):
I said, there wasn't too bad this year, but I
think this one is just big NUMBERUS. It's getting lots
of free publicity. Our economists, for what it's worth, view
a twenty billion hole plus the ten A round they
and that's sort of their worst case scenario. So I
would say fifty is Look, the scenario isn't great at
(10:18):
the moment, but you know, she's high bound by these
ridiculous fiscal rules. You know, the Office for Budget Responsibility
is doing a job it wasn't really ever meant to do,
and it's given an importance and a credence which I
don't think are irrelevant really in a modern society. It's
it's it's hairshirt stuff. It's ridiculous. She's worse, she's she's
(10:38):
just she's now completely beholden to them. I think she
does have some wiggle room in the context of obviously
we talked before fiscal drag winding out those income tax
sort of frozen at fifty thousand, whether tax kicks in
for ever more, and definitely on pensions, I think, you know,
cutting the percentage relief and the allowances annually and things
(10:59):
like that, that there are ways and means of doing
things which will fulfill some of those back holes. But
she's going to have to raise tax elsewhere as well.
I don't think personally she's going to go at capital
gains tax for two reasons. One it would be stupid too.
She said that she won't do anymore. She should have
sorted that already, so that would be you know, really
going back recent.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Changes cut it. So I mean, you certainly can't cut
the allans much farther because don't need three key.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
No, well, I forget that, you'll touch I was talking
about more the sort of the rates in twenty four
percent and eighteen the for lower tax band. But you know, look,
all things are possible, I'm sure, but I think people
are getting a little bit silly on this, and I
think there are ways and means of doing other stuff.
But you know, look, she will come after the individual
(11:46):
taxpayer for sureless time round, as opposed to having gone
off the employer last time round, principally. And so a
lot of stuff that we wrote, you know last year, rinse,
repeat and dust it down and change the data and
it comes again.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
The thing adventure. So this this trail emma that they
talk about, which is we are that she's she feels
she can't break us firstcool rules. She can't break the
manifest or promise not to. Is in a employee in
a B A T the big taxes And well, she
can't cut spending because the back benches of all already
(12:24):
made it very explicit that they won't counting them say
any spending.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Can and she will cut spending. But the question is
whether we believe the previous government. They say there's all
sorts of forward tax spending cuts a part of me
which never never manifests. So I think she will have
to cut spending, and she'll she'll she'll have to show
that she's cutting spending just on nothing, which perhaps back
bench is quite so much. But I also think at
some point they're going to have to launce that boil
(12:49):
because they cannot last the rest of this term of
parliament without addressing it, and I don't think the ABI
will allow them. I that and the OBI has made
some fairly unsubtle signals, as as Bank of England as
indeed has the insue fiscal studies and clearly Anaesia SR
as well that you know what, her current scenario doesn't float,
and I think she's going to have to be more
(13:10):
aggressive with approaching what's happening with government spending.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
When last question Plasente Droid's do you think are the
chances of her lasted until the end of this year?
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Yeah, definitely, and I don't. I think she's got more
We've got room than perhaps people are prepared to think
that she has. And I think the alternative for Starma,
particularly after the quasi quarteng trust, sort of doesn't work well.
And also I think she, you know, is a human shield,
so in that sense for Starmer himself, and if he
(13:44):
were to change her, it would come with a wholesale
approach change and I think that would mean dropping the
fiscal rules, and it would have to bring someone in
of credibility and a whole different approach, and I think
that would be a seismic shock, which I don't think
he's got that type of political chops for or once,
so personally I think he will, you know, muscle out.
(14:05):
That's his style.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Fascinating. Thanks very much, Marcus. That's all for this show,
So thanks for listening to this week's Merlton Talks Money Debrief.
If you like the show, rate review and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Moses
and Dam and Summer Sadi Special thanks to Marcut sash Wath.
(14:29):
Questions and comments on the show and all the shows
are always welcome. The show email is medon money at
bloomberd dot net and also yes, do leave a five
star review if you liked it. It enables us to
get more incredible, expensive guests like Marcus on
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!