From Tate McRae to Addison Rae, why does Gen Z love vapid pop music?

After dabbling in melodramatic bedroom-pop, Tate McRae steers straight into the early-2000s lane with her latest single “Sports Car”. It was a time when hip-hop met glossy pop and everything sparkled (including the diamanté flip phones). From the opening stuttering beat, it’s a love letter to an era of Tamagotchis, Juicy Couture, and mainstream club tracks you could really dance to.

But with whispered vocals layered over revving motor sounds, the pop star conveys an ode to lust without pushing the boundaries like fellow pop princesses Britney and Christina did, respectively, with songs like “I’m a Slave 4 U” and “Dirrty”. “Sports Car” has no intention of being dirty or bold; it is meant to be a bit of beige fun.

Fans and critics alike drew immediate comparisons with The Pussycat Dolls, and “Sports Car” mashups with “Buttons”, the group’s sultry 2006 single, complete with glossy beats, began surfacing online. “Nasty pop girls are so back and I’m so here for it,” one fan wrote under McRae’s music video, which features her performing at a peep show.

Once dismissed as shallow, the slick, bass-heavy pop of the 2000s is now being re-evaluated, especially by Gen Z. Where critics once decried “Buttons” as “style over substance” and dismissed its parent album PCD as vapid, today’s listeners hear something else: simple escapism.

And maybe that’s the point. Gen Z – those born from the late 1990s through to the early 2010s – are reclaiming music once labelled as “guilty pleasure” and ditching the guilt. Artists like Hilary Duff, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Heidi Montag, who once embodied the height of the tacky manufactured pop star, are now celebrated as icons of a nostalgic sound and aesthetic that feels oddly comforting in 2025.

McRae is part of a new cohort of Gen Z artists reworking Y2K influences into something fresh. “It makes sense,” says pop critic Michael Cragg, “that kids who loved those acts have grown into artists themselves and are now referencing them. ‘Sports Car’ sounds so much like ‘Buttons’ that it’s clearly not accidental.”

Cragg points to a broader shift in critical thinking: “The mid-to-late 2000s saw the emergence of ‘poptimism’, which was about viewing pop music with the same critical eye as was afforded to rock. A new generation of writers, who’d grown up on the pure pop of the late Nineties, were starting to view things differently to the older generation.”

According to streaming data from Deezer, 75 per cent of Addison Rae’s listeners – and 69 per cent of Tate McRae’s – are aged between 26 and 35, suggesting that older Gen-Zers and younger millennials are drawn to music that echoes their tween years. But intriguingly, many Gen Z fans weren’t even around for 00s pop. This is where anemoia comes in: a term that means nostalgia for a time you didn’t live through. “Gen Z can build an emotional connection to the past through digital archives and internet culture,” says existential psychotherapist Eloise Skinner.

It was only a matter of time before Gen Z gravitated towards superficial pop, because our world today is “extremely referential”, offering “archive-level access to pretty much anything in any industry all the time”, says Anna Pompilio, a cultural strategist at the brand design agency Marks, who is on the cusp between Gen Z and millennial.

“Pair that access with recent tendencies to churn and burn through ‘micro-trends’ and you create a whirlpool that’s pretty easy to drown in. When we’re inundated with so much, nostalgia begins to feel like something we can wrap our arms around.”

Even McRae herself has leaned into comparisons with Britney Spears, calling them “flattering and scary”. Pompilio argues that many emerging stars, like McRae and Addison Rae, don’t aim to be “the first” – they want to be “the next”, paying tribute to a long lineage of pop archetypes. Rae’s “Diet Pepsi” and “Aquamarine” thrive on a “lexicon of references”.

But when does homage become lazy? James Kirkham, branding expert and founder of the consultancy firm Iconic, warns that endless recycling of past aesthetics – what theorist Mark Fisher dubbed “hauntology” – can dilute originality. Especially when artists face the daunting task of releasing music in an environment where a staggering 100,000 new tracks hit Spotify daily.

“Today’s Y2K revival isn’t just referencing the 2000s,” he says. “It’s referencing a TikTok interpretation of the 2000s – already twice removed from the source. We’re entering an era where nostalgia feeds on nostalgia, creating a Russian doll of references increasingly distanced from their source material.”

