Business

Richard Desmond’s lengthy campaign to overturn the awarding of the fourth National Lottery licence has ended in bruising defeat, with the High Court throwing out a £1.3bn damages claim brought by the media tycoon against the Gambling Commission.

The action, pursued by Desmond’s New Lottery Company alongside his long-standing vehicle Northern & Shell, had alleged that the regulator ran a flawed competition when it handed the ten-year operating contract to Allwyn, the gaming group controlled by Czech billionaire Karel Komárek. Allwyn replaced Camelot, the licence holder since the lottery’s launch in 1994, when the new arrangement took effect.

In a ruling that will reverberate through Whitehall, Westminster and the wider regulated-gambling sector, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found no basis for Desmond’s central allegations. “The claimants have failed to make out any case of manifest error on the part of the commission in their process claim,” she said. Neither Camelot nor Allwyn, she added, ought to have been disqualified from the tender, Camelot on grounds of alleged incumbency advantage, Allwyn on grounds of alleged conflict of interest. “The competition that was conducted for the award of the fourth licence reached a lawful outcome,” the judge concluded.

The claimants remain defiant. A spokesman for Northern & Shell responded bluntly: “They won. We lost. We appeal. It’s not over.”

The judgment draws a line, at least for now, under one of the most commercially significant public-procurement disputes of recent years. Industry observers had warned that a finding against the Gambling Commission could have triggered compensation exposure running well beyond the £1.3bn sought by Desmond’s camp, while casting a long shadow over the credibility of UK regulated competitions more broadly. For an SME-heavy supplier base that depends on the good-cause funding the lottery generates, prolonged uncertainty over the licence had been a growing concern.

The National Lottery remains one of the largest operations of its kind in the world. Since its launch three decades ago, players have contributed more than £52bn to in excess of 670,000 good causes across the United Kingdom, a funding pipeline that underpins everything from grassroots sports clubs to heritage projects and small charities.

For Desmond, once the proprietor of the Daily Express and OK! magazine, the ruling represents a significant setback in what has become a defining post-publishing commercial fight. An appeal now looms, but the commercial and reputational tide, for the moment, has turned firmly against him.

Read more:
Desmond’s £1.3bn National Lottery battle collapses as High Court sides with Gambling Commission

Britain’s largest supermarket has called on the government to lighten the tax and energy load on retailers to help them shield households from rising prices, as the grocer widened its profit guidance amid the escalating conflict in the Middle East.

Reporting an 8.5 per cent rise in annual pre-tax profit, Ken Murphy, chief executive of Tesco, used the FTSE 100 group’s full-year update to make a direct appeal to Whitehall. “In terms of tax pressures, industry and energy in particular, anything the government can do to help us to keep prices low for customers is welcome,” he said.

Murphy pledged that Tesco would do “everything in our power” to cushion shoppers from any renewed bout of inflation triggered by the war in Iran, which he said was “creating further uncertainty for consumers and the economy more broadly”. He praised ministers for drawing up worst-case contingency plans, including scenarios involving a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a breakdown in the carbon dioxide supply chain that could, by summer, translate into shortages of chicken, pork and other staples.

The Tesco boss said the grocer was “in constant contact with the government in various guises and through various departments” to assist with that scenario planning. For now, he insisted, neither Tesco nor its suppliers had reported “no issues” in the supply chain or any “meaningful changes in customer behavioural patterns as a consequence of the conflict so far”.

The group, which commands about 28 per cent of the UK grocery market, widened its guidance for the current year, forecasting adjusted operating profit of between £3 billion and £3.3 billion, against £3.15 billion delivered in the year just closed. Tesco said the final outturn would depend on the duration of the conflict, its knock-on effects on UK household spending and the wider economic climate.

Asked whether inflationary pressures had already crystallised since hostilities began, Murphy said Tesco was “not seeing meaningful inflation come through at this stage”, bar well-flagged rises in fertiliser and energy. He was notably cool on the Food & Drink Federation’s warning earlier this month that UK food and non-alcoholic drink inflation could climb to between 9 and 10 per cent by year-end, a figure the Tesco chief said he did “not recognise”.

“It’s impossible to speculate and it would be wrong for me to throw a number out there or a timing, because it all depends on the duration of this conflict and the impact it has on energy pricing in general,” he said. “We don’t know what it’s going to look like because clearly this is a very volatile, unpredictable situation.”

