Sun-drenched Canaries hit with snow ahead of Easter as tourists warned

Storm Olivier is set to wreak further havoc across the Canary Islands the week before Easter break, dampening holidaymakers’ moods.

The Storm struck popular holiday islands Tenerife, Gran Canaria, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura on Wednesday night before drifting north and hitting parts of southern Spain and Portugal.

Normally drenched in sun, Tenerife’s Mount Teide is already covered in snow.

“The danger is significant. Stay away from ravines even if they are dry. The first few days of Easter 2025 are shaping up to be unstable due to the presence of Storm Olivier, which will bring heavy rain to the Canary Islands before then,” Spain’s Aemet weather service spokesperson Ruben del Campo said.

“Temperatures are going to drop, and there will also be rain in much of the Peninsula,” he added.

The storm is expected to travel further north from Friday, bringing rain and thunderstorms across the country.

Dropping temperatures are expected to be accompanied by strong winds in the Strait of Gibraltar and the Alboran.

The weather conditions come just a week after Storm Nuria caused chaos across the islands.

Nuria was the 14th named storm in the Spanish storm-naming season and battered the archipelago with its high-wind speeds.

A pre-alert for strong winds and persistent rain was issued Wednesday by the Canary Islands’ General Directorate of Emergencies, along with a warning of potential flooding.

Huge waves are expected with the regional government advising against driving. It said those who had to travel should proceed with extreme caution, paying attention to water levels and checking speeds and brakes.

Tourists and expats have taken to social media to share videos of the weather. “Our road is like a river,” Lisa Bridge, a singer living in Tenerife, posted on TikTok.

Keir Starmer set to approve nuclear plant in bid for economic growth

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve a major nuclear power plant alongside a slew of mini reactors in a bid to boost Britain’s stagnant economy.

The prime minister will approve investment for the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk before the June spending review, The Times reported, as well as unveiling plans for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs) across the UK.

Sizewell C is expected to be up and running in 2035 and will provide 7 per cent of Britain’s energy demand at a cost of £20 billion.

But a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz) spokesman played down expectations of an announcement before June, saying a final decision “will be taken in the spending review”.

Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain’s grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power.

However, the last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant.

Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031.

Sizewell C is yet to be signed off by the government.

A decision on whether to give Sizewell C the green light has formed part of the government’s upcoming spending review, but Sir Keir has been bringing announcements forward in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The PM has been desperately trying to spur on growth amid fears the US president’s trade war will cause Britain’s economy to stagnate and force further cuts in the autumn Budget.

EDF, the French energy giant that owns and runs Britain’s nuclear fleet, and the government, which has committed £6 billion so far, were the first backers of the project.

But they have been trying to raise billions more from prospective investors, including British Gas owner Centrica.

The government in January was forced to deny reports the expected costs of Sizewell C had spiralled to £40bn due to inflation and the knock-on effects of delays at Hinkley Point C.

Whitehall sources told The Independent the government is hugely supportive of Sizewell C, but that an announcement on its approval and funding would not come before June.

Sources told The Times Sir Keir wants to make a “nuclear moment” by combining the approval of Sizewell C with an announcement on a generation of SMRs.

The government has been running a competition to develop the reactors, which are potentially cheaper, much faster to build and easier to deploy, with Rolls-Royce and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy the frontrunners.

A Desnz spokesman said: “New nuclear power stations such as Sizewell C will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and net zero, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs and supporting our energy independence beyond 2030.

“Nuclear power has the potential to boost our supply of secure homegrown power and generate major investment nationwide. The project is making good progress and a final decision on whether to proceed will be taken in the spending review.”

Woman badly injured in attack by suspected banned XL bully dog

A woman suffered potentially life-changing injuries in an attack by a dog suspected of being a banned XL bully, police say.

Officers were called at about 4.15pm on Thursday after a woman was bitten by a dog at a home in Bristol.

They used protective shields to ensure their own safety while going into the address in Sutton Avenue, Brislington.

The woman, believed to be in her forties, was taken to hospital by ambulance with potentially life-changing injuries, Avon and Somerset Constabulary said.

The dog is believed to be an XL bully, but the breed has not been confirmed and it is not yet known whether the animal belonged to the victim.

The force said officers were still at the scene, where the dog had been safely caught, pending the arrival of specialist dog handlers.

