Rachel Reeves delivered her 2026 Spring Statement against the backdrop of escalating conflict in the Middle East and mounting fears that higher energy prices could derail the fragile recovery taking hold in the UK economy.

Speaking in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised stability in what she described as “an increasingly uncertain world”, arguing that falling inflation and earlier interest rate cuts were beginning to ease the cost-of-living squeeze on households.

In keeping with her pledge to hold only one major fiscal event each year, the autumn Budget, Reeves announced no new tax rises or spending measures. Instead, the statement focused on updated forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and on defending the government’s economic strategy.

Yet the economic backdrop has shifted sharply in recent days. Rising oil and gas prices, following military escalation in the Gulf region, have reignited concerns about inflation just as markets had been pricing in further base rate cuts from the Bank of England.

Growth downgraded for 2026

The OBR has revised down its growth forecast for 2026, with GDP now expected to expand by 1.1 per cent this year, compared with 1.4 per cent projected at the November Budget.

While the downgrade reflects weaker short-term momentum and softer global demand, the medium-term outlook has been nudged slightly higher. Growth is forecast at 1.6 per cent in both 2027 and 2028, up from 1.5 per cent previously, before easing to 1.5 per cent in 2029 and 2030.

Reeves sought to frame the revision as a short-term recalibration rather than a structural weakness, stressing that inflation had fallen to 3 per cent and was on course to decline further.

However, business groups warned that the recovery remains delicate. The Zoho Digital Health Study 2026 found that 21 per cent of UK business leaders cited high inflation and rising costs as their biggest external challenge, with half reporting an increase in cost per employee over the past year.

Unemployment to rise before easing

The labour market is also expected to soften. Unemployment is forecast to peak at 5.3 per cent later this year before gradually falling to 4.1 per cent by the end of the parliament, slightly below current levels.

While the government highlighted resilience in wage growth, business representatives cautioned that rising employment costs, including higher National Insurance contributions and the forthcoming 4.1 per cent increase in the National Living Wage — are weighing heavily on hiring decisions.

Borrowing and fiscal headroom

One brighter spot in the forecast is public borrowing. The OBR expects borrowing to fall by almost £18 billion compared with the autumn forecast.

Public sector net borrowing is projected to decline from 4.3 per cent of GDP this year to 3.6 per cent next year, then 2.9 per cent in 2028, 2.5 per cent in 2029 and 1.8 per cent in 2030.

Reeves’ fiscal “headroom”, the buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules, has risen from £21.7 billion in November to £23.6 billion. The Chancellor presented this as evidence of disciplined economic management designed to reassure bond markets.

Yet the headroom remains vulnerable to external shocks. A sustained rise in wholesale gas prices could significantly alter inflation projections, potentially delaying further interest rate reductions.

Energy and North Sea focus

In recognition of the geopolitical risk, Reeves confirmed she would meet North Sea energy industry leaders to discuss the implications of the Middle East conflict.

Energy markets have already reacted sharply. Brent crude has climbed towards $80 per barrel, while liquefied natural gas prices have surged, raising the spectre of renewed cost pressures for households and energy-intensive sectors.

Analysts warn that a prolonged disruption could undermine the inflation trajectory that underpins current rate-cut expectations.

Business reaction: calls for action over rhetoric

The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) criticised the statement as disconnected from on-the-ground realities. Chief executive Michael Kill said that while the government spoke of stability, businesses faced compounding pressures from energy costs, business rates and reduced consumer spending.

“For energy-intensive sectors like hospitality and the night-time economy, this is not abstract economics, it is an immediate and compounding threat,” he said, calling for a VAT cut for hospitality to stimulate demand.

Similarly, tech leaders urged more practical support for small firms adopting AI and digital tools. Matt Rouif, CEO of Photoroom, welcomed the pro-entrepreneur tone but said concrete measures were needed to expand access to AI and digital skills at scale.

Meanwhile, Uber Boat by Thames Clippers criticised the absence of measures to accelerate river transport electrification, describing it as a missed opportunity for environmental progress at minimal fiscal cost.

A cautious tone in volatile times

Overall, the Spring Statement was deliberately restrained. Reeves avoided policy fireworks, focusing instead on maintaining fiscal credibility and signalling continuity.

However, the external environment is anything but stable. Rising energy prices, geopolitical tensions and volatile bond markets mean the economic outlook could shift rapidly in the coming months.

While the Chancellor framed the statement around stability and improving fundamentals, business leaders remain wary. Growth has been trimmed, unemployment is set to rise before falling, and inflation risks have re-emerged just as confidence was tentatively rebuilding.

As Reeves herself acknowledged, the UK economy is navigating an increasingly uncertain world. The question now is whether caution alone will be enough to steer it through the turbulence ahead.

Read more:
Spring Statement 2026: Rachel Reeves trims growth forecast as Middle East tensions cloud outlook

Consumer confidence in the UK slipped to its lowest level since November as households grew more pessimistic about their personal finances and the wider economy, according to the latest survey from GfK.

An index of household sentiment compiled by GfK fell by three points to minus 19 in February, down from minus 16 in January and below analysts’ expectations of minus 15. It marks the weakest reading since the immediate aftermath of the autumn budget and underscores lingering fragility in consumer sentiment.

The survey, which questioned 2,000 Britons aged 16 and over, showed a notable deterioration in perceptions of personal finances. Households reported that they were less inclined to make major purchases and expected to save less of their monthly income. The forward-looking savings index dropped sharply by seven points to 21, reflecting growing uncertainty about income prospects and interest rate trends.

Although inflation has begun to ease, the psychological effects of the past two years of rising prices continue to weigh on consumers. After the survey was completed, data from the Office for National Statistics showed inflation falling to 3 per cent in January from 3.4 per cent in December. While this decline may have offered some reassurance, it came too late to influence February’s confidence reading.

Neil Bellamy, consumer insights director at GfK, said that even as price pressures moderate, households remain cautious. “Although the rate of inflation is easing, prices continue to rise, forcing many households to prioritise day-to-day spending over longer-term needs,” he said. “Views on the broader economy remain firmly in negative territory, with consumers anticipating only limited economic growth this year.”

The decline in confidence also came before the ONS reported that unemployment had climbed to a post-pandemic high, with youth joblessness reaching its highest level in 11 years, developments likely to reinforce caution among working-age households.

There are, however, countervailing signals. Energy regulator Ofgem recently announced that the average household energy bill will fall by £117 from April, which could provide some relief in the spring. Financial markets are also increasingly confident that the Bank of England will cut interest rates further this year, potentially easing borrowing costs for households.

Despite February’s dip, consumer confidence remains far above its record low of minus 49, reached in September 2022 in the aftermath of the Truss government’s mini budget.

Business sentiment, meanwhile, appears more upbeat. Separate data from Lloyds Bank showed optimism among firms rising by eight points to 36 per cent in February. The survey of 1,200 businesses suggested that expectations of lower interest rates and easing cost pressures may be supporting corporate confidence.

Recent economic indicators have also hinted at improved momentum. Retail sales jumped by 1.8 per cent in January, the composite purchasing managers’ index climbed to a 22-month high, and government borrowing costs have retreated from recent peaks. The FTSE 100 has continued to notch record highs, buoyed by global investor flows and resilient corporate earnings.

Attention now turns to the forthcoming economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, due to be published alongside Rachel Reeves’s spring statement. While no major tax or spending changes are expected, the outlook for growth, inflation and public finances will shape expectations for the months ahead.

For now, however, the divergence between improving macro indicators and fragile household sentiment highlights a familiar feature of the post-pandemic recovery: economic stabilisation has yet to translate fully into renewed consumer confidence.

Read more:
Public fears over finances push UK consumer confidence back down

A third of Britain’s sole traders are still managing their finances with pen and paper, despite major changes to self-assessment rules coming into force this April, new research from Sage has revealed.

The study shows that many self-employed workers remain unprepared for Making Tax Digital for Income Tax — HMRC’s long-delayed overhaul of the self-assessment system that will require digital submission of tax returns for sole traders earning more than £50,000 a year.

Sage found that 66 per cent of sole traders still rely on outdated methods for financial admin, including spreadsheets (66 per cent), bank statements (56 per cent) and handwritten notes (33 per cent). Almost a quarter (23 per cent) spend more than six hours completing a single end-of-year return.

Alarmingly, 70 per cent remain unaware that they will be required to file returns digitally from April. Among those who do know about the change, almost four in ten (39 per cent) have taken no steps to prepare.

TV handyman Mark Millar, presenter of Channel 5’s Dream Kitchens and Bathrooms, said he recognised the pressures facing small business owners who try to juggle manual bookkeeping with their day-to-day work.

“Many sole traders I know are still using pencils and scraps of paper to keep tabs on their profit and loss,” he said. “That used to be me. I can remember the pressure I felt quoting, invoicing and managing clients, all while trying to stay on top of my tax returns. Making Tax Digital is an opportunity to make admin less time consuming and less stressful.”

Millar said switching to digital tools transformed the way he ran his construction company, offering clarity and reducing the risk of lost paperwork.

Research from Sage and the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed (IPSE) found that those already using digital accounting tools enjoy tangible improvements. More than half reported better organisation (54 per cent) and clearer financial visibility (53 per cent), while others said digital systems reduced stress and freed up time.

Neal Watkins, executive vice-president for small business at Sage, said the shift should ultimately make life easier for sole traders.

“As initiatives like Making Tax Digital continue to roll out, self-employed people have a real opportunity to turn compliance into an advantage — saving time, reducing admin and gaining a clearer view of their finances.”

The transition to digital tax filing marks one of the most significant administrative changes for self-employed workers in decades. While the government argues it will improve accuracy and reduce errors, the latest research suggests many sole traders are at risk of being caught off guard.

With millions of returns needing to move online over the coming years, accountants warn that those still relying on manual or paper-based systems could face unnecessary stress—and potential non-compliance—if they do not prepare soon.

Read more:
One in three sole traders still using pen and paper as digital tax deadline approaches

The government is still reviewing plans to tighten reporting requirements for small and micro companies, with ministers yet to decide whether to press ahead with rules that would require them to publish profit-and-loss accounts for the first time.

In an interview with The Times, Blair McDougall, the new small business minister, said that “all options are on the table” as officials weigh up the balance between tackling fraud and protecting small firms from unnecessary administrative burdens.

“There are obviously different arguments in terms of the impact on businesses of their exposure, particularly for SMEs, versus people who are worried about financial crime and everything else,” McDougall said. “We’re balancing that at the moment and discussing it.”

Under plans announced by Companies House in June, firms classified as “small” or “micro” would lose the right to file abbreviated accounts from April 2027. Instead, they would have to submit full profit-and-loss statements, revealing revenues and profits.

The move formed part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, designed to reduce fraud and improve the accuracy of information filed at Companies House. However, within days of the announcement, the Department for Business and Trade signalled a pause in the rollout amid concerns from business groups that the new rules would increase red tape and risk exposing commercially sensitive data.

If implemented, the reforms would affect companies with turnover below £10.2 million, balance sheets under £5.1 million, and fewer than 50 employees. They would also require all firms to file accounts digitally using commercial software, ending the use of paper and web-based submissions.

The proposals were first consulted on in 2019 and made law in 2023 under the previous Conservative government. Business groups have broadly supported greater transparency but warned that the changes could deter entrepreneurship by exposing small firms’ financial details to competitors.

McDougall, who became an MP in 2024 and took on his first ministerial role in September, said the government’s focus was on building business confidence and long-term growth rather than rushing through reforms.

He added that success would be judged by how well the government delivers on its Small Business Plan and industrial strategy, both launched earlier this year. “We’ve got a terrible history in government of publishing these PDFs that then gather dust,” he said.

McDougall spoke during International Trade Week at The Great British Pitch, an event organised by Small Business Britain that brought together entrepreneurs and international buyers. He said such initiatives were central to boosting the profile of British SMEs and driving export-led growth.

The final decision on the Companies House reforms is expected early next year, with officials indicating that ministers are still assessing the regulatory impact on smaller businesses before confirming the 2027 timetable.

Read more:
Government still weighing changes to small company filing rules, says business minister

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has signalled that her 26 November Budget will ask more Britons to shoulder the burden of repairing the nation’s public finances — even if that means breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income tax.

In a speech this week, Reeves warned that “hard choices” were unavoidable if Britain was to protect the NHS, reduce national debt and keep inflation under control. Her language marked a shift from earlier assurances that only those with the “broadest shoulders” would face higher taxes.

“If we are to build the future of Britain together, we will all have to contribute,” she said. “When that requires hard choices, we will act guided by the interests of working people.”

While the Chancellor maintained that fairness would underpin her fiscal plans, her remarks were widely interpreted in Westminster as preparing voters for a broader tax rise that could affect millions of middle-income workers.

At the heart of the political tension lies the question of how Labour defines “working people” — a term that may exclude much of the upper-middle-income bracket. Treasury insiders suggest the government considers those earning up to £45,000–£46,000 a year as “working people”.

That would leave roughly one-third of UK earners outside the protected group, potentially exposing professionals such as paramedics, teachers, software developers, and vets to higher income tax or national insurance contributions.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that around 40% of male employees and 20% of female employees earn above £45,000. In London, where the median full-time salary stands at nearly £50,000, the proportion is significantly higher — meaning the capital’s workforce could face the steepest hit.

Ironically, Labour’s own inflation-busting public sector pay awards could see the Chancellor give with one hand and take with the other. NHS pay scales show that senior paramedics, speech and language therapists, and school nurses now earn above the proposed threshold.

Similarly, the National Education Union estimates that nearly all school leaders and senior teachers fall within the bracket likely to face higher tax. Years of frozen income tax thresholds — known as fiscal drag — have already pushed many of these workers into higher bands.

Britain’s finances have become increasingly reliant on a small pool of top-rate taxpayers. According to HMRC projections, 1.2 million people earning above £125,140 — just 3% of all income-tax payers — contribute around 40% of total income tax receipts.

Income tax now raises more than £300 billion annually, making it the government’s single largest revenue stream. Yet, as tax policy experts point out, Britain’s average worker still pays less tax on earnings than counterparts in most major European economies.

“The UK system has become top-heavy,” said Chris Sanger, head of tax policy at EY. “If you increase rates for those with the highest incomes, you risk losing mobility and, ultimately, revenue. In a post-pandemic world where remote work is common, the wealthy can relocate more easily than ever.”

The political risk for Labour is that a tax rise on higher earners could alienate the very middle-class voters who helped deliver its 2024 election victory. YouGov polling shows that households earning over £50,000 were disproportionately likely to vote Labour, while Reform’s support was strongest among lower-income groups and Conservative voters skewed older and retired.

If Reeves presses ahead, she faces a delicate balancing act: funding the public services Labour has promised to revive, while avoiding a backlash from the professionals and entrepreneurs who underpin Britain’s tax base.

As one City economist put it: “Reeves is walking a fiscal tightrope — between fairness and flight risk. The more she taxes those who can move, the less they’ll stay to pay.”

Read more:
Labour risks breaking tax pledge as Rachel Reeves targets higher earners in autumn Budget

Sir Charlie Mayfield says ill-health is driving millions out of work, costing employers and the economy billions — but the problem is “not inevitable.”

Britain is at risk of an “economic inactivity crisis” as the number of sick and disabled people out of work continues to rise, according to a government-commissioned review led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former John Lewis chairman.

The report warns that 800,000 more people are now out of work due to health conditions than in 2019, costing employers £85 billion a year in lost productivity, sick pay and staff turnover. Without intervention, a further 600,000 workers could leave the labour market by 2030.

“This is not inevitable,” Sir Charlie said, as he launched a new taskforce aimed at helping people return to work and tackling what he described as a “vicious cycle” of poor health and economic inactivity.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) but produced independently, found that one in five working-age people is now out of work and not seeking employment — a major reversal after decades of improving participation.

Sir Charlie said sickness is costing the UK far more than just business losses.

“Work is generally good for health, and health is good for work,” he said. “For employers, sickness and staff turnover bring disruption and lost experience. For the country, it means weaker growth, higher welfare spending and greater pressure on the NHS.”

According to some estimates, illness-related inactivity costs the wider economy £212 billion a year — almost 70% of annual income tax receipts — through lost output, welfare payments and additional healthcare costs.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects spending on health and disability benefits for working-age people alone to reach £72.3 billion by 2029–30.

Mayfield said the surge was being fuelled by a “sharp rise” in mental health conditions among younger workers and chronic musculoskeletal problems — such as back pain and joint issues — among older staff.

His taskforce will also work with GPs, who he said often face pressure from patients to issue sick notes but find it difficult to assess whether someone could work in a modified role.

Business groups broadly welcomed the taskforce but warned that parts of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill risk discouraging firms from hiring people with existing health conditions.

The Bill includes guaranteed hours and restrictions on zero-hours contracts — measures that some retailers fear will make flexible hiring harder.

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said retailers were committed to supporting employees with ill-health but that “the government’s goals and policies are at odds with one another.”

“While encouraging employers to invest in workforce health and provide flexibility, they risk making it more difficult,” she said.

In response to the report, the government announced a partnership with over 60 major employers, including Tesco, Google UK, Nando’s and John Lewis, to test new health and wellbeing initiatives aimed at reducing sickness absence and improving return-to-work rates.

Over the next three years, these programmes will form the basis for a voluntary national workplace health standard, expected by 2029.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the partnership was “a win-win for employees and employers.”

“This is about keeping good, experienced staff in work and supporting people to stay healthy for longer,” he said.

Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said the review “accurately identified a culture of fear, a dearth of support and structural barriers to work” as key issues behind Britain’s worsening inactivity rate.

The CIPD, representing HR professionals, welcomed the focus on prevention. Its chief executive, Peter Cheese, said the report’s success “will depend on how well its recommendations are understood by business and backed by national and regional policymakers.”

Dr Roman Raczka, president of the British Psychological Society, said the shift toward “rehumanising the workplace” was overdue, but warned that not everyone could or should return to work.

“The workplace itself can be a root cause of poor mental health,” he said. “Those signed off sick deserve timely access to safe, compassionate care.”

Read more:
Ex-John Lewis boss warns UK faces £85bn sickness bill and economic crisis

Chancellor Rachel Reeves used a rare Downing Street address to lay the groundwork for her upcoming Budget, signalling that tough tax decisions lie ahead — but sought to pre-empt backlash by insisting the pressure on public finances “wasn’t our fault”.

In the speech, she said the UK economy was struggling not because of Labour’s policies but because of “longer-term factors” such as Brexit, decades of Tory austerity and rising global borrowing costs. “We must deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it could be,” she said.

