Business

The entertainment industry no longer revolves around televisions, desktops, or fixed schedules.

Today, most digital entertainment happens on phones.

Streaming, gaming, sports coverage, social interaction, and live content now follow users everywhere through mobile platforms designed for constant access and instant engagement. What used to be secondary mobile versions of websites gradually became the center of the entire experience.

And honestly, that shift happened faster than most industries expected.

Mobile Became the Default Experience

A few years ago, companies still treated mobile apps as optional additions.

Now the opposite is true.

Many entertainment platforms are designed for smartphones first, with desktop versions adapting afterward. Businesses realized where user attention actually lives, and the industry changed around that reality.

People no longer wait to get home before consuming content. They watch clips during commutes, follow live scores while shopping, and interact with social platforms throughout the day.

Entertainment became continuous instead of scheduled.

Speed Changed User Expectations

One major reason mobile platforms became dominant is speed.

Everything happens instantly now. Notifications arrive immediately, live streams load within seconds, and updates refresh constantly in the background.

That level of responsiveness changed what users expect from digital services overall.

If an app feels slow or difficult to navigate, people leave quickly because alternatives are always available.

Modern entertainment platforms survive by reducing friction as much as possible.

Streaming and Gaming Adapted Quickly

Streaming services were among the first industries to fully embrace mobile-first behavior.

Short-form content exploded because people increasingly consume entertainment in smaller bursts throughout the day rather than through long viewing sessions.

Gaming platforms adapted in similar ways.

Mobile gaming became massive globally because phones removed hardware barriers and made access easier. Players no longer needed expensive consoles or PCs to participate in online entertainment ecosystems.

That accessibility expanded audiences dramatically.

Real-Time Interaction Became Essential

Modern entertainment is no longer passive.

Users now expect interaction while content is happening. Live chats, instant reactions, community discussions, polls, and personalized feeds became standard across digital platforms.

Sports and live betting especially changed because of this shift.

Mobile-first sportsbooks evolved around continuous engagement and fast updates, and MelBet (Arabic:  ميل بت) reflects how entertainment platforms increasingly prioritize instant access and real-time interaction on mobile devices.

The experience now feels active instead of static.

Social Media and Entertainment Merged Together

Another major change is how closely entertainment and social platforms became connected.

People rarely consume content silently anymore. They react, share opinions, create clips, and participate in discussions while events are still unfolding.

That social layer keeps users engaged much longer.

Watching the content itself became only part of the experience. The surrounding conversation often matters just as much.

Mobile Notifications Keep Users Connected

Notifications changed user behavior more than many people realize.

Platforms no longer wait for users to open apps manually. Instead, updates arrive directly on lock screens throughout the day.

A sports result, breaking news alert, streaming recommendation, or live event reminder immediately pulls people back into the platform ecosystem.

That constant connection helps explain why engagement numbers continue growing across mobile entertainment services.

Personalization Became More Aggressive

Entertainment apps also became much more personalized.

Algorithms now shape feeds, recommendations, and notifications based on user behavior patterns. Two people using the same platform may see completely different content experiences.

This increases engagement because users spend less time searching and more time consuming material already matched to their interests.

The process happens almost invisibly in the background.

Mobile Infrastructure Keeps Improving

Technology improvements also accelerated the shift.

Better smartphones, faster networks, and stronger mobile internet access made high-quality streaming and live interaction far easier than before.

As infrastructure improved, mobile entertainment became more reliable and more immersive.

The experience no longer feels limited compared to desktop systems.

In many cases, mobile platforms now perform better.

Entertainment Companies Think Mobile-First Now

The industry mindset changed completely.

Entertainment businesses now assume users will interact primarily through phones. Product design, advertising strategies, subscription systems, and engagement models are all built around mobile behavior from the start.

That approach influences almost every major entertainment category today.

Final Thoughts

Mobile platforms reshaped digital entertainment because they fit how people actually consume content now.

Users want speed, flexibility, interaction, and constant access, and smartphones deliver all of that in a single device people carry everywhere.

What started as a convenience gradually became the foundation of modern entertainment itself.

And judging by current trends, mobile-first experiences will only become more dominant in the years ahead.

Read more:
How Mobile Platforms Are Reshaping the Digital Entertainment Industry

Veteran-led small businesses are about to find the door to international trade rather easier to push open.

UK Export Finance (UKEF), the government’s export credit agency, has today unveiled a partnership with specialist broker Finance for Forces designed to plug an awkward gap that has long frustrated former service personnel turning their hand to enterprise: getting the right finance, at the right moment, to chase orders overseas.

