Business

YouTube has agreed to a $24.5 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit President Donald Trump filed over the platform’s suspension of his account in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol riot.

Under the terms, $22 million will be channelled “on Trump’s behalf” to the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit that is overseeing the construction of a $200 million State Ballroom at the White House. The remaining $2.5 million will be distributed to other plaintiffs, including the American Conservative Union and author Naomi Wolf.

YouTube, owned by Alphabet (Google’s parent company), did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the deal. The settlement also does not require YouTube to change its content moderation policies or platform features.

This marks the last of three high-profile cases Trump launched against major technology platforms after being suspended from them in 2021. He previously sued Meta (Facebook) and X (formerly Twitter). Meta settled earlier in 2025 for $25 million (with $22 million earmarked for Trump’s planned presidential library) and X reached a $10 million settlement.

Trump’s original complaint, filed in July 2021, claimed that YouTube and the other platforms had unlawfully censored conservative voices by suspending his accounts, contravening free speech norms. However, legal analysts have long pointed out that private platforms are not bound by the First Amendment, which restricts government censorship.

YouTube restored much of Trump’s access in 2023, reinstating his ability to post content after a period of suspension, though he had already been restricted from uploading new videos for some time.

Observers suggest that the settlement may reflect a strategic decision by Alphabet to limit reputational risk and legal exposure rather than proceed with a drawn-out courtroom battle.

Read more:
YouTube agrees $24.5m settlement with Trump with $22m going toward White House ballroom

Electronic Arts, the gaming giant behind FIFA / EA Sports FC, The Sims and Battlefield, is set to leave the public markets under a record-setting leveraged buyout valued at $55 billion.

The deal, announced on Monday, will see EA delisted from the Nasdaq and become a privately held company under a consortium led by Silver Lake, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners.

Under the terms of the agreement, EA shareholders will receive $210 per share in cash, a premium of roughly 25% over the company’s recent trading price. The consortium will fund the acquisition via a mix of equity (around $36 billion) and debt financing of $20 billion, led by JPMorgan. PIF, which already owns a 9.9% stake in EA, is rolling over its holding into the new structure.

If completed, the deal would eclipse previous records, becoming the largest leveraged buyout ever, as well as one of the largest all-cash transactions in the tech/gaming space.

The deal is contingent on regulatory and shareholder approvals, particularly given the involvement of foreign capital via Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. Critics may cite national security and control issues given the strategic importance of gaming and tech.

The heavy debt load (approximately $20 billion) poses financial risk. The success of the deal will depend on EA’s ability to maintain or grow revenues, manage operating cash flow, and service debt obligations.

Some analysts already argue that the $210 per share offer may “undervalue EA’s growth potential,” especially in light of upcoming releases like Battlefield 6.

This deal signals the growing appeal of gaming companies to private capital and sovereign funds. PIF has been active in the games sector, investing in companies like Nintendo and mobile gaming publishers.

For the public markets, EA’s departure reduces the number of major independent game publishers trading, with competitors like Take-Two likely facing increased attention.

The transaction also underscores the momentum for mega deals in tech late in 2025, as capital becomes more available and acquirers make bold strategic bets.

The deal is expected to close in fiscal Q1 2027, pending customary closing conditions such as regulatory approval and shareholder vote.  Meanwhile, EA shares traded higher following the announcement.

In sum, the EA take-private move is a defining moment for the gaming industry: a high-stakes wager on creative IP, AI efficiency, and the promise of unshackled long-term investment against the pressures of public markets.

Read more:
Electronic Arts to go private in record $55bn buyout led by Saudi, Kushner & Silver Lake

Speculation over government tax reforms is beginning to cast a shadow over the upper end of the UK housing market, according to new figures from Zoopla.

The property portal reported that demand for homes priced above £500,000 has slipped by 4 per cent compared with last year, while the number of buyers searching for £1 million-plus homes has fallen by 11 per cent over the past five weeks. Sellers are also showing caution, with listings for homes above £500,000 down by 7 per cent year-on-year and those over £1 million down by 9 per cent.

At the heart of the slowdown is speculation that November’s budget could bring sweeping changes to property taxation. Among the proposals discussed in the press is the replacement of stamp duty with an annual levy on homes sold for more than £500,000. Richard Donnell, executive director at Zoopla, said such speculation, although unconfirmed, “has been enough to unsettle parts of the market”.

The uncertainty is hitting prime property hardest. Savills reported that buyer sentiment at the top of the market has sunk to its lowest level in five years, with homes valued above £10 million experiencing the sharpest downward price pressure. Prices for so-called “prime” homes in central London, broadly those worth £4.5 million and above, fell by 1.8 per cent over the summer — the steepest quarterly decline since the aftermath of the Brexit referendum in 2016. Year-on-year, prices in this bracket are down by 4.7 per cent.