Numerous police officers and an air ambulance had been called to the scene, according to Bristol Live.

Owning an XL bully without a certificate of exemption was outlawed last year following a series of attacks involving the breed, including the fatal mauling of a man by two dogs near Walsall in the West Midlands.

The XL is the largest of four types of American Bully, and was cross-bred for fighting, with a muscular body. It can weigh nine stone and has a powerful bite.

Dog attacks rose in the first five months of the ban on the breed, figures obtained by The Independent revealed this year.

Why Britain’s family-run Chinese and Indian restaurants are dying out

At a certain point in the 1980s, Amy Poon realised that her childhood was unusual. While her friends were pooling together their pocket money to share a McDonald’s milkshake, she was hosting them at her parents’ restaurant and signing off the bill. “I was certainly a friend with benefits!” she laughs now. But behind the scenes, it wasn’t always as glamorous as it seemed.

“Although we were surrounded by people the whole time, it was quite a lonely childhood,” Poon reflects. “My parents worked six days a week – they didn’t clock off at 5pm. I spent a lot of time at the restaurant.”

Her parents, Bill and Cecilia, opened Poon’s of Covent Garden in 1973, earning a Michelin star in 1980 and becoming one of London’s most iconic Chinese restaurants, helping to shift perceptions of the cuisine in Britain.

Around the same time, in Southall, Dipna Anand was also growing up in a restaurant. Aptly named, Brilliant Restaurant, the establishment was founded in Nairobi in the 1950s by her grandfather and brought to London by her father Gulu in the early 1970s. Specialising in Punjabi cuisine, it won plaudits from locals, critics and visiting dignitaries alike.

But for Anand, “The restaurant was like a second home,” she says. “Some of my earliest memories are of being in the kitchen, watching my dad cook.” She remembers stacking bottles, laying out paper tablecloths and learning to peel garlic, roll chapatis, and blend spices.

For decades, family-run Chinese and Indian restaurants like these formed the backbone of British high streets. But that generation of restaurateurs is ageing. The children who grew up in the kitchens and dining rooms their parents built now stand at a crossroads. Some are walking away entirely. Others are returning on their own terms. And many are asking: are we going to be the last generation? Does it all end with us?

Before Deliveroo and drive-throughs, the height of culinary excitement came in a foil tray or under a plastic lid (we all had a cupboard dedicated to stacks of the nation’s unofficial Tupperware). From Bradford to Aberystwyth, the local Chinese or Indian was often the first place we encountered a cuisine that wasn’t our own. They became our go-to celebrations, our weeknight crutches, our Friday night rituals. Sweet and sour chicken, tikka masala, prawn crackers, poppadoms. Anglicised, yes, but beloved all the same.

These restaurants didn’t just feed us – they became part of the nation’s culinary DNA. Many were opened by immigrants who found in food a way to survive, and then to thrive. Economic necessity became cultural cornerstone.

Later waves of immigration brought regional variety – Sichuan and Hunan joined Cantonese staples; Indian menus expanded to include Keralan fish curries and Punjabi dhaba classics. By the 1980s, nearly every British town had its Chinese or Indian staple – sometimes the only hot food available after 8pm, post-pub. The Sunday roast is still sacred, sure, but the Friday night curry has its own kind of reverence.

The classic story is one of sacrifice. Long hours. Gruelling work. Hospitality as a form of honour. “Running a Chinese restaurant didn’t rank with doctor, journalist, designer, engineer, musician, artist, management consultant,” says Poon. “Anyone growing up in a Chinese restaurant will attest to the punishing hours, the hard, often grimy work and the perception that it is something you do because you aren’t qualified to do anything else.”

That perception, of course, has always been false. Poon’s father plonked a glass kitchen in the middle of the restaurant in 1976 – decades before open kitchens were trendy – to counter the stereotype that Chinese kitchens were dirty or unskilled. He pioneered clay pot rice and introduced wind-dried meats. Diners remember his food with the kind of emotion usually reserved for weddings or funerals. The highly acclaimed chef “Henry Harris talks about a crispy garlic and chilli squid dish that he shared with his wife 39 years ago as a mouthful that changed his life,” Poon says. Michael Birt, one of the UK’s leading portrait photographers, is writing about a noodle dish he had at Poon’s in the Seventies for his memoir. Australian celebrity chef Iain Hewitson remembers a “wonderful chilli and garlic calamari dish”.

