Category: Uncategorized

London Gatwick has once again been named the UK’s most delay-prone airport, according to official figures from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Flights from the West Sussex airport departed an average of 23 minutes late in 2024 — the worst performance among Britain’s major airports for the second consecutive year.
The delay figure marks a slight improvement on 2023, when average departure delays reached 27 minutes. Nonetheless, Gatwick remained bottom of the punctuality table, narrowly behind Birmingham and Manchester airports, where average delays were 21 and 20 minutes respectively.
The figures, compiled by the PA news agency, analysed scheduled and chartered departures from 22 UK airports with at least 1,000 flights last year. Belfast City (George Best) airport recorded the best performance, with average delays under 12 minutes.
A key factor in Gatwick’s poor showing has been air traffic control disruption, including staff shortages at the airport’s outsourced control tower operated by Nats, the UK’s national air traffic services provider. While such issues have impacted airports across Europe, Gatwick faced unique challenges that contributed to the persistent delays.
A spokesperson for Gatwick said that staffing problems in the control tower had now been “fully resolved”, and added that the airport successfully avoided disruption over the Easter period, despite industrial action threats by ground-handling staff.
“Air traffic control restrictions in other parts of Europe have continued to impact the airport,” the spokesperson acknowledged, but added: “Together with our airlines, we’ve put in place a robust plan to improve on-time performance further in 2025.”
Despite Gatwick’s poor record, the broader UK picture improved in 2024. Across the country, average flight delays fell by 10 per cent, from 20 minutes and 42 seconds in 2023 to 18 minutes and 24 seconds last year.
A spokesperson for the industry group AirportsUK welcomed the overall improvement. “Aviation continues to recover from the pandemic, and operates in an extremely busy, global environment with resilience challenges,” they said. “It is therefore positive that the data shows delays continue to come down as everyone in aviation works together to provide the best possible service to passengers.”
The CAA reminded travellers of their rights in the event of delays, including access to refreshments and, in some cases, compensation — particularly where delays exceed three hours and the cause falls within the airline’s control.
Selina Chadha, a director at the CAA, said: “The industry works hard to ensure flights are punctual, but sometimes delays occur. What is important to us is what airlines and airports do to minimise disruption, as well as comply with their legal obligations to look after passengers if something happens to their flight.”
Gatwick, which is awaiting government approval for a second runway to nearly double its capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restore confidence in its reliability as passenger numbers continue to climb.
Read more:
Gatwick named UK’s worst airport for delays for second year running

The UK is set to ramp up its weapons manufacturing capabilities in a strategic move to reduce reliance on imports from the United States and France, amid growing concerns over the reliability of international defence partners.
BAE Systems, Europe’s largest defence contractor, is spearheading the effort with plans to establish new domestic facilities for the production of critical munitions, including the RDX explosives used in 155mm artillery rounds employed by the British Army. The initiative is designed to strengthen the UK’s defence supply chain, support export ambitions, and enhance national security.
The shift comes as European defence officials express unease over the future reliability of the US as a military partner, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump. The UK’s increased focus on sovereign capability follows similar sentiments across Europe, where defence ministries are looking to boost domestic output and reduce dependence on foreign-made components.
According to The Times, BAE Systems aims to make its ammunition “Itar-free” — meaning free from US International Traffic in Arms Regulations — to ensure that munitions can be freely traded internationally without US restrictions.
The company has announced plans to build three additional UK sites dedicated to producing synthetic explosives and propellants, which will help ease pressure on global supply chains currently strained by demand for nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine.
Steve Cardew, business development director for BAE Systems’ maritime and land defence solutions, said: “Our leap forward in synthetic energetics and propellant manufacture will strengthen the UK’s supply chain resilience and support our ramp up of critical munitions production to meet growing demand in response to the increasingly uncertain world we’re living in.”
The government has described the initiative as both a military and economic imperative. Defence Secretary John Healey said: “The defence industry is the foundation of our ability to fight and win on the battlefield. Strengthening homegrown artillery production is an important step in learning the lessons from Ukraine, boosting our industrial resilience and making defence an engine for growth.”
BAE Systems said the new manufacturing methods will also support the UK’s ambitions to become a key exporter in the defence sector, creating high-skilled jobs and opening new markets for British-made arms.
The move forms part of a wider push to reinforce Britain’s industrial base in response to geopolitical instability and the need for greater self-sufficiency in defence production.