For the thousands of veterans who have built businesses since leaving uniform, the appetite to export is rarely in doubt. The cash flow to underwrite that ambition, however, has been another matter. Under the new arrangement, Finance for Forces, founded by Russell Lewis MC and Paul Goodman, will be able to introduce qualifying clients to UKEF’s suite of short-term products for smaller exporters, including working capital guarantees, bond support guarantees and export insurance policies. UKEF, in turn, will refer veteran-led firms back the other way where the fit is right.

It is a neat piece of joined-up government, and one that comes with a clear strategic backdrop. The collaboration is explicitly designed to support the Government’s Veterans Strategy, launched in November 2025, which framed the ex-service community as a national economic asset rather than a welfare line item, citing the leadership, discipline and operational nous that translate, with surprising frequency, into commercially robust SMEs.

Beyond the referrals plumbing, the two organisations will run information sessions and networking events aimed at demystifying export finance, an area that even seasoned founders can find labyrinthine. For veteran entrepreneurs, many of whom are scaling for the first time, that hand-holding is likely to matter as much as the products themselves.

Chris Bryant, Minister of State for Trade, said the partnership was about converting service into commercial reward. “Our veterans have shown extraordinary bravery and dedication in service to the nation, and their skills should be matched by real commercial opportunity,” he said. “This partnership will help turn entrepreneurial ambition into export success, helping veteran-led businesses reach international markets with the backing and confidence they deserve.”

Tim Reid, chief executive of UKEF, said the agency’s small business remit was central to the move. “Supporting small businesses to export and grow is central to UKEF’s mission. By partnering with Finance for Forces, we can reach more veteran-led businesses and help them access the finance they need to win international contracts, enter new markets and scale up with confidence.”

Paul Goodman, co-founder of Finance for Forces, was perhaps the bluntest on the practical problem the deal is meant to solve. “Veterans bring leadership, resilience and a mission focus to business, but navigating commercial finance can be challenging,” he said. “This partnership with UKEF will help veteran-led firms understand their options and access the backing they need to develop exports and accelerate growth.”

For UKEF, the announcement sits within a broader push to shed any lingering reputation as a facility primarily for the corporate heavyweights. The agency has spent recent years recalibrating towards SMEs in every corner of the country, promising faster response times and more targeted support irrespective of location, size or ownership. Bolting on a dedicated channel for the veteran business community, a constituency with a particularly strong record on resilience and follow-through, looks, on the face of it, like a sensible bet.

Whether the partnership translates into a meaningful uplift in veteran-led export volumes will depend, as ever, on awareness and execution. But for founders who have spent years wondering whether the export financing system was really built for businesses like theirs, the answer just got a little more encouraging.

Read more:
UKEF teams up with Finance for Forces to put veteran-led exporters on the global map

Britain’s ambitions to lead the global race for driverless cars took a significant step forward today as the Government inked a formal partnership with Wayve, the London-headquartered artificial intelligence scale-up that has emerged as the country’s standard-bearer in autonomous vehicle technology.

The Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Wayve and the Department for Business and Trade, is designed to deepen collaboration on next-generation self-driving systems and underpin the company’s continued expansion on home soil, a notable vote of confidence at a time when many of Britain’s most promising tech firms have been lured across the Atlantic by deeper pools of capital.

For the SME and high-growth community, the deal is being read as a barometer of Whitehall’s willingness to back homegrown champions with more than warm words. Under the agreement, Government and industry will pool research interests around the responsible deployment of automated vehicles, with the explicit aim of converting Britain’s world-class AI research into commercial reality on its roads, in its factories and across its supply chains.

Officials hope the partnership will act as a catalyst for fresh investment, skilled employment and long-term growth across an automotive ecosystem that has been buffeted in recent years by the transition to electric vehicles, supply-chain disruption and intensifying competition from China and the United States. The signal to international investors, ministers insist, is unambiguous: the UK is open for business and intends to be the destination of choice for ambitious technology companies looking to scale.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle said the agreement demonstrated how the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy was being put into practice. “This partnership with Wayve shows how government is backing high-growth British scale-ups through our Modern Industrial Strategy to turn world-leading research into real-world deployment,” he said. “By working hand-in-hand with innovative companies, we are accelerating self-driving technology while anchoring jobs, investment and manufacturing here in the UK, making Britain the best place to start, scale and grow a business.”

Alex Kendall, Wayve’s co-founder and chief executive, struck a similarly bullish tone. “I’m delighted to deepen our collaboration with the Department for Business and Trade. We share the Government’s ambition to drive economic growth through the development of the self-driving vehicle sector in the UK and globally,” he said. “Strengthening domestic capabilities will anchor high-value manufacturing in the UK, create thousands of skilled jobs across the supply chain, and support the future of the automotive industry. This is in addition to the transformative benefits to road safety to be gained from self-driving vehicles deployed at scale.”