Tesco is among the first of Britain’s major listed retailers to report on trading since the Middle East conflict flared. Next, the listed fashion and home retailer, and Morrisons, the fifth-largest grocer, have both flagged significant geopolitical risks, rising costs and a “challenging” consumer backdrop.

Forecourts, too, are feeling the strain. Several supermarket operators have reported localised, temporary fuel shortages in recent weeks as motorists rush to fill up before expected price rises. Allan Leighton, the Asda chairman, recently confirmed that a handful of the chain’s sites had run low, though he characterised the situation as local “spikes” rather than a nationwide shortfall.

Murphy said Tesco had seen “elevated demand” but insisted the business was in “good shape in terms of fuel stocks”. The grocer is also leaning on its logistics investment to insulate operations. “We’ve embarked on quite a comprehensive electrification programme for our grocery home shopping vans,” he said. “[About] 30 to 40 per cent of our fleet now is electrified. That is going to stand us in good stead.”

Analysts warned that Tesco’s balancing act, between absorbing costs and protecting its value credentials, was becoming more delicate. Eleanor Simpson-Gould, retail analyst at GlobalData, said: “With the Iran conflict front of mind for the grocer and consumers, chief executive Ken Murphy has rightly reiterated his commitment to keeping prices down. However, the grocer must be cautious not to overextend investment in price cuts as this risks deepening the already clear squeeze on margins and profitability.”

Nevertheless, Tesco said it had outperformed the market on both value and volume, signalling that its campaign to win back shoppers from the German discounters Aldi and Lidl is bearing fruit. The group, which also owns the Booker cash-and-carry operation and runs stores in central and eastern Europe and the Republic of Ireland, has held its position through a mix of premium and value ranges, Aldi Price Match and loyalty mechanics such as Clubcard Prices.

Jefferies’ analysts described a “strong end to the year”, calling it “a testament to the extraordinary delivery over the last year”. Clive Black of Shore Capital was more pointed: “While somewhat potentially boring to some, it must be said, against multi-year tough comparatives, with little maturing new space contribution, unlike say Aldi, Tesco in its core UK market did another truly commendable job in the 2026 financial year to gain both volume and value [sales] and market share.”

For SME suppliers sitting in Tesco’s orbit, the message from Welwyn Garden City is clear: the grocer intends to defend price with discipline, but the real variable, the length and breadth of the Gulf conflict, lies firmly outside the boardroom’s control.

Read more:
Tesco urges ministers to ease cost burden as Iran conflict clouds outlook

Read more:
The April Cost Squeeze: Why Small Businesses Must Plan Ahead, Not Catch Up

Britain’s EdTech sector and artificial intelligence laboratories are being invited to pitch for a share of government funding to design a new generation of classroom-ready AI tutoring tools, in an initiative aimed squarely at closing the attainment gap between the country’s wealthiest and poorest pupils.

Up to eight companies will be selected to form a Pioneer Group, each receiving £300,000 to build and trial tools that could eventually reach as many as 450,000 disadvantaged pupils a year. The first cohort is expected to begin classroom testing under teacher supervision this summer, with a view to a national rollout from 2027.

The programme, unveiled this week, forms part of the delivery plan behind the government’s landmark schools white paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, published earlier this year. That document sets an ambitious target of halving the outcomes gap between children from poorer households and their better-off peers.

For the UK’s fast-growing education technology sector, the tender represents one of the most significant public procurement opportunities in recent years. Ministers have made clear that bidders will be expected to demonstrate, in concrete terms, how their products will serve pupils from low-income backgrounds, as well as those with special educational needs and disabilities. Accessibility and inclusivity are non-negotiable criteria.

The tools themselves will initially target Years 9 and 10 in four core subjects: English, mathematics, science and modern foreign languages. Each is expected to adapt to the individual learner, stepping in when a pupil falters and identifying areas where additional practice is required to secure mastery of the curriculum.

Crucially for the teaching profession, the government has stressed that the tools must be co-designed with classroom practitioners rather than dropped on them. The stated ambition is to provide an additional layer of support that frees up teacher time for the pupils who most need it, rather than to replace the teacher in front of the class.

The business case is straightforward. Private one-to-one tutoring, which research suggests can accelerate a pupil’s learning by as much as five months, typically costs hundreds or even thousands of pounds a year, placing it well beyond the reach of most working families.