Ms Reeves presented her forthcoming fiscal package as a choice between “investment and hope, or cuts and division”. She said she would do “what is right rather than what is popular”, placing emphasis on protecting the NHS, reducing national debt and improving the cost of living. But she also acknowledged that the measures required could mean pain for taxpayers — in particular the “wealthy” and property-owners — and carry consequences “for years to come”.

With the public finances projected to be weaker than expected, analysts estimate she may need to raise around £20 billion to £30 billion in additional revenue, despite last year’s historic tax rises.

Ms Reeves stressed that any future tax decisions were not being taken lightly: “Any Chancellor of any party would be standing here facing the choices I face,” she said, placing the blame squarely on previous governments and global shocks rather than her own policies.

She specifically cited a barrage of international headwinds — from US tariffs and conflicts in Europe to supply-chain disruption and jump-in borrowing costs — as having undermined Britain’s growth prospects. “The world has changed,” she said, “and we’re not immune to that change.”

Although she reaffirmed the manifesto promises not to raise VAT or tax working-people’s payslips, she stopped short of committing not to raise income tax, or altering thresholds — leaving open the possibility of a “wealth tax” or a hike in capital taxes.

Opposition parties seized on the remarks, warning that Ms Reeves was setting the stage for a significant tax raid disguised as a responsible Budget. Conservatives argued the Chancellor was laying the blame for her own ask on others.

With the next Budget scheduled for 26 November 2025, markets will be watching closely. Ms Reeves warned that if lenders and investors doubted her commitment to fiscal rules, the UK’s cost of borrowing could rise further — potentially forcing even deeper cuts or higher taxes.

In sum, the Chancellor has raised expectations of tough decisions while making it clear she will not be the one held solely responsible — outsourcing the blame to Brexit, austerity and global chaos. Whether the public accepts that framing — and whether her fiscal package delivers growth alongside the pain — remains the key question.

Read more:
Reeves shifts blame for looming tax rise to Brexit and austerity ahead of budgeting storm

Viral jacket potato brand SpudBros has come under fire after being accused of “bullying” a small business owner over a name dispute.

The Preston-based duo, Jacob and Harley Nelson, who became social media sensations for serving up gourmet potatoes from a tram and have since expanded to London and Liverpool, were accused of threatening legal action against a Portsmouth trader, Rumen Islam, owner of The Spud Father.

Islam, 27, opened his stand last month, offering his own take on the viral potato trend. But he says he has since been contacted by SpudBros’ legal team, who claim the name infringes their trademark.

“After months of graft — long days, late nights — we’ve now been threatened with legal action from SpudBros over the use of our name,” Islam wrote on social media. “We’ve poured our heart and soul into this. It’s gutting to think we might lose it because a bigger company wants to throw their weight around.”

The Portsmouth business owner told followers he will be changing the name after the dispute took a mental and emotional toll. “It’s been really hard,” he said in a TikTok video viewed thousands of times. “We’re a really small business — I’m born and bred in Pompey — and this was for the locals. It’s disheartening.”

Supporters online have flooded to defend Islam, accusing SpudBros of “corporate bullying” and calling for the brothers to drop the matter.

Comments on SpudBros’ recent TikTok posts include: “Stop bullying The Spud Father — there’s enough business for everyone.”
“Bit strange to go after a shop 260 miles away. Justice for Spud Father!”

The backlash led SpudBros to issue a public statement on Instagram, insisting they were not suing anyone.

“There are rumours we’ve sued a small business called The Spud Father. We are not suing anyone. Not now. Not ever,” wrote Jacob Nelson.

He said the company trademarked The Spudfather after launching a dish of the same name — in tribute to their father — which became their best-seller.

“As we grew, we developed merch, expanded franchises and had discussions with major retailers,” he said. “We trademarked the name in June, and it was approved before any other business applied for it. Our legal team simply responded to a notification from the Intellectual Property Office — it’s not a lawsuit.”

Nelson added that his family had received threats online since the story went viral, including towards his young daughter, and urged followers to stop the “hate”.

“We’d never want anyone to feel attacked. That’s not who we are,” he said. “We love small businesses — we were one. There’s room for everyone to succeed.”

Intellectual property lawyer Stephanie Davies, senior associate at Withers & Rogers, said the dispute highlights a common pitfall for startups.

“It’s often wrongly assumed that only big companies need to trademark their names,” Davies said. “Small businesses can build a following quickly, and if they don’t secure a registration early, they risk infringing on someone else’s rights — or losing their own brand identity.”

With a valid registration in place, she added, SpudBros may have a strong legal position, and The Spud Father could be forced to rebrand.

“Trademark searches should always be done before launch,” Davies said. “It’s far less painful than a rebrand once the business is up and running.”

The dispute marks the latest clash in the fast-growing world of viral potato vendors.

The Nelson brothers’ success has paralleled that of Ben Newman, better known as Spud Man, whose Tamworth-based jacket potato stall has 4.2 million TikTok followers and even drew the attention of Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman.

New rivals, including Spud Hut, Spud Life, and Spud Factory, have since popped up nationwide, each hoping to carve out a slice of the viral food trend.

For now, The Spud Father says it will continue trading — but under a new name.

Read more:
SpudBros blasted for ‘bullying’ small UK business in name dispute

Steven Bartlett, the entrepreneur and Diary of a CEO host, has revealed his business empire has been valued at $425 million (£320 million) following a major eight-figure investment — a deal that cements his position as one of the richest entrepreneurs ever to appear on Dragons’ Den.

The 33-year-old investor, who joined the BBC show in 2022, announced the new valuation through a press statement this week. The deal sees venture capital firms Slow Ventures and Apeiron Investment acquire a minority stake in his umbrella company Steven.com, which now houses Bartlett’s rapidly expanding portfolio, including Flight Story, Flight Cast, Flight Fund, and online shopping platform Stan Store.

Bartlett said the capital injection will help him “build the Disney of the creator economy”, positioning his ventures at the centre of the multi-billion-dollar influencer and creator marketplace.

“For the last century, companies like Disney demonstrated the power of intellectual property,” Bartlett said. “In today’s world, creators are the new franchises — and with my team, we’re building the modern version of that model.”

Despite the investment, Bartlett said he still retains more than 90% ownership of Steven.com.

The valuation marks another major milestone for Bartlett, who has evolved from startup founder to multimedia mogul. His media and technology portfolio now spans content production, venture investment, and e-commerce infrastructure for digital creators.

Steven.com integrates all of his ventures, including:
• Flight Story – a marketing and communications agency powering The Diary of a CEO and Davina McCall’s Begin Again podcast.
• Flight Cast – a creative production division.
• Flight Fund – Bartlett’s venture capital arm investing in tech and consumer brands.
• Stan Store – an e-commerce platform competing with Shopify and Linktree.

Bartlett claims the investment is the largest ever made in a European company specialising in social media creators.

Born in Botswana to a Nigerian mother and English father, Bartlett grew up in Plymouth and dropped out of university at 18 before launching his first business.

He co-founded Social Chain in 2014 with Dominic McGregor, building it into one of Europe’s fastest-growing social media agencies. However, the company attracted criticism for plagiarising social media content and overstating valuations.

In his biography, Bartlett claimed to have taken Social Chain public at a valuation of $600 million, though the firm’s 2019 merger with German retailer Lumaland placed its true value closer to $186 million. The company later reached $620 million after Bartlett’s exit and was eventually sold for just £7.7 million.

Bartlett left Social Chain in 2020, later establishing Flight Story and the Diary of a CEO podcast — both now key drivers of his wealth and influence.

While Bartlett’s business success has been widely celebrated, his ventures have not been without controversy.

A BBC investigation in late 2024 found that his Diary of a CEO podcast had featured guests promoting unverified health claims, including that a keto diet could treat cancer and COVID-19 was “biologically engineered”, without challenge from Bartlett. Critics accused him of giving a platform to harmful misinformation.

In 2022, Bartlett also faced backlash for investing in Ear Seeds — a product pitched on Dragons’ Den that claimed to help cure ME/chronic fatigue syndrome. Following complaints, the BBC added a disclaimer clarifying that the treatment was not medically verified.

He was later admonished by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in 2024 for failing to disclose his financial interests while promoting Huel and Zoe on social media.

Despite the controversies, Bartlett’s influence continues to grow. His Diary of a CEO podcast — featuring guests including Richard Branson, Simon Cowell, and Boris Johnson — won Best International Podcast at the iHeart Radio Podcast Awards earlier this year.

With his latest valuation, Bartlett joins the upper echelon of UK entrepreneurs under 35. Industry observers say his empire demonstrates both the economic power and volatility of the creator economy, where brand, authenticity, and influence are the new assets of value.

“Steven Bartlett is the embodiment of the modern business model,” said Dr. Harriet Mason, professor of media entrepreneurship at the University of Leeds. “He’s part content creator, part venture capitalist — a hybrid we’ll see far more of in the next decade.”

For Bartlett, however, the focus remains clear: scaling Steven.com into a global creative media ecosystem.

“Creators are the studios of the future,” he said. “Our goal is to empower them — and build something enduring around their stories.”

Read more:
Steven Bartlett’s fortune soars as new $425m valuation cements his status among richest Dragons

Former Chancellor George Osborne has warned that Reform UK “cannot be trusted to run the economy”, accusing Nigel Farage’s party of lacking fiscal credibility at a time when economic stewardship is likely to define the next general election.

Speaking amid growing scrutiny of Reform’s costed plans, Mr Osborne dismissed the party as economically unreliable, pointing to its proposals to lift the two-child benefit cap and nationalise water companies — policies that have already been branded “socialist” by Conservative critics.

“I don’t think people are going to pick Reform to fix the economy,” he said. “I would just be: economy, economy, economy, economy, economy as much as you possibly can.”

His intervention comes as the Conservatives, led by Kemi Badenoch, fall further behind in the polls. A recent MRP survey from Electoral Calculus puts Reform at 36 per cent, with the Tories trailing on just 15 per cent — leaving the Conservatives projected to win only 24 seats, behind the SNP.

Reform UK recently dropped its pledge for £90bn of tax cuts amid increasing concern over the party’s fiscal realism. Nonetheless, Mr Osborne questioned whether Mr Farage has the resolve to make “tough decisions on the economy”, noting that electoral success hinges on managing growth, spending and taxation with credibility.

The former Chancellor, who presided over austerity measures during the Cameron-led coalition government, argued that the Conservatives’ best hope of clawing back support lies in reasserting their reputation for economic discipline.

“Fundamentally, people vote for the Conservatives when they want the grown-ups to be in charge of the economy,” he said. “That is the history of Conservative oppositions – they have succeeded when they have won over the confidence of the country on the economy.”

He added that Labour remains vulnerable on economic competence, citing Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s struggle to boost growth while maintaining fiscal discipline. In particular, he claimed Labour “lost some of its reputation with business” following last year’s £25bn National Insurance increase.

Osborne made the comments during an interview with The Telegraph at Coinbase’s London Crypto Forum, where he also called on the Conservatives to seize ground in the digital finance sector to neutralise Reform’s appeal.

Mr Farage has positioned himself as a crypto champion, pledging to establish a UK-backed Bitcoin reserve — a policy echoing moves in the US where Donald Trump has positioned America as a prospective “Bitcoin superpower”.

But Mr Osborne argued that the Conservatives should take the lead in positioning the UK as a pro-innovation financial hub. “We don’t have to worry too much about what Reform is saying, but just say some good things ourselves,” he noted.

Despite recent volatility — with crypto markets losing around $400bn after Mr Trump threatened China with 100 per cent tariffs — Osborne called on the UK to accelerate regulatory clarity, warning that Britain risks falling behind as the US, EU and UAE race ahead in fintech policy.

“One of Britain’s biggest strengths is financial services,” he said. “You don’t want major financial services activity to be happening in other jurisdictions because we are not allowing it here.”

With the Budget looming in November, Osborne also urged Ms Reeves to curb public spending rather than rely on tax rises alone to manage a £30bn shortfall in the public finances, claiming an over-reliance on revenue-raising measures would be “very damaging for the economic performance of the country”.

Despite internal Conservative divisions and a bruising electoral outlook, Osborne insists the Tories retain a pathway back to economic credibility if they focus relentlessly on fiscal responsibility, investment, productivity and pro-business growth strategies.

“We are the fiscally responsible, pro-business people – and we are prepared to take difficult decisions on public expenditure,” he said.

A spokesperson for Reform responded: “At the next election, we will present a rigorous and fully costed manifesto. Reform will never borrow to spend, as Labour and the Tories have done for so long; instead we will ensure savings are made before implementing tax cuts.”

Read more:
Osborne warns Reform UK ‘not fiscally fit to run the economy’

The Chancellor has been warned she is “flying blind” into November’s Budget after fresh analysis suggested far more non-domiciled residents have left the UK than the Government anticipated, with billions in expected tax revenues now at risk.

In a report published today, economics consultancy ChamberlainWalker says early evidence points to a significantly larger exodus of non-doms following the abolition of non-dom status in April 2025. The firm argues that Treasury assurances—based on HMRC payroll returns—that departures are broadly in line with forecasts understate the scale of outflows because many of the wealthiest non-doms are investors rather than salaried employees and therefore fall outside PAYE data.

ChamberlainWalker cautions that the Government’s projected £34bn haul from the reforms rests on “optimistic and incomplete” assumptions about behaviour, including that only 1,200 people would leave and that a small group—“in the mid-thousands”—would remain and pay substantially more under the new foreign income and gains (FIG) regime.

Chris Walker, founding partner at ChamberlainWalker and a former government economist, said: “It is worrying that the Chancellor is heading into the Budget with so little understanding of the fiscal impact of the reform of non-dom status. The Treasury is effectively flying blind about the behaviour of the most responsive group of non-doms.”

The report argues that who leaves matters more than how many. If departures are skewed towards the richest non-doms—particularly former RBC payers—the impact could be a “triple whammy” for revenues:

1. A larger-than-expected hit to the UK income tax base as top contributors exit.
2. A smaller-than-modelled FIG tax base as high-earning individuals take foreign income and gains offshore.
3. Lower proceeds from the Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) if fewer assets are onshored.

The consultancy also notes that official reassurance from real-time payroll data is inherently limited at this stage. Behavioural responses to tax changes tend to play out over multiple years; ChamberlainWalker expects much of the adjustment to occur within two years of implementation, i.e. by April 2027.

HMRC’s forthcoming review of the reforms is expected to publish more granular data, but the report contends current sources cannot “meaningfully capture” the true impact—particularly among investor-type non-doms. On that basis, the authors urge ministers to exercise caution and consider interim adjustments to shore up revenue certainty and competitiveness while the evidence base improves.

Pre-reform modelling envisaged 25% of non-doms with trusts and 12% without trusts leaving, equating to about 1,200 leavers in 2025/26. It also assumed 7,700 non-doms and deemed-doms would be worse off (and therefore generate most of the extra FIG tax), with 14,200 eligible for a four-year FIG tax break and thus no worse off initially. ChamberlainWalker’s estimate that 1,800 have already departed implies the official scorecard could be materially off course if the composition of leavers is tilted to the top end.

With the Budget weeks away, the political and fiscal stakes are clear. If the exodus accelerates—and continues to be weighted towards the wealthiest—the Treasury’s £34bn headline could prove significantly overstated, forcing either policy refinement or compensating measures elsewhere in the fiscal plan.

Read more:
Non-dom exodus ‘far worse than forecast’, new report warns Chancellor ahead of Budget

The UK has announced sweeping new sanctions aimed at crippling Russia’s energy revenues, targeting the country’s largest oil producers, state-linked tankers, and overseas partners helping to keep Russian crude flowing to global markets.

Unveiled by Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of meetings with global finance leaders in Washington, D.C., the sanctions package includes 90 new measures and represents one of Britain’s most aggressive efforts yet to squeeze Vladimir Putin’s wartime economy.

“We are sending a clear signal: Russian oil is off the market,” Reeves said, pledging to “significantly step up the pressure on Russia and Vladimir Putin’s war effort.”

The sanctions hit Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two biggest oil producers, which together export roughly 3.1 million barrels of oil per day — around 6% of global supply, according to the Treasury.

Rosneft, the larger of the two, accounts for nearly half of all Russian oil output and is a major source of foreign currency for Moscow.

The UK is also blacklisting 44 tankers linked to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” — vessels used to transport oil under opaque ownership structures to evade existing Western sanctions.

Reeves said the move was designed to “destroy the capability of the Russian government to continue this illegal war in Ukraine.”

In a significant expansion of the UK’s sanctions regime, the list also includes entities based in India and China accused of helping to channel Russian crude into global markets.

Among them is Nayara Energy Limited, one of India’s largest private refiners, which is partly owned by Rosneft. The UK government said the company imported 100 million barrels of Russian oil worth more than $5 billion (£3.75 billion) in 2024 alone.

“We are ramping up pressure on companies in third countries, including India and China, that continue to facilitate getting Russian oil onto global markets,” Reeves said.

Beijing and Delhi have become key destinations for Russian oil exports since Western nations imposed a G7 price cap and banned seaborne imports of Russian crude in 2022.

Reeves made the announcement alongside Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings, where discussions with G7 counterparts focused on tightening sanctions and exploring ways to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine.

“Today’s action is another step towards a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and towards a more secure United Kingdom,” Cooper said.

The G7 is expected to debate a proposal next week to seize profits generated by hundreds of billions in frozen Russian investments, much of which is held in cash at the European Central Bank. The EU — long hesitant over potential legal implications — is said to be developing a mechanism to redirect those funds to Ukraine.

Earlier this year, the UK joined the US in sanctioning Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, expanding restrictions to cover nearly all of Russia’s major energy producers. At the time, then–Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the measures would “drain Russia’s war chest – and every ruble we take from Putin’s hands helps save Ukrainian lives.”

The latest round intensifies pressure not only on Moscow but also on countries that continue to buy discounted Russian crude.

In Washington, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that the White House is considering tariffs of up to 500% on Chinese goods linked to Russian oil purchases — though he added that the US would only act “if our European partners will join us.”

“We will respond if our European partners will join us,” Bessent told reporters on Wednesday.

The UK sanctions come as the IMF warns of slowing global growth and rising geopolitical fragmentation — with the war in Ukraine, the Israel–Gaza conflict, and trade tensions between the US and China all weighing on economic stability.

Read more:
UK targets Russian oil market with new sanctions on Lukoil, Rosneft and ‘Shadow Fleet’

Today marks the High Court deadline for PPE Medpro to repay £121.9 million to the UK government over a defective PPE contract awarded during the Covid-19 pandemic — but with the company now in administration and holding assets of just £666,000, there is little expectation the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will see the full amount returned.

