Business

Greggs is increasing prices on some of its best-known menu items as the bakery chain seeks to offset rising employment costs while managing softer sales growth.

From Thursday, customers will pay 5p more for certain baked goods such as the empire biscuit, while breakfast deals will also rise in price. The two-part breakfast deal, which includes a roll and a drink, will increase from £2.95 to £3.15, while the three-part version, adding a side like a yoghurt pot or hash browns, will rise from £3.95 to £4.15.

Chief executive Roisin Currie said the group remained committed to keeping prices as low as possible but added: “We are operating in an inflationary environment.”

The price hikes were announced alongside third-quarter results showing like-for-like sales up 1.5% in the 13 weeks to 27 September, slowing from 2.6% growth in the first half of the year.

Greggs had previously warned that summer heatwaves dampened demand for hot baked goods in July, forcing it to cut annual earnings guidance. The company now expects full-year operating profit to be “modestly” below the £195.3m recorded in 2024, with analysts forecasting around £176m.

Encouragingly, trading conditions improved in August and September, allowing Greggs to hold its revised guidance. That reassurance triggered a 7.2% share price rally, lifting the stock to £17.20 and squeezing hedge funds who had shorted the shares. Greggs remains one of the most shorted companies in London, with 5.1% of its stock on loan to investors betting against it.

Greggs, which operates 2,675 shops, opened a net 57 new outlets this year but now expects to add around 120 net stores in 2025 — down from earlier guidance of 140–150, citing “timing of opportunities.” The chain continues to expand in supermarkets including Tesco and Sainsbury’s, while targeting new transport, roadside and retail park locations.

Currie dismissed talk of “peak Greggs,” insisting the company could grow its estate to more than 3,000 shops long term. She pointed to evolving customer tastes, with the bakery introducing high-protein options such as egg pots and protein shakes alongside its traditional sausage rolls and steak bakes.

Analysts remain cautious. Panmure Liberum noted that while slower store openings were a concern, an improving cost outlook supported confidence in Greggs’ guidance. Clive Black at Shore Capital warned that falling like-for-like volumes posed longer-term questions about whether Greggs has reached its growth ceiling, commenting:

“Like-for-like volume is not the be-all and end-all, but it is going to be a key concern of existing and prospective investors.”
Despite lingering doubts, the market rally suggests investors see Greggs’ cost discipline and resilience as positives — at least for now.

Read more:
Greggs lifts prices to offset rising wage costs as investors rally behind stock

The government will fast-track legislation to permanently ban fracking in the UK, in a move designed to block Reform UK’s pledge to revive the controversial practice.

Ed Miliband, energy secretary, confirmed the ban will be introduced as part of the North Sea transition plan, due this autumn. Any future attempt to restart fracking would require a parliamentary repeal, forcing MPs — many representing constituencies above shale gas deposits — to vote in favour of drilling.

Addressing Labour’s party conference, Miliband said campaigners would be sent to nearly 200 constituencies affected by shale gas reserves to mobilise opposition.

“We will legislate at the earliest opportunity to protect communities from fracking,” he said.

A permanent ban was already a Labour manifesto commitment, but Wednesday’s announcement set out the legislative route, underscoring Labour’s strategy to neutralise Reform’s energy platform.

The UK currently operates under a moratorium on fracking, which involves blasting a mixture of sand, water and chemicals into shale rock to release gas. The method has been widely criticised for its environmental risks, particularly the risk of earthquakes.

The last UK fracking project, at Preston New Road in Lancashire, triggered nearly 200 tremors in under a year before being halted.

Reform UK leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have argued that fracking could reduce energy bills, but experts have repeatedly rejected the claim, citing geological challenges and limited resource potential in the UK compared to the US.

Fracking remains unpopular with the public, and divisions have already emerged within Reform. Lancashire council, under Reform control, has stated it would not welcome drilling in the county.

The issue has a history of destabilising governments. In 2022, Liz Truss’s premiership faltered after she attempted to push through fracking support, only for her MPs to rebel during a Labour-led vote on the issue — a moment of chaos that hastened her downfall.

While Reform has sought to draw parallels with the American shale boom, experts note that the UK’s higher population density and faulted geology make extraction more disruptive, less efficient and far riskier.

By legislating now, Labour aims to lock in its pledge, protect communities overlying shale gas, and draw a sharp dividing line with Reform ahead of key local and national contests.

Read more:
Labour accelerates UK fracking ban as Ed Miliband counters Reform push

There have been long-standing concerns about the use of Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), particularly relating to sexual harassment allegations. Those concerns have grown with the momentum of the MeToo movement.