Minister for Digital Government Ian Murray said the initiative was about democratising a form of support that had historically been the preserve of the wealthy. “The best educational support outside school has too often been the privilege of those who can afford it,” he said. “AI gives us a genuine opportunity to change that, to put the kind of personalised, one-to-one tutoring into the hands of all pupils, regardless of their background, and giving teachers the best technology to complement their work. That is why I’m calling on EdTech companies and AI labs to help us design safe and evidence-based tutoring tools that will deliver real educational improvements.”

Education Minister Olivia Bailey struck a similar note, while pointedly emphasising that the pace of the rollout would not be allowed to compromise safety. “Personalised, high-quality tutoring tools have the potential to help us make enormous progress in levelling the playing field for thousands more children from disadvantaged backgrounds,” she said. “But getting this right matters just as much as moving quickly. Every tool must be built with teachers, tested rigorously, and held to the highest safety standards before it reaches the country’s classrooms. That is why we are inviting leading EdTech and AI to rise to this challenge with us, not just to build something innovative, but to build something that will give pupils more opportunity, and perhaps even transform their life chances altogether.”

The reaction from the academy sector has been broadly supportive. Nav Sanghara, chief executive of Woodland Academy Trust, welcomed what he described as “a more thoughtful and evidence-informed approach to AI in education” and argued that co-designing tools with teachers was essential if they were to be safe, curriculum-aligned and genuinely effective. “At Woodland Academy Trust, we are clear that technology, including AI tools, must enhance rather than replace high-quality teaching, and should be grounded in strong pedagogy,” he said, adding that the programme’s focus on disadvantaged pupils, including those with SEND, was “particularly important”.

Safety considerations will run through the programme from start to finish. Every tool entering the pilot must meet rigorous UK safety standards and align with the national curriculum. At the end of the trial phase, suppliers will be required to report back on measurable impact, both for pupils and for their teachers.

In parallel, new national benchmarks are being developed to verify that AI tools are accurate, age-appropriate and safe, a framework that officials hope will future-proof the sector by allowing newly released models to be assessed rapidly as they come to market. Teachers are being drawn into the benchmark design process to help create realistic classroom scenarios and clear scoring criteria.

The government is also opening up its AI Content Store, a repository of publicly available educational resources, to participating developers. The aim is to give bidders a rich seam of high-quality material with which to test, evaluate and refine their products.

The tutoring programme sits alongside a broader package of EdTech investment, including an additional £325m committed to school connectivity through to 2029/30, designed to narrow the digital divide, and up to £23m earmarked for testing AI and EdTech products in schools with the twin aims of improving outcomes and reducing teacher workload.

For EdTech founders and AI labs with an appetite for the UK education market, the message from Whitehall is unambiguous: the door is open, the funding is on the table, and the commercial prize, a potential national rollout reaching hundreds of thousands of pupils, is substantial. The price of admission, however, is a demonstrable commitment to safety, equity and genuine classroom utility.

Read more:
Government calls on EdTech firms to build safe AI tutors for disadvantaged pupils

For years, many British retirees approached relocation in broadly the same way.

They looked for warmth, lower day-to-day living costs, attractive scenery and a decent community of fellow Britons already in place. The logic made sense. Retirement was seen as a reward. The move itself was meant to simplify life, not require a strategic overhaul.

Today, that mindset is changing.

A growing number of UK retirees are no longer asking only where they would enjoy living. They are asking where they can retire with greater control over their pension income, tax position, estate planning and long-term peace of mind. That is a more serious question and it leads to more serious destinations.

Gibraltar is now one of them.

The Problem: Retirement Magnifies Every Weakness in a Financial Structure

Many people do not notice inefficiency while they are still in their main earning years.

Higher tax can be absorbed. Administrative burdens can be tolerated. A poorly arranged investment structure can limp on for years without forcing immediate change. Retirement is different. Once active income reduces, inefficiency becomes much more visible. In reality, this is often the stage where many UK retirees begin to revisit decisions they assumed were already settled.

Three things usually happen.

First, income becomes less flexible. Second, taxation feels heavier because each deduction bites more. Third, wealth preservation matters more because the focus begins to shift from accumulation towards longevity and transfer.

This is why retirement planning is not just about where you live. It is about how the jurisdiction you choose affects the income you draw, the assets you hold and the legacy you intend to pass on.

Why the Usual Retirement Destinations Are Being Reassessed

Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece remain attractive, and they will continue to appeal to many UK retirees. However, more people are now looking beyond surface appeal.