The repayment order follows a High Court ruling earlier this month in which Mrs Justice Cockerill found that PPE Medpro had breached its contract to supply 25 million sterile surgical gowns. The gowns, while delivered in full, were deemed non-compliant after failing to meet sterilisation standards.

The court set a deadline of 4pm today (15 October 2025) for repayment. With the clock ticking, no indication has been given that the full sum will be paid, and insiders suggest the government could face the prospect of recovering substantially less — or potentially nothing at all.

Last week, Business Matters reported that the consortium behind PPE Medpro had approached the company’s administrators to express a willingness to enter settlement talks with the DHSC.

“On Friday, 11th October, it was made clear that the consortium partners of PPE Medpro are prepared to enter into discussions with the Government, via the administrators, to reach a possible settlement. This was made very public, and the Government was made aware of it. Yet, very disappointingly, the Government has made no effort to respond or seek to enter into discussions.” said a consortium spokesperson.

In June, PPE Medpro offered £23 million in a no-fault settlement. The DHSC rejected that offer, a move that has since drawn criticism given the company’s deteriorating financial position and the legal costs already incurred.

While Doug Barrowman and Baroness Michelle Mone are not personally liable for the money, Barrowman has acknowledged that £29 million in profit from the gown contract was placed into a trust benefitting his family — including Mone and her children.

However, PPE Medpro’s formal structure kept both figures at arms-length from the company’s directorship. The firm filed for insolvency just a day before the High Court ruling, meaning responsibility for recovering any assets now lies with court-appointed administrators, Forvis Mazars.

Insolvency experts say the administrators may consider pursuing other companies or individuals involved in the gown supply chain. Barrowman’s team has named two UK-registered companies as consortium partners — one has denied any connection, and two others have not responded to media enquiries.

In a comment to Sky News, Julie Palmer, partner at insolvency specialists Begbies Traynor, said: “The administrators will want to look at what happened to what look like significant profits made on these contracts… They may also want to consider whether there is a claim for wrongful trading… and claims may rest against shadow directors.”

In other words, if individuals were directing the company’s affairs behind the scenes — including potentially Baroness Mone or Barrowman — legal avenues could still be explored, albeit at significant time and cost.

DHSC under pressure over double standards

The DHSC has so far declined to comment. But criticism continues to mount over its handling of the PPE Medpro case — particularly when compared to the department’s quiet £5 million no-fault settlement with Primerdesign Ltd over a £135 million claim (more than the PPE Medpro case).

Despite multiple no-fault offers from PPE Medpro — including a full remake of the gown order — the government chose to pursue a full legal challenge, spending an estimated £5 million in public funds on litigation.

As Business Matters has reported extensively, the gowns — although rejected for failing to meet sterilisation criteria — were never suitable for NHS frontline use due to being single-bagged, a feature the DHSC failed to specify across its gown contracts. PPE Medpro maintains the gowns could have been resold internationally as non-sterile PPE, with an estimated market value of £85 million at the end of 2020.

With the repayment deadline now reached and PPE Medpro in administration, all eyes turn to the administrators, who face the unenviable task of tracing and recovering funds from a highly politicised and legally complex case.

Whether the government eventually sees a fraction of the £122 million — or whether this becomes yet another expensive Covid-era procurement write-off — remains to be seen.

Read more:
Deadline day looms for PPE Medpro as £122m Covid repayment unlikely to be made

Lloyds Banking Group is putting its entire senior leadership team — including chief executive Charlie Nunn — through an intensive six-month artificial intelligence (AI) bootcamp as the bank commits to embedding generative AI across its operations.

The programme, created by education technology firm Cambridge Spark in collaboration with experts from the University of Cambridge, is designed to teach Lloyds’ most senior executives how to “reimagine the future of banking” through the use of AI.

According to the bank, around 300 senior managers will take part in the bespoke course, which requires 80 hours of study over six months. More than 110 leaders have already completed the training since its launch in March, with the full executive committee — including Nunn, finance chief William Chalmers, and Scottish Widows boss Chirantan Barua — expected to finish by the end of 2026.

“This is a huge signal of intent from Lloyds,” one industry source said. “They’re not just delegating AI to data scientists — they’re training the people making the strategic decisions.”

The move is part of Lloyds’ broader digital transformation strategy, which has seen it accelerate branch closures, expand online banking services, and designate Bristol as its UK ‘AI capital’, home to its largest cluster of technology specialists.

The bank has grown a team of nearly 1,300 tech and data experts, alongside hundreds of new apprentices and graduates, as it pushes to integrate AI into areas such as fraud prevention, customer service, and risk management.

Industry leaders have praised Lloyds’ initiative as a model for AI adoption in financial services.

Kenny MacAulay, CEO of Acting Office, said: “Mastering AI should be a top priority for every CEO. With financial services facing seismic challenges, learning how to deploy disruptive technology to streamline services and deliver better customer experiences must be at the top of every boardroom agenda.”

Raj Abrol, co-founder and CEO of Galytix, which works with several major banks, said: “Being equipped with the latest AI knowledge is no longer optional for senior banking executives. With complex regulation, data privacy and risk management challenges mounting, AI capabilities are essential to stay ahead of the competition.”

Lloyds’ push into AI follows similar moves by global rivals such as JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and Barclays, which have all invested heavily in machine learning and automation tools to boost efficiency and improve customer experience.

For Lloyds, the AI bootcamp signals a long-term commitment to educating its leaders at every level in the technology that will define the next phase of banking transformation.

As one senior source at the bank put it: “The future of finance isn’t just about adopting AI — it’s about understanding it.”

Read more:
Lloyds puts CEO and top bosses through six-month AI bootcamp

The consortium behind PPE Medpro has announced its readiness to enter discussions with the company’s administrators to explore a possible settlement with the government, following the High Court’s ruling that the firm must repay £121.9 million for breaching its PPE contract with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

In a statement shared with Business Matters, a spokesperson for the consortium said: “The consortium partners of PPE Medpro are prepared to enter into a dialogue with the administrators of the company to discuss a possible settlement with the government.”

The announcement follows nearly five years of legal proceedings and mounting political pressure, with PPE Medpro having spent £4.3 million defending its position in court — and consistently maintaining that it delivered all 25 million gowns required by the £122 million contract.

Throughout the process, PPE Medpro offered to settle on a no-fault basis, including proposals to either remake the entire 25 million gown order or pay a £23 million cash equivalent. These offers, made repeatedly before, during, and even after the trial, were rejected by the DHSC.

By contrast, a separate £135 million claim the DHSC brought against Primerdesign Ltd was settled quietly for £5 million, on a no-fault basis, just weeks before trial.

Critics now argue that the government’s handling of the Medpro dispute has been inconsistent and politically charged, particularly as the gowns supplied by PPE Medpro — although found not to meet sterility requirements under a technical clause — were never suitable for NHS frontline use due to being single-bagged, a feature the DHSC reportedly failed to specify across all gown contracts at the time.

“This case has become a distraction from the real issue: the government’s inability to manage PPE procurement, usage, or resale,” said one industry observer.

An £85 million missed opportunity?

Significantly, PPE Medpro has long argued that the gowns — while not deployed by the NHS — were viable for use in non-sterile environments, and could have been resold internationally.

An independent expert valuation found the gowns could have been worth £85 million on the global market at the end of 2020. Yet the government made no attempt to resell or repurpose them, despite sitting on a decade’s worth of surplus gown stock and ultimately writing off nearly £10 billion of pandemic PPE.

Had the DHSC chosen to act, the net financial difference between contract cost and resale value would have been just £37 million — a fraction of the claim pursued in court.

On 2 October, Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled that PPE Medpro breached the contract by failing to prove that the gowns had undergone a validated sterilisation process, despite providing all delivery documentation and post-sterilisation test certificates.

The judge noted that the required documentation for radiation dose mapping — which the company later obtained after sending investigators to China — was not provided in time for trial. The failure, she ruled, constituted a technical breach of contract, and PPE Medpro was ordered to repay the full contract value.

Barrowman and Mone have slammed the ruling as a “travesty of justice” and accused the government of scapegoating them to deflect attention from its wider pandemic procurement failures.

PPE Medpro is now in administration, and it remains to be seen whether the consortium’s willingness to re-engage with the government will lead to a negotiated resolution — or further legal wrangling.

But as calls grow for transparency over the government’s own procurement decisions, the PPE Medpro saga is no longer just a legal dispute — it has become a symbol of the political and financial fallout of the UK’s Covid-era spending spree.

Read more:
PPE Medpro consortium signals willingness to settle as spotlight turns to government’s £85m missed resale opportunity

The LDC Top 50 Most Ambitious Business Leaders 2025 has unveiled its new cohort of the UK’s most dynamic and visionary entrepreneurs, marking the eighth year of the national awards programme that celebrates the country’s growth champions.

Created by LDC, the private equity arm of Lloyds Banking Group, in partnership with The Times, the programme recognises the founders and chief executives behind Britain’s fastest-growing and most innovative medium-sized businesses.

This year’s Top 50 were chosen from almost 700 nominations, reflecting a diverse group of leaders who are not only driving financial success but also creating jobs, championing sustainability, and making an impact in their communities. Together, they employ nearly 10,000 people across 67 towns and cities and generate combined revenues of £1.2 billion.

The winners were celebrated at a gala ceremony at BAFTA in London, where category winners — including The UK’s Most Ambitious Business Leader of 2025 — were officially announced.

The overall title of The UK’s Most Ambitious Business Leader 2025 went to Mark Fitzgerald, founder of CTR Group, a recycling and reuse specialist based in Marchington, Staffordshire.

Since founding CTR in 2014, Fitzgerald has grown the business to £45 million turnover, working with companies across the UK and Europe. Guided by a mission to “waste nothing, reuse everything and protect the planet”, the company processes 1,300 tonnes of unwanted goods each week, repurposing materials for reuse in disadvantaged communities worldwide.

Judges praised Fitzgerald’s resilience, clarity of purpose and vision for sustainable growth, describing him as a “leader transforming the waste industry from the ground up”.

Recognising innovation, growth and social impact

The 2025 awards showcased entrepreneurs driving innovation across every sector of the economy — from tech and retail to education, manufacturing and sustainability.

Barty Walsh, co-founder of ORDO, received The Growth Award for turning the personal care start-up into one of the UK’s fastest-growing oral care brands. Since its launch in 2019, ORDO has achieved 350% revenue growth and 30-fold profit increases, redefining the electric toothbrush market.

Pip Murray, founder of Pip & Nut, took home The Impact Award for building a certified B Corp that supports regenerative farming and produces palm-oil-free, carbon-neutral nut butters. Her company has grown from a small market stall to the UK’s leading nut butter brand, now stocked in 5,000 stores and on track for £40 million turnover next year.

The Trailblazer Award went to Manny Athwal, founder of School of Coding and AI, who turned personal adversity into an international business success. After teaching himself to code, Athwal built a multimillion-pound company now educating 3,000 students across 17 countries each year.

Jos van der Steen and Peter Cliff, co-founders of CONDUCTR, won The International Award for exporting Manchester’s creative talent to a global stage. The duo’s attractions business has designed high-profile projects such as The Curse at Alton Manor and an interactive LED sports court for Norwegian Cruise Line, expanding operations to North America and the Middle East.

Leading change through innovation and sustainability

Innovation took centre stage in this year’s awards. Lee Brooks, founder of Production Park, received The Innovation Award for turning South Kirkby into a global hub for live entertainment production. The site now attracts the world’s biggest artists — including Beyoncé and Coldplay — and is projected to hit £30 million in revenue this year.

Caroline Briggs of Amici was honoured with The Disruptor Award for transforming laboratory operations through intelligent LabOps software. Her system enables biotech and pharmaceutical companies to run labs more efficiently and compliantly, revolutionising procurement in the life sciences industry.

Josie Morris MBE, managing director of Woolcool, claimed The Sustainability Award for pioneering wool-based packaging as a natural alternative to plastic. Under her leadership, Woolcool has become the UK’s first packaging company to achieve B Corp certification, diverting more than 3,000 tonnes of polystyrene from landfill last year.

The People Award went to Peter Ellse, founder of Cosy Direct, who has built a company culture centred on inclusivity and flexibility. Employing part-time parents, ex-offenders, apprentices and neurodivergent adults, Cosy Direct now trades in 46 countries and donates 10% of profits to grassroots charities.

Mike Brennan, CEO of Outdo, received The Resilience Award for growing the Halifax-based outdoor media company despite personal tragedy. Outdo now manages 30,000 advertising sites nationwide, employs 75 people and has tripled turnover in five years.

The Youth Ambition Award — supported by The King’s Trust Enterprise Programme — was awarded to Kwame Boateng, founder of Ingrained Oil, for creating a skin-friendly, cruelty-free fragrance brand while still a university student.

The Rising Star Awards went to Russell Teale of Vivify, Laura Earnshaw of myHappyMind, and Nazanin Nankali of Powertutors, who are each driving transformative impact in education and wellbeing.

The Alumni Award celebrated Martin Taylor of Content Guru, who first appeared in the Top 50 in 2020 and has since expanded his cloud communications firm to a projected £80 million turnover.

Finally, Andrew McLernon and Jay Gorga of Interlink received Highly Commended: One to Watch, recognising their AI-driven innovation and people-first leadership in digital lead generation.

Reflecting on this year’s cohort, John Garner, Managing Partner at LDC, said the Top 50 continues to highlight the strength and resilience of the UK’s entrepreneurial economy.

“In the eight years since we launched The LDC Top 50, we’ve had the honour of meeting some exceptional business leaders,” Garner said. “This year’s group have shown remarkable drive and ambition, building businesses that are making a difference to their people, communities and society at large. Their success stories are only just beginning.”

Read more:
LDC Top 50 Most Ambitious Business Leaders of 2025 revealed

Kemi Badenoch has pledged to abolish stamp duty land tax as part of her plan to revive home ownership and stimulate the housing market — describing it as an “unconservative tax” that prevents millions from buying or moving homes.

In a surprise announcement during her closing speech at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Tory leader said the next Conservative government would “abolish stamp duty on your home”, drawing a standing ovation from the audience.

“We must free up our housing market,” Badenoch said. “A society where no one can afford to buy or move is a society where social mobility is dead.”

She added that she had considered simply raising stamp duty thresholds but concluded that “it was not enough”, insisting that complete abolition was the “key to unlocking a fairer society”.

The policy will form part of Badenoch’s new fiscal framework, which she described as a “golden economic rule” for responsible public spending. Under the rule, half of all money saved from government cuts will be used to reduce the deficit, while the remaining half will fund tax cuts or investment in growth.

“We have to get the deficit down and show how every tax cut or spending increase is paid for,” she said. “At least half will go towards cutting the deficit, because living within our means is our first priority. And with the rest, we will get Britain growing and bring down the taxes that are stifling our economy.”

The Conservatives say they have identified £47 billion in potential public sector savings, including reductions in welfare spending, to pay for their tax pledges. Stamp duty currently raises around £12 billion a year, meaning Badenoch’s proposal would rely on these savings to cover the revenue shortfall.

Badenoch said scrapping stamp duty would not only support aspiring homeowners but also stimulate wider economic activity.

“When someone buys a home, it triggers a chain reaction — removals, DIY, furniture, home improvements,” she said. “This is about freeing up the economy and giving people back their sense of ownership.”

Economists and housing experts have long criticised stamp duty as one of Britain’s most distortionary taxes. Tom Clougherty, Executive Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, welcomed the proposal, calling it “the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.”

“As things stand, this outdated and uneconomic levy is wreaking havoc on our already troubled housing market,” Clougherty said. “Research suggests that the wider social and economic harms are equivalent to three-quarters of the revenue raised.”

He added that abolishing stamp duty would remove a barrier to sales and house-building, boosting mobility and growth.

Alongside her housing policy, Badenoch pledged to cut household energy bills by £165 and reduce business energy costs by £5,000 for restaurants, as part of a new “cheap power plan.”

The measures would include scrapping green levies and restarting drilling in the North Sea, which she said would lower costs for families while supporting energy security.

Badenoch insisted she was “not a climate sceptic”, but argued that current net zero laws were “making Britain poorer” and needed reform.

Read more:
Kemi Badenoch pledges to abolish stamp duty in surprise conference announcement

Small businesses in deprived urban areas are less likely to secure finance than those in more affluent or rural parts of the UK, according to new research by the British Business Bank (BBB).

The government-backed economic development agency said its latest annual Small Business Finance Markets report revealed “significant disparities” in access to credit cards, overdrafts and loans across the country — with geography proving to be a major factor in whether businesses can borrow money.

The findings show that where a business is based has a measurable impact on its access to funding. Even within towns and cities, firms in more deprived areas are less likely to obtain external finance, despite being more likely to seek it out to support growth plans.

“This evidence shows that where your business is located has an influence on your ability to access finance, not just at a regional level, but also at a sub-regional level,” the report said.

The study found that entrepreneurs in economically disadvantaged areas were more inclined to look for funding than the national average, but more often discouraged from applying — either due to previous rejections or perceived barriers from lenders.

Richard Bearman, the British Business Bank’s chief development officer, said the organisation was stepping up its efforts to bridge the funding gap.

“The problem we are trying to solve is to ensure that businesses across the UK have access to capital and, where they have potential, we are supporting that potential,” Bearman said.

He added that new debt and equity programmes would ensure that high-growth, high-potential businesses can access capital “wherever they are based”.

The BBB will roll out £340 million in new regional funds next April across the east and southeast of England, completing its network of state-backed investment vehicles across the UK. These regional funds are designed to improve the supply of debt and equity capital for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

They follow the £660 million Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II, which began lending to businesses across the North of England last year.

The bank has also expanded access for community development finance institutions (CDFIs) to its loan guarantee schemes. These specialist lenders provide capital to small firms in lower-income areas who have been turned down by high street banks, helping them to invest, hire and grow.

Overall, the report found that the share of smaller businesses using external finance fell slightly last year from 46% to 45%, following a 10-point rise the year before. However, the headline figures mask sharp regional variations.

In the West Midlands, 47% of firms accessed external capital in the past year, compared with just 39% in the East Midlands. The gap widens when measuring appetite for future borrowing — 49% of West Midlands firms said they were willing to use finance to drive growth, compared with only 17% in the East Midlands.

The British Business Bank said its regional funds and community lending partnerships were designed to make the business finance landscape more equitable, reducing the postcode effect that limits funding in disadvantaged areas.

Bearman said the goal was not only to address inequality but to unlock growth potential nationwide. “We want to make sure that location is no longer a limiting factor,” he said.