Lucian Cook, head of residential research at Savills, noted that both buyers and sellers are struggling to interpret the potential impact of tax reforms: “There is no guarantee of what is going to prevail.”

While London and the southeast — where £500,000-plus homes are most concentrated — are expected to feel the greatest impact of uncertainty, trends vary across the UK. Average house prices nationally are 1.4 per cent higher than a year ago at £271,000, though this represents the weakest annual growth since last September. In London, the southeast, southwest and east of England, price growth is below 0.5 per cent.

Elsewhere the picture is stronger. House prices have risen 2.8 per cent in Scotland and 3.1 per cent in the northwest of England over the past year. Northern Ireland continues to be the UK’s fastest-growing market, with annual price inflation of 7.9 per cent.

Despite the current slowdown, Zoopla expects overall housing market activity to rise in 2025, buoyed by stabilising mortgage rates. The group forecasts sales volumes to reach 1.15 million this year, the highest since 2022, with average prices expected to rise by between 1.5 and 2 per cent over the course of 2025.

Kevin Shaw, national sales managing director at Leaders Roman Group, said the mere talk of a “mansion tax” has introduced hesitation into the upper end of the market. But Donnell emphasised that the broader market remains largely unaffected for now: “This summer’s speculation has been bigger than usual, leading some buyers and sellers of high-value homes to pause. But activity below that level remains resilient.”

Read more:
Tax reform speculation slows high-end property sales, says Zoopla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barrowman and Mone targeted?

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

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The online gaming industry is undergoing significant transformation, driven largely by evolving regulatory frameworks. Both Australia and the United Kingdom are leading examples of how governments are adapting to the growing digital gaming sector.

While their approaches share a common goal—ensuring consumer protection and market integrity—they differ markedly in execution. These regulatory shifts are not only reshaping operational standards but also influencing player behavior, market competition, and long-term growth prospects. For stakeholders navigating this space, understanding the unique trajectories of both countries is essential.

Foundations of Regulation in Australia and the UK

The regulatory foundations of online gaming in Australia and the UK have evolved in response to technological change and shifting societal attitudes toward gambling. Australia’s regulation of online gaming formally began with the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001, which prohibited online casinos while allowing sports betting and lotteries under tight restrictions. Regulation is further complicated by Australia’s state-by-state governance model, resulting in fragmented policies across the country.

In contrast, the UK took a more unified and comprehensive approach with the Gambling Act of 2005, establishing the UK Gambling Commission to oversee the entire gambling ecosystem. This framework allowed a wide array of online gaming activities, including casino games, sports betting, bingo, and virtual gaming options.

As operators strive to enter or expand within these markets, platforms like Casiny casino exemplify how regulatory compliance and market adaptation can coexist successfully in both jurisdictions.

Recent Regulatory Developments and Market Implications

Both Australia and the UK have introduced updated policies to address emerging concerns and align with digital innovation. In Australia, recent reforms have focused on curbing excessive advertising and implementing stricter responsible gambling measures. Operators are now required to increase transparency, implement self-exclusion tools, and promote safer gambling messages across all marketing channels.

Similarly, the UK has tightened its controls with enhanced age verification protocols, mandatory affordability checks, and greater investment in public education about gambling risks. These changes reflect a clear intent: to create safer, more accountable online gaming environments.

For operators, these shifts present both challenges and new opportunities. In Australia, companies must tailor their offerings within a highly localized and regulated environment, often requiring bespoke compliance models for each state. In the UK, although the regulatory environment is unified, operators must invest in robust compliance infrastructures to meet the Gambling Commission’s stringent guidelines.

Ultimately, these evolving frameworks are reshaping marketing strategies, bonus structures, and the overall user experience, forcing businesses to be more responsible and transparent while still striving to remain competitive.

Market Size, Revenue Streams, and Growth Potential

The financial structures of the online gaming markets in Australia and the UK show key differences tied to regulatory influence and player preferences. In Australia, sports betting dominates, largely due to legal limitations on online casino-style games. Major sporting events have driven temporary spikes in revenue, but the country’s increasing focus on responsible gambling could temper future growth in this segment. Meanwhile, the UK market has also been shaped by rapid technological innovation, with resources like Business Matters Tech highlighting how digital tools and trends continue to influence gaming platforms and player engagement.

The UK market, by contrast, features a diverse and balanced mix of revenue sources. Online casino games, sports betting, poker, bingo, and even newer sectors like esports contribute to a broad and resilient economic base. This diversity enables UK operators to be more adaptive to market trends and evolving player expectations.