The issue is not whether those countries are enjoyable places to live. Many clearly are. The issue is whether their systems give British retirees the combination of simplicity, predictability and long-term financial efficiency they are increasingly looking for.

That is where some UK retirees begin to hesitate. Tax incentives can change. Administrative systems can feel layered. Language and legal differences can create friction. Relocation planning can become more complicated than expected.

A destination may still be wonderful. It may simply not be the cleanest base from which to run retirement.

The Solution: Gibraltar Offers a More Structured Retirement Base

Gibraltar’s appeal lies in the fact that it solves several problems at once.

It gives UK retirees British legal familiarity, English-speaking ease, a secure environment and Mediterranean climate. That alone makes the move emotionally easier to contemplate. Yet the real strength is deeper than lifestyle.

Gibraltar offers a framework that can support clearer retirement planning. It is easier for many British nationals to understand. It can be easier to coordinate with existing UK legal and financial thinking. It offers a more contained environment in which fewer things feel culturally or administratively alien.

For UK retirees who want a second half of life that feels lighter, more ordered and more intentional, that is a serious advantage.

How Gibraltar Improves the Retirement Planning Equation

A strong retirement jurisdiction should support four priorities:

efficient income planning.
protection of capital.
ease of administration.
effective estate transfer.

Taxes in Gibraltar performs well across all four.

UK vs Gibraltar Tax: What It Means for UK Expats

Category
UK Tax Position
Gibraltar Tax Position
Impact for Expats

Income Tax
20%–45% progressive
0%–27% effective
More efficient income planning

Wealth Tax
None
None
No erosion of capital

Inheritance Tax
Up to 40%
None
Full wealth transfer

Capital Gains Tax
10%–28%
None
Tax-free growth and disposal

VAT
20%
None
Lower cost environment

Corporate Tax
19%–25%
15%
More efficient company structures

Dividend Tax
0%–39.35%
0%–5%
Reduced income leakage

Income Planning

UK retirees need clarity around how pension income, dividend income and other investment income will be taxed. Gibraltar’s framework can offer a cleaner income-planning environment than the UK, particularly for those with more than one type of income stream.

Protection of Capital

The absence of capital gains tax matters greatly over a long retirement. Portfolio changes, asset disposals and investment realignments can all be handled in a more efficient environment.

Estate Planning

The absence of inheritance tax and estate duty makes Gibraltar especially compelling for UK retirees who are thinking about family legacy and preserving wealth across generations.

Administrative Ease

Retirement should not become an endless paperwork project. Gibraltar’s British orientation and familiar legal structure reduce the burden many UK retirees fear when considering a cross-border move.

The Pension Angle Is One of Gibraltar’s Strongest Advantages

This is where Gibraltar separates itself from most retirement destinations.

For many British retirees, the pension is the central financial asset. That makes UK pension transfer rules and pension taxation critically important. Gibraltar has a rare position here. Gibraltar and Malta are the only two European jurisdictions where, in the right circumstances, a UK pension transfer may avoid the 25% Overseas Transfer Charge. Gibraltar QROPS can also create a structure where pension income is taxed at around 2.5%.

That does not mean every pension should be moved. Nor does it mean every UK retiree is suited to a UK pension transfer. Suitability, timing, scheme rules, UK tax consequences and future residence all need to be examined carefully.

However, for the right UK retiree profile, Gibraltar’s pension environment is not a minor detail. It can be one of the strongest reasons to place Gibraltar high on the shortlist.

Why 2026 Has Made Gibraltar More Relevant to UK Retirees

Timing matters in retirement planning and Gibraltar’s timing is unusually interesting.

Its relationship with Europe is becoming more functional in a post-Brexit context. That matters because later life often involves flexibility. UK retirees value the ability to move easily, see family, travel well and stay connected to multiple places without unnecessary friction.

Gibraltar’s position as a British jurisdiction with strengthening practical access to Europe makes it more relevant now than it was in the immediate Brexit aftermath. For UK retirees who want British familiarity without feeling cut off from the continent, that is a major advantage.

How a UK Retiree Should Approach the Move

A retirement move should never begin with property viewings.

It should begin with structure.

That means asking:

when should UK residence be broken or reshaped?
how will pension income be treated?
what assets should be reviewed before the move?
how will estate planning work after the move?
what evidence of accommodation and self-sufficiency will be needed?
how will day counts and physical presence be managed?

