Suddenly, Donald Trump’s trade war is in much sharper focus.

Rather than a fight on all fronts against the world, this now looks far more like a fight on familiar Trumpian territory: America v China.

The 90-day pause on the higher “retaliatory” tariffs levied on dozens of countries still leaves a universal across-the-board tariff of 10% in place.

But China – which ships everything from iPhones to children’s toys and accounts for around 14% of all US imports – has been singled out for much harsher treatment with an eye-watering rate of 125%.

Trump said the increase was due to Beijing’s readiness to retaliate with its own 84% levy on US goods, a move the president described as showing a “lack of respect”.

But for a politician who first fought his way to the White House on the back of an anti-China message, there is much more to this than simple retaliation.

For Trump, this is about the unfinished business of that first term in office.

“We didn’t have the time to do the right thing, which we’re doing now,” he told reporters.

The aim is nothing less than the upending of an established system of global trade centred on China as the factory of the world, as well as the once widely held view that underpinned it – the idea that more of this trade was, in and of itself, a good thing.

To understand just how central this is to the US president’s thinking, you need to go back to the time before anyone ever thought of him as a possible candidate for office, let alone a likely winner.

In 2012, when I first reported from Shanghai – China’s business capital – increased trade with the country was seen by almost everyone – global business leaders, Chinese officials, visiting foreign governments and trade delegations, foreign correspondents and learned economists – as a no brainer.

It was boosting global growth, providing an endless supply of cheap goods, enriching China’s army of new factory workers increasingly embedded in global supply chains, and providing lucrative opportunities to multinational corporations selling their wares to its newly minted middle classes.

Within a few of years of my arrival, China had surpassed the US to become the world’s biggest market for Rolls Royce, General Motors and Volkswagen.

There was a deeper justification, too.

As China got richer, so the theory went, Chinese people would begin to demand political reform.

Their spending habits would also help China transition to a consumer society.

But the first of those aspirations never happened, with China’s ruling Communist Party only tightening its grip on power.

And the second one didn’t happen fast enough, with China not only still dependent on exports, but openly planning to become ever more dominant.

Its infamous policy blueprint – published in 2015 and entitled Made in China 2025 – set out a huge state-backed vision of becoming a global leader in a number of key manufacturing sectors, from aerospace to ship building to electric vehicles.

And so it was that just one year later, a complete political unknown began an outsider-run for US president, making the case repeatedly on the campaign trail that China’s rise had hollowed out the American economy, driven rustbelt decline and cost blue-collar workers their livelihoods and dignity.

Trump’s first-term trade war broke the mould and shattered the consensus. His successor, President Joe Biden, kept much of his tariffs on China in place.

And yet, even though they have undoubtedly caused China some pain, they have not done much to change the economic model.

China now produces 60% of the world’s electric cars – a large proportion of them made by its own homegrown brands – and 80% of the batteries that power them.

So, now Trump is back, with this tit-for-tat escalation on levies.

It would, arguably, be the biggest shock ever delivered to the established global trading system, were it not for all the other on-again off-again tariff measures the US president has rolled out in recent days.

What happens next depends on two key questions.

Firstly, whether China takes up that offer to negotiate.

And secondly, assuming it eventually does, whether China is willing to make the kind of major concessions that America is looking for, including a complete overhaul of its export driven economic model.

In answering them, the first thing to say is that we are in completely unchartered territory, so we should be wary of anyone who says they know how Beijing is likely to react.

But there are certainly reasons to be cautious.

China’s vision of its economic strength – one based on strong exports and a tightly protected domestic market – is now closely bound up with its idea of national rejuvenation and the supremacy of its one-party system.

Its tight control over the information sphere means it will be unlikely to drop its barriers to American technology companies, for example.

But there is a third question, and it is one for America to answer.

Does the US still believe in free trade? Donald Trump often suggests that tariffs are a good thing, not merely as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves.

He talks about the benefit of a protectionist barrier for America, in order to stimulate domestic investment, encourage American companies to bring those foreign supply chains back home, and raise tax revenues.