Founded in 2017 and now one of Britain’s most valuable AI businesses, Wayve has established itself as a pioneer of so-called “embodied AI”, training vehicles to learn from experience rather than relying solely on hand-coded rules and high-definition mapping. The company’s investor roster reads like a who’s who of global capital, and its decision to keep its centre of gravity in the United Kingdom has become a touchstone for the broader debate about retaining home-grown intellectual property.

Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall described Wayve as “a true British AI success story, putting the UK at the forefront of self-driving technology.” She added that the agreement would “help secure high-skilled tech and advanced manufacturing jobs in this country” and send a clear signal that “the UK is the best place for ambitious tech firms to start up and scale up.”

The substance of the MoU is squarely aimed at moving automated vehicles beyond the prototype phase and into commercially viable services on British roads. Joint workstreams will cover safety assurance, large-scale simulation and the integration of full self-driving capability into production-ready vehicle platforms, areas where Britain has long held latent expertise but has often struggled to commercialise at pace.

The partnership also reinforces the Government’s ambition to position the UK as a global hub for automated vehicle manufacturing, strengthening domestic supply chains in artificial intelligence, systems integration and advanced automotive hardware. Wayve, for its part, has agreed to share insights from real-world trials with ministers and regulators, providing the empirical foundation for the rules and standards that will govern a national roll-out of self-driving services.

For an automotive sector in the throes of structural reinvention, the implication is significant. Closer collaboration between industry, Government and local partners is intended to revive and evolve British vehicle manufacturing, demonstrating that fast-growing companies can scale at home rather than relocating overseas in search of supportive policy and patient capital.

The announcement comes against the backdrop of the Modern Industrial Strategy, which Whitehall says has already crowded in private investment into priority growth sectors. The Government points to roughly £360 billion in investment commitments, £33 billion in export announcements and 120,000 jobs secured since publication, figures that ministers will be keen to translate into a wider narrative of economic renewal as the political cycle wears on.

For founders, investors and SME leaders watching from the sidelines, the lesson is straightforward enough. When Government and a scale-up of Wayve’s calibre line up around a shared industrial agenda, the message is that Britain intends to compete at the sharpest end of the technology frontier, and that the long-promised marriage between policy and enterprise may, finally, be moving from theory into practice.

Read more:
Wayve lands government deal in race to put Britain in the self-driving fast lane

Somewhere in a damp Parisian hotel in October 1977, a young Geordie schoolteacher called Gordon Sumner picked up his bass, glanced at a faded poster of Cyrano de Bergerac in the foyer, leaned out of the window at the working girls below, and rattled off a small reggae-flavoured number about a prostitute he had never met.

He called her Roxanne. He spent, by most accounts, an afternoon on the thing. Possibly a long lunch. Certainly less time than I will have spent writing this column.

That song, in February 2022, helped Sting hand his entire songwriting catalogue, some six hundred tunes, to Universal Music Publishing for a reported $300 million. Roughly £240 million in real money. For lyrics scribbled on hotel notepads, in the back of tour buses, occasionally in the bath. Even allowing for inflation, alimony and the eye-watering price of his tantric retreats, it remains, in cold commercial terms, the single greatest example of “sweating the asset” I have ever encountered in business.

Consider the original economics. A pop song in 1977 was a perishable: three minutes of grooves pressed into a slab of polyvinyl chloride, designed to be bought for 75p, played to death, scratched by a teenager and replaced by next week’s offering. The label took the lion’s share. The writer, if he was lucky and his manager was honest, he usually wasn’t, got a few pence per copy. And yet here we are, half a century on, and Roxanne is still earning. Every car advert. Every karaoke licence. Every Spotify spin in a Bangkok cocktail bar at two in the morning. Every nostalgic Boomer thumbing repeat in his Range Rover on the M40 to Bicester Village.

Sting is not alone. Bob Dylan flogged his songwriting catalogue to Universal in late 2020 for around $300 million, then sold his recorded works to Sony the following summer for another $200 million. Bruce Springsteen, the working-class hero from Asbury Park, lifted somewhere between $500 and $600 million off Sony for his life’s work. Bowie’s estate, Genesis, Neil Young, Pink Floyd. The numbers are positively obscene, and rising.

Why? Because, according to the IFPI’s Global Music Report 2025, recorded music brought in $29.6 billion globally last year. Streaming alone topped $20 billion, fully 69 per cent of the pie. There are now 752 million paying subscribers worldwide and ten consecutive years of growth. The very technology that everyone solemnly said would kill the music industry, Napster, file-sharing, the iPod, the internet itself, has instead resurrected it as the perfect annuity. Music doesn’t sell once any more. It sells forever, in fractions of a penny, every second of every day, while the writer sleeps.

