Business

The Treasury faces the unenviable task of plugging a shortfall of up to £33bn after ministers conceded that the latest reset of HS2 has driven the embattled rail project’s bill towards a staggering £102bn, leaving the chancellor with little choice but to raid other budgets, raise taxes, or both.

Analysis of the Department for Transport’s revised plans for the London-to-Birmingham line, published in the wake of transport secretary Heidi Alexander’s bruising statement to the Commons on Tuesday, suggests Whitehall will need to find between £18bn and £33bn of additional public money before the end of the current spending review period. For Britain’s beleaguered small and medium-sized businesses, many of whom were promised that HS2 would unlock regional growth and faster supply chains, it is yet another reminder that the country’s record on delivering major infrastructure remains, to put it mildly, patchy.

Alexander did not mince her words at the despatch box. She branded the line, originally intended to whisk passengers between London Euston and central Birmingham in under 50 minutes, an “over-specced folly” and accused her Conservative predecessors of needlessly gold-plating a scheme that has already swallowed £44bn of taxpayers’ cash over its 17-year existence. According to the official update delivered to Parliament, the first trains will not now run before 2036 at the earliest, with services into central London delayed until at least 2040, meaning construction will have stretched across more than a quarter of a century by the time the project is complete.

It is the sixth major reset HS2 has endured in just 13 years. The latest came after the so-called Stewart Review, commissioned by Labour shortly after it entered government in 2024, lifted the lid on what its author described as a “litany of failures” inside the Department for Transport and arms-length body HS2 Ltd, where management had been allowed to “spiral out of control”. The Institution of Civil Engineers’ assessment of the Stewart Review painted a damning picture of weak governance, optimism bias and a procurement strategy that left contractors holding too few of the risks, the sort of failings that any seasoned SME owner would recognise as fatal in their own business.

The numbers tell their own grim story. Officials now expect the line to cost as much as £36bn more than the previous official estimate, on top of the £25bn of additional taxpayer cash already earmarked at last year’s spending review. That leaves between £18bn and £33bn of unfunded spending sitting awkwardly on the Treasury’s books, money which will either have to come from fresh tax-and-spend measures, from cuts to other cash-strapped departments, or, most likely, from a combination of both. Sources familiar with the matter tell Business Matters that ministers have ruled out additional borrowing on the scale needed to plug the gap, fearful of breaching the government’s self-imposed fiscal rules.

For now, Whitehall insists the Treasury’s current envelope, which covers all public spending up to 2029-30, absorbs every penny HS2 requires this decade. The pain will instead be felt at the next spending review, when chancellor Rachel Reeves – or her successor – will have to decide which other priorities give way. Whether that means leaner settlements for schools, hospitals and policing, or whether the burden falls on business and household taxes, will be the defining fiscal battle of the late 2020s. Ms Reeves had previously hoped to anchor her growth strategy on a £92bn transport investment programme, much of which is now at risk of being crowded out by HS2’s voracious appetite for capital.

It also raises uncomfortable questions about the credibility of the cost figures that have been presented to Parliament over the past decade. The same Whitehall machinery that signed off on earlier estimates is now telling business leaders to take the new £102bn projection on trust, even as transport experts begin to whisper that the eventual bill could climb higher still. Business Matters recently reported that ministers had been actively considering slowing HS2 trains in a bid to claw back billions, a move that critics argue undermines the original rationale for the project in the first place.

The political backdrop is no less awkward. The line was originally conceived as a Y-shaped network connecting London to both Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham. Boris Johnson axed the eastern leg to Leeds in 2021; his successor Rishi Sunak then scrapped the Manchester arm two years later. Each cut was sold as a saving, yet the bill has continued to climb. As one senior figure with experience of past resets put it earlier this year, Conservative ministers had wasted billions on a project that was never properly gripped – a charge the party’s frontbench is now finding difficult to rebut.

For Britain’s SMEs, the implications are stark. Construction supply chains in the Midlands and along the line of route have ridden the rollercoaster of stop-start commitments for the best part of two decades. Manufacturers, engineering consultancies and specialist tier-two contractors had built order books on the assumption that phase two would, at the very least, run as far as Crewe. Many of those orders have evaporated. Meanwhile the broader business community is being asked to believe that the same Treasury now juggling a £33bn shortfall on a single project can still be trusted to underwrite the long-promised renaissance of regional infrastructure.

The lesson, painful as it is, is one that any owner-managed business learns in its first decade: budget overruns of this scale do not just happen. They are baked in at the start by woolly objectives, scope creep, weak commercial discipline and political interference. HS2 has had all four in industrial quantities. Until Westminster develops the institutional muscle to deliver megaprojects on time and on budget, British business will continue to pay the price, both directly, through taxes and forgone investment, and indirectly, through a global reputation for infrastructure delivery that is fast becoming a cautionary tale.

Read more:
HS2 reset to punch £33bn black hole in Britain’s public finances

Facebook’s parent company has begun notifying staff worldwide that they are out of a job, with engineers and product teams bearing the brunt of a 10 per cent cull designed to bankroll a $145bn artificial intelligence spending spree.

Meta Platforms started handing out redundancy notices on Wednesday morning, kicking off one of the most aggressive restructurings in Silicon Valley this year. As many as 8,000 roles, roughly a tenth of the company’s global headcount, are expected to disappear as Mark Zuckerberg shifts the business onto a leaner, AI-first footing.

The cuts are heavily concentrated in the company’s engineering and product divisions, according to a Bloomberg report, with around 350 jobs in Dublin, Meta’s European headquarters, set to go. The Irish capital has long been a critical hub for the owner of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, hosting thousands of staff serving customers across the EMEA region.