But while the legacy might be revered, it isn’t always inherited. Many children of these restaurants grew up determined not to follow in their parents’ footsteps. “The industry wasn’t glamorous or well regarded, so it’s small wonder that a Chinese restaurant kid would want to pursue another avenue,” says Poon.

Of course, the allure of opportunities for their children was one of the main reasons these immigrant restaurateurs came here in the first place: so their kids might be able to attend university, pursue white-collar careers, step into lives their parents never had the chance to. In sociologist speak, it’s called the “immigrant bargain” – repaying your parents’ sacrifices by achieving professional success, even if it means turning away from the family business. Others call it “generational drift” or “brain drain”.

Anand sees it clearly in her own community. “The hospitality industry is incredibly rewarding but also very demanding,” she says. “Unlike our parents’ generation, who built their businesses through sheer hard work and long hours, many younger generations have seen first hand the sacrifices involved – late nights, unpredictable schedules and the physical toll.”

“There’s also been a shift in aspirations. Many second-generation British Indians have had access to higher education and a wider range of career options. In some cases, there’s also a perception that hospitality isn’t as prestigious or lucrative as other professions.”

It’s not always a rejection – sometimes just a redirection. “Some of my peers, like me, have chosen to stay in hospitality because it’s in our blood,” she continues. “But I know plenty who have stepped away, either because they wanted a different lifestyle or because they saw first hand how demanding the industry can be.”

Poon, for one, swore she would never go into the restaurant business. “It was not a lifestyle I wanted for myself and my family,” she says. She worked in advertising, ran a champagne bar in Singapore’s red light district and wrote a couple of silly books – “the kind you put in the loo”. It was only in her forties, with two daughters and a sense that it was time to “grow up and put down some roots”, that she felt the pull back. “There was this gift of an opportunity that I was beginning to grasp,” she says. A talking-to from a friend sealed the deal: “She told me off for ‘faffing around’!”

Anand, by contrast, was all in from the start. “My family never expected me to take over the business… For me, it was always a natural choice,” she says. Her brother took longer to find his way back, but now they run the business together.

Still, the shape of the business is changing. Brilliant Restaurant is closing its doors after half a century. In its place, Anand and her brother are opening a gastropub. “We’re not stepping away from hospitality,” she says. Instead, “we are transitioning”, building on what their family started. “That’s the beauty of hospitality: it allows you to adapt while keeping your roots intact.”

The pressure to adapt isn’t just emotional – it’s economic. “The restaurant industry has changed massively, and keeping a family-run restaurant going has become more challenging than ever,” Anand says. “One of the biggest shifts has been the rising costs across the board: ingredients, gas, electricity, materials and wages.”

“The key to survival in this industry is innovation,” Anand says – but not all innovation works in a restaurant’s favour.

Delivery apps like Deliveroo and Uber Eats may have revolutionised how Britons order food, but they’ve done so at a cost. Commission fees of 25 to 35 per cent can gut already slim margins. To offset this, many raise prices on the apps, making their food appear disproportionately expensive and sometimes driving customers away. Worse still, these platforms act as middlemen, stripping restaurants of access to their customers, their data and their loyalty. Convenience, it turns out, isn’t always mutual.

Poon, too, has found herself innovating. Rather than reopen a traditional restaurant, she launched Poon’s London with pop-ups and a sauce range. Her shop at Spa Terminus sells freshly prepared wontons alongside Asian pantry staples. She has no grand plan. “I’m not that strategic!” she laughs.

Yet the outcome is something modern and personal. “The family name isn’t something rigid. It’s an evolving, living thing,” she says. “I couldn’t have done any of this without the platform that my parents have provided… I always feel there are shades of Gatsby in what I am doing, not in a bad way, but I do recognise what came before so I can do what I do.”

If that sounds romantic, it is. But there’s pragmatism too. Very few new family-run Chinese or Indian restaurants are opening in Britain today, and many of the old guard are quietly closing. “Back then, while it was still hard work, the overall costs were lower, and there was a stronger pipeline of skilled chefs,” Anand says. Customer habits have changed, too. “People expect quicker service, more convenience and competitive pricing, which can be difficult to balance while maintaining quality,” she says. “At the same time, diners are more adventurous and competition has increased.” The brain drain is being felt here, too. “Fewer younger people are entering the industry, and the skilled chefs who understand authentic Indian cuisine are becoming harder to find.”