Read more:
UK to boost domestic weapons production to cut reliance on US and French imports

Drones could soon be deployed for NHS deliveries, offshore wind turbine inspections and supply missions to oil rigs under sweeping changes to the UK’s drone regulations planned for 2026.
The government is preparing to allow drones to fly beyond the operator’s visual line of sight (BVLOS), a major step that would unlock long-distance missions across remote or hard-to-reach areas. Currently, drones in the UK must remain within direct sight of their pilots, limiting their use to short-range tasks.
Lord David Willetts, chair of the newly launched Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO), told The Guardian that the changes could go live as early as 2026, initially applying to “atypical” aviation environments. This means drones would first be authorised to operate in remote, rural or offshore areas — far from the complexities of congested urban airspace.
“There’s a clear market for commercial drone operators, but the benefits to services like the NHS are even more compelling,” said Willetts. “Drones could carry urgent medicines, deliver samples and support frontline care in remote communities.”
Regions such as the Scottish Highlands and offshore islands could be among the first to benefit, Willetts suggested, with drones used to deliver medication to GP surgeries and collect blood samples for testing. The NHS is already trialling drone transport between Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospitals in central London, in collaboration with drone startup Apian and Alphabet-owned company Wing. Similar pilot programmes have launched in Northumberland.
The government is investing £16.5 million in the Civil Aviation Authority to build a regulatory framework for BVLOS drone operations. This will pave the way for drones to take on more complex tasks — from delivering vital supplies to enhancing public safety through surveillance in the government’s Safer Streets initiative.
“You could imagine drones being used by police forces to monitor public areas or respond quickly in remote locations,” Willetts said, adding that expanding the definition of “atypical” airspace could allow greater flexibility for drone flights across large swathes of UK airspace.
Before drones can operate in busier skies, however, significant progress will be needed in aircraft detection and communication systems. These technologies would be critical for safely integrating drones alongside commercial and private aircraft.
Willetts also pointed to major potential in offshore applications. “Using drones to inspect wind turbines or resupply oil rigs is currently limited by line-of-sight restrictions,” he explained. “But with the right rules in place, these operations could be done faster, safer and more cost-effectively.”
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle welcomed the proposals, saying the changes would position Britain at the forefront of drone innovation. “Cutting red tape so drones can safely deliver supplies or inspect offshore wind turbines without costly workarounds like putting someone in a boat — that’s exactly the kind of progress the Regulatory Innovation Office is here to deliver,” he said.
If implemented, the reforms could open up new commercial markets, increase efficiency in public services, and transform how the UK manages infrastructure, healthcare logistics and emergency response in remote areas.
Read more:
Drones set to deliver NHS supplies and inspect offshore sites under new UK rules by 2026

British officials have begun classifying sensitive trade documents as “secret” and “top secret” in a bid to shield key information from American counterparts, as relations between London and Washington strain under President Trump’s tariff war, Business Matters has learned.
The move marks a significant shift in internal government protocols, underscoring concerns over the potential misuse or interception of UK economic data during ongoing trade discussions with the US. Sources confirmed that updated guidance has been issued across departments involved in negotiating the UK’s post-Brexit trade relationships, with stricter rules on digital sharing and document access—particularly relating to sensitive sectors such as automotive and pharmaceuticals.
The shift comes as Trump’s White House continues to rattle global markets with sweeping tariffs on trading partners. The UK has been hit with 10% tariffs on all exports to the US and a punitive 25% rate on cars and steel, prompting mounting unease in Whitehall.
In a marked departure from the transparency seen during negotiations with the Biden administration, the UK’s Department for Business and Trade has elevated the classification of many documents. Previously labelled as “Official – sensitive (UK eyes only)”, many are now subject to restrictions typically reserved for high-level security materials.
A senior source close to the matter said: “The reclassification isn’t about severing ties with the US, but reflects the increased volatility and unpredictability of current US policy under Trump. With industries exposed to retaliatory tariffs, ministers and officials are being cautious about who sees what.”
Despite this, Downing Street has avoided direct confrontation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declined to retaliate against Trump’s trade actions, instead offering concessions in areas like digital taxation and agricultural standards, while continuing to prioritise a long-term trade deal with the US.
In a bid to smooth over tensions, US Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that a “great agreement” was still possible, and praised the cultural alignment between the two countries. “We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government,” Vance said. “There’s a real cultural affinity.”