And if Beijing believes that is indeed the primary purpose of the tariffs, it may decide there is nothing to negotiate anyway.

Rather than championing the idea of economic co-operation, the world’s two biggest superpowers may find themselves locked in a fight for winner-takes-all economic supremacy.

If so, that really would mark a shattering of the old consensus, and a very different, possibly very dangerous, future.

A share of the revenue streaming services make from subscription fees should be paid into a fund to support British high-end TV production, an influential group of MPs has said.

In a new report, the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) committee urged the government to improve support measures for producers while safeguarding the creation of distinctly British content.

It follows an inquiry into the UK TV and film industry which examined the effects of the rise of streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon and Apple TV.

The report noted how “vital” dramas such as Adolescence are to the country’s “identity, national conversations and talent pipeline”, which they say is now “under threat”.

It is “time for streamers to put their money where their mouth is”, the report read, suggesting that streaming companies pay “5% of their UK subscriber revenue into a cultural fund to help finance drama with a specific interest to British audiences”.

Chair of the CMS committee, MP Dame Caroline Dinenage, noted how recent “big box-office blockbusters made in Britain have showcased the UK’s world-class film and high-end television industry like never before”.

“But the boom in inward investment of recent years now risks crowding out our many talented independent British producers,” she said.

She added: “While streamers like Netflix and Amazon have proved a valuable addition for the industry and economy, unless the government urgently intervenes to rebalance the playing field, for every Adolescence adding to the national conversation, there will be countless distinctly British stories that never make it to our screens.”

Adolescence, created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, tells the story of a 13-year-old boy who is charged with killing a female classmate.

This week, it became fourth most popular English-language series in Netflix’s history with 114 million views.

A Netflix spokeswoman said: “The UK is Netflix’s biggest production hub outside of North America – and we want it to stay that way.

“But in an increasingly competitive global market, it’s key to create a business environment that incentivises rather than penalises investment, risk taking and success. Levies diminish competitiveness and penalise audiences who ultimately bear the increased costs.”

The Association for Commercial Broadcasters and On-Demand Services (COBA) said a levy risks damaging streamers’ investment in the UK.

Coba executive director Adam Minns said: “Especially in this economic climate, a levy risks impacting existing content budgets for UK shows, jobs, and growth, along with raising costs for businesses.

“Ironically, it could actually damage public service broadcaster dramas by reducing co-production budgets at streamers.”

He added pressure on domestic production stemmed from the real terms decline in the TV licence fee.

The report released on Thursday noted how last year there was a 27% decrease in the number of domestic high-end TV productions made in the UK and a 25% fall in spend.

The calls for greater help come after Wolf Hall director Peter Kosminsky told the BBC last month that the industry was in crisis, and that public service broadcasters including the BBC and ITV could no longer afford to make high-end British drama.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) said: “We acknowledge the challenges facing our brilliant film and TV industry and are working with it through our industrial strategy to consider what more needs to be done to unlock growth and develop the skills pipeline.

“We thank the committee for its report which we will respond to in due course.”

The report also noted while the introduction of tax breaks for independent British films, and for film and TV studios in England may have helped, it was not a “silver bullet” for solving many of the issues facing British producers.

As well as providing greater support and resources for UK TV production workforces, the report also suggested that lawmakers should consider cutting VAT on cinema tickets as well as doing more to meet the challenges posed by AI.

Paul W Fleming, general secretary of Equity, which represents British performers, said the government should “heed the call” for the licensing of creative works in all cases where they are used to train artificial intelligence models.

“AI is being built illegally by stealing Equity members’ life’s works,” he said.

Big tech firms “must be held to account”, he added, “brought to the table and made to pay creators what they owe.”

The cross-party committee recommended the government and British Film Institute (BFI) should launch a national awareness campaign, highlighting the employment opportunities offered by film and high-end TV, and “the range of skills the industry requires”.