Of course, nostalgia loops are nothing new. Cultural sociologist Dr Richard Courtney notes that a 20-year nostalgia cycle has long existed. By 2003 – the year that Tate McRae was born – young people were fascinated with the futuristic synthesisers and cheesiness of songs from the 1980s.

Having grown up in that decade, Courtney remembers seeing a sudden surge in appreciation for music that was not considered “cutting edge”, but instead basic pop: tunes like “You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)” by Dead or Alive, or anything by Spandau Ballet. This shift in perception was thanks to older millennials. “Nostalgia is where we’re constantly walking into the future with our backs turned towards it, looking at the past,” he says.

But streaming’s new democratisation of taste has further blurred the lines between “real” and “manufactured” music. “There’s less embarrassment about what you like,” says Pompilio. “Young listeners today can enjoy Depeche Mode and The Pussycat Dolls side by side.”

Kirkham agrees: Gen Z care more about “vibe” than traditional ideas of artistry. They weren’t part of the discourse that tried to label The Pussycat Dolls as empowering or exploitative. Instead, they experience it all through a post-irony lens, where sincerity and superficiality can coexist.

This sense of freedom makes the bubblegum pop of the 2000s feel almost revolutionary. In a world of crisis and discourse overload, its simplicity is a form of release. “The straightforward hedonism of a Pussycat Dolls track feels almost revolutionary now,” Kirkham says.

For emerging girl group Sweet Love – whose 1.3 million TikTok followers enjoy their upbeat, Y2K-infused sound – fun is the point. “Creating something catchy and memorable is an art,” they say. “If it’s about getting ready with your girls to go out, we’re all for it.”

Even ironic detachment has become part of the charm. Hilary Duff’s “With Love” choreography – once panned for its blankness – is now adored for being exactly that: so unserious it’s iconic. TikTok trends, including revivals of songs like Heidi Montag’s “I’ll Do It”, have pushed nostalgia into charitable territory: following the destruction of Montag’s home in the LA fires, fans bought her album Superficial en masse, pushing it to No 54 in the Billboard 200.

Maeve from Leeds pop duo Lucky Iris grew up loving The Pussycat Dolls, thanks to the Pop Princess CD she owned, as well as Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift. She sees this era of pop as playful and lighthearted above all else. “Heidi Montag making a comeback is incredible,” she says. “It’s that crossover of reality TV and pop. She knows how people see her, and she’s leaned in – and we love it.”

In times of uncertainty – whether it’s down to economic stress, climate anxiety, or political unrest – the appetite for lighthearted, maximalist music increases. The result is known as “recession pop”, a term born during the late 2000s financial crisis, when Lady Gaga urged us to “Just Dance”. Today, as inflation bites, the housing crisis continues, and Donald Trump introduces new tariffs, “Abracadabra” is casting spells on the dancefloor, while fans scroll TikTok for ever-more-nothingy throwbacks.

For many fans, last summer marked a new golden age of pop-girl supremacy. The recognition of Charli XCX with brat, the stratospheric rise of Sabrina Carpenter, and Chappell Roan’s breakthrough all coincided with a newfound love for Y2K pop icons. “Gen Z and millennials are revisiting this music because it reminds them of a time that felt simpler,” says 23-year-old Tate McRae fan Ciara Allen.

Unsigned pop artist Amelie Jat, who released her debut album for the plot in 2023, is savvy to this Gen Z trend. She’s now pivoting from “sad girl songs with metaphors” to what she calls “nonchalant pop”: carefree, girly, and fun. “People want escapism,” she says. “This kind of pop wasn’t appreciated before because it wasn’t seen as deep.”

To older ears, these charting tracks might sound tired – or even AI-generated. But to Gen Z, they are thrillingly empty. And, as Jat puts it, it works because “our generation constantly feels the need to discover new and exciting things”.

When it comes to Lineker, the BBC has scored a spectacular own-goal

When Gary Lineker suggested to Amol Rajan in their interview this week that the BBC didn’t want him to carry on in his role as the presenter of Match of the Day, he wasn’t being paranoid. They really were out to get him. Late last year, when it was announced that at the end of the football season in May, Lineker would be leaving the presentational chair he has occupied for more than a quarter of a century, public statements insisted that both parties had agreed not to re-sign a contract to continue. In football vernacular, it was a mutual decision.