Compare that to the rest of us. The plumber who fitted my boiler in 2018 invoiced me, paid his VAT and moved on. The barrister who drafted our new sponsorship contracts billed by the hour and that was that. The architect, the dentist, the accountant, the management consultant, all selling time, all watching the clock, all running flat out until the day they retire and the cheques stop. Even the great industrial fortunes of the twentieth century, your Wedgwoods, your Hansons, your Goldsmiths, required factories, foundries, lorries, lawyers, picket lines and the occasional hostile takeover. Whereas Paul McCartney dreamt the melody of Yesterday in his girlfriend’s spare room in 1965, scribbled “scrambled eggs, oh my baby how I love your legs” as placeholder lyrics, and has since banked north of £19.5 million on a single song — the most-covered tune in human history, with more than three thousand versions. The Beatles’ catalogue is now valued comfortably north of £1.2 billion and reportedly throws off £70 to £90 million a year for owners who, gloriously, include almost none of the people who actually wrote it.

This is the lesson British business has been embarrassingly slow to learn. It is not what you make. It is what you make that keeps making. The whole intellectual property economy, software, brands, patents, content, is built on this principle. Microsoft writes Office once and bills you forever. Disney drew Mickey before the Wall Street Crash and is still suing people about him. Coca-Cola scribbled a formula on a piece of paper in 1886 and has paid for four generations of dividend cheques. But none of them, not one, possesses the casual, narcotic genius of the songwriter who spent an afternoon humming and is still cashing seven-figure royalty statements in his seventies.

We business owners should be furious. And inspired. In November 2023, The Beatles even released Now and Then, a John Lennon demo from the late seventies, patched up with artificial intelligence and a bit of Peter Jackson studio wizardry, and it strolled to number one in the UK, fifty-six years after their previous chart-topper. The asset, sweated and sweated and sweated again, and now sweating for a fourth generation of listeners who weren’t born when their grandparents bought the original LP.

So the next time some private equity grandee bangs the boardroom table demanding “operational efficiency” and “recurring revenue streams”, remind him gently that the most efficient business model in the modern economy is a paunchy Geordie with a guitar humming nonsense about a Parisian prostitute in 1977 and banking nine-figure cheques in his seventies. The rest of us should be so lucky. Or, more usefully, so clever.

Read more:
Sweating the asset: How Sting wrote Roxanne in an afternoon and sold It for £240 Million

Tesco has suffered a significant setback in the long-running equal pay battle being waged by tens of thousands of its shop floor staff, after the Court of Appeal threw out the supermarket’s challenge to the way an Employment Tribunal had been assessing the value of jobs carried out by its customer assistants.

In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Britain’s biggest grocer’s appeal against the Tribunal’s approach to determining the job facts of customer assistants and warehouse operatives, a critical step in the so-called “equal value” process that underpins the entire dispute.

The ruling comes mid-way through a separate Employment Tribunal hearing in which Tesco is attempting to justify paying its predominantly female store workforce less than its largely male distribution centre staff. The supermarket has leant heavily on the argument that the differential reflects “market rates”, a defence lawyers at Leigh Day, who act for more than 16,000 claimants, insist cannot lawfully stand.

At the heart of the appeal was Tesco’s attempt to stop the Tribunal from relying on the company’s own training manuals and operational documents to establish what customer assistants and warehouse operatives are required to do day-to-day. For Britain’s SME employers and retail bosses watching closely, the Court of Appeal’s response will make uncomfortable reading.

The judges upheld the Tribunal’s approach, accepting that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment, deploys sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains exhaustive training materials precisely to ensure work is carried out consistently across every one of its stores. The Court found Tesco had a “strong business need” for these roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations, and that, absent clear evidence to the contrary, its own training documents could properly be treated as determinative of what staff were required to do.

The implications stretch well beyond Welwyn Garden City. The judgment effectively rejects attempts to force thousands of workers in mass equal pay claims to individually prove every nut and bolt of their roles when the employer has itself standardised the work. For any business with a structured operating model, supermarkets, hospitality chains, logistics operators and the wider SME retail community, the precedent is plain: your own training materials and operating manuals may be used as evidence against you.

The Court of Appeal also repeated earlier criticisms of Tesco’s evidential approach, raising concerns about both the nature and presentation of witness testimony deployed during the litigation. In a further blow to large employers, the judgment offered fresh guidance that tribunals in mass equal pay claims may, where appropriate, assess jobs more generically rather than insisting every single claim be picked apart on an overly individualised basis, a clarification that could substantially reduce the runway of delay and procedural complexity that often accompanies these disputes.

Kiran Daurka, employment partner at Leigh Day, said the ruling was a significant moment for access to justice. “The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of removing unnecessary hurdles that prevent everyday people from accessing justice in complex equal pay litigation,” she said. “This judgment is a welcome clarification that, in large-scale cases involving sophisticated respondents like Tesco and other large retailers, tribunals can take a practical and proportionate approach to assessing jobs, which then mitigates against unnecessary complexity to delay or obstruct claims.