She’s hopeful the next generation will adapt. But she’s also honest. “I sincerely hope that family-run curry houses will still be around in 20 years, but it’s not looking very promising,” she says. “These restaurants are more than just places to eat, they represent generations of tradition, passion and hard work. They’ve played a huge role in shaping Britain’s love for Indian food, and it would be a real loss if they started disappearing.”

Poon is slightly more optimistic. “Dining trends are fickle and cyclical,” she says. “The traditional Chinese takeaway is dwindling in numbers, but I think there has been evolution.” She points to new-wave concepts like Three Uncles, a slick Cantonese roast meat shop that brings the flavours of Chinatown’s hanging-duck windows into a more modern, grab-and-go setting. And Rice Guys, a former street food stall turned delivery-focused brand offering modern takes on classic dishes like char siu and mapo tofu. Both fuse the flavours and comfort of traditional Chinese cooking with a fast-casual model and contemporary branding. “These are brilliant, thriving, delicious examples of the Chinese takeaway, brought into the next generation,” says Poon – familiar in flavour, but reimagined for a different time.

Both agree that success today lies in finding new ways to preserve old stories. Poon puts it beautifully: “All sorts of people have come forward to share their most wonderful memories of eating at Poon’s, of meeting my parents, of what my father cooked for them, of how my mother helped them.”

“Then there are my own stories of meeting people like Sean Connery and Barbra Streisand, who I didn’t think were of any interest to anyone at the time!”

Anand believes innovation that preserves stories and traditions is the way forward, too. “Some of the best Indian restaurants today are chef-driven concepts that push boundaries while still respecting tradition. I think the future will be a mix.”

So, is this the last generation? Maybe not. But it is a different one. One that grew up between tandoors and textbooks, between clay pots and career days. One that knows how much it cost to build these legacies – and how much it might cost to let them go. Whether they choose to inherit, reinvent or walk away, one thing is clear: what their families built still matters to us as much as it does to them. These were the places that fed us on quiet Friday nights, long before food delivery became an algorithm. Many may be disappearing, but those that endure are finding new ways to adapt – evolving without forgetting where they came from. And neither will we.

Drug smuggler hid cocaine under dry ice he said was for hospital

A drug smuggler tried to hide £22.8m worth of cocaine under dry ice by pretending it was destined for a London hospital.

Bart Verschueren, 40, was caught after a vehicle was stopped at the Coquelles border control in France, with Border Force officers discovering the 285kg of Class A drugs.

To carry out his smuggling, Verschueren had duped an innocent part-time driver who was initially arrested on 5 May 2020, but subsequently released when it was discovered he had no knowledge of the plot.

His paperwork said his consignment of dry ice was for St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington, which he invented to avoid checks during the Covid-19 lockdown. The hospital was in no way connected to the dry ice.

Verschueren, of Sint-Katelijne-Waver, a municipality south of Antwerp, was convicted and jailed in Belgium for other drug trafficking offences he committed in 2020 and 2021.

He was subsequently extradited to the UK in August 2024 and charged with smuggling the 285kg of cocaine.

Despite denying the offence, he was convicted by a jury at Canterbury Crown Court in March and was jailed for 18 years on Thursday.

Jurors heard the same vehicle used for the failed smuggling attempt had successfully made it to the UK three times in the preceding weeks. He was therefore sentenced on the basis that he had trafficked at least 500kg of cocaine.

Peter Jones, NCA operations manager, said: “The NCA works at home and abroad to protect the public from the threat of Class A drugs which wreck lives and our communities.

“Bart Verschueren did everything possible to cheat justice. And he thought nothing of risking his driver’s freedom. When he knew his vehicle had been stopped, he reported his driver missing in a bid to distance himself from the importation.”

The global event bringing fresh energy to planet-positive solutions

As we navigate significant environmental and social challenges, the return of ChangeNOW, the world’s biggest expo of solutions for the planet, is much needed to reinvigorate climate action. The 2025 edition, which will take place from April 24th to 26th, will host 140 countries, 40,000 attendees, 10,000 companies and 1,200 investors.