The use of NDAs stands at a critical crossroads. Imminent and future legal reforms are poised to fundamentally alter their scope and enforceability in the context of discrimination and harassment.

NDAs have historically been used as a crucial way of maintaining corporate confidentiality and protecting intellectual property and trade secrets. They are routinely used throughout the entire employment lifecycle, from hiring through ongoing employment and extending to an employee’s exit. Nonetheless, substantial legislative changes are set to limit their scope significantly.

How are legislative changes reshaping NDAs?

The Government is set to ban the use of controversial NDAs where workers have complained about workplace harassment or discrimination. This proposal is part of the Employment Rights Bill. If enacted, new rules will make confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements (or other agreements) void, to the extent that they attempt to prevent individuals from discussing allegations of or disclosing information about harassment or discrimination. The rules also extend to the employer’s response to the allegations.

There will be limited circumstances where NDAs can still be used in relation to harassment and discrimination complaints, known as “excepted agreements”. Future regulations are expected to define an “excepted agreement” narrowly, allowing such NDAs only under specific conditions -most notably, when a worker actively requests one.

There is currently no information about when these NDA proposals will be implemented. Although the Government published a roadmap in July 2025 outlining the phased implementation of the Employment Rights Bill, the NDA proposals were made after the roadmap’s publication.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024

By contrast, under section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (“the Act”), any NDAs entered into on or after 1 October 2025 will be unenforceable against individuals who are, or who reasonably believe themselves to be, victims of crime – specifically when they disclose information about relevant conduct to certain parties and for clearly defined purposes.

The Act protects “permitted disclosures” made by victims to:

Law enforcement agencies and investigative authorities
Qualified legal professionals
Regulated professionals, including members of the healthcare sector
Registered victim support organisations
Regulatory or supervisory bodies
Authorised representatives
Immediate family members, specifically being a victim’s child, parent, or partner.

The Act adopts an inclusive definition of “victim.” Under section 1, a victim is anyone who has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in England and Wales, or who reasonably believes they are a victim. Notably, this definition extends to individuals who have witnessed criminal conduct and experienced harm as a result.

“Harm” is defined broadly to include physical, mental, or emotional suffering, as well as economic loss. Importantly, there is no requirement for the offence to have been officially reported, nor must there be a charge or conviction for someone to be recognised as a victim under the Act.

What steps should organisations take?

·        Implement a clear anti-harassment policy if you don’t already have one, and ensure this includes an effective complaints procedure.

·       Provide training to workers and managers on harassment and discrimination.

·       Foster an inclusive culture in the workplace.

·       Review contract templates, especially NDAs, but also contracts of employment and settlement agreements to ensure they align with the latest legal standards.

·       As well as the above, and in relation to the new Act, set out clearly the circumstances when disclosures are permitted in NDAs. This will eliminate potential ambiguities regarding parties’ rights and obligations. By doing so, businesses can safeguard transparency and compliance in a rapidly evolving environment.

Conclusion

The introduction of these legislative reforms is another step toward prioritising individual rights over the broad use of confidentiality clauses. For employers, this means taking a proactive approach to ensure alignment with new transparency-focused standards.

While NDAs still serve a valid purpose in protecting legitimate business interests, their use in cases of harassment or discrimination is now subject to stricter scrutiny. That scrutiny will be even greater when the NDA provisions in the Employment Rights Bill come into force.

Read more:
Reshaping Confidentiality: The Changing Landscape of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Daniel Ek, the billionaire founder of Spotify and one of Europe’s most successful technology entrepreneurs, is stepping back from the day-to-day running of the company he launched nearly two decades ago.

From January 2026, Ek will move into the role of executive chairman, with long-time lieutenants Gustav Soderstrom and Alex Norstrom jointly assuming the position of co-CEOs.

The decision comes as Spotify enjoys a new period of stability, with nearly 700 million monthly active users and its first-ever annual profit reported in 2024.

In a memo to staff, Ek said the timing was right for change: “Alex and Gustav have clearly demonstrated that, with the support of this remarkable team, they are ready to lead Spotify as co-CEOs. And because you all have stepped up, I can confidently step back from the day-to-day.”

As executive chairman, Ek will focus on long-term strategy, capital allocation, and broader ambitions to help foster more European “super-companies” tackling global challenges.

Spotify described the new post as a “European-style chairman role”, with Ek remaining a key decision-maker and reporting line for Soderstrom and Norstrom.