Yet behind the scenes, many UK policymakers and business leaders are concerned about the broader implications of Trump’s “America First” strategy. The reclassification of trade documents is part of a broader tightening of security, with large UK-based multinationals—particularly pharmaceutical firms—being advised to adopt stricter communication protocols when interacting with government departments.
The developments reflect broader international apprehension. Reports from Brussels suggest the European Commission has begun issuing burner phones to staff visiting the US and is rethinking its document-handling policies to avoid American surveillance.
While the UK and US have traditionally enjoyed close ties—particularly in defence and intelligence, where shared material is often marked “UK/US only” or classified under the “Five Eyes” alliance—trade policy now appears to be diverging from that intimacy.
Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy is seen as a bid to reindustrialise key sectors of the US economy, including automotive and pharmaceutical manufacturing, often at the expense of long-standing allies. He has defended the moves, acknowledging the “transition costs” but insisting they are necessary for national renewal.
Meanwhile, the fallout continues. US tariffs on Chinese goods have soared to 145%, prompting retaliatory tariffs from Beijing of up to 125%. China has warned that it may resort to alternative countermeasures, and urged the EU to resist what it described as Trump’s “bullying”.
While Trump recently agreed to delay further tariffs on some nations for 90 days, the UK continues to face duties on core exports. The uncertainty is also contributing to instability in global financial markets, prompting questions about the long-term viability of traditional alliances in a shifting trade environment.
As Starmer’s government walks the tightrope between diplomacy and national interest, the reclassification of trade documentation marks a new era in Britain’s handling of sensitive negotiations—and signals that trust, even among allies, is no longer assumed.
Read more:
UK classifies trade documents as ‘secret’ to shield from US amid escalating Trump tariff tensions

A strategically vital British manufacturer teetering on the brink, thousands of jobs in jeopardy, and a government reluctant to intervene. It may sound like the story of British Steel in 2025—but more than fifty years ago, the same narrative played out with another great British name: Rolls-Royce.
In the early 1970s, the luxury car and aerospace firm—then one of Britain’s largest employers—was facing financial collapse, largely due to cost overruns on the RB211 engine contract with US aerospace firm Lockheed. Despite knowing that the project’s schedule and budget were unrealistic, the company pushed forward, encouraged by the then technology minister Tony Benn.
By early 1971, with development costs nearly double the original estimates and government support drying up, Rolls-Royce entered receivership. The Conservative government under Edward Heath, just months into office and ideologically opposed to state interference, was forced to act. It nationalised the engine-making part of the company to prevent the collapse of a business deemed essential to the UK’s defence, exports, and prestige.
Newspapers at the time praised the government’s pragmatism: “A new government has not been blooded until it has discovered that the national interest is more important than its own political preference or prestige.”
That sentiment rings true again today, as Sir Keir Starmer’s government takes emergency action to keep British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant running. But if ministers are looking for a precedent that shows nationalisation can work—if done with discipline and strategic foresight—they could do worse than study the Rolls-Royce playbook.
Heath’s rescue was not a doctrinaire nationalisation. Rolls-Royce (1971) was structured as a private company, slimmed down and positioned for re-privatisation. As Heath later reflected in his memoirs:
“The government’s actions had avoided a massive wave of redundancies, safeguarded our defence and international interests, and put the company on a secure long-term footing.”
Support even came from an unlikely ally—President Nixon. Aware of the implications for the global supply chain, he persuaded the US Congress to refinance the Lockheed contract, recognising the importance of preserving Anglo-American industrial cooperation.
A key part of the turnaround was the return of legendary engineer Sir Stanley Hooker, who revived the troubled RB211 engine project. Whether newly appointed interim executives Allan Bell and Lisa Coulson can replicate such a feat at British Steel remains to be seen.
Of course, the parallels have limits. Rolls-Royce in 1971 was a technological leader and a major defence supplier. British Steel, by contrast, has been plagued by years of underinvestment, volatile commodity pricing, and crippling energy costs—compounded now by President Trump’s aggressive tariffs on imported steel.
But the core question remains the same: when a strategically important industry is in freefall, can a targeted form of nationalisation stabilise and ultimately renew it?
There are reasons to be cautious. The Department for Business and Trade, now tasked with oversight, has little recent track record in managing nationalised assets beyond the smaller Sheffield Forgemasters, acquired in 2021 to protect naval supply chains. British Steel is a far more complex undertaking—larger, costlier, and more politically sensitive.