Even before the redundancy letters landed, the wheels of internal change were already in motion. On Monday, some 7,000 employees were told they had been redeployed to newly formed teams charged with developing AI products, agents and assistants that will be threaded through Meta’s family of apps.

“We’re now at the stage where many orgs can operate with a flatter structure with smaller teams of pods/cohorts that can move faster and with more ownership,” Janelle Gale, Meta’s chief people officer, wrote in an internal memo seen by staff this week.

A $145bn bet on ‘personal superintelligence’

The job losses come as Meta pours unprecedented sums into the data centres, chips and engineering talent it believes will define the next decade of computing. At its most recent quarterly results, the company told investors it would spend up to $145bn on capital expenditure this year, more than double the $72bn it shelled out in 2025.

Where rivals such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon are funnelling much of that AI capability into cloud services they can sell to corporate customers, Mr Zuckerberg is taking a different path. The Meta co-founder is pursuing what he calls “personal superintelligence” — a hyper-personalised AI assistant designed to live inside Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and the company’s growing range of smart glasses and headsets.

Meta’s Muse Spark model, released in April, is the first significant product to emerge from its Superintelligence Labs unit, which was set up last June and stocked with high-profile hires poached from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind.

That spending has unnerved investors and weighed on the share price. Meta’s stock is down 8.4 per cent so far this year, even as the wider Nasdaq has put on 12.5 per cent, a divergence that, as Business Matters reported after the first-quarter results, reflects mounting unease over the lack of a direct revenue line attached to Meta’s AI bill. When pressed on the return on investment of the spending, Mr Zuckerberg told analysts on the Q1 earnings call that it was “a very technical question”, a line that did little to soothe nerves on Wall Street.

A wider AI-driven shake-out in tech

Meta is far from alone in trying to wring efficiencies out of its workforce while throwing money at AI. Intuit, the American owner of QuickBooks and TurboTax, is preparing to lay off around 17 per cent of its workforce, or roughly 3,000 staff. Amazon, Microsoft, Cloudflare and Jack Dorsey’s payments group Block have all announced major redundancy rounds this year, with Amazon’s own 16,000-job cull framed by chief executive Andy Jassy as a way to “remove bureaucracy”.

According to Layoffs.fyi, which tracks redundancies in the tech sector, more than 140 companies have laid off in excess of 111,000 employees so far this year, already closing in on the 124,636 cuts recorded across the whole of 2025.

For UK small and medium-sized businesses, the message from the world’s most valuable technology companies is unmistakable. Capital that once funded sprawling product teams is now being redirected into infrastructure, models and a much smaller pool of senior engineers. As consultancy giants such as McKinsey trim their own ranks on the same logic, British SME owners weighing their own AI strategies face an uncomfortable question: are they investing fast enough to keep up, or being lured into a costly arms race they cannot win?

Meta and Intuit were contacted for comment.

Read more:
Meta to axe 8,000 jobs as Zuckerberg doubles down on AI race

Britain’s private sector workforce is staring down its sharpest squeeze on real take-home pay since the cost-of-living crisis of 2022, as a fresh burst of oil-driven inflation outpaces a visibly slowing rate of earnings growth.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics this week show that average weekly earnings excluding bonuses rose by 3.4 per cent in the three months to March, exactly matching the average rate of inflation over the quarter. Including bonuses, the figure climbed to 4.1 per cent, although that headline number was almost certainly flattered by outsized payouts in the City’s financial services sector.

For the rank-and-file employee outside the public payroll, the picture looks considerably bleaker. Real incomes are on course to flatline through 2026, with the surge in global crude prices expected to drag annual CPI back up towards 4 per cent in the coming months. With unemployment now at 5 per cent and youth joblessness at an 11-year high, the bargaining power that working households briefly enjoyed during the post-pandemic labour shortage has all but evaporated.

“There is potential for a sharp squeeze in real wage growth in 2026,” said Peter Dixon, senior economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

A broad-based slowdown

Wage growth has weakened across nearly every sector of the economy, with construction wages actually contracting outright by 0.6 per cent between January and March. Builders have been hit on three sides at once, energy, transport and raw materials, since the US-Iran conflict triggered a fresh spike in oil and shipping costs.

Private sector earnings growth has slipped to 3 per cent, the slowest pace since the pandemic. Analysts at ING calculate that the rolling three-month measure of private sector pay grew by just 0.6 per cent, its weakest reading in more than a decade.

The contrast with Whitehall is stark. Public sector pay rose by 4.8 per cent over the same period, buoyed by the increase in the national living wage and by generous settlements recommended by the independent pay review bodies under the Labour government. The growing divide has reignited a long-running political row with employers warning that the gap is becoming politically and economically untenable.

A new period of falling real wages

The Resolution Foundation is unambiguous about what the figures mean for household finances. The think-tank’s latest analysis warns that Britain is on the brink of its fourth period of falling real wages in less than two decades, a record unmatched by any other advanced G7 economy.

“The UK is on the cusp of its fourth period of falling real-wage growth in less than two decades,” said Julia Diniz, economist at the Resolution Foundation. “This stuttering performance goes a long way in explaining the political and economic discontent that surrounds modern Britain.”

For lower-income households, that discontent is more than rhetorical. Edward Allenby, senior economist at Oxford Economics, warned that the inflation about to hit family budgets will be concentrated in the categories that bite hardest at the bottom of the income distribution.

“Higher inflation will likely be concentrated in essential categories, food, energy, petrol, that comprise much larger shares of lower-income household spending,” Allenby said. “These households also appear to be entering the latest energy shock in a more vulnerable financial position than the last one.”