Founded in Sweden in 2006 when Ek was in his early twenties, Spotify has grown into the world’s dominant music-streaming service, valued at $144 billion. The platform now draws revenue from both advertising and premium subscriptions, with about half of its customers paying for ad-free listening.

Ek’s leadership has seen the company reshape the global music industry, helping streaming revenues surpass $20 billion for the first time in 2024, according to IFPI’s Global Music Report.

Despite strong gains in Spotify’s stock this year — up 56% — news of the leadership change triggered a 4.2% drop in shares on Tuesday, closing at $697.78 in New York.

Ek, with an estimated net worth of $9.8 billion (Bloomberg Billionaires Index), will remain a central figure in Spotify’s future direction while delegating operations to his trusted deputies.

The new co-leadership is Gustav Soderstrom, currently chief product and technology officer, will continue to oversee global technology and product development and Alex Norstrom, chief business officer, will manage subscriber growth, advertising, and content across music, podcasts and audiobooks.

The three executives have worked together for more than a decade, a continuity that analysts suggest should ease concerns about disruption at the top.

Read more:
Spotify founder Daniel Ek to step back as CEO, handing reins to co-leaders

Nivoda, the B2B diamond and gemstone marketplace, has secured a $60 million financing facility from i80 Group to provide embedded trade credit to jewellery retailers across more than 70 countries.

The deal addresses a critical shortage of working capital in the diamond industry after traditional lenders retreated from the sector, leaving small and mid-sized retailers struggling to finance inventory purchases.

For more than a decade, the industry has faced a liquidity crunch as banks scaled back exposure to diamond financing. At the same time, demand for personalised and bespoke jewellery has surged, intensifying the need for smaller jewellers to access diverse supplier networks without restrictive cash flow constraints.

Nivoda’s platform, founded in 2017, enables retailers to source diamonds and gemstones from multiple international suppliers in a single transaction, offering 2.5 million certified stones, lab-grown diamonds, made-to-order jewellery and integrated logistics. The new facility will expand financing options across the jewellery supply chain, moving beyond diamonds into the wider jewellery ecosystem.

Since launch, Nivoda has achieved sustained triple-digit year-on-year growth, supplying millions of stones and jewellery pieces worldwide in as little as a few hours. Its customers include online and brick-and-mortar brands such as Taylor & Hart, Melanie Casey and Flawless Fine Jewellery.

CEO and founder David Sutton said the financing will allow the company to reshape how retailers access capital: “While traditional lenders have reduced their exposure to the diamond trade, this agreement allows us to work with an institutional lender who aligns financing with real trading flows and buyer engagement. It gives jewellers the flexibility to grow without being held back by cash flow.”

Through Nivoda Capital, the company offers integrated payment terms of 30, 60, or 90 days, allowing jewellers to free up working capital, manage seasonality, and match financing to bespoke production timelines.

Oakmont Jewelers customer Austin Cordle said: “Nivoda’s credit line has taken the pressure off cash flow and made it easy to secure the inventory I need, exactly when I need it. That freedom has helped me grow faster and focus on closing sales.”

Edward Goldstein, Managing Director at i80 Group, said: “By connecting retailers and suppliers on a truly global scale, Nivoda has redefined how the diamond and gemstone trade operates. We’re proud to provide financing that reflects marketplace realities, helping Nivoda and its partners expand responsibly.”

Headquartered in London and New York, Nivoda now employs staff across 25+ countries including India, South Africa, Hong Kong and Dubai. The company has raised $96 million in equity to date, including a $51m round led by Northzone, and continues to scale as one of the most significant disruptors in the diamond and jewellery trade.

Read more:
Nivoda secures $60m financing facility to ease jewellery retailers’ working capital crunch

Royal Mail has announced it will double its apprenticeship support for small businesses, gifting another £1 million of its levy to help SMEs upskill their workforce.

The move follows the success of its first £1m funding round, which was oversubscribed earlier this year.

The new funding is open to SMEs with up to 250 employees that sell products online. It forms part of Royal Mail Means Business – a nationwide campaign launched to champion UK SMEs and help them grow.

The first round of levy gifting, made available in June, supported more than 140 small businesses across sectors ranging from e-commerce, manufacturing and engineering to health and care services. Apprenticeships funded so far cover roles as diverse as marketing, HR, software development and data technicians.

Eligible SMEs can apply the new funding to any Government-approved apprenticeship course, from industry-specific training to programmes in digital marketing, AI, finance and e-commerce. The initiative is designed to help businesses address skills shortages and build expertise for long-term growth.