Energy costs remain one of the thorniest issues. Unless the government addresses the systemic pricing disadvantage faced by UK heavy industry compared to its European and global peers, any rescue risks being little more than a short-term fix.
Yet there is more than British Steel’s future riding on this decision. Calls are growing louder for other failing utilities—most notably Thames Water—to be brought into public ownership. If the British Steel intervention falters, the case for wider strategic nationalisations could be irreparably damaged.
The story of Rolls-Royce reminds us that nationalisation need not be a dead end. With a clear structure, skilled leadership, and international collaboration, a failing company can be turned around. The lesson for Starmer’s government is that the success of such interventions rests not on ideology, but execution.
Read more:
Rolls-Royce’s 1970s rescue offers a blueprint for British Steel’s survival

The government must show greater ambition and urgency in addressing the employment prospects of older workers if it hopes to meet its goal of an 80% employment rate, according to the 50+ Employment Taskforce.
Responding to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which reveal a significant employment gap between younger and older workers, the Taskforce is calling on the government to adopt specific targets: raising the employment rate of 50–59-year-olds to 80%, and that of 60–66-year-olds to 55% over the next decade.
Current labour market data shows employment among 50–64-year-olds at 71.6%, trailing significantly behind the 85.7% rate for 35–49-year-olds. The employment gap between these age groups has widened post-pandemic to 14.1 percentage points, compared to 13.1 pre-2020. There are now nearly one million more older workers classed as economically inactive than before Covid-19.
The Taskforce – a coalition of leading organisations including the Centre for Ageing Better, the Learning and Work Institute, the Health Foundation and Age UK – warns that with the state pension age rising to 67 next year, around 900,000 people aged 50–66 who are unemployed or inactive but still keen to work risk being left behind. Reintegrating just half of this group could be enough to help the government meet its 80% employment target.
Dr Emily Andrews, Deputy Director for Work at the Centre for Ageing Better, said:
“We urgently need greater ambition from government to keep older people in the workforce. Many in their 60s are already facing severe financial pressure. Poverty among 60–64-year-olds is the highest of any adult group over 25, and the last time the pension age rose, poverty rates doubled for those on the brink of eligibility.”
The UK lags behind comparable nations when it comes to older worker employment. While employment rates for those aged 25–54 match other high-performing economies like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Iceland, the UK is 16 percentage points behind Iceland for 55–64-year-olds.
Christopher Rocks, lead economist at the Health Foundation, stressed that good work is essential not just for economic productivity, but also for health in later life.
“If the government wants to sustainably raise the State Pension age, it must support flexible, secure, and well-designed jobs that accommodate health needs and caregiving responsibilities,” he said.
Alice Martin of the Work Foundation at Lancaster University added that without structural changes, older workers risk being excluded from the labour market just when the economy needs them most.
“Rising pension ages and sector-wide labour shortages make it essential to support older workers. Millions risk being pushed out of the workforce unless we provide jobs that accommodate care, health and later-life realities.”
Patrick Thompson of Phoenix Insights pointed out the retirement savings gap: “Most people with defined contribution pensions are likely to retire with less than they need. Enabling older workers to stay employed longer is critical—not only for their future financial security, but also for their wellbeing today.”
Stephen Evans, Chief Executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said joined-up work, health and skills services were needed, along with changes to recruitment practices.
“Employers must look seriously at job design and support systems that allow older people to continue working. We must unlock the full potential of this experienced and skilled workforce.”
Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK, reinforced that older workers face unique barriers—from health conditions and caring duties to pervasive ageism.
“We need urgent policy action to ensure that older people can either remain with current employers or find new, meaningful work. With the right support, we can unlock a huge, underused talent pool.”
The Taskforce has called for coordinated efforts from central and regional governments, employers and civil society to deliver policies that help older workers access good jobs, remain productive, and support the UK’s economic growth ambitions.
Read more:
Labour market data highlights urgent need for action on older workers, say leading think tanks

China has launched a scathing attack on British politicians, accusing them of “arrogance, ignorance and a twisted mindset” over criticism of British Steel’s Chinese owner, Jingye, and the firm’s recent threat to shut down its Scunthorpe blast furnaces.