Visionary leaders, established businesses and start-ups alike will gather to showcase over 1,000 sustainable solutions and groundbreaking innovations in key sectors such as clean energy, biodiversity, sustainable cities and the circular economy.

The ChangeNOW 2025 summit will be held at the iconic Grand Palais in Paris, a nod to the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. Reuniting for the occasion will be guest speakers Mary Robinson, the former (and first female) president of Ireland, Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, Patricia Espinosa, former UN climate chief and diplomat and Diána Ürge-Vorsatz, leading climate scientist and professor – all of whom were in the French capital a decade earlier to help shape the Paris Agreement at COP21.

There may have been obvious setbacks to environmental policy around the world of late, the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement being a notable one. However ChangeNOW 2025 intends to reaffirm the spirit of Paris, while serving as a catalyst for progress ahead of COP30 and the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC). “Ten years after COP21, ChangeNOW is where leaders and changemakers converge to accelerate the ecological and social transition,” states Santiago Lefebvre, founder and president of ChangeNOW. “Thousands of solutions will be showcased demonstrating that meaningful progress is within reach.”

His message of positive climate action will be supported by a multitude of world famous faces who will be in attendance at the auspicious event. Natalie Portman, Academy award-winning actress, director, author, activist, and producer; Captain Paul Watson, Founder of Sea Shepherd and Ocean Conservationist; Hannah Jones, CEO of The Earthshot Prize and Olympic champion boxer and gender equality advocate Imane Khelif are just a few of the names set to appear at ChangeNOW 2025.

With over 500 speakers and 250 conference sessions exploring climate action, biodiversity protection, resource management, and social inclusion, ChangeNOW 2025 will also hear the insights of acclaimed corporate leaders from Accor, Bouygues, Henkel, Lidl, Nexans, and Saint-Gobain, who will explain how businesses can be the ones to drive real change.

And the event will not only be an opportunity for global policymakers to discuss next steps in climate action, it will also be a platform for nations to showcase local innovations through their country pavilions. Expect impactful solutions from countries including South Africa, The Netherlands, and Ukraine – demonstrating international collaboration on the topic of climate.

In addition to the packed program of speakers, workshops, exhibits and networking opportunities, ChangeNOW 2025 will host the Impact Job Fair on Saturday, 26 April, with over 150 recruiters and training organisations offering in excess of 600 roles. Dedicated to the public and young professionals, the interactive workshops, educational activities, and career opportunities in sustainable sectors on offer aim to inspire the next generation of changemakers.

The summit will also present the annual Women for Change conference and the accompanying portrait exhibition, which showcases 25 women who are set to have a significant positive impact on their communities, countries or on a global scale over the next 10 years. Created in 2021, the Women for Change initiative aims to platform and provide opportunities for women who are leading change around the world but require further recognition or investment to continue their work. The annual flagship event, which takes place on the afternoon of April 24th, offers women the chance to discuss new ideas, network with likeminded people, and also acquire funding to help solidify their leadership, and amplify their impact.

Step outside the Grand Palais and take a few steps to the Port des Champs Elysées, on the bank of the Seine, where the The Water Odyssey village awaits. One of the event’s standout features, the immersive 1,000 m² exhibition is open to the public and highlights solutions to maritime and river sustainability challenges – offering a mix of conferences, interactive displays, and sensory experiences to engage all ages.

For three days, ChangeNOW will transform Paris into the global capital of impact, bringing together policymakers, entrepreneurs, investors, and the public in the pursuit of sustainable progress.

Book your ChangeNOW 2025 ticket here

Trump has made China appear a beacon of free trade

The Chinese Communist Party, apostle of free trade. In a strange new world, that was the strangest thing, as shares crashed in reaction to President Donald Trump’s opening salvo of tariffs in a global trade war.

“The market has spoken,” said the foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, writing in English on Facebook – which is, by the way, banned in China. No double standards there, then. Beijing can always keep a straight face when it matters.

Politically, the Chinese government can scarcely believe its luck. It has stepped forward as a voice of reason and stability in a chorus of discord to promote the false narrative that it has been a model of good behaviour since it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 11 December 2001, a date that seems destined to live in the textbooks as the peak of globalisation.

The Trump tariffs “are a typical act of unilateral bullying”, complained a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry.