“Our clients have always maintained that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make equal pay claims impossible to pursue. This ruling will help future claims progress in a more streamlined and accessible way.”

For Tesco, and for every employer with a workforce split between front-of-house and back-of-house operations, the message from the Court of Appeal is unambiguous. The defence of “that’s just what the market pays” is wearing thin, and the documents sitting on a company’s own intranet may yet prove to be the most powerful evidence claimants ever need.

Read more:
Tesco loses court of appeal fight over equal pay job assessment in landmark ruling for SME and retail employers

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has thrown his Ineos Grenadier into one of the most coveted defence procurement contests of the decade, gunning for a Ministry of Defence contract worth an initial £900 million to replace the British Army’s ageing fleet of Land Rovers.

The billionaire industrialist, tax exile and part-owner of Manchester United has been in active discussions with the MoD, lining his utilitarian 4×4 up for a tender that opens shortly and could ultimately deliver up to 7,000 vehicles to the armed forces. A formal announcement from Ineos Grenadier is understood to be imminent, with initial bids due on Monday.

It sets the stage for a four-way scrap that pits Ratcliffe directly against his long-standing rival, Jaguar Land Rover, the British marque he once tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire. JLR is fielding a military variant of its commercially successful new Defender, the modernised reincarnation of the very vehicle the Grenadier was inspired by. The two firms previously clashed in court when JLR accused Ratcliffe of copying the original Land Rover silhouette; the judge ruled there had been no breach of copyright, though Ratcliffe has never disguised the lineage of his design.

Also in the running are BAE Systems, which has paired with the American giant General Motors under the working title Team LionStrike, offering GM’s Infantry Squad Vehicle already in service with US forces, with engineering support based in Leamington Spa and Silverstone. Devon’s Supacat, working alongside defence contractor Babcock, is pitching an armoured derivative of the Toyota Hilux fitted with a bespoke chassis and combat cell.

Mike Whittington, chief commercial officer at Ineos, made it clear the Grenadier’s ambitions stretch well beyond Whitehall. “The Grenadier is the ideal choice for defence services as it’s the most capable 4×4,” he said. “Its local supply lines make it ideal for deployment in European countries, for sovereign defence and operations in the UK and on the continent.” Whittington pointed to existing demand from elite counter-terrorism and special operations units in Germany and France, alongside border forces in Germany, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Hungary and Spain.

Mark Cameron, managing director of the Defender programme at JLR, was equally bullish. “Defender will again begin supplying UK-designed and engineered light logistics vehicles for people and equipment transportation for the defence and blue light sectors, which Defender has a long history of supporting.”

For all the patriotic flag-waving, neither of the two frontrunners is actually built in Britain. The Grenadier rolls off a production line on the French–German border, in the former Smart car plant at Hambach, while the Defender is assembled at JLR’s Slovakian facility in Nitra. The MoD’s tender notably stops short of demanding domestic manufacture, a concession that will raise eyebrows in Westminster given Ratcliffe’s increasingly vocal criticism of the Labour government’s industrial policy.

The MoD confirmed in March that it was retiring the Land Rover from frontline duties after more than seven decades of service, describing the moment as “the end of an era for the vehicle that has been a cornerstone of military operations”. Officials want the first replacement vehicles in soldiers’ hands by 2030, with the initial tranche of 3,000 vehicles, plus engineering support, valued at £900 million.

For Ratcliffe, the contract represents more than a commercial prize. Having built Ineos into one of Britain’s largest privately-held chemicals empires, the Grenadier was always a passion project, conceived over a pint in a Belgravia pub and named after it. Winning the MoD’s blessing would validate his bet on a market that the original Land Rover effectively abandoned and hand him a powerful reference customer to chase further European defence deals.

For JLR, the stakes are arguably even greater. Losing the Land Rover’s spiritual home contract to an upstart designed by a critic of its design heritage would be a public relations setback of considerable magnitude, particularly as the Tata-owned business pushes its premium Defender into ever-higher price brackets and away from the workhorse roots that earned it military favour in the first place.

Read more:
Ratcliffe’s Grenadier rolls into battle for MoD’s £900m Land Rover replacement

Jamie Dimon has fired the bluntest warning shot yet at Westminster, signalling that JPMorgan Chase will walk away from its planned multibillion-pound Canary Wharf skyscraper if the political weather in Britain turns colder for the banking industry.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Tuesday, the chairman and chief executive of America’s largest bank said the lender would “reconsider” the project should its UK tax bill climb “too much”, a pointed intervention as speculation grows in the City that Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership is vulnerable and that a successor government could lurch leftwards.