In a strongly worded statement published on Wednesday, Beijing’s embassy in London condemned what it described as unfounded “slander” against both the Chinese government and Chinese businesses operating in the UK. The rare public rebuke follows remarks by UK business secretary Jonathan Reynolds, who accused Jingye of failing to act in good faith and placing thousands of British jobs at risk.
The dispute centres on the future of British Steel’s Scunthorpe site, where Jingye had warned it would close the blast furnaces — a move that would have cost 2,700 jobs. In response, the government stepped in over the weekend with emergency legislation to temporarily take control of the company and keep the site operational.
While the government’s intervention averted an immediate crisis, it has triggered a diplomatic flashpoint between the UK and China, threatening to undermine already strained relations at a time when the Labour government is actively courting foreign investment — including from Chinese businesses.
In an unusual question-and-answer post on its website, the Chinese embassy hit back at criticism from British politicians, stating: “The anti-China rhetoric of some individual British politicians is extremely absurd, reflecting their arrogance, ignorance and twisted mindset.”
Jingye, which rescued British Steel in 2020 after the collapse of its former owner Greybull Capital, has said it plans to close the outdated blast furnaces, arguing that the decision is commercially justified. The company had rejected a £500 million offer of government support to transition the site to more environmentally friendly electric arc furnace technology — a decision that inflamed political tensions.
Reynolds, in an interview on Sunday, voiced regret over previous governments’ openness to Chinese investment in critical sectors such as steel. “I wouldn’t personally bring a Chinese company into our steel sector,” he said, citing concerns over the influence of the Chinese state on nominally private businesses.
However, the Labour government’s stance on China remains ambivalent. Chancellor Rachel Reeves visited China in January to encourage investment, and Reynolds is scheduled to travel to the country later this year, despite his recent criticisms.
The embassy warned that such mixed messages and politicisation of commercial decisions could deter future Chinese investment. “Any words or deeds that politicise or maliciously hype up business issues will undermine the confidence of Chinese business investors in the UK and damage China-UK economic and trade cooperation,” it said.
It also contrasted the UK’s vocal criticism of China with what it described as a lack of opposition to US protectionism, referencing Donald Trump’s escalating tariffs on Chinese goods. “What on earth are they up to?” the embassy asked rhetorically.
Jingye maintains that it has already contributed significantly to the British economy by saving British Steel in 2020 and retaining thousands of jobs. It now insists the closure of the Scunthorpe blast furnaces is a “normal decision” made in the face of continued financial losses — over £350 million since the acquisition.
The situation underscores the broader dilemma facing the UK government: how to balance economic pragmatism with geopolitical caution in its dealings with China. As Britain reassesses its industrial strategy and seeks to decarbonise the steel industry, the question of who owns and operates critical infrastructure has never been more politically charged.
The Department for Business and Trade has been approached for comment. For now, the British Steel saga continues — not only as an industrial and economic issue, but increasingly as a diplomatic one too.
Read more:
China accuses UK politicians of ‘arrogance’ amid British Steel ownership row

Google is facing a landmark £5 billion legal challenge in the UK, accused of abusing its dominance in internet search to stifle competition and inflate the cost of advertising for businesses.
The class action lawsuit, filed on Tuesday at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that Google unlawfully shut out rival search engines and leveraged its market power to charge British businesses significantly more for digital ads than they would in a competitive market.
Brought by competition law expert Dr Or Brook on behalf of thousands of UK businesses, the claim centres on the tech giant’s alleged manipulation of the search ecosystem — including contracts with Android phone manufacturers and Apple — to cement its control over both search results and the highly lucrative advertising space that surrounds them.
The case accuses Google, part of US-based Alphabet Inc, of paying Apple billions to remain the default search engine on iPhones, while simultaneously requiring Android device makers to pre-install Google’s search app and Chrome browser as a condition of using its operating system. According to the filing, this dual strategy eliminated viable alternatives and forced advertisers to rely almost exclusively on Google’s platform.
“This is about fairness in digital markets,” said Brook. “Businesses in the UK have had little choice but to rely on Google Ads to be seen. In doing so, many have paid more than they should have in a truly open and competitive environment. Google has been leveraging its dominance in general search and search advertising to overcharge advertisers, harming businesses and ultimately consumers.”
Google has rejected the allegations, calling the case “speculative and opportunistic”.
A spokesperson for the company said: “Consumers and advertisers use Google because it is helpful, not because they have no choice. We will vigorously defend ourselves against this baseless claim.”