Looking ahead, the adoption of technologies like live streaming, virtual reality, and AI-powered personalization is expected to fuel market expansion in both countries. However, the pace and scale of growth will likely differ, shaped by how flexible and innovation-friendly each regulatory body proves to be.

Market Feature
Australia
United Kingdom

Primary Revenue Source
Sports Betting
Mixed (Casino, Sports, Bingo, Poker, Esports)

Regulatory Structure
Fragmented (state-by-state)
Centralized via UK Gambling Commission

Online Casino Availability
Highly restricted
Fully permitted

Responsible Gambling Policies
Strong emphasis, state-enforced
Strong emphasis, nationally enforced

Future Growth Outlook
Moderate, regulation-driven
High, driven by tech and market diversity

Regulatory Challenges and International Compliance

Navigating the complexities of online gaming regulation presents several operational hurdles, particularly for international operators. In Australia, the decentralized nature of governance makes nationwide compliance difficult. Operators must customize their offerings and policies based on each state’s requirements, creating inefficiencies and increasing compliance costs.

Meanwhile, the UK’s more centralized system simplifies domestic operations but introduces challenges for international compliance, especially as UK operators interact with customers from jurisdictions that may not share the same regulatory standards. This disparity increases the need for coordinated efforts between global regulators, which has yet to fully materialize.

Cross-border gambling also complicates taxation, advertising policies, and user data protection, making it crucial for companies to invest in legal expertise and adaptive business models to ensure long-term viability.

Focus on Consumer Protection and Responsible Gambling

Consumer protection has become the cornerstone of regulatory reform in both regions. In Australia, recent updates mandate tools such as self-exclusion programs, real-time spending notifications, and cooling-off periods to reduce the risk of compulsive gambling behavior. Operators must also refrain from offering inducements that encourage excessive gambling, such as repeated bonus offers.

The UK enforces similarly strict protocols, including bet limits, self-assessment tools, and mandatory reality checks that notify players about the length and cost of their sessions. Increased funding has also been allocated toward research and treatment services for problem gambling.

These measures demonstrate a shared recognition of the industry’s responsibility to protect vulnerable users. Operators who fail to prioritize responsible gambling now face reputational damage and financial penalties, further reinforcing the importance of ethical practices in securing long-term success.

The Road Ahead: Harmonizing Innovation and Regulation

As technology continues to revolutionize the online gaming industry, both Australia and the UK face the dual challenge of encouraging innovation while upholding robust regulatory standards. In the UK, the focus will likely shift toward regulating emerging formats such as crypto betting, blockchain-powered casinos, and AI-driven gaming personalization. Similarly, Australia is expected to continue strengthening its focus on digital harm prevention while cautiously exploring room for regulated innovation.

For regulators and industry leaders alike, the next phase involves striking a balance between growth and protection, profit and responsibility. As online gaming becomes more globalized, the push for international regulatory cooperation is likely to intensify, paving the way for more consistent and transparent practices across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The regulatory environments in Australia and the UK are significantly reshaping how online gaming markets evolve. While the UK’s centralized and flexible model encourages broad growth across various gaming segments, Australia’s state-based and cautious approach prioritizes player safety, often at the expense of broader market expansion. For operators and consumers alike, these shifting dynamics underscore the need for adaptability, compliance, and a long-term commitment to responsible gaming. As both countries continue to refine their policies, their choices will influence the global conversation on how to regulate online gaming in the digital age.

Read more:
How Regulatory Shifts Are Reshaping Online Gaming Markets in Australia vs. the UK

Growth Lending has unveiled a £150 million strategy to support the expansion of healthcare and social care providers across the UK, pledging to deliver flexible capital to a sector grappling with rising demand and tight access to finance.

The specialist lender, best known for backing high-growth B2B businesses, will target ambitious operators in social care, primary care, education, and health-led community services. Funding will be deployed through debt facilities starting from £2 million, with a focus on businesses often overlooked by traditional lenders.

To lead the initiative, Growth Lending has appointed Dan Hewitt as Director of Debt Finance, specialising in healthcare. Hewitt brings more than 20 years’ banking experience, including a decade in health and social care finance. “The funding landscape for care operators has long been restrictive, hampering the sector’s natural entrepreneurial spirit,” he said. “Our approach looks at future cash flows to determine borrowing capacity, rather than just LTVs, enabling us to provide larger, more flexible funding. The sector faces many challenges, but finance shouldn’t be one of them.”