This, allegedly, was not the case. Lineker claims that he had become aware that senior figures at the corporation, including the freshly recruited head of sport Alex Kay-Jelski, would not be entirely unhappy to see him go.

When they were negotiating over what happened next when his contract came to an end, he got the feeling they wanted to see the back of him. It seems, as decisions go, this was about as mutual as Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on some rocky outcrop in the South Atlantic occupied only by penguins.

Because the fact is, from what I’ve seen, I’d imagine that Lineker was more than keen to stay. He appeared to love presenting the weekly football highlights show. His jovial presenting style suggests that he takes great pleasure in travelling to Salford every Saturday to preside over the preparation and broadcast of the show, ensuring it – and he – is at the centre of the sporting conversation. He may be in his sixties, yet Lineker shows no sign that he wants to slow down, or that his ambition is in any way sated.

But, comfortable in his own skin and even more comfortable in his own bank account (his overall net worth is estimated to be around £30m), perhaps Lineker felt this wasn’t the time to make a fuss or look like a curmudgeon. That’s not Gary’s style, particularly as a compromise was to be reached to enable him to front live coverage of FA Cup and World Cup games for another year.

Which makes you wonder, if he was right – and word within the corporation suggests he was – why on earth would the BBC want to see the back of him? He is, after all, not only the sharpest presenter of sport in the country, but among the finest in any field. Relaxed, funny, adept at bringing the best out of his studio pundits, he is a model for any aspiring young wannabe on precisely how it is done. And it is not easy.

The interesting thing is that in the nostalgic clips Rajan played of Lineker in his early days as a screen presence, he gave very little hint of what was to come. Undoubtedly good-looking (the BBC news report that Rajan showed of him in 1986 returning back from the Mexico World Cup that established his name as a player insisted he was “a big hit with the girls”), he nevertheless appeared cripplingly self-conscious, uneasy, his East Midlands twang blanding out any character.

But, just as he had on the training ground, he worked on his delivery. He had voice coaching. He learned how to relax on camera. By the time of the 1990 World Cup, when he made himself available to television reporters at every opportunity, he was already an entirely different proposition.

And when he retired as a player, his route into a second career on the box was already clear and obvious. Learning alongside the master Des Lynam, he simply got better and better at the job. Now he is untouchable. On screen, he is like your mate in the pub: warm, amusing, approachable.

Well, not everybody’s mate in the pub… Without question, he has his detractors. For those elements keen on deriding the corporation, his salary (at £1.3m) became a stick with which to beat the BBC. This, after all, is taxpayers’ money he is taking (and too much of it, many reckoned). Lynam, incidentally, has long suggested it was his fault that Lineker was propelled into the higher echelons of BBC earners.

In 1999, Lynam defected to ITV to present their short-lived equivalent of Match of the Day. The independent channel had wanted Lineker and Alan Hansen to join their new signing and dangled eye-watering offers in their eyeline. The BBC was obliged to inflate their salary to keep them in place. And ever since, Lineker has benefited from their largesse.

But there is something beyond his salary that infuriates his critics. For them, he is too outspoken on issues outside the game. Stay in your lane, they shout as he makes his liberal views known on social media. When he railed against government policy on asylum seekers, the outcry – in several cases from those who self-define as stalwarts of free speech – was loud, long and vicious. Shut him up, sack him, get rid. In panic mode, the BBC suspended him from duty. Then immediately climbed down when his colleagues demonstrated solidarity by withdrawing their labour.

Lineker told Rajan that, were he gifted the possibility of reliving things, he wouldn’t issue his tweet again. Not because he felt he was wrong. Far from it. But he believed the negative response was entirely out of proportion. And feared the ridiculous brouhaha stirred up by it might bring damage to the show.

So was it this that lay behind his new boss’s thinking: Lineker’s contract is up for renewal, imagine how much easier things would be without all the noise around his salary and his politics?

Which, if true, must be the most self-defeating response in broadcasting history. Noise is precisely what television thrives on. It was Lineker who put the BBC programme at the centre of the national conversation. It was Lineker who made it an appointment to view. It was Lineker who turned a collection of football highlights into compelling television.

But that is what it appears they did at Broadcasting House: they sought an easy life. For sure, all three of those chosen to succeed him are more than capable of holding the fort. Kelly Cates, Gabby Logan and Mark Chapman are all great talents, superb in their own way. But the fact is, none of them are Gary Lineker. More to the point, none of them have the extra cachet that he brings to the job.