“This approach disregards the balance of interests achieved through years of multilateral trade negotiations and ignores the fact that the US has long gained substantial profits from international trade,” the spokesperson added.

The official news agency, Xinhua, said the tariffs were “a weapon to suppress China’s economy and trade” and told the United States to stop undermining “the legitimate development rights of the Chinese people”.

It would be a mistake to write off Chinese rhetoric. The regime of Xi Jinping is serious and its actions speak louder than words.

Clue: China has listed “legitimate development rights” as one of its “red lines” in dealing with the US. The term is code for the export-led economic model which has propelled the country to the rank of second largest economy on earth since it joined the WTO.

Understand that and you understand that for China this is existential. There could be no greater contrast to the whirlwind in Washington than the disciplined, efficiently executed responses announced by Beijing in nine statements outlining reprisals that went beyond mere numbers.

Xi himself did not deign to speak publicly, let alone do anything as vulgar as posting on social media in capital letters. The Chinese public would have thought it beneath his dignity.

Untroubled by such niceties, Trump swiftly posted to his followers online that “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED.”

With all due respect to the American president, that is exactly what they did not do. The Xi hit list is ominous because it is well-planned and researched. The “Red Emperor” rules a mandarin class of sophisticated operators who do nothing else but study China’s opponents using every intelligence tool at their disposal.

The easy part for China was to impose reciprocal 34 per cent tariffs on all American imports from 10 April. It also suspended six American firms from exporting to China, launched anti-dumping actions in the medical sector and targeted the US giant DuPont with a probe into potential monopoly practices.

The hard part showed just how thoroughly the Chinese had done their work. No penguin islands or weird mathematics here. They banned the export of “dual use” items, which could have military or civilian applications, to 16 US firms, all in the technology sector.

Their key move was to put export controls on seven rare earth elements “to safeguard national security”. It’s on the public record that some of these are vital to US weapons systems.

The list of rare earths included terbium, which is used to enhance the properties of specialised magnets used in guidance systems, satellites and radar. The magnets are integral to the state-of-the-art F-35 fighter, Predator drones, cruise missiles and nuclear submarines.

Then there’s dysprosium, a rare-earth element of which China controls nearly all the world’s supply. It is used to make high-grade magnets that work in super-heated conditions and is found in the newest semiconductors. Other rare earths on the list are vital to jet engine turbine blades. All will now require special export licences.

China and America are thus in a new kind of war over technology and artificial intelligence. Both Joe Biden and Trump tried to choke the supply of advanced semiconductors to Chinese manufacturers, while China is seeking to choke the supply of raw materials to America’s tech champions.

It’s not hard to see how dangerous this could get. The founder of free-trading modern Singapore, the late Lee Kuan Yew, once told me in an interview that “World War Two was caused because of empires and protectionism”.

He recalled that in the 1940s an oil embargo on Imperial Japan pushed its military leaders into war and he warned that if the West tried to isolate China economically “that is bound to lead to conflict”.

Lee was talking in the 1990s, when China stood on the threshold of globalisation. It joined the WTO only after hard-fought talks. But Charlene Barshevsky, who sealed the deal for the United States, later lamented that the Americans failed to use the WTO to punish Beijing when it broke the rules.

That created the belief that appeasement and elite inertia condemned the American working class to decline, the foundation story of Trump’s movement to Make America Great Again. So it is some irony that the Chinese have just filed a formal complaint about Trump’s tariffs – with the World Trade Organisation.

Michael Sheridan, longtime foreign correspondent and diplomatic editor of The Independent, is the author of The Red Emperor published by Headline Press at £25

The US president must stop his ‘Trump Slump’ becoming a global one

Most shocks in capital markets are, by definition, unexpected. They sometimes derive purely from some almost random-seeming shift in market sentiment, albeit with more deep-set fundamental factors at work. The Great Crash of 1929 and the stock market crash of October 1987 – Black Monday – fall neatly into that category.

Others are more clearly understood in real time, but still a shock: the global financial crisis of 2008 is comprehensible from a distance, albeit famously seen as a “black swan” event. Still others are more purely external – Arab nations imposing an oil curfew after the Yom Kippur war in 1973; or whatever bat, pangolin or Chinese lab assistant was responsible for the coronavirus getting loose.