The Bank’s dilemma

The Bank of England is now caught in an uncomfortable bind. Threadneedle Street has kept Bank Rate pegged at 3.75 per cent since the Middle East conflict broke out, but the Monetary Policy Committee has already signalled that it may have to resume tightening to head off so-called “second-round effects”, the risk that companies pass higher energy costs through to prices, and workers in turn demand inflation-busting settlements.

The wage figures suggest the second of those channels is closed for the moment. The Bank has previously indicated that it needs average earnings growth in the region of 2 to 3 per cent to hit its 2 per cent inflation target, a benchmark the latest data are converging on rapidly. The prospect of rate rises in the middle of an energy-driven inflation spike risks compounding the squeeze on households already feeling the pinch.

“A soft labour market could limit arguments that there will be notable second-round effects from the current energy shock,” said Josie Anderson, economist at Nomura.

Markets had been pricing in close to three quarter-point increases this year, taking the base rate back to 4.5 per cent, before Tuesday morning’s labour market release. That bet now looks aggressive. Andrew Wishart, economist at Berenberg, said the MPC would be “wary of pushing the labour market over a tipping point that triggers recessionary dynamics”.

“The market still prices three hikes today but the labour market is too weak to bear them,” Wishart added. “Even if energy prices remain high, we suspect that the Bank will deliver one quarter-point hike at most.”

Market reaction

Investors agreed. Yields on two-year gilts, which track expectations of the Bank Rate over the policy horizon, fell by 0.02 percentage points on the repricing, bond yields move inversely to prices. Sterling weakened against the dollar and the euro as traders trimmed their bets on UK interest rates.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses, the takeaway is mixed. A pause in the Bank’s tightening cycle would offer welcome relief on borrowing costs at a moment when many SMEs are still digesting the rise in employer National Insurance contributions and the higher national living wage. But the wider story, flat real incomes, rising unemployment and cooling consumer demand, points to a more difficult trading environment through the second half of 2026, particularly for businesses with discretionary, consumer-facing revenue streams.

Whether the squeeze ultimately delivers the political backlash that the Resolution Foundation’s analysis implies remains to be seen. What is no longer in doubt is that, for the fourth time in less than 20 years, the average British worker is becoming poorer in real terms, and SME owners hoping for a confident consumer to spend their way through the next 12 months should plan accordingly.

Read more:
Private sector workers face worst real pay squeeze since 2022 as oil-driven inflation bites

Britain’s young workers are quietly slipping out of the labour market at a pace not seen since the pandemic, and economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies are warning that ministers can no longer treat the slide as a passing wobble.

Fresh analysis from the IFS, published ahead of the latest Office for National Statistics labour market release, shows the share of 16- to 24-year-olds on a UK payroll has fallen by 4.3 percentage points since December 2022, a drop of roughly 330,000 young people. Payrolled employment in the age group now stands at 50.6 per cent, down from 54.9 per cent three years earlier.

To put the scale in context, the Covid-19 shock pulled youth employment down by 6.5 points, and the 2008 financial crisis prised away 5.4 points relative to the pre-crisis trend. The current decline, in other words, is no longer a rounding error, it is approaching the territory of a full-blown labour market crisis, but without the obvious headline-grabbing trigger that accompanied the last two.

The consequences are already visible in the so-called Neet figures, those not in education, employment or training. The cohort has swelled from 760,000 at the end of 2022 to roughly 960,000 by the close of last year, closing in on the one-million mark that policymakers had long treated as a symbolic red line.

A scarring effect that outlasts the slump

Jed Michael, author of the IFS report, did not mince his words. “The fall in youth employment across the UK is likely to be setting off alarm bells among ministers, not least because we know that unemployment early in one’s career can have lasting negative consequences,” he said.

That so-called “scarring effect” is well documented. Graduates and school leavers who enter the workforce during a downturn typically earn less, change jobs more often and reach senior pay grades later than peers who began in benign conditions. The hit is not just personal: lost productivity, weaker tax receipts and higher benefits bills follow young people through their working lives.

Michael’s caveat, however, is one ministers ought to dwell on. “While it does not seem to be down solely to a temporary cyclical downturn in the economy, more evidence is needed to understand the roles of minimum wage, youth mental health, AI and other factors,” he added. “Without this evidence, expensive policies to reduce the Neet rate are shots in the dusk, if not the dark.”

An unusually structural shock

The UK has historically been a star performer in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league tables for youth employment. That advantage is eroding, and the data suggests something more than a standard cyclical slump is at work.

The pain is sharpest among 22- to 24-year-olds, typically graduates and college-leavers stepping onto the first rung of the career ladder. Employment in that group has dropped by 4.8 points in three years. The 18- to 21-year-olds have fared better, down only 1.1 points, while 16- and 17-year-olds have seen a 7.3-point slide that the IFS attributes largely to vanishing casual and part-time work alongside studies.

Geographically, the slump is broad rather than concentrated. Payrolled employment among the young has fallen by at least three points in two thirds of the UK’s regions and nations, and the share of 18- to 24-year-olds claiming out-of-work benefits has risen across the board. Cyclical downturns tend to land unevenly; this one is hitting almost everywhere.

The IFS flags two potential structural culprits worth watching: the rapid uptake of artificial intelligence in white-collar entry-level work, and the well-documented decline in youth mental health. Business Matters has previously reported on how AI and rising employer costs have already wiped out close to a third of UK entry-level vacancies since the launch of ChatGPT, a shift that disproportionately closes the door on first jobs.

On the minimum wage question, a long-standing battleground in the youth employment debate, the IFS is more cautious. Its central estimates do not point to a “sizeable effect” from recent wage floor increases, suggesting that broader structural factors are doing most of the heavy lifting.