Not that we should worry too much about Lineker. His “The Rest Is…” franchise is the most successful brand in podcasting, the broadcasting equivalent of a cash dispenser in the basement of his house in Barnes. So much so, the BBC still employs him – and some of his co-conspirators – to produce soundalike podcasts for them. Clearly, one part of the corporation remains more than aware of what pulls in the crowds. When he finally hangs up his microphone after presenting the World Cup final next July, how they will miss him. As you do when you lose the best.

Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women

Sir Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women in the wake of last week’s landmarkSupreme Court ruling.

The prime minister has previously said that “trans women are women”, but asked to repeat that statement on Tuesday he pointed to the judgment, which ruled the term woman referred to biological sex, saying it had “answered that question”.

Downing Street later confirmed the U-turn. Asked if the PM still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, his official spokesman said: “No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman. That is set out clearly by the court judgment.”

His comments came just hours after the equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said trans women should use male toilets, adding that “services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex”.

In last week’s long-awaited judgment, the UK’s highest court confirmed the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

Asked about the issue on Tuesday, Sir Keir said that a woman was an “adult female”. And, in his first public comments since the justices’ decision on 16 April, the Labour leader said he was “really pleased” with the clarity offered by the court’s ruling.

He said the judgment was a “welcome step forward” adding: “It’s real clarity in an area where we did need clarity, I’m pleased it’s come about. We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgment.”

In March 2022, before he entered No 10, Sir Keir told The Times that “a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law”.

A year later he appeared to change his position, stating that 99.9 per cent of women “haven’t got a penis”.

In recent days former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption has warned that organisations are potentially misinterpreting the landmark ruling, arguing it did not create an obligation to provide single-sex spaces.

Instead, Lord Sumption argued that while many have taken the ruling to mean that service providers are obliged to provide single-sex spaces based on biological sex, the ruling meant that excluding transgender people from single-sex spaces was allowed, and not a breach of the 2010 Equality Act.

Nunes unlocks the key to dismantling Aston Villa in crunch clash

There are infamous examples of Pep Guardiola’s fondness for exaggeration. Since he branded Matheus Nunes one of the best players in the world, back in 2022 and when the Portuguese played for Sporting CP, there has been precious little evidence to support that statement. Recently, and more damningly, Guardiola said his £50m midfielder was not clever enough to play in the middle for Manchester City.

But as a makeshift right-back, Nunes may have gone from a waste of money to a man who earned City their slice of the Champions League millions. He had set up Nico O’Reilly’s late opener against Everton on Saturday. He scored City’s even later winner against Aston Villa, a 94th-minute decider giving them a four-point lead over rivals for a top-five finish.

The athleticism that makes Guardiola use Nunes as a full-back was apparent when he powered into the penalty area to convert Jeremy Doku’s low cross. “Matheus has the physicality when he has to run, he is able to do it,” said Guardiola. Nunes’s popularity in the dressing room was not the only reason why the celebrations were so emphatic. This could decide their fate.

It will not prove City’s most celebrated 94th-minute goal here; not when Sergio Aguero’s title decider against QPR is factored in. Nor, indeed, their favourite winner against Villa, given Ilkay Gundogan’s 2022 heroics.

And yet the importance could scarcely be underestimated. “Perfect timing,” said Nunes. Not for Villa, so close to a first point at the Etihad since 2007. “To lose like that on that last action is so frustrating,” said Youri Tielemans. The anguish of Unai Emery told a tale; so, too, the relief of Guardiola, who had cut a frustrated figure for much of the night. “The season has been really bad,” he said. “We have a lot of pressure for the club to go to the Champions League.”

Pressure was relieved, aided by one of his decisions. He left Phil Foden on the bench when bringing on Doku to run at Villa’s replacement right-back Axel Disasi and Nunes benefited. “Jeremy always gives you something,” Guardiola rationalised. “Jeremy is the best player in the world in the first five metres.”

Once again, he had called one of his 2023 recruits among the finest on the planet. City’s recruitment after winning the treble has long seemed far from ideal and looked a reason for their regression. Yet two of the men signed two years ago combined. Doku and Nunes amounted to more than £100m between them.