This is why it makes sense for a UK retiree to move from general interest into the practical detail of moving to Gibraltar. Retirement relocations succeed when the relocation planning comes first and the lifestyle follows it, not the other way round.

The Advisory Reality: Gibraltar Is Strong, but It Is Not Automatic

It is important to be honest about this.

Gibraltar is not a universal answer. It will not be right for every UK retiree. Some people will still prefer the scale of Spain, the spread of Portugal or the culture of Italy. Others may not have the net worth profile or planning needs that make Gibraltar especially compelling.

But for UK retirees who value clarity, legal familiarity, pension efficiency, estate planning strength and a more contained lifestyle environment, Gibraltar deserves much more serious attention than it often receives.

What Most UK Retirees Get Wrong – And Why Timing Now Matters

They start with the dream and leave the structure until later.

That is understandable, but expensive.

The better approach is to start with the framework: pension treatment, tax residence, estate planning, accommodation evidence, timing and execution. Once those pieces are in place, the emotional side of the move becomes much easier to enjoy.

For many UK retirees, that is where Gibraltar stands out. It allows the lifestyle decision and the relocation planning decision to support one another instead of pulling in opposite directions.

There is, however, one additional consideration that is becoming increasingly important.

Gibraltar’s residency framework is currently in transition. Several pathways have been paused since October 2025 and are expected to reopen in alignment with the UK–EU treaty. The expectation is not that access becomes easier but that it becomes more structured and more selective.

For UK retirees who are already considering Gibraltar, this introduces a different kind of planning question.

Not just whether the jurisdiction is suitable, but whether the timing of the move may influence the outcome.

Read more:
UK Retirees Are Rethinking Europe And Gibraltar Is Gaining Ground

It has been reported that the average consumer spends roughly £40 to £70 a month on subscription services. Whether it’s Netflix, Spotify, or Hello Fresh, subscription costs can sometimes rise to £786 a year for the average person.

A large part of these huge costs may be due to the difficulty of cancelling a subscription. We’ve all been there. You try to cancel a subscription and have to go through 10 different stages to confirm that you want to proceed before you can finally complete the process.

Now, new laws are set to take place, which will make cancelling subscriptions far easier for customers. This aims to prevent “subscription traps” that keep people in long-term subscriptions, potentially saving consumers “around 400 million annually”.

This article will explore what exactly these new laws are and how they may affect companies that rely on subscription fees, such as streaming services.

What Are These New Laws?

The new laws are set to take place in the spring of 2027, which will enable people to cancel subscriptions in just one click, making it as easy as signing up in the first place. These companies will also have to be more upfront with their customers about when ‘trial periods end’, meaning that they don’t accidentally get rolled into a year-long expensive contract without them realising.

If a customer forgets to cancel their free trial before it turns into a full subscription, there will be a “14-day cooling-off period” where they can get a full or partial refund. The head of consumer rights policy at ‘Which?’, Sue Davis states that these new policies “will help put consumers in the driving seat with proper transparency and protection”.

It has been reported that in the UK, around 3.5 million are accidentally rolled onto long-term contracts after signing up to a free trial, and auto-renewals catch out 1.5 million. These new laws have been set out to prevent these types of accidents for customers.

How Will These Laws Affect Streaming Services?

How these new laws may financially affect services that require subscriptions is yet to be seen. For example, streaming services’ revenues are highly driven by their subscription models, so platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ or Amazon Prime may take a hit.

High cancellations undoubtedly impact stock prices, and you can take a deeper look at how the market fluctuates in real-time using a CFD Broker. These services will have to come up with new ways to maintain a ‘positive average revenue per user’ to avoid stock prices being too dramatically affected.

In the last few years, Netflix has been experimenting with different ways to manage users’ subscriptions. They have moved away from subscriber growth to one that maximises revenue. For example, they had a crackdown on ‘password sharing’ in 2023-24, which required all accounts to be used within a single household.

While controversial, this move was ultimately a financial success for Netflix, which gained millions of new sign-ups as a result. This also helped them gain 300 million global subscribers by 2025. Now, with a clampdown on “subscription traps”, can streaming services find ways to have substantial growth in challenging circumstances?