A call to action, not a counsel of despair

Jonathan Townsend, UK chief executive at The King’s Trust, which co-funded the report, said the findings should sharpen minds in both Whitehall and the boardroom.

“These findings should concern anyone who cares about young people’s futures,” he said. “Too many young people are already out of work, education or training, and this analysis suggests we cannot simply assume the problem will correct itself as economic conditions improve.”

“This challenge is not impossible to fix. The message is that reversing the rise in young people out of work or education will take concerted action, a better understanding of what is driving it, and the right support for young people at the right time.”

Townsend added: “For an organisation whose vision is to help end youth unemployment, that is a clear call to action. We urgently need to understand what is pulling more young people away from work and education.”

The Government has begun moving in that direction, most recently with £3,000 grants for employers willing to hire unemployed young people who have spent at least six months on benefits. Whether such targeted subsidies are enough to offset what looks increasingly like a structural shift, driven by automation, wage costs and a generation’s fragile mental health, is the question the IFS has now put squarely on ministers’ desks.

For Britain’s SMEs, which collectively employ the lion’s share of young workers, the message is sobering. A generation locked out of the labour market today will be a smaller, less productive, less confident pool of talent tomorrow. The cost of inaction, the IFS suggests, will be paid not in a single Budget cycle but over the working lifetime of an entire cohort.

Read more:
Youth jobs in retreat: IFS warns Britain is sliding back to Covid-era lows

England’s water security is heading for a serious squeeze, and the bill for inaction will land squarely on the desks of farmers, food producers, manufacturers and the wider small business community.

That is the blunt message from a cross-party House of Lords committee, which on Thursday 21 May publishes a report warning that the taps risk running dry unless the Government moves quickly to capture, store and reuse more of the rain that already falls on these islands.

In Surviving drought: reclaim the rain, the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee argues that climate change, a growing population, leaky Victorian pipework and thirsty industries are pushing the system towards a tipping point. Britain, the peers note, is not actually short of rainfall. The problem is that far too much of it is wasted, washed straight into rivers and the sea rather than held back for the dry months that climate science now tells us to expect with growing frequency.

The figures the committee cites are arresting. If ministers fail to act, public demand for water could outstrip supply by five billion litres every day by 2055, the equivalent of around 2,000 Olympic swimming pools draining away unmet each morning. That projection sits in line with the Environment Agency’s own National Framework for Water Resources, which has previously warned of a shortfall of similar scale unless leakage is cut and new sources of supply brought online.

A warning aimed at Whitehall, but felt on the shop floor

Baroness Sheehan, who chairs the committee, says the experience of the 2025 drought should serve as an early warning rather than a one-off. “Climate change is increasing the risk of drought through a combination of hotter summers and heavier winter rains, making the capture and storage of rainwater increasingly important,” she said. “We have already had a dry start to this spring, so it is critical that action is taken now to prepare for serious drought conditions, particularly as we enter a reported El Niño year.”

Forecasters at the Met Office have signalled a likely return of El Niño conditions from mid-2026, raising the probability of hotter, drier summers. For SMEs already nursing tight margins through a sluggish economic recovery, another summer of hosepipe bans, abstraction restrictions and stressed supply chains is the last thing the order book needs.

That much was clear last spring, when Business Matters reported on how drought conditions had begun hitting UK crop production, with reservoirs running low and farmers warning of early yield losses after the driest spring in 69 years. A year on, the peers say the lesson has barely been absorbed.

Four areas where ministers are urged to move

The committee’s recommendations sit in four broad buckets, each of them with direct read-across to the boardroom.

First, the peers want a proper grip on the numbers. That means better drought monitoring and impact data, and a full environmental and economic assessment that weighs the cost of doing nothing against the long-term value of building resilience. Without that, the committee argues, capital spending decisions on reservoirs, transfer schemes and demand-management measures will continue to be made in the dark.

Second, the report calls for a whole-of-society push on demand. Awareness campaigns, tougher water-efficiency standards in new homes, and incentives for water reuse and rainwater harvesting all feature. For the SME estate, this is likely to translate into firmer expectations on water-using appliances, fittings and processes, particularly in hospitality, food and drink and light manufacturing.

Third, the committee zeroes in on sectors that rely on direct abstraction from rivers and aquifers. It urges ministers to make it easier for farms, golf courses and other appropriate operations to build local resource reservoirs, and to introduce more flexibility into the abstraction licensing regime so that catchment-based water projects can scale. For the rural economy, that flexibility could be the difference between a viable harvest and a written-off crop.

Finally, the peers want emergency planning brought up to date. They are asking the Government to publish a prioritisation plan for severe drought by autumn 2026 at the latest, alongside a wider rollout of nature-based solutions, from wetland restoration to sustainable urban drainage, in both town and country.

Why this is a balance-sheet issue, not just an environmental one

The temptation in many quarters will be to file this report alongside the broader stack of climate warnings. That would be a mistake. Water is an input cost like any other, and one that the City is only now starting to price properly. Investors, lenders and insurers are sharpening their interrogation of corporate exposure to physical climate risk, and water scarcity sits near the top of that list for any business with a meaningful UK footprint.

The point was made forcefully in a recent Business Matters opinion piece arguing that the UK economy risks collapse without urgent investment in nature, with the financial sector urged to wake up to the fact that nature loss and water stress are no longer fringe concerns but central to long-term economic stability.

There is also a competitive angle. UK SMEs are, on the whole, ahead of the curve on sustainability, with Business Matters previously reporting that nearly two-thirds of small firms are taking practical steps to cut their environmental footprint. Those firms that have already invested in water-efficient kit, leak detection and on-site capture should find themselves better placed if regulatory pressure tightens, as the Lords clearly want it to.