“Not political instability, but if they become hostile to banks again, yes,” Dimon told the broadcaster when asked whether the febrile mood in Westminster was giving him pause. “I’ve always objected to the fact, we didn’t damage the UK in any way, we paid probably $10 billion in extra taxes by now. I don’t think that’s right or fair. If that happens too much we will reconsider.”

The proposed tower, which would span roughly three million square feet and accommodate up to 12,000 staff, was unveiled the day after Rachel Reeves delivered her latest Budget. The chancellor opted against raising taxes on banks after intensive lobbying by the industry, a decision that JPMorgan rewarded with one of the most consequential corporate property announcements London has seen in a generation.

Were it built, the skyscraper would rank among the largest office buildings in Europe. JPMorgan has put the construction-phase boost to the local economy at £9.9 billion, while the Treasury has dangled a business rates discount of “up to 100 per cent” to secure the investment. The bank, however, was careful to caveat its commitment at the time, stressing that the project remained “subject to a continuing positive business environment in the UK”.

Dimon’s latest remarks make plain what that small print really means.

Britain’s lenders are enjoying a profitable run. First-quarter results from the high street banks confirmed earnings continue to be flattered by higher-for-longer interest rates, themselves a consequence of the inflationary shock from the war in Iran. That combination, fat banking profits, squeezed household budgets and battered public finances, has long been a recipe for political appetite to raid the sector.

UK Finance, the industry’s lobbying arm, calculates that banks operating in Britain now shoulder the heaviest tax burden of any major financial centre, with an effective rate of 46.4 per cent last year against 27.9 per cent in New York and 38.9 per cent in Frankfurt. The numbers reflect a bank levy on balance sheets introduced in the 2010 emergency Budget after the financial crisis, layered with a corporation tax surcharge on profits brought in five years later.

CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, captured the mood last month when he observed that “banks in the UK are more highly taxed than they are in other major jurisdictions.” Analysts at Jefferies told clients last week that they considered an increase in the bank surcharge to be “more likely than not”.

A retreat by JPMorgan from Canary Wharf would not simply leave a hole in the Docklands skyline. It would dent the supply chain of construction firms, fit-out specialists, security contractors, cleaners, caterers and software vendors that depend on big anchor tenants. It would also chill the broader signal sent to overseas investors weighing whether London remains, post-Brexit, a credible base for European headquarters, investors whose downstream spending touches thousands of British SMEs.

There is, equally, a financing dimension. Punitive levies on banks rarely stay confined to the banks themselves. They tend to manifest in tighter lending criteria, higher arrangement fees and a more cautious approach to small business credit, precisely the segment of the market that already complains loudest about access to capital.

Whether the warning lands depends on who occupies Number 10 by the autumn. Should Sir Keir survive, Treasury officials are likely to continue the delicate dance of squeezing revenue from elsewhere while keeping the City onside. Should he fall, his successor will inherit a fiscal hole, a restless backbench and an industry that, despite record profits, has become extraordinarily adept at signalling its mobility.

Dimon, who has spent the better part of two decades reminding politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that capital travels, has chosen his moment. JPMorgan’s tower is not merely a building. It is a bargaining chip, and the chancellor, whoever she or he turns out to be, has just been put on notice.

Read more:
JPMorgan threatens to scrap Canary Wharf skyscraper if Labour swings left on bank taxes

Suzanne Ashman, one of London’s most prolific early-stage venture capitalists and the daughter-in-law of Sir Tony Blair, has been appointed managing partner of the government’s £500 million Sovereign AI fund, a vehicle designed to channel patient capital into Britain’s homegrown artificial intelligence champions and loosen the country’s dependence on Silicon Valley.

The appointment, confirmed on Tuesday, places Ashman at the helm of one of the most closely watched pots of taxpayer-backed money in the UK technology ecosystem. Launched in April, the Sovereign AI fund is chaired by James Wise, a partner at Balderton Capital, and is tasked with co-investing alongside private backers in companies the Treasury views as strategically important to Britain’s long-term competitiveness.

Ashman, who married Euan Blair in 2013, has cut her teeth at two of the capital’s most respected seed and growth investors, LocalGlobe and Latitude, where she sat as a general partner. In its statement, Sovereign AI described her as “one of the most respected venture investors in the UK”, crediting her with “a decade backing the founders who have come to define a generation of British technology”.

Her track record at LocalGlobe and Latitude offers a window into the kind of bets the new fund is likely to favour. She led the firms’ investments into Motorway, the used-car marketplace now valued at more than $1 billion, and into Open Cosmos, a fast-growing satellite manufacturer and operator working on Earth-observation missions. Both are textbook examples of the scale-up stage British venture capital has historically struggled to finance without bringing in American or Asian lead investors.