Read more:
How Much Are You Spending on Subscriptions? New UK Laws Make Refunds and Cancellations Easier for Consumers 

The world’s largest live entertainment company has been dealt a bruising blow after a Manhattan federal jury ruled that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary operated an unlawful monopoly over major concert venues in the United States, a verdict that is likely to reverberate through the global ticketing industry and intensify scrutiny of the firm’s dominance in markets including the United Kingdom.

After four days of deliberation, jurors sided with more than 30 US states that had pressed ahead with the civil action, concluding that the concert colossus had smothered competition across the live events business. The jury calculated that Ticketmaster had overcharged buyers by $1.72 per ticket, with the presiding judge still to determine the final quantum of damages.

For an industry that has long drawn the ire of fans, independent promoters and smaller venue operators, the ruling lands as something of a vindication. Counsel for the states, Jeffrey Kessler, described Live Nation in closing submissions as a “monopolistic bully” that had systematically pushed up prices for consumers. He told the court that Ticketmaster controls 86 per cent of the concert market and 73 per cent of the wider live events market once sport is included, numbers that underscore just how comprehensively the business has come to dominate the sector since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010.

Live Nation, which generates more than $22bn in annual revenues, was unrepentant. Its lawyer, David Marriott, argued in his summation that the company’s scale was a consequence of operational excellence rather than anti-competitive conduct, telling jurors that “success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States”. The company has confirmed it intends to appeal, stating that it remains confident the “ultimate outcome” will not materially depart from a parallel settlement already reached with the US Department of Justice.

That settlement, announced only days into the trial after the Trump administration took over the federal case, obliges Live Nation to create a $280m fund for participating states, caps service fees at certain amphitheatres and opens a limited pathway for rival platforms such as SeatGeek and AXS to compete at some venues. Crucially, however, it stops short of forcing a structural break-up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, a remedy that many industry observers and smaller ticketing challengers had been hoping for.

A handful of states signed up to the settlement, but the majority pressed on to trial, arguing that Washington had extracted insufficient concessions from the concert giant. Their gamble has now paid off. The verdict revives debate over whether a clean separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation’s promotions and venue-operating arms remains the only effective remedy for a market that independent promoters have long claimed is tilted decisively against them.

The trial itself provided a rare look behind the curtain of an opaque business. Chief executive Michael Rapino took the stand and was questioned on a catalogue of controversies, including the 2022 Taylor Swift ticketing fiasco that drew political fury on both sides of the Atlantic. Rapino attributed that episode to a cyberattack. Less easily explained were internal messages from Live Nation executive Benjamin Baker, which surfaced during the proceedings, describing some prices as “outrageous”, branding customers “so stupid” and boasting that the firm was “robbing them blind”. Baker testified that the remarks had been “very immature and unacceptable”.

Regulatory pressure on Ticketmaster is building on multiple fronts. Last May the Federal Trade Commission introduced rules requiring upfront disclosure of concert ticket fees. Ticketmaster responded by scrapping its end-of-transaction processing fee, only for a Guardian investigation to reveal that the company had simultaneously increased other charges to plug the revenue hole. In an email to the Findlay Toyota Center in Arizona, the firm reportedly stated that it “must adjust fees to offset the revenue loss”. Former regulators have suggested the practice may breach the FTC’s ban on misleading charges, while senators including Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal have accused the company of running “bait-and-switch” tactics and manipulating the market.

The saga has deep roots. Grunge pioneers Pearl Jam famously lodged an antitrust complaint against Ticketmaster with the Department of Justice back in the 1990s, only for regulators to walk away. Three decades on, the mood music has shifted. For independent UK promoters, smaller venues and the growing cohort of challenger ticketing platforms eyeing cross-Atlantic expansion, the verdict in Manhattan is the clearest signal yet that the ground beneath the live entertainment industry’s dominant player is finally beginning to shift.

Read more:
Live Nation and Ticketmaster ruled an illegal monopoly as US jury sides with States

One of Britain’s largest trade unions has delivered a blistering rebuke to ministers over the newly unveiled British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, accusing Whitehall of turning its back on the very manufacturers that have long defined the country’s industrial heartlands.

The GMB, which represents tens of thousands of workers across Britain’s factory floors, said its members in gas-intensive sectors had been “disgracefully ignored” by a package the Government had trailed as a lifeline for domestic industry. The union’s verdict will make uncomfortable reading in Downing Street, where ministers have staked considerable political capital on reviving the fortunes of British manufacturing and narrowing the competitiveness gap with rivals in Europe, North America and Asia.