The Trump tariff crash of 2025 is an altogether unusual affair – one of the few such catastrophes to befall the savings and livelihoods of millions of people caused by the stubbornness of one man.

Because it is Donald Trump – and he alone – who is responsible not only for the substance of his reckless shutdown of US trade with the rest of the world, but the deeply flawed design of the tariff schedules, the practically unprecedented suddenness of their introduction, and the incomprehensible rationale for the policy. Certainly, Mr Trump made no secret of his love for – “the most beautiful word” – tariffs.

But the scale and incompetence that has been attached to his attack on trade has stunned and appalled the world. Worse even than that, it has left people confused.

At one point over the weekend, serious analysts were suggesting that Mr Trump actually intended for the markets to crash. In most cases, this was not a product of the over-conspiratorial minds of the Trump cultists, but because the president himself had reposted a story on social media suggesting that he was “Purposely CRASHING The Market”. A White House spokesperson had to state that the president did not, in fact, deliberately wipe some $8 trillion off the world’s stock markets – another unwelcome precedent set by this president.

The question then arises: “What does Mr Trump think he is doing?” The answer is that no one knows, not even the president.

Some, including the president himself in his unorthodox Rose Garden presentation and his secretary for commerce, Howard Lutnick, suggest that it is all about reindustrialising the United States and generating “trillions” of long-term tax revenues. In his address to workers at Jaguar Land Rover on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer admitted that tariffs are “a huge challenge for our future, and the global economic consequences could be profound”.

Less than comfortingly, Mr Trump compares what he’s putting the previously healthy American economy through to a patient undergoing an operation. Others, occasionally also including the president himself, suggest it is merely another of his brilliant negotiating tactics, and point excitedly to the response of nations such as Vietnam, Israel and Argentina offering zero-tariff deals with America – but which would therefore yield zero returns for the proposed new US “External Revenue Service”.

Put simply, it is a matter of “Tariffs bad – uncertainty even worse”. Businesses and households cannot plan in such an environment, and that means that investment will be frozen for weeks, if not months, and a recession becomes ever more likely.

That is one imminent danger. Another is the way that the market contagion has spread from industrial and resources stocks to the banks, with the obvious worry that the trade recession will soon be joined by its evil twin, a credit crunch. As confidence drains from the world economy, companies are nervous about investing, banks are reluctant to lend, and savers will turn to safer havens than equities. Historically, such security was offered by the United States dollar; now, perhaps, not so much.

One of the great ironies in Mr Trump’s plan to boost the American economy is that, within a fairly short time, he will have plunged it into such a slump that he will need to take emergency measures to rescue it – tax cuts, and increasing the US budget deficit to pay for it. The Federal Reserve may find it has no alternative but to cut interest rates – usually a welcome move, but in this case merely proof of the disaster the Trump administration is inflicting on its people.

The net result may be stagflation: above-target increases while economic activity stagnates. It is analogous to what a combination of the Brexit shock and the reckless Truss experiment that crashed the UK economy in 2022 would do. It is that bad.

What can the authorities, including in the United States, do to prevent a slump? Unlike in 2008 and 2020, for example, in most Western economies, there is far less scope for borrowing at sustainable interest rates to support the economy.

In 2008, when Gordon Brown was prime minister and had to nationalise most of the British banking sector, the UK national debt-to-GDP ratio stood at about 36 per cent. By the time Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were faced with closing down the economy in 2020, it was 85 per cent. It now stands at 95 per cent, and trending higher.

If the present chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has barely enough fiscal headroom to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to find some convincing explanations about the much more onerous costs of nursing Britain through what we may soon be calling “the Trump Slump”. That, of course, is not even accounting for the real cost of deterring Vladimir Putin and helping to defend Europe (that being another direct consequence of Mr Trump’s election).

Much the best move, and one still hoped for, is that Mr Trump accepts the manifold and genuine offers of constructive negotiations he’s had from world leaders, declares an early “victory” for his tactics, and announces a 90-day moratorium during which new, freer trade deals can be reached across the world.

It would be good news for all. The markets would calm, American voters would no longer fear opening their pension fund statements, and Mr Trump might turn his mess into a miracle of trade liberalisation.

The dangers if President Trump does press on with his mercantilist “medicine” for America are too gruesome to contemplate. At times such as this, what else is there other than optimism?