Read more:
Access to finance remains a postcode lottery for UK small businesses

Six university-founded social enterprises have been selected as finalists for Ignite 2025, the Ford Family Foundation’s flagship competition supporting early-stage, purpose-driven ventures.

The finalists will pitch their innovations at the Barclays Innovation Hub powered by Eagle Labs in Shoreditch, London, on Tuesday 21 October 2025, competing for a share of a £50,000 prize fund. Each will receive tailored pitching support, accelerator mentoring and access to Barclays Eagle Labs’ digital resources.

Last year’s finalists went on to share an additional £280,000 in follow-on funding after the inaugural Ignite showcase at The Shard.

Tony Ford, founder of the Ford Family Foundation, praised the “extraordinary talent emerging from universities across the UK,” calling this year’s field “outstanding.”

“Each of the ventures we are celebrating through Ignite demonstrates the kind of entrepreneurial talent and social purpose that will shape the future,” Ford said. “It’s a privilege to support and showcase their work.”

The Ignite 2025 finalists

WeDonate (University of Chichester) – A digital platform designed to boost blood donation through community-based rewards, helping hospitals maintain reliable supplies while recognising donors and supporting local businesses.

Reporti (Imperial College London & Royal College of Art) – A safeguarding app enabling users at large events to report incidents such as harassment or unsafe behaviour quickly and securely.

Harker (University of Liverpool) – A CRM system for homelessness charities, providing data insights to improve services, strengthen funding applications and enhance outcomes for vulnerable individuals. (pictured above) 

AIBŌ (King’s College London) – A social enterprise connecting students with older people through paid companionship, tackling loneliness while supporting students financially.

Braille Forge (Brunel University) – Affordable braille technology to improve access to STEM education for visually impaired students, with a focus on lowering costs and enhancing tactile learning tools.

Rephobia (Queen’s University Belfast) – A virtual reality therapy platform offering affordable and accessible treatment for phobias, including fear of flying, heights and social situations.

Giselle Gonzales, founder of EQUALReach and finalist at Ignite 2024, will return as keynote speaker and judge. Her employment platform connects refugee professionals with digital work opportunities and has since secured a UK and international pilot with a Fortune 500 company.

Gonzales reflected on her journey since last year’s competition:

“When I started my company in the UK, I never imagined I’d be pitching to a packed audience at The Shard. The friendships, networks and support from Ignite have been invaluable. It’s an honour to return as a judge to help champion the next wave of founders driving profit with purpose.”

The six finalists will present their pitches to a live audience and judging panel, followed by a Q&A session. Organisers say the competition continues to highlight the growing pipeline of socially conscious entrepreneurs emerging from UK universities, blending innovation with impact.

Read more:
Six university start-ups named as finalists for Ignite 2025 social enterprise competition

Aston Martin Lagonda has warned that it will remain loss-making through 2025 after another year of weaker-than-expected sales and further delays to its flagship Valhalla hypercar, sending shares in the British luxury carmaker tumbling.

In an unscheduled trading update, the company said it now expects annual sales to fall by nearly 10 per cent and losses to exceed previous forecasts, abandoning earlier commitments to become cashflow positive this year.

Shares fell more than 8 per cent to 74.65p on Monday, wiping out recent gains built on hopes of a sustained turnaround under chief executive Adrian Hallmark, who joined the Warwickshire-based manufacturer last year from Bentley.

Aston Martin cited “heightened challenges in the global macroeconomic environment,” including the impact of US tariffs, shifting Chinese luxury taxes, and supply chain strains, as key factors behind the shortfall.

“As a result of the heightened challenges in the global macroeconomic environment, including the ongoing impact of tariffs, the company now expects total wholesale volumes in full-year 2025 to decline by a mid-to-high single-digit percentage compared with 2024,” the group said.

Deliveries to dealers between July and September totalled 1,430 vehicles, around 13 per cent below the same period last year, missing earlier guidance that sales would hold steady.

Weaker demand in North America and Asia-Pacific, particularly China, was compounded by a reduction in high-margin “special” editions, which typically boost profitability.

The company confirmed that deliveries of its £850,000 Valhalla hypercar — its most high-profile launch in years — have again been delayed, with just 150 units now expected to reach customers by the end of 2025, fewer than previously pledged.

The setback is a blow to Aston Martin’s strategy of using ultra-luxury models to drive margins and restore credibility among investors following years of financial turbulence.

The group now expects to post operating losses before interest and tax of around £110 million, in line with the most pessimistic analyst forecasts. Its projection for positive free cashflow in the second half of 2025 has also been scrapped.

Aston Martin said it continues to face headwinds from “uncertainties over the economic impact from US tariffs and the implementation of export quotas” affecting UK manufacturers, as well as “changes to China’s ultra-luxury car taxes.”

The company also acknowledged potential supply chain disruptions following the recent cyberattack at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which shares several suppliers with Aston Martin.

Several of those suppliers are reportedly under financial pressure after JLR’s temporary shutdowns, raising concerns over the stability of the UK’s premium automotive supply base.

In response, Aston Martin has initiated an “immediate review of spending” and a broader reassessment of its product cycle and future development plans, hinting that upcoming electric and hybrid projects could be delayed.

“The global macroeconomic environment facing the industry remains challenging,” the company said. “We are reviewing our future product cycle plan in response to market and regulatory dynamics.”

The update underscores the difficulties facing Hallmark’s turnaround efforts as Aston Martin grapples with persistent losses, high leverage, and uneven demand across its core markets.

The profit warning marks a sharp reversal from earlier optimism that Aston Martin was on track for recovery. The company’s shares have now fallen more than 80 per cent from their 2021 highs, and analysts warn that any further delays to key models or production disruption could threaten the timeline for stabilising the business.

With new electrification rules looming, trade tensions rising, and luxury demand softening in China, Aston Martin’s latest warning suggests its road back to profitability remains a long one.

Read more:
Aston Martin issues profit warning as weak demand and Valhalla delays hit turnaround hopes

Piers Morgan’s production company has reported turnover of £17.1 million in 2024, as the broadcaster concluded his lucrative three-year deal with Rupert Murdoch’s News UK and began taking Piers Morgan Uncensored global.

Newly filed accounts for Wake Up Productions, incorporated in July 2021, show cumulative revenues of £50.3 million over the three-year period — matching reports of Morgan’s £50 million contract with Murdoch’s UK media group, which included TV, print and book projects.

Wake Up Productions recorded turnover of £17.5 million in 2022, £15.7 million in 2023, and £17.1 million in 2024, with profit before tax of £7 million, slightly down from £7.2 million the previous year. The company paid £5 million in dividends in 2024.

Morgan owns 94 per cent of the business, alongside company secretary Martin Cruddace (5 per cent) and Dolly Strategic Holdings Ltd (1 per cent).

The company’s revenue is divided between co-production services (£9.7m), licensing and distribution (£5.1m), and branding agreements and other income (£804,880).

The accounts describe Wake Up Productions as focusing on “publishing, television production and broadcasting, generating income primarily through digital channels such as YouTube, Facebook and sponsorships.”

Its flagship show, Piers Morgan Uncensored, launched on TalkTV in April 2022 before transitioning to a digital-only format on YouTube in February 2024 — months before TalkTV’s linear broadcast closure.

Since going fully digital, the show has more than 4.2 million YouTube subscribers, up from two million in late 2023, with clips regularly drawing millions of views globally.

Global ambitions after News UK partnership

Following the end of his News UK contract, Morgan has bought the rights to Piers Morgan Uncensored and is working with US-based Red Seat Ventures to expand the brand internationally.

The partnership will focus on growing sponsorship, advertising and digital revenues, while News UK retains commercial rights through an advertising partnership running until 2029.

Morgan’s previous agreement with News UK also included columns in The Sun and The New York Post, a documentary series, and a book deal. His new book, Woke Is Dead, will be published this month by HarperCollins, part of Murdoch’s News Corp.

Profitable model built on YouTube and sponsorship

Wake Up Productions reported £10.6 million cash reserves at the end of 2024, up from £10.2 million the previous year, with total staff costs of £7.2 million covering Morgan’s remuneration and that of one other employee.

The company’s business model centres on four pillars:
• Content monetisation via YouTube and digital platforms
• Brand partnerships and sponsorships
• Audience engagement through topical and personality-led programming
• Operational efficiency via outsourced finance and audit services

Wake Up said it plans to expand onto additional digital platforms, form strategic partnerships with media agencies, and invest in production quality and analytics to sustain growth.

Morgan’s pivot from traditional broadcasting to digital-first content mirrors a wider trend among media personalities building direct audiences online.

With Piers Morgan Uncensored continuing to perform strongly on YouTube and Facebook, the presenter appears to be positioning his brand as an independent global media business — combining journalistic personality with commercial agility in a fast-evolving content landscape.

Read more:
Piers Morgan’s production company hits £17.1m turnover as TalkTV deal ends

Celebrity chef Rick Stein will close his Marlborough restaurant this weekend, the second outlet to shut in a week as his family-run hospitality empire battles mounting financial pressure.

The High Street site, which opened almost a decade ago, will serve its last meals on Sunday, October 5. The closure follows the permanent shutdown of Stein’s Coffee Shop in Padstow, Cornwall, where three staff were redeployed.

In a statement signed by Stein, his wife Jill and sons Ed, Jack and Charlie, the family said the Marlborough branch was “no longer viable” and thanked staff for their “passion, hard work and dedication”. Customers with gift cards will still be able to redeem them across the wider group.

The business, which spans restaurants, hotels, shops, a cookery school and an online retail arm, has been hit by falling sales and rising costs. Last year, group revenues declined 5.4 per cent to £30.4 million, while losses deepened. At the Seafood Restaurant in Padstow, Stein’s flagship, pre-tax losses widened to £459,000.

Stein has been vocal in blaming government tax policy for worsening the strain on hospitality. He has criticised Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s rise in employer national insurance contributions and other levies, arguing that they have added costs to an industry already squeezed by weak demand. “Because the economy is not looking too good, people aren’t going out as much, so the one thing you don’t want to do is impose a heavy tax on the sorts of industries that are actually producing stuff,” he said in a recent interview.

Stein’s dominance in Padstow — where he operates 13 venues — has transformed the town into a major tourist destination over the past five decades. His presence has been credited with driving visitor numbers and employment but has also sparked criticism. Locals argue that the “Padstein” brand has sent property prices soaring, squeezed independent traders and made the town heavily reliant on tourism. Average house prices in Padstow now top £750,000, above London levels, while the town’s 2,500 population often doubles in summer as holidaymakers and second-home owners flood in.

The closures highlight the wider fragility of Britain’s restaurant and leisure sector, which is contending with sluggish consumer spending and higher operating costs. Industry groups have warned that Labour’s planned reforms to business rates and further tax rises could accelerate closures unless relief measures are introduced.

For Stein, whose brand has become synonymous with Cornish seafood, the retrenchment underlines the challenge of keeping an extensive portfolio profitable in an unforgiving trading environment. The family said they had “loved being part of the Marlborough community” but insisted that difficult decisions were needed to secure the future of the wider group.

Read more:
Rick Stein shutters Marlborough restaurant as group struggles with losses

Baroness Michelle Mone has launched a blistering attack on Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, accusing her of “inflammatory language”, “reckless public statements”, and misrepresenting both the facts and legal context surrounding the PPE Medpro case.

In a two-page letter seen by Business Matters, the peer directly confronts Badenoch’s remarks made on BBC Radio, in which she called for Baroness Mone to resign from the House of Lords and said the authorities should “throw the book at her for every single bit of wrongdoing that has taken place”.

Baroness Mone responds: “So I’m going to ask you the question — what is it exactly that I have done WRONG? Do you know? If so, please enlighten me.”

The letter, dated 3 October, follows the £122 million High Court ruling against PPE Medpro, the company linked to Baroness Mone and her husband, Doug Barrowman, for breach of contract over the supply of sterile surgical gowns during the pandemic.

Baroness Mone criticises Badenoch for commenting publicly on what she describes as a live criminal investigation, warning it could amount to contempt of court.

“You are commenting on a live criminal investigation that could prejudice the outcome of any trial… you are reportable to the Attorney General,” she wrote.

She insists that the National Crime Agency (NCA) investigation is not about PPE Medpro’s contracts, but rather relates to allegations that she concealed her involvement — allegations she firmly denies.

“After 4 years and 5 months of investigating a relatively simple matter, the NCA have never arrested or charged my husband or me,” Mone states.
“I have never received a penny from PPE Medpro… this is a trust set up by my husband for the benefit of all our kids. I have no entitlement to this money whatsoever”.

Mone’s letter goes further, calling out what she describes as the hypocrisy of political attacks by Conservative figures, while many of their own colleagues also played roles in VIP-lane PPE referrals.

She namechecks senior Conservatives including Michael Gove, Matt Hancock, Lord Agnew, Lord Feldman, and Lord Chadlington, stating that they too referred suppliers for contracts during the pandemic.

“So, Kemi, my role was exactly the same as all other Conservative MPs and Peers… If I have done wrong, then so have all the others in the VIP lane. In which case, you should be calling for them to resign as well”.

Mone: “I have no desire to return to the Lords as a Conservative peer”

Baroness Mone also corrects claims that she was removed from the Conservative Party whip, stating that she voluntarily took a leave of absence, which automatically led to losing the whip.

“Stop playing silly little games that you somehow removed the whip from me. I removed it myself,” she wrote.

She concludes the letter by making it clear that even if she is cleared, she has no desire to return as a Conservative peer.

“You’ll be pleased to hear that once I do clear my name, I have no wish to return to the Lords as a Conservative Peer — that’s assuming there still is a Conservative Party before the next General Election”.

This is the latest escalation in a political and legal saga that has gripped Westminster. Last week, Business Matters reported on Baroness Mone’s explosive letter to the Prime Minister, following Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ fringe event remark that the government had a “vendetta” against her — comments which Mone says have endangered her safety.

The High Court ruled on 2 October that PPE Medpro breached its contractual obligations to provide gowns sterilised through a validated process, ordering the company to repay £121,999,219 by 15 October.

Barrowman and Mone maintain that they were scapegoated by the government to distract from its wider £10 billion PPE overspend, and that the case was politically motivated from the outset.

Read more:
Mone hits back at Kemi Badenoch in scathing letter: “what exactly have I done wrong?”

Baroness Michelle Mone has accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of using “dangerous and inflammatory” language, days after a High Court judge ruled that PPE Medpro — a firm linked to Mone and her husband, Doug Barrowman — must repay £122 million for breaching a Covid-era PPE contract.

In an open letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, seen by Business Matters, Baroness Mone claims that a comment reportedly made by Reeves at a Labour Party Conference fringe event has directly endangered her personal safety. When asked about the government’s approach to the PPE Medpro case, Reeves is reported to have replied: “Too right we do”, in reference to whether the government had a “vendetta” against Mone.

“Your Chancellor’s statement is incendiary and has directly increased the risks to my personal safety,” wrote Baroness Mone. “Since her remarks, my social media has gone into meltdown with threats and abuse.”

The backlash follows Wednesday’s High Court ruling, in which Mrs Justice Cockerill found that PPE Medpro breached its contractual obligation to supply sterile surgical gowns during the pandemic. The judge concluded that the company had failed to demonstrate the gowns underwent a validated sterilisation process, as required by the contract.

The company — set up by a consortium led by Doug Barrowman — was awarded the contract in 2020 after being recommended through a VIP procurement route by Baroness Mone herself.

PPE Medpro denies wrongdoing and maintains the gowns were sterile at the point of delivery. The company had previously offered to remake all 25 million gowns or pay £23 million in settlement — proposals the DHSC rejected .

Mone: “Vendetta” claim puts family at risk

Baroness Mone is now demanding a formal retraction from Rachel Reeves, as well as an independent investigationinto whether ministers or civil servants have improperly influenced the National Crime Agency (NCA), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), or the ongoing civil litigation process.

“The word ‘vendetta’ refers to vengeance, feud, and blood feud,” she wrote. “It has made me and my family feel unsafe… We need only look at the tragedies of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess to understand the dangers of such reckless language.”
She added that if no action is taken, she will explore legal remedies, including potential claims for defamation, harassment, and misfeasance in public office.

Baroness Mone, who was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2015, remains on a leave of absence from the Lords and lost the Conservative whip following media investigations into her links to PPE Medpro.

Following the court ruling, there have been cross-party calls for her to be stripped of her peerage. While such a move would require an Act of Parliament, prominent voices — including Chancellor Reeves and Conservative frontbencher Kemi Badenoch — have now publicly stated that Mone should not return to the Lords.

In response to Mone’s letter, a Treasury source told the press: “When both the Labour Chancellor and Conservative leader agree with each other, you’ve lost the argument.”

With public and political scrutiny intensifying, and £122 million due by 15 October, PPE Medpro and the couple behind it now face mounting legal, financial and reputational pressure.

Meanwhile, Baroness Mone’s allegation of political bias — combined with the claim that Reeves’ remarks have provoked real-world threats — raises questions about how ministers communicate during ongoing legal matters, and the safeguards in place to protect public figures from harm.

The Prime Minister has yet to respond publicly to Baroness Mone’s letter.

Read more:
Baroness Mone demands Prime Minister investigate Rachel Reeves for ‘inflammatory’ language after £122m PPE Medpro court defeat

Only 5% of generative AI pilots at companies are delivering meaningful results, according to a new report from MIT’s NANDA initiative, which warns that corporate enthusiasm for AI has outpaced real-world success.

The report — The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 — analysed 300 public AI deployments, 150 executive interviews, and survey data from 350 employees. It found that while AI tools promise faster growth and efficiency, most enterprise projects fail to generate measurable impact on profit and loss statements.

“Some large companies’ pilots and younger startups are really excelling with generative AI,” said Aditya Challapally, the report’s lead author and a research contributor to MIT’s project NANDA.

“Startups led by 19- or 20-year-olds have seen revenues jump from zero to $20 million in a year. It’s because they pick one pain point, execute well, and partner smartly with companies who use their tools.”

The “GenAI Divide”: startups surge, enterprises stall

The report identifies a widening gap between nimble startups and larger corporations — a phenomenon MIT calls the “GenAI Divide.”

While small, focused teams are translating generative AI into clear commercial wins, 95% of corporate pilots stall, producing little or no productivity uplift. MIT attributes this to poor integration, not model quality.

“The issue isn’t regulation or model performance,” Challapally explained. “It’s that enterprise systems aren’t learning from their own workflows. Generic tools like ChatGPT excel for individuals because they’re flexible — but in businesses, they don’t adapt, they don’t integrate, and so they stall.”