Gary Smith, GMB General Secretary, did not mince his words. “Gas-intensive industries in the UK have been shamefully ignored by the Government in this announcement, it’s a total disgrace,” he said. Mr Smith went on to warn that members working in the nation’s world-famous ceramics sector, along with those producing the bricks that underpin Britain’s construction supply chain, were “sickened at the lack of support” on offer. “Workers in manufacturing companies across the UK need urgent help,” he added. “This isn’t it.”

The intervention throws a harsh spotlight on the scheme’s design. The ceramics cluster centred on Stoke-on-Trent, together with the brickmaking operations that supply housebuilders and infrastructure projects up and down the country, relies heavily on natural gas to fire kilns at the extreme temperatures their products demand. Punishing wholesale energy prices, combined with the cumulative weight of climate levies and network charges, have left these small and mid-sized manufacturers paying substantially more for power than their Continental competitors, a longstanding grievance that industry bodies have pressed successive administrations to address.

For owner-managers in the Potteries and the brick belts of the Midlands and the North, the omission will sting. Many of these firms are quintessential British SMEs: privately held, deeply rooted in their communities, and exporting heritage products that still carry weight on the world stage. Their plea has been consistent, that any credible competitiveness strategy must begin with the cost of energy, without which no amount of capital allowances or skills funding will move the dial.

Whether the Government chooses to reopen the scheme’s scope, or whether a separate package for energy-intensive industries is now inevitable, will be watched closely over the coming weeks. What is beyond doubt is that today’s announcement has, in the GMB’s eyes, fallen well short of the mark.

Read more:
GMB union attacks government for ‘disgracefully ignoring’ UK’s gas-intensive manufacturers

Britain’s video games industry is at risk of haemorrhaging talent and intellectual property to more nimble overseas rivals unless Whitehall moves swiftly to sharpen its tax and investment incentives, a leading advisory firm has warned.

With France, Ireland and Australia aggressively courting studios through increasingly generous reliefs, the UK’s reputation as a global gaming powerhouse, home to franchises from Grand Theft Auto to Tomb Raider, could begin to slip, according to audit, tax and business advisory firm Blick Rothenberg.

Speaking during London Games Festival week, Mandy Girder, a partner at the firm, said the sector urgently needed the Government to “level up” its support if Britain was to keep its seat at the top table of global games development.

“Without decisive action from the Government, the UK risks losing both talent and intellectual property to other countries,” she said. “France, Australia and Ireland are offering increasingly generous and accessible incentive regimes designed to attract investment.”

The London Games Festival, now a fixture in the industry calendar, has put a spotlight on British creativity, but Girder cautioned that creativity alone would not keep the UK ahead of the pack.

“The festival highlights the UK’s undeniable creative strength, but creativity alone will not secure long-term global leadership,” she said. “The Government must step up tax relief and investment in the industry.”

While the UK’s Video Games Expenditure Credit and broader creative industry reliefs have underpinned growth in recent years, Girder warned that the regime was increasingly seen by studios as cumbersome when set beside rivals abroad.

“Headline rates are competitive, but the system is often viewed as more complex and, in some cases, less flexible or accessible than the incentive regimes in countries such as Ireland and Australia,” she said.

Recent tightening of eligibility rules is already beginning to bite. Under the revised framework, at least 10 per cent of development costs must now be incurred in the UK rather than across the wider European Economic Area, a change intended to bolster domestic employment but which has tripped up projects structured around continental teams.

“Whilst intended to encourage the use of UK-based talent, this has been restrictive on the number of successful claims for projects already under way and structured around European teams,” Girder said. “It has led to a decline in the availability of these tax credits.”

She is calling for a simpler, more generous regime, backed by targeted incentives explicitly designed to draw inward investment.

“Simplifying and enhancing the UK’s tax framework, alongside introducing targeted incentives to attract inward investment, would significantly strengthen the UK’s global positioning,” she said.

Access to finance is another persistent headache, particularly for studios trying to move beyond the start-up phase. While seed capital is relatively easy to come by, scale-up funding, the kind that allows mid-sized studios to expand internationally and retain their IP, remains elusive.

“Early-stage funding is relatively accessible, but mid-sized studios often face barriers when seeking the scale-up capital needed to expand internationally and retain valuable intellectual property,” Girder said. “This funding gap risks limiting the UK’s ability to fully capitalise on its creative strengths.”