They reshaped the race for the last three Champions League spots, sending City third, keeping Villa seventh. With four games to go and similar run-ins, it will be hard for them to overhaul City now. And yet their 15th successive league defeat at the Etihad Stadium came when their manager had the ambition to get a winner. “I wouldn’t have been happy with one point,” said Emery, who ended up with none and felt his own attacking substitutions contributed to the late drama.

There was early drama, too, and not merely because Bernardo Silva struck in the seventh minute, finishing from Omar Marmoush’s cutback. If Villa could rue the late goal, they should regret the early one, Emi Martinez only pushing the Portuguese’s shot into the net when he should have saved it.

Yet the breakthrough could have come still sooner. In between, much of the match revolved around a man returning to Manchester. Marcus Rashford scored from the spot, almost made a more explosive impact on his return to his home town by hitting the woodwork inside 20 seconds and, after troubling Paris Saint-Germain last week, posed City problems. His ability to burst in behind their defence and evident sharpness showed what Manchester United have been lacking in their attack.

Emery had benched Ollie Watkins, despite Saturday’s star turn against Newcastle, to recall Rashford. He promptly struck the post after a pass from Tielemans. His fourth Premier League goal at the Etihad was a coolly converted penalty. There was almost a fifth, Rashford rounding Stefan Ortega in the second half but finding the side netting from an acute angle. “I am so, so happy with him,” said Emery. “He is performing very well.” Rashford had tormented Paris Saint-Germain and troubled City. With a willingness to run in behind their defence, his sharpness was evident on his return to Manchester. The thought occurred that Manchester United could have benefited from such a forward.

Rashford’s goal was more controversial than it needed to be. Ruben Dias clipped Jacob Ramsey in a high-speed collision as they ran in differing directions. Referee Craig Pawson reviewed in on the monitor before awarding the penalty. Guardiola was booked for disputing a correct decision.

As two detail obsessives showed their idiosyncrasies on the touchline, he could not hide his irritation while Emery, like a particularly animated mime artist, worked his way through a variety of gestures.

But Guardiola ended up happy. He had benched Doku to start James McAtee, who almost capped the biggest game of his career with a goal, from an audacious lob. He instead unleashed the Belgian as an impact substitute. And this was a result with an impact that should stretch into next season. For a 15th consecutive year, City should be in the Champions League. “Of course it is important,” said Guardiola. “You don’t have to be a scientist to realise.” But the maths are now better for City.

Ronnie O’Sullivan leads Ali Carter on snooker return at the Crucible

Ronnie O’Sullivan had to settle for a single-frame overnight advantage as the opening session of his World Snooker Championship first-round clash against old foe Ali Carter failed to live up to its pre-match hype.

The seven-time champion, returning to the tour for the first time since dumping his cue after losing a Championship League match in January, looked to have scrapped out a 6-3 lead to take into Wednesday afternoon’s scheduled conclusion.

But Carter dug deep after O’Sullivan jawed a long red to the top corner in the final frame of the day, gradually erasing a 51-point deficit and nervelessly clearing the colours to cut his overnight deficit to 5-4.

Prior to Carter’s impressive recovery, breaks of 107 from both men had proved the highlights of an error-strewn affair.

The sluggish display on the table was mirrored by relative serenity off it as the pair, who have engaged in a long-running and highly publicised feud over the course of their careers, shared a warm handshake prior to the opening break.

O’Sullivan and Carter famously barged shoulders during Carter’s 13-9 win in the second round in 2018 and recriminations flew after O’Sullivan’s Masters final win in 2023, with Carter accusing his rival of “snotting” all over the floor and O’Sullivan responding by saying Carter should “get a life”.

After sharing the first two frames here, O’Sullivan took the third when Carter failed to punish him for leaving a red dangling over the pocket, and the 49-year-old’s subsequent century then put him in command at 3-1.

Carter once again reduced the deficit but missed the simplest of straight reds on a break of 60 in the sixth and allowed O’Sullivan to clear up and regain his two-frame lead.

For all his evident rustiness, O’Sullivan was clearly still capable of keeping a misfiring Carter at bay and a knock of 85 in the next sent him three frames clear.

But Carter responded with a 107 of his own then seized his chance in the final frame of the day with a fine clearance.