The bottom line

Baroness Sheehan is unequivocal in her closing remarks: “Water is the foundation of life itself. The Government must act now to secure England’s most vital resource for the future and work with the public to ensure the taps don’t run dry.”

For business owners, the practical implications are already taking shape. Expect higher water bills in catchment areas under stress, tighter rules on abstraction and discharge, growing investor scrutiny of water risk in annual reports, and new commercial opportunities for firms offering harvesting, reuse and efficiency technologies. The smart money will not wait for Whitehall to catch up. The companies that get ahead of this curve, in much the same way that the best-prepared firms got ahead of net zero, are the ones likeliest to keep producing, serving and selling when the next dry spring arrives.

The peers have laid out the warning and the to-do list. The question now is whether ministers, water companies and businesses themselves are prepared to treat rainwater as the strategic national asset it has quietly become.

Read more:
Taps could run dry without urgent action on drought, peers warn ministers

“Don’t confuse cancellation with failure.” That, famously, was the line David Letterman, the bloke who actually built The Late Show, passed to Jon Stewart years ago. And it was the line Stewart hurled back across the Ed Sullivan Theater this week, voice catching, finger jabbing, as Stephen Colbert prepared the wake for America’s number-one late-night programme.

Read that again. Number. One. As in top of the bloody pile, comfortably ahead of Fallon and Kimmel, the most watched chat show in the United States. And tonight, somewhere around 11:35pm in New York, CBS will pull down the shutters, sweep the studio and try to convince us, with all the conviction of a teenager denying he’s been at the cooking sherry, that this was, and I quote, “purely a financial decision.”

Of course it was. And I am Beyoncé.

Let us be grown-ups about this. CBS euthanised its highest-rated chat show three days after its host called the network’s parent company, Paramount, out for paying Donald Trump a sixteen-million-dollar settlement over a 60 Minutes interview. Colbert called it, with the kind of plainness America used to specialise in, a “big fat bribe”. Seventy-two hours later, the man was told he was for the chop. The merger Paramount needed waved through by Trump’s pet FCC sailed merrily on soon after. If you don’t smell something on the breeze, you’ve no nose.

Letterman, never knowingly understated, called CBS executives “lying weasels” and signed off with a parting shot, borrowed from Ed Murrow and inflected with a vowel Lord Reith would not have approved, that I cannot quote in these pages without an asterisk. Quite right too. The man invented the franchise. He owns the moral high ground and he’s busy strewing it with broken set furniture flung from the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater.

For those of us who have written before about Colbert and the slow strangulation of political satire in the age of Trump, tonight is not so much a final episode as a final warning. The message coming out of West 53rd Street is now horribly simple: take the mickey out of the man in the Oval Office, embarrass the parent company in front of the regulators he appoints, and your career, Emmy-bedecked, network-leading, fifty-two weeks a year, is over before the band finishes the play-out.

That is not a financial decision. That is a precedent. And a vile one.

I happen to run businesses for a living. I have spent thirty years arguing that British plc should be tougher, braver, more willing to stick its hand up at the back of the room. So I am the last person to wring my hands when an American media giant decides it can no longer afford a hundred-million-dollar talk show. Late-night is unwell. Audiences are migrating to TikTok and YouTube faster than commissioners can flick the studio lights on. Even my dog has a podcast.

But that is not what happened here. What happened here is that a man told a joke about a man who cannot take a joke, and the bean counters folded the chair he was sitting on. As I argued when Trump’s tariffs began squeezing British exports, this White House treats business as an extension of grievance. CBS didn’t get cancelled by the market. It got cancelled by a sulk.

That is the bit that ought to terrify British boardrooms, not just American ones. Because the chilling effect does not stop at the Hudson. Every UK media business doing deals in the United States, every studio, streamer, format house, news brand, is now reading the body language. Don’t annoy the President. Don’t let your talent annoy the President. Settle, smile, soften the gag. It is, to borrow from another television creation I have written about, Jed Bartlet’s worst nightmare arriving on a Wednesday afternoon: the executive branch quietly dictating the punchlines.

We are British. We invented taking the mickey out of the powerful. From Spitting Image to Mock the Week, Have I Got News For You to whatever Charlie Brooker fancies doing next Wednesday, satire is, for us, a load-bearing wall of national life. A democracy that cannot laugh at its leaders is not a democracy in good health; it is a banana republic with better dental cover.

Colbert, for what it is worth, will be seen off in his final week by Jon Stewart, Tom Hanks and Barack Obama, hardly the send-off you stage for a man whose ratings have gone south. Letterman is right. Cancellation is not failure. The failure belongs to CBS, to Paramount, and to every executive who decided that the easiest way to grow up was to crouch down.

The joke, on this last night, is not on Stephen Colbert. The joke is on the rest of us, if we sit politely and watch.

Read more:
Colbert’s final bow: How CBS cancelled the king of late night to keep Trump sweet

The chief executive of US fintech Bolt has mounted a robust defence of his decision to sack the company’s entire human resources department, telling a Fortune audience that the team “created problems that didn’t exist” and that those issues “disappeared” the moment he showed them the door.

Ryan Breslow, the 32-year-old co-founder who returned to the helm last year after a three-year absence, insisted the move was central to his attempt to drag the one-time darling of Silicon Valley back into “start-up mode”. The online checkout software business shed roughly 30 per cent of its workforce in April, its fourth round of redundancies in as many years.

“We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist,” Breslow told delegates. “Those problems disappeared when I let them go.”