The family dimension to the appointment is hard to ignore. Euan Blair has himself become a fixture of the British technology scene since founding Multiverse, now the country’s largest apprenticeship provider, in 2016. The combination of a high-profile political surname and one of the most active venture investors in London moving into a government-funded role will inevitably attract scrutiny, even though Ashman’s investment record stands comfortably on its own.

Ashman arrives just as the fund discloses its third investment. Sovereign AI has joined the latest funding round for Isomorphic Labs, the London-headquartered drug discovery business spun out of Google DeepMind in 2021 by Sir Demis Hassabis. Isomorphic announced it had raised $2.1 billion from a syndicate that includes Thrive Capital and Abu Dhabi’s MGX, alongside existing backers Alphabet and Google Ventures.

Isomorphic said the proceeds would underpin an aggressive hiring drive and help it commercialise its “drug design engine”, which uses AI to predict how candidate medicines will behave in the human body, a process the company believes can compress years out of the conventional drug development timeline. The Sovereign AI fund declined to disclose the size of its cheque, though the vehicle typically writes tickets of between £1 million and £20 million.

Ruth Porat, president and chief investment officer at Alphabet and Google, said: “Isomorphic Labs has already made extraordinary progress in harnessing AI to accelerate drug discovery and we are excited by this momentum and the early promise of the technology platform.”

For SME-watchers, the Isomorphic deal is a useful indicator of how the fund intends to deploy its money. Joséphine Kant, head of ventures at Sovereign AI, said: “Isomorphic is one of the most consequential companies being built anywhere in the world today and it’s being built in Britain. Sovereign AI exists to invest in the companies that will shape what this country becomes next.”

The political stakes are equally clear. Liz Kendall, the science and technology secretary, called Isomorphic’s work “AI at its very best”, arguing that it could “reshape completely how medicines are discovered, cutting years off development and giving real hope to people living with devastating diseases”.

Whether the Sovereign AI fund can move the needle for Britain’s wider population of AI-first SMEs, those without a DeepMind pedigree or a billion-dollar valuation, will be the real test of Ashman’s tenure. With £500 million to deploy and a remit to back companies the private market alone is unlikely to scale, the new managing partner has both the firepower and the political weight behind her. The question now is whether the fund can identify the next generation of British technology leaders before American capital does it first.

Read more:
Blair family link as Suzanne Ashman takes the reins at £500m Sovereign AI fund

British food marketers have been handed a stark warning after the advertising watchdog banned two high-profile campaigns promoting domestic beef and milk, ruling that the carbon footprint claims at their heart could not be substantiated.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint brought by Chris Packham, the broadcaster and environmental campaigner, against the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) over its taxpayer-funded Let’s Eat Balanced campaign. The decision is likely to send a chill through the marketing departments of food producers, processors and trade bodies that have increasingly leaned on green credentials to drive sales.

At issue were two adverts trumpeting British beef as having a “carbon footprint that’s half the global average” and British milk as producing emissions “a third lower than the global average”. Both campaigns referenced the “full lifecycle” of the produce, a phrase that has now proved their undoing.

The AHDB, which is funded by a statutory levy on farmers and growers, argued that consumers would reasonably have understood the figures to relate only to the journey from farm to retail. The board pointed to independent consumer research, commissioned after the investigation began, suggesting the majority of respondents interpreted the adverts in precisely that way.

The ASA disagreed. The regulator concluded that the adverts implied a cradle-to-grave assessment encompassing farming, retail, consumption and disposal, and that the evidence supplied fell short of supporting claims on that basis. The watchdog acknowledged the practical difficulty of producing post-retail emissions data but said that, where environmental claims are made, the burden of proof rests squarely on the advertiser unless caveats are made plain.

“We acknowledged the potential difficulties in producing post-retail emissions data,” the ASA said in its ruling. “The claims in the ads suggested those emissions were included, and we therefore expected the evidence provided to also include them. We therefore concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the full life cycle claims in the ads, which was how the average consumer was likely to interpret them.”

Mr Packham, the long-standing presenter of BBC’s Springwatch, had also alleged that the adverts misrepresented British beef as typically outdoor-grazed and made claims that could not be substantiated. The watchdog rejected five of his six points, ruling that images of cows in green pastures amounted to a “generic reflection” of British farming rather than a blanket assertion that all cattle live outdoors.

Will Jackson, the AHDB’s director of communications, struck a defiant note in response to the ruling. “Let’s Eat Balanced is doing what it was designed to do, providing clear, factual, evidence-led information about British food, nutrition and farming standards,” he said. He added that the board’s own consumer research “supports our belief that consumers were not misled by the information we shared in these two specific adverts”.