Ding Junhui was made to work overtime by qualifier Zak Surety before booking his place in round two for the first time in five years with a 10-7 win.

Ding, the 2016 finalist, had threatened to blow shell-shocked Surety off the table in Monday’s opening session, winning the first four frames and probably counting himself unfortunate to lead only 6-2 overnight.

It was a different story on Tuesday as Surety reeled off four centuries in the opening five frames to become the first player to hit four hundreds on his Crucible debut.

That helped him narrow the deficit to 7-6 and then 8-7 before the Chinese player’s experience told and consecutive breaks of 116 and 75 saw him through.

Shaun Murphy made a strong start to his bid for a second world title 20 years after his first as some heavy scoring saw him take a commanding 7-2 lead against Daniel Wells.

Masters champion Murphy and debutant Wells each made two centuries in a high-quality session but a run of four frames in a row proved the difference as Murphy flexed his muscles.

Zhang Anda leads fellow Chinese player Pang Junxu 5-3 after winning the final two frames of their marathon session.

What smart investors need to know about changing status symbols

“It’s not a bag, it’s a Birkin.”

In 2001, Sex and the City introduced us to the Hermès Birkin, with character Samantha Jones being told there was a five year waiting list for would-be buyers. The fashion set’s favourite accessory went mainstream.

The Birkin continues to sell well over 20 years later, both new and second hand. Resale values have reportedly risen faster than gold. The Birkin has helped Hermès to outperform in what has been a torrid time for luxury brands.

But how long can that appeal sustain?

Police officers who fail background checks will now be sacked

Police officers who fail background checks will face automatic dismissal under new regulations designed to bolster public trust in law enforcement.

These measures, to be introduced in Parliament on Wednesday, will legally mandate vetting procedures for all serving officers. This empowers police chiefs to remove unfit officers starting next month.

This action follows criticism from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, who accused officials of delaying the implementation of stronger dismissal powers. Rowley previously labelled the inability to sack officers failing vetting as “absurd.”

The Home Office stated that these changes are a direct response to recent legal challenges, which exposed the difficulties faced by police forces in removing officers deemed unfit to serve the public.

These new regulations aim to streamline the process and ensure greater accountability within the police force.

A Metropolitan Police officer accused of sexual offences, Sergeant Lino Di Maria, successfully mounted a legal challenge after having his vetting removed over the allegations, which he denies.

He was found to have no case to answer in respect of misconduct allegations, and argued that having his vetting removed without the accusations being proved is a breach of his right to a fair trial.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “In recent years, serious cases which have badly failed all proper policing standards have damaged public trust in the officers who are supposed to protect them, and undermined the majority of brave, committed officers who work tirelessly to keep us safe.

“It is simply not acceptable that officers who are clearly unfit to serve or pose a risk to their colleagues cannot be removed.

“That’s why these new rules are essential and it is why this Government has been working closely with forces to overcome these barriers to restore confidence in policing.”

The reformed police dismissal system will come into force from May 14.

National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vetting, Chief Constable Alex Franklin-Smith, backed the changes which “provide clear routes for action to remove individuals who fall below the high standards the public and our workforce rightly expect and deserve”.

The Home Office also plans to introduce further safeguards to improve vetting national standards later this year, including stronger requirements to suspend officers under investigation for violence against women and girls.

Officers convicted of certain criminal offences will also be automatically found guilty of gross misconduct.

While there are existing processes for forces to deal with allegations of misconduct, failing vetting may not be enough to sack officers.

Officers can fail vetting for a number of reasons, including for domestic and sexual abuse.

In some circumstances, those who do not pass the suitability checks but cannot be sacked, can stay in the force on full pay.

In February, Met Commissioner Sir Mark described the situation as “a ridiculous waste of money” as 29 Metropolitan Police officers and staff remained on paid leave having had their vetting removed.

It’s official – Donald Trump is bad for the world economy

Though covered by a thin veneer of nuanced “econospeak”, the message of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could not be clearer: Donald Trump is bad for the world economy and will make America poorer, not wealthier – now, tomorrow and far into the future.

The assessment of the IMF’s economists – who are listened to intently by investors, even if not President Trump – is damning. The downgrade in the growth forecasts for the United States this year alone amounts to almost 1 per cent of GDP – a loss of some $200bn, of which about half is a direct result of the tariffs announced on and after the ironically named “Liberation Day” on 2 April. Mr Trump was at least wise to postpone his foolish initiative by one day.