This “learning gap” between tools and organisations, the study argues, is the single biggest drag on enterprise AI performance.

MIT’s findings also highlight a mismatch in corporate AI investment. More than half of enterprise GenAI budgets are currently spent on sales and marketing applications, even though the highest return on investment comes from back-office automation — areas such as document processing, compliance, and finance operations.

According to the research, companies that used AI to replace business process outsourcing (BPO), cut agency costs, or streamline internal workflows saw the strongest returns, while those deploying AI for content generation or chatbots struggled to show value.

“Executives want fast wins in visible areas like sales,” Challapally noted. “But the real value is hiding in the unglamorous operational work where AI can quietly save millions.”

Among the 5% of AI pilots that succeeded, MIT found three common factors:
• Clear, narrow use cases tied to a measurable outcome.
• Deep collaboration between AI teams and end-users.
• A focus on data integration before deployment, not after.

These pilots often achieved revenue acceleration of 15-25%, validating the technology’s potential when applied with precision.

The report urges enterprises to “move from experimentation to operationalisation” — integrating generative AI into existing systems, rather than treating it as a separate innovation silo.

The findings come as companies across industries race to embed AI into workflows following the explosive adoption of tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini. Analysts estimate that corporate spending on generative AI exceeded $40 billion globally in 2024, but measurable returns remain elusive.

“We’re seeing an extraordinary gap between expectation and execution,” Challapally said. “The winners will be those who stop chasing buzzwords and start solving specific problems — one workflow at a time.”

Read more:
MIT report: 95% of corporate generative AI pilots are failing

PPE Medpro has been ordered to repay nearly £122 million to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after losing its High Court case over the supply of sterile gowns during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The company’s principal backer, Doug Barrowman, has responded with a blistering statement accusing the government of political scapegoating and the court of delivering a “travesty of justice”.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Cockerill found that the gowns supplied by PPE Medpro failed to meet the requirement for a “validated sterilisation process” under the contract, and lacked the necessary Notified Body numbers mandated by EU legislation.

The judge ordered the firm to pay £121,999,219 by 4pm on 15 October 2025.

Barrowman: “This case was too big for the government to lose”

Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for Barrowman said: “Today, a travesty of justice took place following the judgment of Lady Justice Cockerill. She gave the DHSC an Establishment win despite the mountain of evidence in court against such a judgment. This was a whitewash of the facts… This case was simply too big for the government to lose”.

Barrowman argues that the judgment hinged on a technicality that was not part of the government’s original claim. He says the DHSC pivoted on the first day of trial to argue that PPE Medpro could not prove the exact radiation dosage used during sterilisation — despite having certificates from seven accredited Chinese sterilisation plants confirming the gowns met EN ISO 11137 standards.

“The DHSC never pleaded this argument prior to the start of the case,” Barrowman said. “It makes a mockery of the justice system and should not have been allowed.”

He revealed that since the ruling, PPE Medpro had sent investigators to China and obtained the documents now required — which he claims confirm that all plants fully complied with international sterilisation protocols and are routinely audited by Western certification bodies.

While the final judgment ordered Medpro to repay the full contract sum, Barrowman points out that PPE Medpro succeeded on several of the government’s original arguments:
• The burden of proof was not met by DHSC on claims the gowns were unsterile — microbial contamination evidence was weak, based on just 60 gowns out of 25 million, and possibly caused by improper container storage.
• The right to reject the gowns was lost when DHSC took too long to act.
• Claims over single-bagged gowns, unjust enrichment, and storage costs were dropped or dismissed at trial.
• The judgment made no mention of PPE Medpro’s expert evidence showing the gowns could have been resold in the international market as non-sterile gowns for £85 million at the end of 2020.

Barrowman described the omission of this resale valuation — and the DHSC’s failure to mitigate losses — as “surprising and deliberate”.

Offers to settle ignored

As Business Matters previously reported, PPE Medpro offered to remake all 25 million gowns or pay £23 million in cash on a no-fault basis. These offers were made repeatedly from 2022 right up to — and even during — the trial, but were rejected by the DHSC .

Barrowman claims the government never intended to settle, and instead used the trial as a political smokescreen to shift attention away from £10 billion in written-off pandemic PPE.

The case has been mired in political controversy, largely due to PPE Medpro’s connections to Baroness Mone. Just days before the ruling, Michelle Mone accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of fuelling a “government vendetta” against her after a reported remark at the Labour Party Conference.

Barrowman added: “The government did not want to settle and chose to fight a show trial at £5 million expense to the taxpayer,” he said. “They made PPE Medpro and, by implication, my wife, Baroness Michelle Mone, the scapegoats.”

Justice Cockerill’s ruling concludes a legal battle that has spanned nearly five years and cost PPE Medpro £4.4 million in legal fees. Whether the company can or will pay the £122 million remains unclear.

Barrowman and Mone have hinted that further legal action may follow, especially given the last-minute change in the DHSC’s legal strategy.

Meanwhile, the government faces renewed scrutiny for its broader handling of pandemic-era procurement — and whether political pressure played a role in selecting which suppliers were pursued through the courts.

As one of the most politically charged commercial cases of the post-Covid era, this may not be the final chapter.

Read more:
PPE Medpro ordered to repay £122m in DHSC gown dispute, with Barrowman slamming ruling as a ‘travesty of justice’

Baroness Michelle Mone has accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of fuelling a “government vendetta” against her and her husband Doug Barrowman, following remarks reportedly made by Reeves at a Labour Party Conference fringe event this week.

In a strongly worded statement posted on LinkedIn, Mone said Reeves “openly confirmed” that the government is pursuing a personal and political campaign against her, after responding “Too right we do” when asked about allegations of bias towards Mone and PPE Medpro — the company at the centre of the £122 million sterile gowns dispute with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

“Rachel, thank you for confirming what Doug and I have long believed,” wrote Mone. “Your comment will now be passed to our legal team, who will find it highly useful in establishing the Government’s bias and position against us.”

Political tension spills into legal battle

The public fallout adds further fuel to the already explosive PPE Medpro case, which concluded its High Court hearings in July. The case has seen the government pursue PPE Medpro for alleged breach of contract during the Covid pandemic — claims the company vigorously denies.

As Business Matters exclusively revealed yesterday, the DHSC rejected two substantial no-fault settlement offers from PPE Medpro, including a complete remake of 25 million gowns or a £23 million cash settlement.

Now, Mone argues that Reeves’ reported comment provides clear evidence of political interference in what should be a neutral legal process.

“Such reckless words have consequences,” she added. “Do you really understand the implications of your actions and the hatred they incite? Shame on you.”

Mone also claims that following Reeves’ remarks, her social media has been flooded with threats and abuse, and is calling on both the Prime Minister to issue a formal apology, and Reeves herself to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Taking direct aim at Reeves, Mone accused the Chancellor of presiding over “economic failure,” and claimed that Labour’s leadership was misleading the public on its tax plans.

“Your first 15 months in office have been a disgrace… Perhaps keep the IMF’s number on speed dial,” she wrote.

While the Labour Party has not issued a formal response to the accusations, the remarks attributed to Reeves are likely to add political complexity to a legal case that already sits at the intersection of procurement, accountability and high-profile reputations.

Legal observers say that if Reeves did make the remark as reported, it could complicate the government’s narrative that the DHSC’s civil claim against PPE Medpro is purely contractual and not politically motivated.

Mone and Barrowman’s legal team have long argued that the case is an attempt to scapegoat PPE Medpro for the DHSC’s wider PPE procurement failures, and shield senior government officials — past and present — from deeper scrutiny.

Justice Cockerill is expected to hand down her ruling on the DHSC’s claim in the next few weeks. The question now is whether this latest political intervention will cast a shadow over the judgment — or open the door to a fresh round of legal challenges from Mone and her legal team.

Read more:
Mone accuses Rachel Reeves of fuelling ‘government vendetta’ after Labour fringe remark

HSBC has warned business banking customers that personal identification documents submitted during account applications may have been compromised following unauthorised access to a third-party platform.

In an email sent to customers earlier this month, the bank confirmed that identity documents, images and contact details provided when opening a business account were exposed in the breach. HSBC stressed that its own systems remained unaffected, with passwords, PIN codes and biometric security such as Voice ID uncompromised.

The breach raises concerns about potential identity theft and fraud. HSBC said there was no evidence of fraudulent activity arising from the incident so far, but urged customers to monitor their accounts, credit reports and bank statements closely for suspicious activity.

To mitigate risks, the bank is offering affected customers a complimentary 12-month subscription to Experian’s Identity Plus service, providing monitoring of personal information and alerts for possible misuse. A dedicated helpline managed by Experian has also been set up to handle queries until 8 October 2025.

One affected customer, who declined to be named, told Business Matters: “I provided passport details in good faith to HSBC as it was necessary for identification before opening up a business account. Now I’m worried that money will be taken out of the company account by crooks, with the third-party platform having been hacked. Worse, that my passport details could be sold on the dark web.

I had reservations about providing ID proof in the first place because cyber attacks are now so prevalent but you put your trust in the banks to get online security right, including tech partners. Frankly, nowhere is safe in the online world these days and businessmen and women need to be constantly on alert for data breaches involving their details. In the wrong hands, lives and livelihoods are devastated and there is little redress.”

This latest breach comes after recent high-profile cases, including Harrods’ data breach affecting loyalty scheme members, which also highlighted the vulnerability of customer information in the hands of external providers.

Cybersecurity experts warn that the growing reliance on third-party platforms for data storage and verification continues to expose companies and their clients to heightened risks. The incident underscores the need for firms, particularly financial institutions, to strengthen due diligence on their technology partners.

HSBC said it had worked with external specialists to investigate the incident and had taken steps to prevent further unauthorised access. The bank reiterated that it would never request sensitive information such as PIN codes or passwords by phone or email and urged customers to remain cautious of potential phishing attempts in the wake of the breach.

Speaking about the breach, a HSBC spokesperson said: “We recently became aware of unauthorised access to a third-party platform which held personal identity information and documents provided by applicants for a new HSBC UK business banking account. We have implemented measures to prevent further unauthorised access and have contacted those potentially affected.

“HSBC’s systems are separate and have not been impacted. Customers can continue to use their account as normal.

“We take the safety of customers’ and applicants’ information very seriously and use a range of measures to keep this information safe.

“We are sorry for any concern and inconvenience this may cause.”

Read more:
HSBC warns UK business banking customers of third-party data breach

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) rejected two major settlement offers from PPE Medpro, including a complete remake of 25 million sterile gowns or a £23 million payment, Business Matters can exclusively reveal.

The offers, both made on a no-fault basis, were tabled first in December 2022, then again shortly before the trial began in June 2025 — and even reiterated mid-trial, as the dispute over the £122 million PPE contract played out in the High Court.

Despite the potential to resolve the case without admitting liability, the DHSC declined both options — a decision which, according to PPE Medpro, has cost taxpayers a further £5 million in legal fees and prolongs what the company describes as a political attempt to “scapegoat” its directors and backers .

“We were prepared to remake the full order or pay £23 million. These substantial offers were rejected,” a PPE Medpro spokesperson told Business Matters. “This was never about gowns — it’s about shielding failures in the DHSC and deflecting scrutiny from senior politicians” .

According to documents now seen by Business Matters, PPE Medpro made the following offers to the DHSC:

• June 2025: Offered to remake the full 25 million gown order via its Chinese manufacturer, at no cost to the government and without admitting fault .
• 23 June 2025: Offered a cash settlement of £23 million, with funds made available through its principal backer, in what was described as a “final opportunity” to settle before judgment .

The government rejected both offers without counter-proposal. This is in stark contrast to how it resolved a separate £135 million dispute with Primerdesign Ltd, which was settled quietly on a no-fault basis for just £5 million, weeks before its scheduled trial .

A £122 million claim and £5 million cost to taxpayers

The DHSC’s claim alleges that the gowns supplied by PPE Medpro during the pandemic were not sterile. Medpro has repeatedly denied any breach of contract, arguing instead that any gown contamination occurred after delivery while the gowns were under DHSC’s control.

The company has cited a series of failures in gown handling, storage and inspection — including containers stored in open fields for over a year, and gown testing carried out more than 500 days after delivery .

Medpro argues that the government’s rejection of its offers — particularly in light of its admitted stockpile of 10 years’ worth of surgical gowns, most with only two-year shelf lives — is evidence that the litigation is not financially or operationally motivated, but political.

Barrowman and Mone targeted?

The case has drawn intense media scrutiny due to PPE Medpro’s links to businessman Doug Barrowman and his wife, Baroness Michelle Mone, who has been the subject of both political and public criticism since the contract became public knowledge.

Medpro now claims the firm has been “singled out” by government for political reasons — noting that the DHSC knew the company had limited funds, and yet continued to pursue full recovery through a costly trial.

“This litigation is a clear case of buyer’s remorse, long after the event,” the company said in its final settlement letter. “It has been about scapegoating PPE Medpro and its consortium backer… to protect other very significant Conservative politicians from coming under scrutiny” .

What happens next?

The trial concluded in late July, and Mrs Justice Cockerill is expected to deliver her judgment before October. If the court rules in PPE Medpro’s favour, it will raise serious questions over the DHSC’s decision to reject an offer worth nearly a fifth of the full claim value, and why a similar dispute was quietly settled elsewhere.

As the dust settles, the government could face renewed pressure — not only over its pandemic-era procurement practices, but also over how it chooses which companies to pursue, and at what cost to the public purse.

“We tried, repeatedly, to settle this matter,” a PPE Medpro spokesperson said. “It’s now up to the court — but the consequences of this case go far beyond our company.”

Read more:
Exclusive: DHSC rejected £23m offer and full gown remake from Mone linked PPE Medpro

Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her keynote address at the Labour Party conference to draw sharp battle lines with Nigel Farage and Reform UK, declaring them the “single greatest threat” to Britain’s way of life and living standards.

In a speech heavy on rhetoric but light on new policies, Reeves sought to contrast Labour’s agenda of economic stability and long-term planning with what she characterised as Reform’s “easy answers”. She accused the party of being “in bed with Vladimir Putin” on foreign policy, citing its stance on Ukraine, and warned that Farage had “cheered on” Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget.

“Every time on every issue, it is Labour that is standing up for working people and standing up for our national interest,” Reeves told delegates in Liverpool. “This is a fight that we must win, and it is a fight that we will win.”

Reeves also reignited debate over the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). She has suggested that the Treasury should commission just one official forecast a year. But Paul Johnson, the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described scrapping the traditional second forecast as “very odd”, noting that Britain has had biannual assessments for half a century and that most countries follow a similar model.

Johnson told Times Radio: “We’ve had two forecasts a year for I think 50 years, way predating the OBR, and the large majority of other countries have two forecasts … I certainly think they should do two forecasts a year.”

The Chancellor insisted that Labour was determined to rebuild Britain’s economic foundations after what she described as years of Tory mismanagement. She repeated her central message — “don’t let anyone tell you there is not a difference between a Labour government and a Conservative government” — more than a dozen times, prompting a standing ovation.

Reeves promised investment in manufacturing, transport and schools, and reiterated her government’s “youth guarantee”, which will give any young person unemployed for more than 18 months a guaranteed work placement. “We’ve done it before, and we will do it again,” she said, pledging the “abolition of long-term youth unemployment”.

She also cautioned against “peddling” ideas that Britain could “live beyond its means”, in a swipe at Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and others who have pushed for more radical borrowing. Reeves stressed the need for “hard decisions” to protect prosperity, noting that one in every ten pounds of government spending currently goes on debt repayments.

While she struck a tone of fiscal discipline, Reeves avoided any mention of tax rises that are widely expected to be announced in November’s Budget to plug a £30bn hole in the public finances. The Chancellor instead warned of the consequences of Tory debt and said Labour’s second year in office would focus on “building a renewed economy”.

But observers noted the lack of giveaways. “The state of government finances means she has no money for political announcements,” wrote Oliver Wright, adding that Reeves’ speech was inevitably high on positioning and low on policy.

Business groups gave a cautious welcome. Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the CBI, said firms would appreciate Reeves’ focus on fiscal stability, youth employment and investment. But she warned that the “real test” would be whether government policy cut costs and complexity for businesses.

“Now is the time to shift decisively from strategy to full-throttle delivery,” she said. “That means addressing the barriers holding firms back – like ensuring the Employment Rights Bill doesn’t suppress hiring decisions.”

Read more:
Reeves targets Farage as Labour pitches stability against ‘easy answers’

Mounting speculation that Chancellor Rachel Reeves may target retirement savings in her November Budget is already sending ripples through financial markets and prompting British expatriates across Europe to explore moving their pensions out of the UK.

Wealth manager deVere Group has reported a sharp rise in enquiries from expats in Portugal, Spain, France and the Netherlands, with savers increasingly considering cross-border pension structures to shield themselves from potential reforms.

James Green, investment director at deVere, said the concern was palpable: “Even the possibility of new or extended taxes on pensions is enough to set serious savers in motion. The conversation has shifted from curiosity to preparation.”

The backdrop is stark. Reeves faces a £20 billion hole in the public finances, with government borrowing costs now at their highest in over a decade. Ten-year gilt yields are hovering around 4.75 per cent, adding billions to the Treasury’s annual debt-servicing bill.

With income tax hikes politically explosive after Labour’s pre-election promises, pensions are seen as an obvious — and tempting — target. Analysts note that past governments have repeatedly turned to retirement savings when fiscal pressure mounts.
In 1997, Gordon Brown famously scrapped the dividend tax credit on pension funds, a move critics dubbed a “£5 billion-a-year raid”. Then in 2010, George Osborne reduced annual pension contribution allowances from £255,000 to £50,000 and cut lifetime allowances.

There has also been successive freezes to allowances since 2021 have quietly dragged more middle-class savers into higher tax brackets — a “stealth raid” by another name.

Against that history, the mere suggestion that Reeves could tighten rules on lump-sum withdrawals, extend freezes or alter inheritance tax treatment of pensions is enough to galvanise expats into action.

One destination attracting attention is Malta, whose EU-recognised pension framework offers flexibility and potential tax advantages. Savers can withdraw up to 30 per cent of their pot tax-efficiently without a lifetime cap, schedule phased income on their own terms, and in many cases keep pension assets outside UK inheritance tax for non-residents.

Portugal’s still-favourable regime, alongside options in Spain and France, also strengthens the appeal for those retiring abroad. “People recognise that Malta’s framework provides protection and efficiency that could prove vital if the UK moves the goalposts again,” Green said.