He argued that traditional HR professionals were better suited to the “peacetime” rhythms of larger, more mature businesses than to the bare-knuckle conditions of a turnaround. In their place, Bolt has installed a leaner “people operations” function, charged with employee training and day-to-day support rather than policy-making.

“We need a group of people who are very oriented around getting things done,” Breslow said. “There is just a culture of not getting things done and complaining a lot.”

The remarks land at a delicate moment for the company. Bolt’s valuation has plunged from $11 billion at the peak of the 2022 fintech boom to just $300 million, according to The Information, a humbling reset for a business once held up as the future of one-click commerce.

Breslow, who stepped away from the chief executive’s office in 2022 before returning in 2025, has made little secret of his view that the workforce he inherited had grown soft on venture capital largesse.

“There’s a sense of entitlement that had festered across the company,” he said. “People who felt empowered, felt entitled — but weren’t actually working hard. And this is the number one thing that I had to battle. Ultimately, most of those people just had to be let go.”

Bolt has confirmed that fewer than 40 staff were affected by the latest cull, which it said was driven in part by the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. In a company-wide Slack message in April, Breslow reportedly told employees: “Developing products and operating in 2026 is very different than it was in prior years, and we need to adapt as an organisation to be leaner and more AI-centric than ever to keep up with competition.”

The comments echo a broader trend across the technology sector, with employers from Meta to Microsoft using AI investment as cover for sweeping headcount reductions. Recent CIPD research suggests one in six UK employers now expect AI to eliminate jobs within the next 12 months, with white-collar roles bearing the brunt.

For founders of smaller British businesses watching from afar, the Breslow doctrine will provoke equal measures of admiration and unease. Few would deny that bloated middle layers can hobble a growth-stage company, and the temptation to strip back in tougher times is real. But UK employment law offers far less latitude than the at-will culture of the United States, and dispensing with HR expertise carries reputational as well as legal risks.

Employment lawyers have long warned that getting redundancy wrong can prove ruinously expensive, particularly for SMEs without the budgets to absorb tribunal claims. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) continues to urge employers to follow a structured, transparent process, including meaningful consultation and fair selection criteria — protections that, in practice, are typically marshalled and monitored by an HR function.

Breslow’s broader argument, that growth-stage businesses must run leaner and faster in an AI-driven economy, is one that increasingly few in the City would dispute. The challenge for British founders is to translate that ambition into a culture that delivers results without falling foul of either employment law or staff morale. As the wave of AI-related layoffs sweeping global tech has shown, the line between bold restructuring and reckless cost-cutting is easily crossed.

Whether Bolt’s stripped-back, founder-led model can return the business to its former $11 billion valuation — or simply hasten its slide — will be one of the defining fintech stories of the year. As reported by Fortune, Breslow has slimmed the headcount from a peak of around 800 to roughly 100. For a man who once championed the worker-friendly four-day week, it is a striking volte-face — and one his remaining staff, and his investors, will be watching closely.

Read more:
Bolt boss defends sacking entire HR team, claiming staff ‘invented problems that didn’t exist’

Smruti Sriram OBE, the second-generation chief executive who has built Bags of Ethics by Supreme Creations into one of Britain’s most quietly influential sustainable manufacturers, has been named winner of the 2026 Veuve Clicquot Bold Woman Award. Alisha Fredriksson, the 31-year-old co-founder of maritime carbon-capture pioneer Seabound, takes home the Bold Future Award.

The awards, now in their 54th year and the longest-running international honours for women in business, were presented in London last night by Thomas Mulliez, president of the champagne house. The pair join an alumni list that includes Dame Julia Hoggett DBE, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, vaccine scientist Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, and Anne Pitcher, the former chief executive of Selfridges Group. Hoggett picked up the same honour at last year’s ceremony alongside Shellworks co-founder Insiya Jafferjee.

For Sriram, the award caps an eighteen-year run at the helm of a business that has done more than most British SMEs to give the much-abused phrase “purpose-driven” some commercial heft. Founded in 1999 by her father, Dr R. Sri Ram, Supreme Creations has grown into a vertically integrated supplier of reusable merchandise and sustainable packaging that, on the company’s own reckoning, has displaced an estimated 30 billion single-use items. Its “Bags of Ethics” label, which guarantees full supply-chain transparency, has become something of a quiet standard in a sector still riddled with greenwashing.

The judging panel, which this year included Kristina Blahnik of Manolo Blahnik, Allwyn UK managing director Bridget Lea, Ada Ventures co-founder Matt Penneycard and The Dots founder Pip Jamieson, cited Sriram’s work scaling a globally integrated supply chain alongside her commitment to social impact. More than 80 per cent of the workforce at the group’s factory in Pondicherry, southern India, is female; partnerships with the British Fashion Council and the Royal Forestry Society have raised millions for environmental and educational causes.

“As a second-generation entrepreneur, my journey has been shaped by a strong foundation of values, kindness, purpose and business acumen from my family, and especially my father, who founded the business in 1999 and is still very much involved,” Sriram said. “These eighteen years have been a professional and personal evolution, with a strong belief that business can and should be a force for good. To be recognised alongside such inspiring women is a reminder of what is possible when we use our skills not just to succeed, but to serve.”

She was quick to share the credit. “Our global teams from Pondicherry, and across Europe, are creative, highly skilled, and have always been showcased as partners to our clients, not just suppliers. This award is a spotlight on them, not me. They are the backbone and deserve the full recognition.”

Sriram beat a strong shortlist that also featured Paula MacKenzie, the chief executive of PizzaExpress, and Kanya King CBE, founder of the MOBO Group, as flagged when the nominees were announced earlier this year.