The losses to output and the negative effects on the living standards of Americans will continue to accumulate well into the long term. Rather than “trillions” of dollars flowing into the US Treasury, the impact of tariffs will be negative virtually everywhere on the planet. Trade wars have no winners and countless losers. As Mr Trump said, no other president has ever done anything like this before – but it’s not in a good way.

At least some of the rest of the collapse in world growth prospects also derives from the chaos and confusion that Mr Trump has brought to economic policy-making. For a time, it looked as if trade between the US and China would virtually cease. That panicked markets, so, for a change, the usual roles were reversed.

The latest example of Mr Trump’s expensive forays into economic policy is his description of the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, as “a loser”. The president has not only taken the unprecedented step of threatening to sack Mr Powell, but also of declaring his intention to be rid of the world’s leading central banker as soon as possible.

Mature economies do not do such things. It would be unlawful, which doesn’t seem to trouble Mr Trump, and it has deeply unsettled financial markets – and that should concern every American and every government in the world.

It is already the case that Mr Trump has wiped trillions off the value of equity and bond markets around the world. He seems to sense that he already needs to blame someone, apart from perfidious foreigners, for the continuing disaster – which is why he’s urged Mr Powell to cut interest rates.

In a typically unnuanced social media post, the president warned: “There can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW.” Unfortunately for Mr Trump, even he hasn’t the power to bully or fool the world’s investors, and the effect of a series of his impetuous, ill-considered statements has been to crash equities, bonds and the dollar – a particularly alarming combination, given that investors normally flee to US Treasury bonds in times of stress.

This time, it’s America that’s becoming a more risky place to keep one’s money; gold, German government bonds and the Swiss franc have been the choice beneficiaries of this crisis of confidence in Mr Trump’s administration.

It’s poignant to recall Mr Trump’s social media post just before polling day: “If Kamala wins, you are 3 days away from the start of a 1929-style economic depression. If I win, you are 3 days away from the best jobs, the biggest paychecks, and the brightest economic future the world has ever seen.” The markets have, so far, had their worst April since 1932.

The “Trump Slump” may not be far off. While the IMF doesn’t expect a recession in America this year, it has raised the probability of two successive quarters of contraction from 25 per cent to 37 per cent – much too high for comfort. Inflation, including those groceries Mr Trump pays so much attention to, will also increase. So much for making America great again.

Not the least of America’s concerned allies is the United Kingdom. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is in Washington to hear for herself the IMF’s gloomy prognosis for the British economy. Inevitably, as Britain’s second-largest trading partner, a major holder of dollar-denominated assets and a leading investor in the US, when America catches a cold, the British tend to get pneumonia.

The downgrade for British growth next year is thus substantial – down to 1.4 per cent, with inflation peaking at the highest rate in the major G7 economies later this year. The hit to British GDP and tax revenues will only add to the pressures Ms Reeves faces as she attempts to put the public finances on a sustainable footing, and that is inevitably bad news for public services.

Much of this reversal in British fortunes is because of the choices the Trump administration has made in its economic policy – and, even worse, the uncertainty surrounding how long any of its policies will survive before another presidential whim throws everything in the air again.

All the more reason, then, that when Ms Reeves meets her American counterpart, Scott Bessent, she will need to press the case for that most elusive of Brexit benefits – the fabled US-UK free trade agreement. In reality, such is the present febrile geopolitical environment and the immensely complex nature of a full trade treaty (as well as the resistance of entrenched vested interests in Congress), that the deal will be less ambitious.

Nonetheless, a relaxation of the recent hikes in tariffs, a harmonisation of digital and biotech taxation and regulation, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and other measures could provide a welcome boost to the UK’s greatly denuded growth prospects. Britain will be required to make some hard choices and, as in all such trade deals, there will be winners and losers.

But the UK needs to rebuild its economy and return it to sustainable growth. In the long run, in principle, linking with what, even now, remains the world’s most dynamic economy carries enormous potential. If the Starmer administration manages to pull that off, conclude the long-awaited deal with India, and, crucially, achieves the overdue Brexit “reset”, then it might start to dream about Britain breaking out of its economic stagnation.

Grim as the IMF forecasts are, things can get better.