It stressed how the industry “benefits hugely from the flexibility afforded by a predominantly freelance workforce” and therefore more should be done to “support freelancers when they are out of work”; such as the introduction of a minimum hourly wage or guaranteed basic income.

Head of industry union Bectu, Philippa Childs, said: “We welcome this timely and incisive report from the committee which identifies many of the urgent challenges currently facing the industry and its workforce.”

She added: “It’s essential that the industry does not become too skewed towards large streamers, which risks the homogenisation of content and the loss of much of the UK’s unique and distinctive output.”

A source close to the Universal UK project has told the BBC what fans can expect from the new park being built in Bedford.

James Bond, Paddington and Lord of the Rings are among the brands set to appear at the park, the BBC had learned.

Rides and attractions related to Harry Potter are not expected to be included.

On its website, Universal Destinations has claimed “it is too early” to know what attractions will be at the park.

Construction on the site at Kempston Hardwick, Bedfordshire, is expected to start next year if planning permission is granted.

While the source is confident that these concepts are happening, the theme park is not expected to open until 2031, which means some plans could change.

Universal aims to provide distinct attractions at each of its parks, with the Bedfordshire one set to feature unique attractions not found elsewhere.

The BBC has been told that other themed zones and rides at the park will be inspired by Back to the Future, Jurassic Park and Minions.

The source insisted “contracts have been signed” and it would be unlikely things would change.

“At this point it will be little details they tweak, like ‘Let’s use a different shade of paint on that Lord of the Rings castle’,” they said.

The locations can be seen on the map of what the site could look like, although specific details, such as the Hill Valley clock from Back to the Future, have been obscured.

Rides have already been designed, with the majority planned as indoor attractions.

Rollercoasters based on Back to the Future, Jurassic Park and Minions are among the few rides that will not be under cover.

There will be a stunt show based on 007, similar to the The Bourne Stuntacular in Florida.

“If you look at Epic Universe, the newest park they’re opening in Florida, a lot of those rides are indoors, too,” the source said.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC Breakfast the theme park would be an opportunity to show off “great British creations to the world”.

“These are things like James Bond, Paddington Bear, these are things like Harry Potter. We’ve got so much to be proud of,” she said.

Notably, a Harry Potter-themed area will not be part of the park, as it is situated just a 40-minute drive from the Warner Bros Studio Tour in Leavesden, Hertfordshire.

The source told the BBC that “watertight exclusivity contracts” made it difficult to include Hogwarts in the plans, although it could be reconsidered alongside other brands such as Nintendo or Wicked if the park were to expand in the future.

“Warner Bros has the UK rights to Harry Potter attractions. They tried to find a way round it but couldn’t. That could change in years to come, though,” the source said.

Warner Bros Studio Tour has been invited to comment.

Universal Destinations and Experiences is expecting 8.5 million visitors a year at the park.

Transport links close to the site will require significant improvements to accommodate the new arrivals, which the government says it is committed to.

Universal previously described the site as “an ideal location with convenient, fast rail links to London and London Luton Airport”.

The borough’s mayor, Tom Wootton, a Conservative, said: “Bedford is the perfect place for this investment – well-connected, full of talent and ready to grow.

“We’re proud to be chosen as the home of Universal in the UK. I’m delighted that our residents and communities will benefit in the years and decades ahead.”

Luton Airport is hoping to double annual passenger numbers to 32 million by 2043, after Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander recently approved its expansion plans.

Visitors to the park who land at the airport could catch a train at Luton Airport Parkway on the Midland Main Line line to Wixams, which will be Universal’s nearest station.

That is currently expected to open next year with two platforms, but Universal said it would upgrade the station, potentially with extra platforms, to meet visitor demand.

The East West Rail line is currently being built to link Oxford and Cambridge. Although it is not expected to be fully operational until the 2030s, Universal has said there would be a new railway station near the park.

A car park is in the conceptual art of the park. Drivers would access it via the A421, which was closed last year after it was flooded during heavy rain.

Universal plans to install new slip roads on the A421 to meet increased demand.