The scheme was informed by research conducted by Royal Mail with the British Chambers of Commerce earlier this year, which found only a third of SMEs expected to grow in 2025. A shortage of skills was identified as one of the key barriers.

As part of its SME-focused campaign, Royal Mail has pledged to:
• Launch a new Small Business Hub with centralised information and advice
• Address the skills and knowledge gap through levy gifting and training opportunities
• Provide greater support through Royal Mail services
• Help exporters navigate customs requirements

Companies with annual wage bills over £3m are required to pay into the apprenticeship levy, but can choose to gift unused levy funds to other organisations. Royal Mail said it has chosen to support SMEs because of the unique role it plays as the UK’s Universal Service Provider, delivering to all 32 million addresses nationwide.

Applications for the new funding round are now open via the Royal Mail Small Business Hub.

Paula Stannett, Chief People Officer at Royal Mail, said: “After an overwhelming response to our first £1 million round of apprenticeship funding, we’re proud to double our commitment and help even more businesses. With apprenticeship courses available for a wider range of subjects, they are an excellent way for companies to upskill their workforce.

“Royal Mail plays a unique role in supporting small and medium businesses across the UK, and this funding is part of our broader mission to help them thrive in today’s competitive market.”

Read more:
Royal Mail doubles SME apprenticeship funding with new £1m levy gift

British brands are failing to unlock an estimated $10 billion in value by relying too heavily on short-term marketing tactics and struggling to differentiate themselves, according to the latest Kantar BrandZ Top 75 Most Valuable UK Brands report.

Globally, brand contributes 33% of company value on average, but in the UK that figure slips to 29%, highlighting a significant gap in long-term brand building.

While UK brands are generally well known and successful at meeting consumer needs, Kantar’s analysis shows many lack distinctiveness, putting a ceiling on growth potential.

Jodie Gillary, Head of Brand Activation at Kantar Insights UK & Ireland, said: “Strong brands perform better, are more resilient and grow faster in the long run. But almost half of the UK’s most valuable brands (45%) aren’t seen positively enough to justify charging a higher-than-average price for their category. It’s never been more important for businesses to grasp the financial imperative of brand building.”

Gillary warned that British businesses risk being “too polite to be bold,” with disruption proving the biggest driver of global brand growth. Since 2006, disruption has delivered $6.6 trillion in incremental value for the world’s top 100 brands, but UK disruptor brands have fallen 19% in value since 2019.

This year’s ranking saw HSBC take the top spot for the first time, with a brand value of $21.6bn, up 14% year-on-year. It overtook Vodafone ($18.5bn) in second place. Financial services dominated the list, accounting for nine of the 10 fastest-growing UK brands.

Elsewhere, British Airways climbed 11 places to reach 55, while Dettol made a strong debut at number 34.

Overall, the UK’s top 75 brands grew by 8% in 2025, reversing last year’s decline. However, this still lags the 29% average growth seen globally, with other European markets such as the Netherlands and Spain outpacing the UK.

Research from Kantar and the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School shows that companies with strong brand equity achieve above-average share price returns and greater resilience during periods of crisis.

As Gillary notes, the fastest-growing brands are not necessarily the cheapest or biggest, but those that consistently set themselves apart: “The key is never to stand still – to consistently shake things up while staying absolutely true to the brand. Whether through innovation, branching into new categories, or standout digital experiences, brands must disrupt repeatedly to remain relevant.”

The findings underline a growing concern: while UK financial services brands are thriving, other sectors risk falling behind global competitors. Without bolder long-term investment in brand differentiation and disruption, the UK could continue to miss out on billions in untapped value.

Read more:
UK brands risk losing $10bn in value as short-term tactics limit growth potential

Cash from the £1.5 million government-backed commercial loan to support Jaguar Land Rover’s supply chain is not reaching smaller suppliers quickly enough, raising fears that many SMEs could collapse before funds filter through.

The warning came during a webinar hosted by audit and advisory firm Crowe, where participants highlighted the growing crisis facing UK automotive.

‘Worse than COVID-19’ for many suppliers

One contributor described the situation as more damaging than the pandemic: “Nobody outside of the automotive industry understands how bad this is.”

Johnathan Dudley, Head of Manufacturing and SME Corporates at Crowe, said speed was critical if small suppliers were to survive: “It is absolutely vital that the money starts to filter down the chain – and quickly. The depth of penetration of the loan funding is an issue. Will it trickle down the supply chain and across ancillary businesses fast enough, wide enough and far enough before companies run out of cash?”

He warned that Tier 1 suppliers and JLR itself are unlikely to place fresh orders until they have exhausted existing stocks built up during plant shutdowns — delaying the point at which smaller firms further down the chain receive payments.