A shipping disruptor with a 95 per cent answer

If Sriram’s award nods to two decades of patient compounding, the Bold Future Award recognises a business that did not exist five years ago. Fredriksson co-founded Seabound in 2021 with a single, audacious proposition: that shipping — the industry behind roughly three per cent of global CO₂ emissions and long regarded as “too hard to abate” — could be cleaned up with retrofittable, container-sized carbon-capture kit bolted onto vessels already at sea.

The London-headquartered start-up’s modular system uses calcium looping to trap CO₂ from exhaust gases and convert it into solid calcium carbonate pebbles that can be offloaded at port. Independent assessments, including a case study published by Innovate UK Business Connect, put potential capture rates at up to 95 per cent. Following successful pilots with Lomar Shipping and Hapag-Lloyd, Seabound has now moved into commercial deployment, with the first full-scale units serving a cement carrier chartered to Heidelberg Materials.

“I am incredibly proud of the journey we have taken at Seabound, tackling one of the toughest challenges out there: reducing emissions in global shipping,” Fredriksson said. “What began as an ambitious idea to address the climate crisis has grown into a brand new category of technology for the industry. With successful pilot projects behind us, we are now at an exciting inflection point: heading into our first full-scale deployments, with the world’s largest shipping companies and regulators actively engaging with us.”

Fredriksson’s win lands at a moment when capital for female-led climate tech is still vanishingly scarce, a recurring theme are investors such as Sustainable Ventures, which backs female founders at twelve times the industry average. The Bold Future shortlist, which also included Josephine Philips of repair-and-alteration platform SOJO and Marisa Poster of matcha disruptor PerfectTed, suggests the talent pipeline is healthier than the funding statistics imply.

A 54-year-old hymn to Madame Clicquot

The awards trace their lineage to Madame Barbe-Nicole Clicquot Ponsardin, who took over her late husband’s champagne house in 1805 at the age of 27 and turned it into a global business in defiance of nineteenth-century convention. More on the programme’s history and previous winners is available on the Veuve Clicquot Bold Woman Award UK page.

“Madame Clicquot led Veuve Clicquot to become a brand of excellence and courage,” Mulliez said. “Building on her legacy, Smruti Sriram OBE and Alisha Fredriksson are shaping the future of business. Their businesses tackle global issues and their achievements extend far beyond commercial success, offering powerful inspiration to the next generation of female entrepreneurs.”

For British SMEs watching from the sidelines, the more useful inspiration may be quietly structural. Sriram’s eighteen-year build of a profitable, transparent manufacturing group, and Fredriksson’s rapid commercialisation of a deep-tech climate solution, between them sketch out two viable archetypes for bold business in the second half of the 2020s: patient and purposeful on one hand, fast and technically ambitious on the other. Both are evidently still rewarded.

Read more:
Bags of ethics chief and shipping carbon-capture pioneer crowned at 2026 Veuve Clicquot Bold Woman Awards

For more than two decades, SpaceX has been Silicon Valley’s most closely guarded balance sheet, a privately held empire of reusable rockets and orbiting broadband terminals whose numbers were the subject of feverish speculation but never confirmation.

On Wednesday, Elon Musk’s space and satellite group finally pulled back the curtain, and the figures suggest a company spending astronomical sums to chase an even bigger prize.

In a prospectus filed in preparation for a stock market debut that could rank as the largest in history, SpaceX disclosed revenue of $18.7bn (£14.7bn) for 2025, a 33 per cent leap on the previous year. But the headline numbers also laid bare the cost of Mr Musk’s ambitions. The Hawthorne-based group swung to a loss of more than $4.9bn, against a $791m profit in 2024, as capital expenditure nearly doubled to $20.7bn from $11.2bn the year before. Much of the increase, the company said, was funnelled into artificial intelligence development, satellite manufacturing and the build-out of its Starship programme.

The disclosure, lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission, marks the first time the world’s most valuable private business has been forced to show its working. According to filings reviewed by CNBC, SpaceX is valuing itself at $1.25 trillion and could float as soon as next month, aiming to raise between $50bn and $75bn — a sum that would dwarf Saudi Aramco’s $29bn record listing in 2019.

For City watchers, the prospectus reads as a study in the trade-offs of frontier capitalism: vertiginous top-line growth bankrolled by equally vertiginous cash burn. Starlink, the satellite broadband arm that now serves several million subscribers worldwide and is fast becoming a fixture in rural Britain, drove the bulk of the revenue expansion. Launch services, including National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Pentagon contracts, contributed the rest. But the cost of staying ahead of rivals such as Jeff Bezos’s Project Kuiper has rarely been steeper. As we reported in October, bankers have been quietly pencilling in a valuation as high as $1.75tn once retail investors are factored in.

The group’s reach now extends well beyond rocketry. Following the acquisition earlier this year of xAI, the artificial intelligence venture behind the Grok chatbot, and the social media platform X, SpaceX has become something approaching a conglomerate of Mr Musk’s pet projects — a structure unpicked in our earlier analysis of the xAI deal. The integration costs of that combination help explain the swing into the red, but they also underline the strategic bet at the heart of the float: that rockets, satellites and large language models are converging into a single, vertically integrated infrastructure play.

A successful debut would all but guarantee that Mr Musk, already the world’s richest person, crosses the threshold to become its first trillionaire. It would also enrich a swathe of Wall Street institutions and long-serving employees whose paper fortunes have been locked up for the better part of a decade.

The flotation, if it lands as planned, looks set to unblock a pipeline of mega-listings that has been jammed since the 2021 boom went bust. Cerebras, the Californian artificial intelligence chip designer, kicked off what bankers are billing as a generational window last week, closing 68 per cent above its issue price on its Nasdaq debut and ranking as the biggest technology offering since Uber went public in 2019. Anthropic is understood to be sounding out advisers, while OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, is preparing to file confidentially in the coming weeks.