The legal challenge comes as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) continues its own investigation into Google’s search and advertising practices. That probe, launched in January, is looking into how Google’s search dominance — accounting for around 90 per cent of all UK internet searches — affects competition in digital markets.
The CMA has previously highlighted concerns over market distortion, with more than 200,000 British businesses currently relying on Google services to advertise online. Critics argue that the dominance of a single platform limits visibility and pricing transparency for advertisers, creating an uneven playing field.
Brook’s case echoes a wider global reckoning for Big Tech, as regulators in the US, EU, and UK step up scrutiny of dominant digital platforms and their impact on competition and innovation. It also signals a growing willingness in the UK to pursue large-scale collective actions on behalf of businesses harmed by anti-competitive behaviour.
If successful, the lawsuit could pave the way for thousands of British businesses — particularly small and medium-sized enterprises — to claim compensation for years of inflated advertising costs. The case will hinge on whether the tribunal agrees that Google’s conduct breached UK competition law and whether it led to measurable financial harm.
For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the search giant as regulators and courts weigh the balance of power in the digital economy. As Brook put it: “When a single company controls the gateway to online visibility, fairness becomes more than a principle — it becomes a legal imperative.”
Read more:
Google faces £5bn UK lawsuit over claims it shut out rivals and overcharged advertisers

China’s economy grew faster than expected in the first quarter of the year, with a 5.4 per cent expansion driven by robust industrial output and domestic consumption — a performance that economists warn may prove short-lived as US tariffs begin to bite.
The stronger-than-forecast GDP figures, released by Beijing on Tuesday, showed that the world’s second-largest economy continued to defy global headwinds in the January-March period. Analysts had expected 5.1 per cent growth, making the actual outturn a welcome surprise. However, it came just weeks before a 145 per cent US tariff on Chinese goods took effect, as President Donald Trump intensifies a trade war that many fear could trigger a wider global slowdown.
The quarterly growth figure matched that of the final quarter of 2024, suggesting China had maintained economic momentum despite persistent deflationary pressures and concerns over unemployment. A rush of exports ahead of tariff deadlines contributed to the resilience, as manufacturers expedited shipments to beat the US levies.
Retail sales — a key barometer of domestic consumption — rose 5.9 per cent year-on-year in March, accelerating from 4.8 per cent across January and February. Meanwhile, industrial output surged 7.7 per cent in March, up from 5.9 per cent in the first two months, as production ramped up in anticipation of new trade barriers.
“Before the tariff storms hit, China’s GDP growth likely eased but remained solid, thanks to the recovery in domestic demand,” said analysts at Societe Generale. “Overall, the GDP report should show that stimulus is working, but the support will not stop here with bigger tariff challenges ahead. The policy put is on.”
Still, there is growing concern that the pace of growth will slow through the remainder of 2025. UBS has downgraded its full-year GDP forecast for China to 3.4 per cent, down from 4 per cent, citing the impact of sustained US trade tariffs and the likelihood of further internal economic adjustments.
“We think the tariff shock poses unprecedented challenges to China’s exports and will set forth major adjustment in the domestic economy as well,” UBS economists said in a note to clients.
Beijing has already announced retaliatory measures on US imports, fuelling fears of a prolonged and destabilising tit-for-tat dispute between the world’s two largest economies. Economists warn that while short-term stimulus is cushioning the blow, sustained trade tension could stall China’s recovery and lead to a more subdued investment environment.
The Chinese government has set a GDP growth target of around 5 per cent for 2025, which now looks increasingly ambitious. Despite ongoing state support and efforts to bolster infrastructure and manufacturing, external pressures are mounting.
Persistent deflation has also become a concern, with falling producer prices suggesting weakening demand across key sectors. At the same time, youth unemployment remains elevated, further dampening consumer confidence and threatening broader economic stability.
“China has the policy tools to respond to shocks,” said one senior economist in Shanghai, “but the combination of global trade volatility, domestic demand fragility, and deflation means there’s no room for complacency.”
As the US election cycle heats up, with President Trump reaffirming his protectionist stance, few expect an immediate easing in tensions. For China, the road ahead is likely to require careful balancing of short-term stimulus with long-term structural reform — while bracing for whatever trade salvos Washington fires next.
Read more:
China’s economy beats forecasts but faces looming tariff shock under Trump