In the meantime, SME suppliers face mounting bills. Rent, mortgages, wages and payments to their own suppliers cannot wait for funding flows to improve.

Some business leaders said that, after COVID-19, directors are now far more reluctant to provide personal guarantees to secure loans or overdraft extensions, adding another layer of risk for smaller firms.

Dudley emphasised the need for additional measures: “There is an immediate need for stress emergency funding and support in addition to funding feeding down from JLR. More needs to be done to help businesses that are running out of time, or who are not in the direct supply chain.”

Participants also expressed concern that funds could stall at Tier 1 suppliers rather than filtering through to smaller businesses, leaving many SMEs without the liquidity needed to survive.

With the UK automotive sector already under strain from global supply disruptions, rising costs and weaker demand, industry voices argue that ensuring cash reaches SMEs quickly is vital to protecting jobs and preserving critical supply chains.

Read more:
JLR loan support failing to reach SME suppliers quickly enough, warn industry experts

PPE Medpro has been ordered to repay nearly £122 million to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after losing its High Court case over the supply of sterile gowns during the Covid-19 pandemic — but the company’s principal backer, Doug Barrowman, has responded with a blistering statement accusing the government of political scapegoating and the court of delivering a “travesty of justice”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offers to settle ignored

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rumour has it that Rachel Reeves is limbering up for November with a Budget that will make the taxman’s quill squeak like a stuck pig. Property, pensions, profits, pasties — all grist to the Exchequer’s mill.

The Treasury is leaving no stone unturned, no pocket unpicked, no cupboard unopened. The only thing, one suspects, that remains miraculously safe from her fiscal scythe is Larry the Cat’s supper.

Cat food, so far, has escaped. But give it time. If Reeves wakes up one morning and thinks Felix is a luxury good, then Larry may be forced to reacquaint himself with the vermin of Whitehall.

Which would be, let’s face it, the first proper day’s work he’s done in a decade.

The mood music is grimly familiar. Reeves is billed as Britain’s most hawk-eyed chancellor since Gladstone, scrutinising every allowance and relief with the intensity of a headmistress checking pockets for contraband. She talks of “closing loopholes” and “fiscal responsibility”, which translates as: if you earn it, spend it, save it or feed it to your cat, I want a slice. There is a whiff of the Victorian workhouse about the whole thing — the sense that leisure, comfort, and small mercies are indulgences for which the State must extract a fee.

The thought of Larry’s pouch of Sheba being clobbered with 20% VAT is only half a joke. Reeves hasn’t said it. But given the way she’s nosing through the nation’s shopping basket like a customs officer at Dover, it might only be the fact that she’s scared of the animal-loving electorate that keeps Purina safe from the Chancellor’s paw.

Larry, then, becomes the perfect stand-in for the rest of us. He lives in the lap of political luxury, adored, photographed, never held accountable for his failure to deliver on the “mouser” part of his job title. And yet even he is only one Treasury brainstorm away from being told to pull his weight. The day the food bill doubles is the day Larry starts catching mice again.

And so it is with us. Once pampered, now fleeced, the British taxpayer is being nudged towards self-sufficiency by stealth. First you taxed our booze, then our cars, then our pensions, and now our every side-hustle. Tomorrow it will be our pets, the next day our plants, and eventually our patience.

The truly comic element is not that Reeves might be tempted to tax pet food, but that it has come to feel plausible. When a government makes you believe even the moggy’s supper is at risk, you know you’re in the realm of fiscal parody. It’s like imagining air being metered. Please insert £1 to continue breathing.

If Reeves could work out how to slap a duty on belly rubs or a surcharge on purring, you sense she’d do it before breakfast. The only thing stopping her is the optics of being seen to shake down a cat who has a bigger fanbase than most cabinet ministers.

And yet, strip away the feline froth, and the point is clear: this scattergun approach to taxation is not sustainable. You cannot tax your way to prosperity any more than you can slim by raiding the fridge at midnight. What Reeves needs — but seems reluctant to risk — is growth, investment, something genuinely bold. Instead we get a Budget that looks like the frantic contents of a handbag tipped out on the kitchen table: receipts, half-chewed mints, and a few coins scavenged from the lining.

Larry’s food may survive unscathed this time, but the message is unmistakeable: the Treasury has its nose in our cupboards, its paws on our wallets, and its eye on the cat’s dish. Heaven help us when they start eyeing the litter tray.

Read more:
Reeves’ Budget: is Larry’s cat food the last refuge?