This trend is not limited to the ultra-wealthy. deVere, which manages retirement planning for 80,000 expatriate clients, is seeing middle-class savers explore transfers too. “Frozen allowances and stealth tax rises have already drawn millions into higher brackets. Even a modest extension of those freezes would hurt many middle-class pensioners,” Green warned.

For Reeves, the political challenge is acute. Any perception of a “pension raid” risks damaging Labour’s relationship with both older voters and professionals in their 40s and 50s saving aggressively for retirement.

Market confidence is also at stake. Green argues that heavy taxation on pensions discourages long-term saving and undermines capital markets: “It weakens the very economy the government aims to strengthen. Savers will naturally look to jurisdictions where the rules are clearer and more stable.”

Already, wealth managers are reporting conversations shifting from “what if” to “what next”. The fact that people are taking steps before any policy has even been announced shows how fragile trust has become in the stability of UK pension rules.

Reeves must balance fiscal necessity with political optics. Pensions offer a substantial revenue stream, but the Labour leadership is wary of reviving memories of past “raids”. Industry voices are urging restraint:
• Think tanks such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies argue that while pension tax relief is costly — worth £50bn a year — it underpins retirement saving and should not be undermined by short-term fixes.
• Business groups warn that further uncertainty could accelerate capital flight and deter inward investment, compounding the UK’s growth problem.
• Expats and financial advisers stress that any move would disproportionately affect internationally mobile professionals who already feel targeted by rising surcharges on property and restrictions on non-dom status.

With the Budget set for November 26, advisers are cautioning against waiting until Reeves makes her move. Cross-border pension transfers require time to process, and delaying until after any announcement could shut off options.

“Planning ahead is critical,” Green said. “Waiting until after the Budget could mean missing the opportunity to make compliant, efficient transfers before new measures take effect.”

For now, no changes have been confirmed. But with fiscal pressures mounting, history suggesting pensions are a perennial target, and expats already voting with their feet, the fear of a raid may prove almost as damaging as the policy itself.

Read more:
Reeves’ rumoured pension raid spurs expats to shift billions abroad

Britain is losing tens of thousands of female entrepreneurs, new government figures reveal, in a trend that threatens both economic growth and diversity.

Despite years of initiatives to encourage women into business ownership, the latest survey shows that female-led small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have fallen to just 14% of the total — down from 19% in 2021.

That equates to tens of thousands fewer women at the helm of companies in the UK. The decline comes against a backdrop of rising taxes, mounting wage costs, and restricted access to finance, which experts say disproportionately affect women trying to break through as business leaders.

The Department for Business and Trade’s annual survey of 8,400 SMEs found that only 14% are now led by women, slipping from 15% in 2023 and 19% just three years ago.

The scale of this decline is significant: based on the DBT’s estimate of 1.42 million small and medium-sized employers, tens of thousands of female-led firms have vanished from the business landscape since 2021.

By contrast, the percentage of entirely male-led firms remains high at 43%, while gender-balanced leadership teams have inched up only marginally from 25% to 26%.

Why Female Entrepreneurs Are Falling Behind

Taxation and Rising Costs

The same survey found that taxation has overtaken energy costs and market competition as the number one barrier to SME growth. Sixty-one percent of firms said taxes were the biggest obstacle, up 16 percentage points from last year. For firms employing between 10 and 49 staff, that figure rose to 75%.

Hospitality and retail — sectors with a higher concentration of female-led businesses — reported even sharper increases in concern. In hospitality, a staggering 89% of businesses said tax pressures were forcing them to rethink their growth plans.

On top of taxation, the rising National Living Wage is hitting sectors that rely on large numbers of part-time and lower-paid staff, many of which are female-led. Thirty-one percent of SMEs cited wage pressures as a barrier, up seven points on 2022.

Access to Capital and Investor Bias

Debbie Wosskow, co-chair of the Invest in Women Taskforce, argues that the funding ecosystem is not set up to support women founders.

“Some of the sectors most likely to have women-led businesses — health, education, food — don’t receive the same investor spotlight or ‘buzz’ as tech or fintech,” she said. “This isn’t just about diversity; female-led businesses deliver higher returns. Investors are leaving money on the table.”

Research consistently shows that women receive a fraction of venture capital funding compared with men. A 2023 British Business Bank study revealed that less than 2% of VC investment went to all-female founding teams.

This funding gap forces many female entrepreneurs to rely on personal savings, family backing, or debt — options that are limited, particularly in an era of high interest rates.

The Confidence and Perception Gap

Surveys also highlight a confidence gap among female founders. Many report a lack of visible role models, persistent stereotypes about women in leadership, and structural barriers in networking and mentorship.

The perception that entrepreneurship is risky — especially amid economic turbulence — can also discourage women, who are more likely to bear primary family and caregiving responsibilities, from starting or scaling businesses.

Why This Matters for the Economy

The fall in female-led firms is not just an issue of equality; it is an economic problem. The government-backed Invest in Women Taskforce has estimated that if women started and grew businesses at the same rate as men, the UK economy could gain an additional £250 billion.

Yet rather than narrowing the gap, the latest figures suggest Britain is moving backwards. With female-led SMEs shrinking as a proportion of the business base, opportunities for innovation, job creation, and regional regeneration are being lost.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has repeatedly stressed her ambition to make Britain “the best place in the world to be a female entrepreneur”. But for many founders, rising taxes and squeezed consumer demand are delivering the opposite reality.

Britain’s decline in women-led firms contrasts sharply with trends in other advanced economies. In the US, women-owned businesses are one of the fastest-growing demographics, with numbers rising by more than 20% over the past decade.

France has introduced dedicated financing schemes for female entrepreneurs, while Scandinavian countries — with higher female employment rates overall — report stronger growth in women-led SMEs.

Experts point to structural support, including affordable childcare, investment incentives, and targeted mentoring schemes, as factors behind these successes.

What Needs to Change

Targeted Investment Reform

The biggest lever is capital. Wosskow and others argue for new funding vehicles designed specifically to back women-led businesses. These could include government-backed venture funds, tax incentives for investors who support female founders, and mandatory reporting of diversity data by VC firms.

Tax and Wage Policy Relief

While Reeves has little room for manoeuvre in her November Budget, targeted tax relief for SMEs — particularly in sectors with high female representation — could help stem the decline. Business groups also want a re-examination of wage thresholds for smaller employers.

Infrastructure and Support

Affordable childcare and flexible working remain critical enablers for women balancing entrepreneurship with family responsibilities. Expanding state-backed childcare provision would likely do more for female entrepreneurship than many business-specific policies.

A Cultural Shift

As Wosskow noted, female-led businesses should not be pigeonholed as a diversity initiative. They are commercial opportunities with high growth potential. Shifting the narrative from equality to economic benefit may be key in winning investor support.

The Road Ahead

The decline in women-led SMEs underscores the gap between government rhetoric and business reality. Despite initiatives like the Invest in Women Taskforce, the structural barriers of taxation, capital access, and cultural bias remain firmly in place.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, has urged the government to set a bold target: ensuring half of self-employed individuals are women by 2035. That would mark a radical step-change from today’s figures.

But unless Reeves uses her November Budget to address the financial pressures squeezing SMEs — from tax hikes to wage costs — female entrepreneurs may continue to vanish from the business landscape, dragging Britain’s growth prospects down with them.

Read more:
Tax burden and capital barriers drive decline in Britain’s female entrepreneurs

A 31-year-old cryptocurrency entrepreneur has stunned the tech world by raising more than £750m ($1.1bn) to build Britain’s biggest artificial intelligence data centre — despite his company never having completed one before.

Josh Payne’s start-up Nscale, founded just 18 months ago, has secured heavyweight backing from Nvidia, Nokia and Norwegian investment giant Aker. The deal catapults the business into the ranks of Britain’s most valuable AI players, with an implied valuation of $3bn.

The Essex-based project, being developed with Microsoft, has been billed as the UK’s largest AI supercomputer. Nscale is also planning a chain of futuristic “Stargate” AI hubs with OpenAI, starting in Newcastle.

Nscale traces its roots back to Payne’s earlier venture, Arkon Energy, a Bitcoin mining outfit. The company has converted some of its crypto mining facilities in Norway into data centres and claims its leadership team has experience building more than 50 such sites.

The group now intends to spend billions on Nvidia’s cutting-edge AI chips to fuel a global network of facilities. Nvidia boss Jensen Huang has personally endorsed Payne, telling him: “I’ll go on record as to say I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to him,” after gifting him a bottle of Johnnie Walker whisky. Huang predicted Nscale could go from “zero to $50bn” in revenues.

Payne said the investment would “rapidly accelerate the build-out of secure, compliant and energy-efficient AI infrastructure”, adding: “Europe needs a hyperscaler, and Nscale is rising to the challenge.”

Technology minister Kanishka Narayan hailed the deal as proof Britain can compete as a global AI hub: “By attracting global expertise and investment, it is building the essential infrastructure for the UK to compete internationally, drive growth, and create jobs.”

Other backers include Fidelity, Blue Owl, Sandton Capital, G Squared, Point72, T.Capital and Dell.

Read more:
Crypto entrepreneur raises £750m for Britain’s biggest AI data centre

Jeremy Hunt has accused Rachel Reeves of dragging Britain into “stagnation and decline” by raising taxes, warning that the Chancellor’s policies risk smothering the entrepreneurial drive the country needs.

Writing for Conservative Home, the former Chancellor said it was now “all but nailed on” that Reeves will raise taxes by £30bn in November’s Budget — pushing the overall increase in Britain’s tax burden to £70bn in just 13 months. He argued that while ministers focus on who the losers will be — pensioners, homeowners, savers — the greater danger lies in the long-term drag on economic growth.

Hunt pointed to OECD data showing that between 2010 and 2019, countries with lower public spending such as the US, South Korea and Australia grew on average 2% faster than high-spending nations such as Finland and Denmark. He argued that high taxation discourages investment, crowds out private capital and ultimately stifles “animal spirits” — the entrepreneurial energy John Maynard Keynes once said was essential for capitalism.

“Simply put, people work harder in countries with lower taxes,” Hunt said, citing data showing workers in lower-tax OECD economies put in 260 more hours a year than those in high-tax countries. He warned that Britain’s welfare system undermines incentives to work, with some claimants projected to earn more from benefits than full-time employees on the national living wage.

The Tory MP drew comparisons with the US, where Mississippi has pursued a decade of phased tax cuts. He claimed the policy had transformed the state into the fastest-growing in America, lifting wages and investment while reducing poverty. “The poorest state in America now has a higher output per head than we do,” he wrote.

Hunt, who raised taxes himself as Chancellor to steady markets after the Liz Truss crisis, said those hikes were only meant as a temporary necessity. He contrasted his approach — cutting national insurance and introducing “full expensing” for business investment — with Reeves’s decision to permanently increase borrowing and taxation.

“Countries with lower taxes tend to grow faster,” Hunt concluded. “I know which I’d prefer for the UK.”

Read more:
Jeremy Hunt warns Reeves: soaring taxes will kill UK’s ‘animal spirits’

Vodafone was warned by its franchisees four years ago that commission cuts were having a “massive impact” on their mental health, long before dozens of small business owners launched a £120 million High Court case against the company.

In a 2020 survey conducted weeks after Vodafone reduced fees paid to franchisees for selling its products and services, participants reported suffering stress, anxiety and depression. The cut followed months of uncertainty caused by the Covid pandemic.

Franchisees scored the company just 1.75 out of 5 on whether they trusted Vodafone’s word, and 1.67 out of 5 on whether they felt valued as business partners. Many said the changes had left them fearful of losing their livelihoods, homes and savings.

One respondent wrote: “My mental health has become very poor as I am suffering from anxiety and spells of depression.” Another added: “I am ill from stress and it has affected my home life.”

In December last year, 62 franchisees – representing nearly 40% of Vodafone’s total franchise network – launched a High Court claim alleging that the company “unjustly enriched” itself by slashing commissions. The claim seeks up to £120m in damages.

Some franchisees have since said the pressure they faced triggered suicidal thoughts. MPs have compared aspects of the dispute to the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, highlighting the scale of alleged mistreatment of small business owners.

Vodafone said it regretted any franchisee having a difficult experience. A spokesperson added: “At Vodafone UK we encourage anyone to raise issues in the knowledge they will be taken seriously, and we always seek to resolve any issues raised. We continue to run a successful franchise operation, and many of our existing franchisees have expanded their business with us by taking on additional stores.”

The telecoms company has launched its fourth investigation into historical conduct within its franchising division. It has also said it “strongly refutes” the allegations in the High Court claim, describing the case as a commercial dispute it intends to defend.

Read more:
Vodafone franchisees raised mental health concerns years before £120m legal claim

President Donald Trump has suggested that US television networks critical of his administration should have their broadcast licences revoked.

The comments came as he praised ABC for suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose monologue about the death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk sparked backlash.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a state visit to the UK, Trump claimed that about 97% of media coverage of him is negative. He said that network owners currently hold broadcast licences and questioned whether those licences should be “taken away.”

The trigger for these remarks was Kimmel’s recent show monologue, in which he accused Trump supporters of politicising Kirk’s death and criticised the broader political reaction. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely” following pressure from both the public and government regulators.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly condemned Kimmel’s remarks as “offensive and insensitive,” hinting at possible regulatory consequences. Local station group Nexstar announced it would stop airing the show, citing similar concerns.

Legal experts and critics point out that revoking licences over editorial content would likely violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, warned that threatening to remove licences in response to criticism is an attack on free speech. She said the FCC lacks authority to penalise broadcasters simply for content it dislikes.

The FCC, under current law, licenses individual local stations rather than national networks like ABC, CNN, NBC or Fox, complicating the legal basis for revoking a network licence as Trump suggested.

Former President Barack Obama and various media industry and free-speech advocates have accused the Trump administration of pushing censorship and using regulatory agencies to punish critics. Some see this episode as part of a broader trend of political pressure on the Fourth Estate.

For broadcasters, this moment underscores concerns about editorial independence, regulatory overreach, and the vulnerability of media institutions in a polarised political climate.

Read more:
Trump suggests networks critical of him could lose licences amid Kimmel fallout

The former Director General of the Institute of Directors has been disqualified as a company director for 11 years after abusing the government’s Covid Bounce Back Loan scheme.

Anna Daroy, 61, of Abbots Morton, Worcestershire, secured two maximum-value £50,000 loans for her management consultancy, Globepoint Associates Ltd, in May 2020 — despite businesses only being entitled to one.

The loans, totalling £100,000, were obtained within just five days during the pandemic. Investigators found Daroy failed to repay one of the loans even after realising the company had received double the amount allowed.

Globepoint Associates went into liquidation in March 2023, with both loans outstanding.

Daroy, who has enjoyed a 35-year career advising boards and executive teams in the public and private sectors, held senior roles at the Institute of Directors between 2018 and 2019, first as interim Chief Operating Officer and later as interim Director General.

She was also shortlisted for the Women’s Business Club “Businesswoman of the Year” award in 2024 and has served in leadership roles at The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

Despite her career credentials, the Insolvency Service said she had “abused” the emergency loan programme.

Insolvency Service: “She should have known better”

Kevin Read, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said Daroy’s conduct fell far short of the standards expected of a senior business leader: “Anna Daroy abused the Bounce Back Loan Scheme by obtaining two loans when businesses were entitled to just one. When she realised her company had received double the amount, she should have repaid one of them.

Bounce Back Loans were designed to provide vital support to struggling businesses during the pandemic, not to be exploited by those who did not follow the rules.

As someone with such extensive senior business leadership experience, Daroy should have known better.”

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade accepted a disqualification undertaking from Daroy earlier this month. Her ban, which took effect on 10 September 2025, prevents her from being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company until September 2036 without court permission.

The Insolvency Service stressed that director disqualifications are designed to protect the public from individuals who have shown themselves unfit to manage companies.

The Bounce Back Loan Scheme was launched in 2020 to provide small and medium-sized businesses with quick access to emergency funds of up to £50,000 to help them survive the pandemic. It has since been dogged by criticism over widespread misuse and abuse, with billions written off by the government as unrecoverable.

Daroy’s case is among the latest high-profile examples of enforcement action against directors found to have broken the terms of the scheme.

Read more:
Former IoD chief Anna Daroy banned for 11 years over Covid Bounce Back Loan abuse

When Gyve Safavi and Mark Rushmore first met on a speedboat in the south of France — with advertising tycoon Sir Martin Sorrell also on board — few could have predicted that the chance encounter would spark a £24 million sustainable toothbrush business.

Their brand, Suri, now boasts celebrity fans including Sir Jony Ive and the Kardashians, and is stocked by Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop in the US. But behind the glamour lies an unlikely product: an eco-friendly electric toothbrush designed to end the problem of sink-side “gunk”.

“No one likes that gunk,” says Safavi, 42, pointing to the wall-mountable magnet that keeps Suri brushes elevated and clean.

Both men started their careers at Procter & Gamble, working on global consumer brands like Oral-B and Gillette. Years later, Safavi was at WPP and Rushmore running his own events business when the idea of a sustainable health and beauty product began to take shape.

By 2020, with the pandemic derailing Safavi’s travel plans and Rushmore free after selling his first company, the pair reconnected in a London park. Safavi shared a detailed business plan for a toothbrush made from corn starch, castor oil and aluminium — designed to be repaired or recycled, stripped of unnecessary gimmicks like Bluetooth, and priced for everyday use.

Rushmore recalls: “That night I opened the file and it was the most detailed, comprehensive research, with so much thinking behind everything. I could see there really was something that, if we combined our skills, we could take further.”

The pair spent lockdown cold-calling 24 manufacturers across Asia. Most laughed at their vision. “Efficiency and innovation for a factory means making what you already make, faster and cheaper — not taking a risk with two guys who’ve never built hardware,” Safavi says.

Eventually, one factory in China agreed, and they raised £800,000 from angel investors and venture capital firm Salica to fund their first 5,000 brushes. Early prototypes were clunky, but with consumer testing, design tweaks and sheer persistence, Suri began to take shape.

By May 2022, their first run sold out in three days. A second run sold out in two weeks. Instagram ads, glowing press reviews and a £200,000 advertising prize from the Earth Ad Fund amplified demand.

Suri now employs 37 people and has raised further funding rounds — £2 million in 2023 and £6 million in 2024, with backers including JamJar, the venture fund founded by the Innocent smoothies team. Safavi and Rushmore remain the largest shareholders.

But success has not been without challenges. A logistics error early on left 3,000 US orders stranded because couriers refused to ship items containing batteries. “For 72 hours, that really felt existential,” Rushmore admits. “If everyone had demanded refunds, we would have been finished.” Instead, they emailed each customer personally, and most stuck by them.