For all the excitement, the prospectus also signals the risks that come with putting a company of this profile into public hands. SpaceX’s fortunes are tied unusually tightly to a single founder, whose attention has been split across half a dozen ventures and whose political pronouncements have at times unsettled customers and regulators alike. Capital expenditure of $20bn-plus a year is not easily trimmed when Starship development and Starlink’s next-generation constellation depend on it. And the firm’s profit reversal will give pause to fund managers weighing a multi-billion-dollar punt on a stock with limited room for valuation expansion.

Mr Musk and a SpaceX spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. Whether public-market investors share the company’s view of its own worth will be settled in a matter of weeks. What is no longer in any doubt is the scale of the numbers, and the audacity of the bet.

Read more:
SpaceX lifts the veil on its finances as Musk readies the biggest flotation in stock market history

After more than five years of painstaking negotiation across six capitals, Britain has finally landed its long-awaited free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, a deal ministers say will add £3.7 billion a year to the economy and put UK exporters at the front of the queue in one of the world’s fastest-growing regions.

The agreement, struck with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, makes the UK the first G7 nation to sign a comprehensive free trade pact with the bloc. It is the fifth major deal secured by Sir Keir Starmer’s government, following accords with India, the United States, South Korea and a reset with the European Union.

For British small and mid-sized exporters, long the magazine’s core readership, the prize is tangible. Tariffs will be stripped from a wide swathe of UK goods including cheddar, chocolate, butter, cereals, medical equipment and high-end cars. The government’s conclusion summary estimates that £580 million in duties will be eliminated each year once the deal is fully in force, with £360 million scrapped on day one.

Bilateral trade between the UK and the GCC is already worth £57 billion annually. Whitehall modelling suggests the agreement could lift that figure by up to 20 per cent, raise real wages by £1.9 billion and expand UK GDP by roughly 0.1 per cent in the long run. Combined with last year’s India accord, the two deals are expected to add more than £8 billion a year to the economy by 2040.

A rare piece of good news for the Treasury

The deal lands at a politically convenient moment. With growth still sluggish and inflation stubbornly above target, ministers have been hunting for a credible pro-business win. Starmer, who has spent months pursuing the agreement on visits to Doha and Riyadh, called it “a huge win for British business” and said working people would feel the benefits “in the years ahead through higher wages and more opportunities”.

That language echoes the prime minister’s earlier push to use the Gulf agreement as a vehicle for rehabilitating Britain’s reputation as a serious commercial partner after the bruises of Brexit and the post-pandemic export slump.

Peter Kyle, the business and trade secretary, said the deal sent “a clear signal of confidence” at a moment of global trade volatility. “For this government to meet the challenges that our country faces, incremental change won’t cut it,” he said. “Major trade deals like this one are vital for moving the dial towards long-term, sustainable economic growth with benefits people and businesses can see and feel.”

What it means for SMEs

The opportunity is heavily skewed towards smaller exporters. The Gulf states import more than 80 per cent of their food, which puts British producers of dairy, confectionery, baked goods and premium beverages in pole position. Carmakers, particularly luxury marques such as Bentley, Jaguar and Aston Martin, also stand to gain from tariff removal on vehicles, where rates have typically sat at 5 per cent.

Services, which account for roughly 80 per cent of the UK economy and more than half of British exports to the GCC, will benefit from guaranteed market access. The government expects the deal to make it materially easier for British lawyers, engineers, architects and management consultants to travel, work and remain in the region. More than 400,000 business visits were made from the UK to the Middle East in 2024.

Crucially, the deal opens up a market in which UK Export Finance has been quietly busy. As Business Matters has previously reported, UKEF recently backed a £2.3m Saudi Arabia export contract for Hertfordshire-based Masters Speciality Pharma, the sort of mid-sized deal that the Gulf agreement is designed to multiply.

The British Chambers of Commerce gave the agreement an unusually warm welcome. William Bain, the BCC’s head of trade policy, said the deal was “great news for the UK economy” and would “open up new opportunities for inward investment, exports and supply chains”.

“There is great potential to expand our trade with this key region, which already generates £57 billion a year for the UK economy,” he said. “Securing long-term economic benefits with close trade partners, like the GCC, is vital for tens of thousands of UK firms with high ambitions on export growth.”

The Department for Business and Trade’s own benefits breakdown shows manufacturing, financial services, professional services and food and drink as the four sectors set to gain most, with detailed tariff schedules running into the thousands of product lines.

The strategic calculation

Beyond the immediate tariff savings, ministers are betting on the deeper strategic shift unfolding across the Gulf. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the UAE’s industrial diversification programme and Qatar’s push into financial and digital services all point in the same direction: away from oil dependency and towards a regional economy built on transport, tourism, technology and capital markets. By moving first among the G7, the UK is positioning itself as the preferred Western partner for that transition.

Negotiations were complicated by the need to align the often divergent economic interests of the six GCC members. That the Department for Business and Trade was able to land the agreement before Washington, Berlin, Paris or Tokyo will be seen in Whitehall as a meaningful diplomatic coup.

For Britain’s exporters, and particularly the SMEs that this magazine has long argued are the engine room of the UK economy, the practical question now is implementation. The agreement is not yet in force; the UK and all six GCC members must complete domestic ratification procedures. But with £360 million of tariff savings due on day one, the smart money is already on UK firms moving quickly to register, certify and ship.

Read more:
Britain seals landmark Gulf trade deal in G7 first, promising £3.7bn lift for UK exporters