Growth Lending has already deployed over £15 million from the new fund. Arishta Ltd, a healthcare group focused on AI-led care home transformation, secured £10 million to begin its buy-and-build strategy, starting with two South London acquisitions. In the North West, children’s care provider YourCare received £5.5 million to expand from five to nine homes, creating eight new beds and 25 jobs.

The commitment comes against a backdrop of severe pressures across the health and care system, including bed shortages, workforce gaps and limited specialist placements. While the Government invests £6 billion annually in hospital infrastructure, community-level providers often struggle to access the capital they need.

Adam Brinn, Managing Director at Growth Lending, said the new fund aims to plug that gap: “We’re backing the operators that are building the future of care. These are well-run businesses solving real problems, which are often overlooked by mainstream lenders. This initial £150m commitment sets out to provide the capital that gives ambitious care businesses the headroom to grow, hire and deliver better outcomes.”

Growth Lending expects to close several more healthcare transactions before the end of 2025, building a dedicated portfolio focused on sustainable, community-first care. With Hewitt leading the initiative, the lender is positioning itself as a major player in financing the next wave of UK health and social care providers.

Read more:
Growth Lending launches £150m push into UK healthcare

The UK government has unveiled the next three train operators that will return to public ownership, as ministers push ahead with the phased dismantling of private rail franchises.

The Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed that Greater Anglia services will be renationalised first, on 12 October 2025, followed by West Midlands Trains on 1 February 2026, and Govia Thameslink on 31 May 2026.

It marks the latest step in the government’s plan to bring the railways under public control as existing management contracts with private companies expire. The process is already underway, with South Western Railway and c2c having been transferred earlier in 2025.

Looking ahead, the DfT said that Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railway will also be brought back into public hands, with transport secretary Heidi Alexander to decide the timing “in due course”.

By the end of 2027, all passenger services contracted with the DfT are expected to be nationalised. These operators will eventually be integrated into Great British Railways (GBR), the new public body that will oversee the network’s day-to-day running. Legislation to establish GBR is due to be introduced in Parliament within months.

Read more:
UK government sets timetable for next wave of rail renationalisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In today’s fast-moving business world, inclusivity is often spoken about but less often practiced in meaningful ways. True inclusivity goes far beyond ticking boxes, it’s about creating spaces where every voice is heard, respected, and valued.

For SME and SMB leaders, this isn’t just about doing the right thing; it’s about shaping company cultures from the offset that fuel creativity, problem-solving, and long-term growth.

I began my career in banking, where competition was not only encouraged but often celebrated as a measure of success. While this approach drove results, it left little room for inclusivity. Voices that didn’t match the dominant culture, whether through background, gender, or even communication style, were too often overlooked. Collaboration sometimes took a back seat to individual performance.

The result? Many innovative ideas were left unheard, and talented people felt sidelined. I learned that when inclusivity is missing, businesses don’t just lose diversity of perspective, they risk losing their brightest people altogether.

Real inclusivity starts with listening. Leaders sometimes forget that the simplest act, genuinely hearing someone, can have the greatest impact. Listening with intent means seeking out perspectives that don’t mirror your own, asking questions without judgment, and encouraging quieter team members to share ideas in ways that feel safe to them.

Accessibility should be woven into the very fabric of how a company operates, not bolted on afterwards. That may mean making meetings more flexible for neurodiverse employees, ensuring written materials are clear and inclusive, or rethinking recruitment practices to open doors to people who may not have followed traditional career paths. SMEs in particular can be agile here, setting high standards without the bureaucracy that slows larger corporations.

Diverse thinking as a driver of innovation

Inclusivity is not only about representation; it’s also about perspective. When teams bring together people of different backgrounds, disciplines, and life experiences, the results can be transformative. Diverse thinking challenges “the way we’ve always done it” and often sparks the most innovative solutions. For SMEs competing with larger players, this diversity of thought is a real competitive advantage.

Inclusivity is not a one-off initiative, it’s a continual practice that should be integrated into every part of business. Leaders need to model openness and curiosity every day. By doing so, they show their teams that inclusivity is a core value, not a campaign or tick box exercise. Over time, this builds trust, loyalty, and a culture where people feel they belong and want to contribute their best.

At Invicta Vita, we’ve seen that when inclusivity is lived, not just talked about, performance is enhanced. Too often, I’ve seen talented people fade quietly into the background of a business. They lose their voice, not because they lack ideas or drive, but because no one is actively advocating for them. Over time, that silence chips away at confidence, and companies lose out on the richness of their contribution teams become more resilient, creative, and committed. It’s not about perfection, it’s about progress, about creating space for every voice, and recognising that our differences can be our strongest asset.

Read more:
Creating a space for every voice: How to lead with genuine inclusivity