Key selling points include a long battery life, a quiet motor, and the much-marketed wall-mount magnet. Customers are also encouraged to return brushes for repair or recycling. Safavi says their philosophy is simple: “Focus on what people actually use, and cut the rest.”

Their efforts have been recognised by industry figures, not least design icon Sir Jony Ive, who texted his approval of the brush late one night. “We were giggling like two little kids,” Safavi recalls.

Both founders acknowledge the personal toll of start-up life, crediting their wives as “unsung heroes” who shouldered the family load while they worked 18-hour days without salary.

From a chance meeting on a boat to a fast-growing brand disrupting Oral-B and Philips, Suri’s story shows how two friends tackled the overlooked pain points of toothbrush design and turned them into a multimillion-pound business.

Read more:
Suri founders banish toothbrush “gunk” with sustainable design and build £24m brand

Jaguar Land Rover’s battle to recover from a devastating cyberattack could see its factories idle until November, according to suppliers briefed on the situation, raising fears of lasting damage to Britain’s largest carmaker and its supply chain.

The Tata Motors-owned manufacturer has already endured two weeks of halted production since hackers targeted its systems on 1 September, forcing it to shut down global operations and send thousands of workers home. The company admitted last week that “some data” may have been accessed, and has referred the incident to the Information Commissioner’s Office, fuelling concerns that customer details could be at risk.

Suppliers are now reported to have been warned that assembly lines may remain dark for another seven weeks. The Daily Telegraph cited one source who said November had been floated as a “guidance date which they think is sensible”, though stressed that even an earlier restart would take weeks before production returned to a normal run rate of around 1,000 vehicles a day.

Jaguar Land Rover denied issuing any official guidance to suppliers, insisting it was still working “around the clock” to restore its global IT systems in a “controlled and safe manner”.

The disruption has paralysed production at JLR’s Solihull and Halewood plants, its Wolverhampton engine facility and Castle Bromwich site. Thousands of staff remain on standby, with unions urging the government to consider a temporary furlough-style scheme to subsidise pay and protect livelihoods.

The longer the outage continues, the greater the strain on JLR’s fragile supply chain. Andy Palmer, former chief executive of Aston Martin, warned he “would not be at all surprised” if some suppliers face insolvency due to the sudden collapse in cashflow.

The crisis is the latest blow for the carmaker, which has faced headwinds from falling quarterly profits, shifting US tariffs and the challenge of financing its electric transition. Insiders say the immediate priority is restoring manufacturing capability without leaving systems vulnerable to further attack.

JLR has so far declined to clarify whether any customer data has been compromised. Initially it said there was “no evidence” of stolen information, but its subsequent disclosure to regulators suggests investigations are ongoing.

Even with systems back online, it may take weeks for production to stabilise, raising questions about whether the company can meet its output targets for the remainder of the year. For Britain’s wider automotive industry, the episode underscores both the risks of cyberattacks and the vulnerability of supply chains built on just-in-time production.

Read more:
Cyberattack threatens to keep Jaguar Land Rover factories idle until November

The United States and China have reached a breakthrough agreement on TikTok’s future, paving the way for the video-sharing app to transfer into US-controlled ownership after years of political wrangling.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer confirmed on Monday that negotiators had struck a framework deal with Beijing following high-level talks in Madrid. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said the commercial terms had been finalised between “two private parties”, but declined to disclose details, adding only that the Chinese delegation had made “aggressive asks” during the negotiations.

China’s top trade envoy, Li Chenggang, later confirmed that consensus had been reached on the basic framework. While calling the talks “hard won”, he cautioned Washington against continuing what he described as the “suppression” of Chinese companies, warning that cooperation could not be one-sided.

The agreement marks a major turning point in a long-running dispute that has threatened to see TikTok banned outright in the US. The app’s parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance, was ordered in 2024 to divest its US arm under legislation signed by then-president Joe Biden. His successor, Donald Trump, has repeatedly extended the deadline but kept up pressure on both sides to strike a deal.

The US has more than 135 million TikTok users, including the White House, which controversially launched its own account in August despite federal devices still being banned from using the app. The security concerns fuelling the row centre on fears that Chinese national security laws could compel ByteDance to hand over American user data or manipulate content. Former FBI director Christopher Wray has previously warned of the risk of mass surveillance or influence operations.

TikTok briefly went dark in January when the original ban deadline expired, with Apple and Google removing the app from their stores. Trump reversed the shutdown within hours of taking office, issuing an executive order to delay enforcement, before granting multiple further extensions.

The ownership saga stretches back to 2020 when Trump first ordered ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban. Microsoft, Walmart and Oracle were among the US companies that explored deals, but no agreement was finalised. Oracle has remained TikTok’s US cloud provider since 2022.

Final details of the new deal are expected to be settled when Trump meets China’s president Xi Jinping on Friday. Trump hinted at progress during the talks, posting on Truth Social: “A deal was also reached on a ‘certain’ company that young people in our Country very much want to save. They will be very happy!”

Greer confirmed the framework was now awaiting approval from both leaders, insisting there would be no further delays: “We’re not going to be in the business of having repetitive extensions. We have a deal.”

Read more:
US and China reach TikTok deal after years of security disputes

Helena Morrissey is one of the City’s most recognisable figures. Appointed chief executive of Newton Investment Management at 35, she more than doubled assets under management over the following 15 years.

Now chair of Fidelis and of the Eton College endowment, the investor and campaigner joined Wilfred Frost on The Master Investor Podcast. In a conversation that ranged from gilt markets to free speech, she offered a brisk diagnosis of the UK’s competitiveness—and some clear advice for leaders and investors alike.

You made your name as a bond investor before stepping up to run Newton. What’s your snapshot of the G7 bond markets today? Are we flirting with a proper dislocation at the long end?

I worry about complacency. Fiscal room for manoeuvre is thin across the developed world, and the toolkit that helped during the financial crisis—large‑scale QE, in particular—can’t be mobilised in the same way again. Yields have risen sharply but mostly in an orderly fashion; we’ve not had many “cliff‑edge” moments outside Japan. That doesn’t mean we’re safe. If market participants decide they will only finance governments at much higher rates, the spiral can be vicious. We’re vulnerable to that kind of shift in sentiment.

You’ve long argued for central‑bank independence. Is it under threat?

Independence matters precisely because electoral cycles are short and the temptation for political expediency is constant. I was managing gilts in the run‑up to the 1997 election; the day Gordon Brown granted the Bank of England operational independence, the market staged one of its biggest rallies. That said, independence doesn’t mean operating in a vacuum. Treasury, central bank and broader government policy must work in concert—something that’s been lacking at times, notably in the United States.

You’ve spoken about a career‑defining trade in gilts before 1997. What did it teach you?

Contrarian discipline. I began buying long gilts when yields were above 8% because the market had already priced in the worst. For a while I was “wrong”—colleagues told me so daily—but I kept retesting the analysis. We held for years and took profits when yields dipped below 3%. The lesson was to keep your head when all around are losing theirs—apologies to Rudyard Kipling—and to seize those rare moments when the risk‑reward is truly asymmetric.

At 35 you were asked to run Newton, with five young children at home and no formal management training. How did you bridge from portfolio management to leadership?

Some skills translate: bringing people with you, creating space for challenge, focusing the team on the signal not the noise. But fund managers rarely receive any help with management. Firms often assume that if you can run money you can run people. That’s wrong. At Newton we learned to separate responsibilities—keeping investment authority with one person while giving people management to someone more suited to it. The result was better for clients and for culture.

You founded the 30% Club in 2010 to improve gender balance on boards. What problem were you trying to solve—and what did you learn?

After the financial crisis, it was obvious that groupthink was dangerous. Back then, fewer than one in ten UK board seats were held by women. The 30% target wasn’t arbitrary; it reflects “critical mass”—the point at which a minority voice stops feeling token and starts to influence outcomes. Progress since has come mainly through voluntary action, not quotas. But DEI efforts did go awry in some places. Jargon and finger‑pointing made initiatives feel exclusionary. The purpose, always, should be better decisions through cognitive diversity—and equal opportunity for talent.

Free speech is back on the boardroom agenda, often in fraught circumstances. How should leaders navigate it?

By modelling confident civility. You cannot build innovative organisations if people are afraid to ask awkward questions or express an unpopular view. We’ve allowed disagreement to become personalised. Leaders have to restate a simple compact: robust debate is welcome; ad hominem attacks are not. Inclusion should mean everyone with something to contribute has a voice, not that one group is swapped for another.

London’s standing as a financial centre is a perennial concern. Where are we now—and what would you do?

We’re living off stored energy. London still has superb people and a global outlook, but the risk‑reward for challenging the status quo has deteriorated. There’s too much process and too little permission to try, err and improve. Two priorities. In the short term, signal—through both tax and tone—that the UK wants growth‑creators to live and build here. The personal tax burden and everyday frictions push talent abroad. Longer term, make the regulators’ new competitiveness objective real. That doesn’t mean a return to “light touch” but does mean timely, predictable decisions and a culture that enables innovation rather than smothering it.

You were interviewed for the governorship of the Bank of England. Would you do it if asked?

It would be an honour in any era. My broader point, though, is about how we appoint leaders. When selection panels are drawn from the same small circle, you inevitably replicate the status quo. If you want different outcomes, widen the aperture—both in who you consider and how you weigh evidence of leadership.

Technology is powering markets again—and polarising them. Are we in bubble territory?

Some readings feel bubbly: big‑cap moves that imply perfect outcomes, minimal execution risk and no competition. I’m optimistic on innovation and on capitalism’s ability to allocate capital to great ideas. But nothing goes up in a straight line. Geopolitics is fraught; supply chains are being rewired; the cost of capital is no longer near zero. Investors should keep a weather eye on valuation and concentration risk.

You’ve been candid about the obstacles you faced early on—as a woman without City connections, returning from maternity leave, and as the only woman on a 16‑strong team. What changed?

Culture. We no longer think it’s acceptable to entertain clients in ways that exclude colleagues. We talk more openly about money, careers and choices. But progress isn’t guaranteed. We must keep re‑stating the commercial rationale for diversity and the human case for inclusion—and focus on what works inside teams, not on glossy pledges.

What’s your one piece of career advice?

“Leap before you look.” It runs counter to the usual counsel, but too many talented people—particularly women—research the decision to death and never take the chance. At 59 I meet far more peers who regret not trying than those who regret trying and failing. Calculated risk‑taking is part of any fulfilling career.

And for investors?

The Kipling rule: keep your head. Don’t panic into fear or soar into hubris. Build diversified, steady exposure—and then be ready to act decisively in the handful of moments that matter. Those trades don’t come often, but they define careers.

Finally, what do you want Britain’s business community to do differently this year?

Talk less about decline and more about delivery. Hire for potential. Reward intelligent risk. And rebuild the habit of disagreeing well. If we can do that—inside firms and in public life—we’ll make better decisions and grow faster. That, in the end, is the point.

Read more:
‘Leap before you look’: Baroness Morrissey on markets, leadership and free speech

Global Counsel, the political advisory firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson, is cutting ties with the former Labour minister after his dismissal as Britain’s US ambassador following revelations about his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

The firm, which advises some of the world’s largest companies on regulatory and political risk, has begun selling Mandelson’s multimillion-pound stake and expects to complete the process within two months.

Mandelson, a key figure in Tony Blair’s government who resigned twice from ministerial posts before returning as Northern Ireland secretary, co-founded Global Counsel in 2010 with Benjamin Wegg-Prosser. He stepped back from the business after being appointed by prime minister Keir Starmer as ambassador to Washington in December, but Companies House filings show he still holds a 21 per cent stake. He resigned as a director in May last year.

The pressure to cut ties intensified after emails surfaced detailing Mandelson’s close relationship with Epstein, whom he once described as his “best pal”. The correspondence included a suggestion that Epstein’s first conviction should be challenged. A photograph of Mandelson in a white bathrobe with Epstein has further fuelled the controversy.

Global Counsel counts JP Morgan, Barclays, OpenAI, Anglo American, Shein and TikTok among its clients, and its vice-chair is Marks & Spencer chair Archie Norman. The firm declined to comment on the developments.

Mandelson also declined to comment when approached by Bloomberg and the Financial Times.

Read more:
Global Counsel cuts ties with Peter Mandelson amid Epstein revelations

Sir Nick Clegg has never been short of vantage points from which to view power. After five years as Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government, he spent almost seven at the heart of Big Tech as Meta’s president of global affairs.

Now, in a recent conversation with Wilfred Frost on The Master Investor Podcast, he offered a bracing diagnosis of Britain’s malaise, a withering assessment of Silicon Valley’s culture, and a pragmatic take on how artificial intelligence and free speech should be handled in the years ahead.

Clegg’s fondness for Britain is undimmed, but his verdict on our current mood is stark. The UK, he argues, is “remarkably creative” for a “soggy, muddy island”, yet something has curdled. “It’s as if the country has fallen out of love with the future,” he says, lamenting a pervasive habit of talking down people and ideas. By contrast, Americans “celebrate success” in a way many Britons find “a bit frothy” — but which, he insists, creates its own momentum.

That cultural divergence is reinforced by economics and geography. When he was in Downing Street, Clegg notes, the GDP of Europe and the US was broadly comparable. Today, he observes, the American economy is perhaps 1.5 to 1.7 times larger — the product of faster rebounds after the financial crisis and the pandemic, stronger demographics, and the structural advantages of a continent‑sized market. Europe, for all its virtues, is a “trickier” neighbourhood.

Silicon Valley’s self‑pity

From Westminster’s rough and tumble to California’s wealth and influence, Clegg was struck by an unexpected phenomenon: thin skins in high places. “There’s this odd culture of very rich, successful men who feel terribly sorry for themselves,” he says of parts of the Valley. Many celebrate their role as disrupters, yet complain when disruption brings criticism. “Either be a disrupter — and take the flak — or don’t,” he shrugs, adding that the recent vogue for conspicuous “bro” bravado sits uneasily with a streak of “simpering self‑pity”.

His discomfort grows when political and corporate power get too cosy. Clegg worries that tech leaders and Washington are binding themselves together around a single idée fixe: beating China in AI. The rhetoric — and the spending — can sound like a reprise of the Cold War, with an assumption that the United States can outspend its rival to a decisive victory. That, he argues, misunderstands both the technology and the geopolitics. “AI is too versatile and too dispersed to deliver a single knockout blow,” he says. China is “far too powerful and technologically adept” to be treated as a foil in a winner‑takes‑all race. For Clegg, the smarter path is renewed partnerships with allies, not tariffs and chest‑beating.

Zuckerberg’s big swings — and AI realism

What of Meta’s own arms race? Clegg defends Mark Zuckerberg’s taste for outsized bets — Instagram and WhatsApp looked expensive at the time, he reminds us, and proved prescient. Even the metaverse, much mocked, may pay off over the long run as we migrate from hand‑held screens to new interfaces. But he injects a note of sobriety into the AI hype cycle. As each new model arrives, the step change can be less than the marketing suggests. “We were told [a next‑generation model] would be the moment we walked through the looking glass,” he says. “It’s a great improvement — but an incremental one.” If the industry is now “squeezing more out of the same paradigm”, he asks, will the revenue ultimately justify the capital outlay?

Meta can fund experimentation because its ads machine keeps humming, Clegg says, but none of the giants can rely forever on growth by capex alone. For their part, the AI specialists have begun to earn real money from enterprise tools and APIs — welcome, but not yet transformative at the scale of investment being made.

Clegg, for his own part, has moved on cleanly. After leaving Meta, he sold his remaining shares — not as a market call, he insists, but as a way of turning the page between distinct chapters of a career that has taken in Brussels, Westminster and Silicon Valley.

Free speech, the law — and a necessary reset

Asked about claims from figures such as Elon Musk and US senator JD Vance that Britain lacks robust free speech, Clegg’s response points in two directions. First, he bristles at lectures from Washington: “Just butt out,” he says, noting what he sees as a striking double standard in the way the current US administration deals with dissent. Yet he also believes the UK has indeed tilted too far towards criminalising online speech. Citing reports that police make dozens of arrests each day for social‑media offences using pre‑digital statutes, he argues that a free society must tolerate “ghastly, offensive” speech unless it incites imminent harm.

The pendulum, he suggests, has swung widely over the past decade. In the late 2010s, he found corporate America “humourless and earnest” about speech — a climate that hardened further under the pressures of the pandemic. With hindsight, he concedes, platforms over‑corrected as they tried to contain harmful misinformation during a period of acute uncertainty. Today the backlash risks going too far the other way, towards an absolutist, “cardboard‑cut‑out” libertarianism that few truly practise. “Free expression becomes ‘free expression for stuff I like’,” he says of some of Musk’s interventions.

Clegg is unapologetic that platforms enforce community standards which go “well beyond” the letter of the law — a reality often overlooked when politicians and commentators complain they are not going further still. Private companies, he points out, are being asked to act as philosopher‑kings in a space where democratic consensus is elusive.

The coming shift, in his view, is even more consequential. For two decades, social networks could plausibly argue they were conduits for speech created by others. Generative AI complicates that defence. Increasingly, users will engage directly with AI agents or avatars — “the sharp arrowhead” of technology built and deployed by the companies themselves. Liability, therefore, will evolve. Clegg worries about interactions between these systems and children, teens and vulnerable adults, and about the sophistication with which AI will impersonate human conversation.

He also observes a strategic realignment at Meta and its peers. The firm’s original advantage was its “social graph” — the map of relationships among friends and family. Now, like TikTok and YouTube, its services are pipelines for algorithmically recommended entertainment, increasingly including synthetic content. In that world, responsibility and risk look different. It may yield a “cleaner” internet if companies are forced to take more direct accountability — but it will also demand more scepticism from users. “One of the ways we will have to live with the online world is by fostering society‑wide scepticism,” Clegg says, especially among the young, because so much more of what we see will be AI‑generated slop.

On the question of past harms, he defers to the coroner’s findings in the Molly Russell case, while stressing that the company changed policies and systems to make a repeat of her experience less likely. It does not make the internet risk‑free, he says soberly, but it is “very, very different” from the era in which she was online.

What leadership really demands

Clegg closes with a defence of politics as a craft. Leadership, he argues, is harder in government than in business: the trade‑offs are “dizzying”, accountability more relentless. British ministers, however senior, face constituents every week — a discipline that keeps them close to the real world. By contrast, he has seen chief executives take umbrage at a critical adjective on page 13 of the FT. The lesson for both spheres is the same: resilience matters, and so does perspective.