For the wider SME landscape, however, the ruling carries lessons that extend well beyond the farm gate. Small and mid-sized food businesses, from artisan cheesemakers to regional butchers, have increasingly built marketing around lower-carbon, locally produced credentials. The ASA’s intervention signals that broad-brush green claims, particularly comparative ones, will face robust scrutiny regardless of whether the advertiser is a multinational, a government-backed body or a family-run producer.

The decision also lands at a sensitive moment for British agriculture, which is grappling with the phasing out of EU-era subsidies, mounting input costs and growing consumer pressure on the environmental footprint of meat and dairy. Sector bodies will now need to weigh up whether the marketing benefits of headline carbon comparisons justify the regulatory risk, or whether more conservative, narrowly framed claims offer a safer path.

For marketers across the SME economy, the practical takeaway is straightforward enough. Lifecycle language must be backed by lifecycle evidence; comparative claims must be supported by robust, like-for-like data; and where caveats are required, they must be clear enough that the ordinary consumer cannot reasonably misread them. As the ASA has made plain, the test is not what the advertiser intended to say, but what the average reader took away.

Read more:
ASA bans British beef and milk adverts after Packham complaint over carbon claims

Waitrose is to put bottles of champagne behind locked glass before the end of the year, as the upmarket grocer escalates its fight against an unrelenting wave of shoplifting that has swept through Britain’s high streets.

The John Lewis Partnership-owned chain has told its 50,000-strong workforce of partners that it will pilot so-called “smart cabinets” to protect premium spirits and champagne, marking one of the most striking acknowledgements yet that organised retail crime has begun to reach into the aisles of Britain’s most genteel supermarkets.

The cabinets, already trialled at rivals including Sainsbury’s, typically require shoppers to navigate a multi-step process on a touchpad before the doors will release. Some retailers have gone further, demanding customers scan a loyalty card or enter a mobile telephone number to gain access, creating a digital paper trail that can later be cross-referenced if stock goes missing. The technology can also log how long a cabinet door has been open, flagging suspicious behaviour such as bulk emptying to staff in real time.

Waitrose has declined to disclose the precise mechanics of its own system, but the move comes alongside a broader package of measures: protective “meat nets” wrapped around premium joints, reinforced screens at tobacco counters to deter the increasingly common practice of vaulting kiosks to grab cigarettes, and an expanded rollout of body-worn cameras for staff on the shop floor.

In an internal communication to partners, Lucy Brown, the John Lewis Partnership’s director of central operations, framed the investment as proof that the business was not “standing still” in the face of what she conceded had been characterised as “a tide of retail crime and epidemic of shoplifting”. She acknowledged the frustration felt by staff who watch thieves walk out unchallenged, but warned that intervention was rarely the safer option.

“It may feel like standing back is us not acting, but this isn’t the case,” Ms Brown wrote, urging partners to resist their “first instinct” to detain suspects or wrestle back stock. Detaining “potentially volatile” individuals in front of other customers, she said, risked escalating an already fraught situation.

The guidance follows a bruising month for Waitrose’s public image. The retailer faced sharp criticism in April after dismissing Walker Smith, a 17-year veteran of the chain, who said he had been sacked for confronting a shoplifter attempting to make off with Easter eggs. The Partnership declined to comment on the specifics, citing employment confidentiality, but said it had followed “the correct process” and pointed to the “serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters”.

Jason Tarry, the John Lewis chairman who joined from Tesco last year, has since written in The Telegraph that the answer to the crime wave was emphatically not to “encourage” workers to take on thieves themselves. Trained security personnel would “intervene to challenge shoplifters”, he said, “but only if they’ve been trained and it’s safe to do so”.

The retreat into hardened technology reflects the scale of the problem confronting British retailers. Industry body the British Retail Consortium has repeatedly warned that shop theft has reached levels not seen in a generation, with the cost to retailers running into the billions and assaults on shop workers rising sharply. For a chain such as Waitrose, whose brand has long traded on a relaxed, customer-trusted shopping experience, the optics of placing Bollinger behind a touchscreen-controlled glass door represent a notable cultural shift.

A spokesman for John Lewis confirmed the direction of travel: “We are currently investing in a range of advanced technology, including smart technology to deter theft. As part of this we are planning to pilot lockable smart cabinets for areas such as spirits and champagne soon. We already use smart shelf technology in our health, beauty and spirits aisles, which are able to sense unusual customer behaviour, so this would provide an additional layer of security.”

For Britain’s SME retailers, who lack the capital to deploy comparable systems, the message from Waitrose is sobering. If a chain of its size and security spend has concluded that its most prized stock now needs locking up, the implication for the independent off-licence or village convenience store is uncomfortable indeed.

Read more:
Waitrose places champagne under lock and key as retail crime wave bites