If Britain is to regain its optimism, Clegg implies, it will need to rediscover the confidence to build — and the generosity to celebrate those who try. And if Silicon Valley wants to lead responsibly, it must shed its self‑pity, temper its absolutism on speech, and accept that AI’s future will be collaborative, not imperial.

Read more:
Nick Clegg urges Britain to rediscover optimism and tells Silicon Valley to drop the self pity

Formula 1 drivers Isack Hadjar and Liam Lawson of the Visa Cash App Racing Bulls (VCARB) team have taken an unusual step to thank their hardworking pit crew: asking fans and creatives to design a bold, one-of-a-kind helmet through Airtasker.

The brief, live now on the local services platform, challenges designers to come up with concepts that are “big, bold, and badass.” The winning idea will be transformed into a special-edition helmet to be worn by the pit crew during the Qatar Grand Prix in December 2025.

Hadjar and Lawson said in their post: “The pit crew have been crushing it, and we want to find someone who can design a special edition helmet for them – something wild, unforgettable and creative as a thank you gift they’ll never forget. They’re the heartbeat of everything we do, so we want to create something as legendary as they are.”

Submissions will be reviewed personally by the two drivers, who will select their favourite concept. The chosen Tasker will then bring their idea to life before the helmets are unveiled later this season.

The task is titled “Need Crazy and Creative Ideas for F1 Helmet” and carries a £500 reward for the winning design.

Tim Fung, founder and CEO of Airtasker, said the collaboration showed how the platform can connect talent with unique opportunities: “It’s awesome to see VCARB Formula 1 drivers turning to Airtasker to find creative talent – it proves that anyone can get anything done on our platform. Motorsport is driven by passion and precision, just like the Airtasker community. Whether you’re a designer, a racing fan, or just someone with a wild idea, this is your moment.”

For fans and aspiring designers, the project is being hailed as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to leave a mark on the world of Formula 1. By merging Airtasker’s community-driven ethos with the spectacle of elite motorsport, the initiative celebrates creativity in a way that reaches far beyond the racetrack.

Read more:
VCARB F1 drivers Hadjar and Lawson turn to Airtasker for bold helmet designs

Five years after Britain’s departure from the European Union, the UK’s automotive sector continues to prove its global weight, generating £115 billion in imports and exports last year, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

The industry is on track to deliver more than £110 billion in trade for the third year running, despite grappling with new tariff barriers, customs costs, protectionism and geopolitical tensions. Yet the trade body warns that unresolved Brexit complications, combined with looming rules of origin requirements for electric vehicle (EV) batteries, could put this growth at risk.

While global trading patterns have shifted since 2020, the UK remains deeply intertwined with Europe. Last year, £68.4 billion in automotive trade flowed across the Channel, representing almost 60% of the UK sector’s total trade value. More than half of all UK-built cars are still exported to the EU, while the vast majority of new cars sold in Britain come from European factories.

EVs are increasingly driving this activity. Cross-border trade in electrified vehicles has surged by 424% since 2019, climbing from £4.6 billion pre-pandemic to nearly £24 billion in the 12 months to June 2025. Exports of UK-made hybrids and EVs to the EU now outweigh internal combustion engine (ICE) models by two-to-one, while EU shipments of electric cars to the UK – worth £17.6 billion – have overtaken ICE exports for the first time.

That growth, however, faces a cliff edge. Under the terms of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), tougher rules of origin for EV batteries are due to come into effect from January 2027.

The rules require higher levels of local production of batteries and their components – but the industry says supply chains are not yet ready. Despite recent gigafactory investments in Somerset and Sunderland, and new capacity planned across Europe, battery production is lagging far behind demand.

If the UK and EU fail to adapt the rules, electrified cars, buses and commercial vehicles could face tariffs of between 10% and 22% when traded across the Channel. That would make EVs uncompetitive compared with petrol and diesel vehicles, which continue to enjoy 0% tariffs – precisely when manufacturers are legally required to sell increasing volumes of zero-emission models.

The SMMT has urged the government to work immediately with Brussels to agree a clearer definition for cathode active materials (CAMs), a key battery component whose status under the rules remains uncertain.

It also wants ministers to consult with business and push to re-join the Pan-Euro Mediterranean (PEM) Convention on rules of origin, which would expand flexibility by opening up preferential trade with 14 other countries while easing pressure on the EU–UK system.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, said the UK must strengthen its trading relationships if it is to stay competitive: “Despite the most difficult environment in decades, UK Automotive remains a powerhouse of global trade. But the global trading environment is getting tougher; more competition, more protectionism and more geopolitical tension. Forging closer trading relationships, notably with the EU, and implementing industrial and trade strategies with automotive at their heart will enable us to grow our economy, create thousands of highly skilled jobs, and lead the charge toward net zero.”

Brexit is no longer the only challenge facing the sector, but it has fundamentally altered conditions. Customs requirements, regulatory divergence and uncertainty about future rules have added costs at a time when manufacturers must commit billions to electrification.

With less than 16 months until the 2027 deadline, the industry warns that without urgent political action, the UK risks undermining one of its largest trading industries – and with it, the country’s ability to meet its net-zero ambitions.

Read more:
UK automotive sector drives £115bn trade five years after Brexit

The UK is set to get its first-ever “super-university” as the Universities of Kent and Greenwich prepare to merge from autumn 2026.

The new institution, to be called the London and South East University Group, will be led by a single vice-chancellor and operate across all existing campuses. This includes Medway, where both universities already share facilities such as the library, as well as Kent’s Canterbury base and Greenwich’s campuses on the Thames and in Avery Hill, south-east London.

The move has been welcomed by the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates higher education in England. It said the merger could provide a template for other universities as they grapple with mounting economic pressures. With 40% of English universities now in financial deficit, the OfS suggested more institutions may follow suit to safeguard their futures.

Both universities stressed this was not a takeover, nor prompted by an immediate financial crisis. Instead, they argue the new model will make them more resilient and financially viable in the long run.

Professor Karen Cox Harrington of Greenwich said the two institutions had already worked together for 20 years in Medway and now wanted to go further: “This is about taking the best of both universities and asking what we want to offer our communities.”

Professor Catherine Randsley de Moura of Kent described it as a “trailblazing model”, insisting that both Kent and Greenwich would retain their names, identities, and campuses under the new structure.

For students, the merger will mean no immediate changes: applications will continue as normal to each university, and degrees will still be awarded in the name of Kent or Greenwich. Students enrolling this autumn have been reassured they will complete their chosen course as planned.

However, staff may feel anxious. Both universities have already faced job cuts in recent years: Greenwich confirmed in May it would reduce the equivalent of 15 full-time posts, while Kent has started phasing out some courses after posting a deficit in 2024. While leaders said there were no immediate plans for job losses, they acknowledged that savings would come through reducing senior roles.

The University and College Union (UCU) estimates around 5,000 higher education posts have already been lost across England in the last couple of years as institutions struggle to balance the books.

Mergers, once unusual, are becoming more common. Last year, City St George’s was created from two University of London colleges. But the Kent-Greenwich merger is on a far larger scale, involving two full-spectrum universities across a wide geographical area.

The merger comes at a turbulent time for UK higher education. Tuition fees rose to £9,535 this academic year, but their real value has eroded due to inflation and rising costs. International student numbers have also fallen short by 16% after the government introduced visa restrictions in 2024 limiting family dependents.

Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern called the merger “significant”, saying it reflected the urgent need for innovation: “The slow erosion of university finances must be stopped, and the government needs to step in with long-term solutions.”

Ministers are expected to set out proposals for university funding later this autumn, with reports that a 6% tax on international student income is being considered.

The Department for Education welcomed the merger, calling it an “innovative approach” to maintaining world-class teaching and research while protecting students.

A spokesperson for the OfS said: “In any merger, effective communication with students will be crucial. Current students will continue to study for the courses they signed up for, and should continue to expect excellent teaching and support.”

The creation of the London and South East University Group will be closely watched by other institutions considering whether collaboration—or even consolidation—could be the answer to the growing financial storm facing higher education in England.

Read more:
UK’s first ‘super-university’ to launch in 2026 as Kent and Greenwich merge

Lord Alan Sugar has become the latest high-profile business leader to attack remote working, insisting that young people “just want to sit at home” and need to get their “bums back into the office.”

Speaking to the BBC, the 77-year-old entrepreneur and star of The Apprentice said workplace culture had suffered in the years since hybrid and flexible policies were introduced during the pandemic.

“I’m a great advocate of getting them back to work,” Sugar said. “The only way an apprentice is going to learn is from his colleagues. It’s small things, like interaction with your more mature colleagues, that will tell you how to do this, how to do that. That is lacking in this work-from-home, Zoom culture.”

Sugar, whose property group Amsprop owns a large portfolio of central London office buildings, said he recognised that some roles could be exceptions. “Software writers who get up at three o’clock in the morning with some kind of brainstorm,” he noted, might be better off at home, as well as people with disabilities.

His intervention comes as the debate over the future of work continues to divide corporate Britain. Official data from the Office for National Statistics shows that as of October, 28 per cent of the workforce is hybrid – splitting their time between home and the office. Another 44 per cent commute every day, while 13 per cent are fully remote. Many respondents to the ONS survey said hybrid work improved their rest, exercise and wellbeing.

The Labour government is preparing to legislate to make hybrid working a right for employees unless their employer can demonstrate it is unreasonable. The Employment Rights Bill will extend flexible working options across the economy, although many of Britain’s largest firms are already moving in the opposite direction. Amazon, JP Morgan and others have ordered staff back to offices full-time, arguing that face-to-face contact boosts collaboration and productivity.

Landlords have warned that the hybrid trend has made commercial properties harder to lease and less lucrative. Sugar’s comments underline the concerns of those invested in Britain’s office sector.

His intervention follows that of fellow business veteran Lord Stuart Rose, the former chairman of Marks & Spencer and Asda, who earlier this year declared that working from home is not “proper work” and has set the country back “20 years” in productivity and wellbeing.

For Sugar, the problem is most acute for younger workers and apprentices, who he says risk missing out on informal learning opportunities. “They’ve got to get their bums back into the office,” he repeated, warning that Britain’s work culture is at risk of permanent change if remote working becomes the norm.

Read more:
Lord Sugar: young people need to get their ‘bums back into the office’

Britain is “at the edge of a crisis” and Labour must “change tack” to revive the faltering economy, according to one of the country’s most respected business leaders.

Lord Stuart Rose, the former boss of Marks & Spencer and Asda, said “we should all be worried about the state of Britain” and called for “radical action” to restart growth and create jobs.

His stark warning came just a day after Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos revealed it had stopped investing in Britain altogether in protest at Labour’s tax hikes, diverting billions of pounds of capital to the US instead.

The criticism from two heavyweight figures piles pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who is already facing accusations that her £40bn programme of tax rises has derailed the economy.

Speaking on Times Radio, Lord Rose declared: “I believe we’re genuinely at the edge of a crisis. If we don’t take some radical action and take notice of what’s going on, we’re going to find ourselves in a very difficult spot.”

Rose said Labour had failed to deliver on its promise of making growth the government’s number one mission. “There isn’t a direction of travel,” he argued. “There is no travel. We’re actually standing still in a lay-by while we decide what to do.”

With the next Budget not due until 26 November, he warned Britain was “stuck for three months waiting with real anxiety” over what level of new taxes Reeves might impose.

Turning to Labour’s flagship Employment Rights Bill, Rose suggested the timing was wrong, saying the legislation would make it harder for firms to hire. “We’ve had a very flexible labour force. Why make it harder now?” he asked.

He also took aim at what he called a “sick note culture” after figures from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development showed UK staff are now taking almost two weeks off ill each year — the highest in 15 years. “We need a little bit of grit around the place,” Rose said. “This nation needs everybody to lean in.”

The intervention echoes growing unease in the business community. Ineos Energy boss Brian Gilvary told The Telegraph this week: “We have stopped investing in Britain. Our future investment will not be in the UK.”

Ineos has already closed its century-old Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland, cutting more than 400 jobs, and warned its petrochemicals plant there is also at risk. The company operates key North Sea assets, including the Forties Pipeline System which carries 30 per cent of the UK’s oil to shore.

Gilvary cited Labour’s extension of the windfall tax on oil and gas profits, which raised the effective rate on producers to 78 per cent, as proof that Britain has become “one of the most unstable fiscal regimes in the world”. He contrasted that with the United States, where Ineos has ploughed £2.2bn into new projects and where, he said, policy stability underpins energy security.

Sir Jim, whose wealth is estimated at £17bn and who recently became a co-owner of Manchester United, warned earlier this year that Labour was “squeezing the life out of our abundant energy reserves in the North Sea” and that Britain risked increasingly frequent blackouts.

The backdrop has fuelled speculation that Reeves may need to raise another £20bn–£30bn in the autumn to meet her fiscal rules. Economists have even floated comparisons with the Labour government of 1976, when Britain was forced into a bailout by the International Monetary Fund.

The Chancellor has pledged not to raise income tax, VAT or employee national insurance, leaving business levies as her main lever. But business groups, from the British Retail Consortium to the CBI, have warned that piling costs onto employers risks choking off growth just as the economy flatlines.

Conservative critics seized on Rose’s intervention. Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Sir Jim Ratcliffe is right — sky-high energy prices and crippling carbon taxes are causing the death of British industry. Labour must put growth and jobs ahead of its obsession with Net Zero.”

With the autumn Budget looming, Labour faces a delicate balancing act: keeping markets calm, meeting its fiscal rules, and responding to mounting anger from both employers and voters who feel squeezed.

As Lord Rose put it bluntly: “If you have no growth, you can’t create wealth. If you can’t create wealth, you can’t provide the services people want. That’s the real problem.”

Read more:
Starmer and Reeves have taken Britain to ‘the edge of a crisis’, warns ex-M&S boss Stuart Rose

Tottenham Hotspur have moved to quash speculation over a potential sale, confirming they have rejected two preliminary takeover approaches — one from Amanda Staveley’s PCP International Finance and the other from a Chinese consortium.

The north London club issued a statement late on Sunday night after a weekend of mounting rumours following the shock departure of long-serving executive chairman Daniel Levy. Spurs said they had been forced to clarify the situation under UK takeover rules, stressing that majority owner Enic Sports & Developments Holdings Ltd has “no intention” of entertaining offers.

“The Board of Tottenham Hotspur Limited is aware of recent media speculation and confirms that its majority shareholder, Enic Sports & Developments Holdings Ltd, has received, and unequivocally rejected, separate preliminary expressions of interest,” the statement read.

The bids were said to have come from Staveley’s company and from a consortium led by Dr Roger Kennedy and Wing-Fai Ng through Firehawk Holdings Limited. Under takeover rules, both PCP and the Chinese consortium must now announce by 5 October whether they intend to make a formal offer. If they do not, they will be barred from returning with a bid for a set period unless circumstances change.

Tottenham underlined that the clarification should end speculation over a possible change in ownership. “The Board of the Club and Enic confirm that Tottenham Hotspur is not for sale and Enic has no intention to accept any such offer,” the statement added.

Sources close to the Lewis family trust, which controls Enic’s 87 per cent stake in Spurs, have also insisted the club is not on the market.

The announcement comes amid significant upheaval at the Premier League side, with Levy stepping down last week after almost a quarter of a century in charge. Peter Charrington, who joined as a non-executive director earlier this year, has been installed as non-executive chairman and was named in the official statement as the person responsible for arranging its release.

While Spurs have recently been linked with takeover interest from several quarters, the club’s owners remain determined to retain control, pointing to the ongoing investment in infrastructure and commercial growth. Tottenham, valued at close to £3 billion, opened their 63,000-seat stadium in 2019 and reported annual revenues of more than €615 million in Deloitte’s Football Money League earlier this year.

For now, despite the speculation stirred by Levy’s exit, Tottenham’s board is emphatic: Spurs are not for sale.

Read more:
Tottenham Hotspur reject takeover approaches from Amanda Staveley and Chinese consortium

Barclays Bank has been hit with a formal complaint alleging anti-Semitism after a customer claimed staff at its Leicester business team unfairly froze his account because of his Israeli residency.

In a letter addressed directly to group chief executive CS Venkatakrishnan, journalist Martin Blackham accused the bank of discriminating against him on the basis of his nationality and location.

Blackham, who said he is a member of His Majesty’s press corps currently covering the war in Israel, claimed that his Barclays account had been blocked from normal use after the system flagged a request for further details which he was unable to update online.

“As the account details show that I am based in Israel this is clearly a case of anti-Semitism by the Barclays Business Team management in Leicester,” Blackham wrote in his complaint.

He alleged that despite raising the issue with Barclays three months earlier, on 8 June, the bank had failed to respond to his repeated correspondence. He described the situation as “disgraceful” and urged Venkatakrishnan to order a “thorough investigation” into the conduct of Leicester-based staff.

The letter further stated: “Anti-Semitism has no place in the Barclays Leicester workplace, and I expect not only a thorough investigation into this matter [but also] assurance that the matter has been resolved.”

The account freeze, Blackham argued, had restricted his access to funds while reporting from Israel, an operational difficulty he described as both unprofessional and discriminatory. He also claimed this was not the first time he had experienced similar issues with Barclays.

Barclays, which employs more than 80,000 people worldwide, has faced heightened scrutiny in recent years over its compliance processes in high-risk jurisdictions. While the bank has not yet commented on Blackham’s specific claims, it has previously stated a “zero tolerance” policy towards discrimination of any form.

Anti-Semitism complaints within UK financial services remain relatively rare, but banks have been criticised in the past for opaque decisions to close or restrict accounts linked to certain nationalities, residency statuses or politically exposed clients. In July 2023, NatWest was forced to apologise after the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account sparked a political and regulatory storm over “debanking.”

Blackham’s complaint adds a fresh dimension to that debate, raising questions about whether compliance flags risk straying into unlawful discrimination.

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, when contacted by Business Matters, said: “We are extremely concerned to hear allegations of anti-Semitism in the banking sector. All financial institutions must ensure that their compliance procedures are robust, transparent, and free from discriminatory practices.”

Barclays is expected to come under pressure to respond swiftly. The letter, dated Sunday 7 September, was copied to Business Matters after months of silence from the bank, according to Blackham.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) declined to comment on individual cases but pointed to its rules requiring firms to treat customers fairly and to act without discrimination.

With anti-Semitism levels in the UK at their highest recorded since 1984, according to the Community Security Trust, the complaint is likely to draw broader scrutiny of how banks balance compliance with equality obligations.

Whether Barclays views the freeze as a procedural error, a compliance measure or a more serious internal failing may determine the reputational fallout. For now, Blackham says he awaits a reply “by return.”

Read more:
Barclays faces complaint over alleged anti-Semitism at Leicester branch