The Government’s newly launched Creative Industries Sector Plan, which opens £28.5 million in funding for the next generation of games developers, is a step in the right direction, Girder conceded.

“The UK has long been recognised as a creative powerhouse, home to world-class studios and exceptional talent behind globally successful titles such as Grand Theft Auto and Tomb Raider,” she said. “The sector plan is a positive step forward.”

But she questioned whether the intervention goes far enough to tackle the structural weaknesses in the industry’s funding pipeline.

“The question remains whether this level of support is sufficient to address the structural funding challenges facing the sector,” she said. “A more comprehensive approach, combining competitive tax relief, grants and alternative financing options, will be essential to unlock sustained growth.”

Her message to ministers was blunt. “Now is the time for industry and Government to work together to simplify incentives, unlock scale-up funding, and ensure the UK remains a destination of choice for global games investment.

“The London Games Festival turns the spotlight on the UK’s role as a leading force in the global video games market, and on the steps the Government needs to take to secure its future competitiveness.”

Read more:
Britain’s gaming industry needs a power-up or risks losing its crown to France, Ireland and Australia

European aviation is staring down the barrel of a fuel crisis that could ground flights across the continent by June, the International Energy Agency has warned, with reserves thinning at an alarming pace and replacement supplies proving stubbornly difficult to secure.

In its latest monthly oil market report, the Paris-based watchdog, which counsels 32 member states on energy security, said Europe was sitting on roughly six weeks’ worth of jet fuel. Unless the bloc can source at least half of the volumes it would ordinarily draw from the Middle East, stocks will hit a critical threshold within weeks.

The warning comes as the Strait of Hormuz, the artery through which the bulk of Gulf jet fuel flows to international markets, remains effectively shut. Iran moved to close the waterway more than six weeks ago in retaliation for joint American and Israeli military strikes, and the blockade has sent kerosene prices soaring and rattled airline finance directors from Luton to Lisbon.

Speaking to the Associated Press, IEA executive director Fatih Birol did not mince his words: flight cancellations, he cautioned, could be weeks away if the taps remain shut.

Historically, Europe has leaned on the Gulf for around three-quarters of its imported jet fuel. The IEA noted that refineries in other major exporting nations, South Korea, India and China chief among them, are themselves heavily reliant on Middle Eastern crude, meaning the disruption has, in its own phrasing, jammed the gears of the global aviation fuel market.

European buyers are now scrambling to plug the gap. American refiners have sharply accelerated jet fuel exports in recent weeks, but the IEA reckons that even if every barrel leaving US shores were routed to European airports, it would cover only a little over half the shortfall.

Under the agency’s modelling, a replacement rate below 50 per cent would trigger physical shortages at selected airports, forcing cancellations and what analysts politely term “demand destruction”. Even if three-quarters of the missing volumes can be replaced, the same squeeze is expected to bite by August. The upshot, the IEA concluded, is that European markets will need to hustle considerably harder to attract cargoes from alternative sources if inventories are to hold through the summer peak.

The financial strain on carriers is already acute. Fuel typically accounts for between 20 and 40 per cent of an airline’s operating costs, and the benchmark European jet fuel price touched a record $1,838 (£1,387) per tonne at the start of April, more than double the $831 recorded before hostilities erupted.

Brussels, for its part, is treading carefully. The European Commission said this week there was no evidence of shortages within the EU but conceded that supply issues could surface in the near future. A spokesperson confirmed that crude flows to European refineries remained stable with no immediate need to tap strategic reserves, adding that oil and gas coordination groups were now meeting weekly. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is expected to unveil a package of energy measures next week.

The mood at Europe’s airports is less sanguine. Airports Council International, the continent’s airport trade body, wrote to the Commission last week warning that fuel shortages could materialise unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens within three weeks.

The pressure is already showing on airline balance sheets. In a trading update on Thursday, EasyJet said it had absorbed £25m of additional fuel costs in March alone as a direct consequence of the Middle East conflict, and that was despite the Luton-based low-cost carrier having hedged more than three-quarters of its jet fuel requirement at pre-war prices. The airline flagged near-term uncertainty over both fuel costs and passenger demand, a combination that rarely bodes well for earnings.

For SME operators in the aviation supply chain, ground handlers, charter firms, regional carriers and the small logistics businesses that depend on dependable air freight, the coming weeks will be a test of cash reserves and commercial nerve. With prices at record highs and supply far from guaranteed, the summer schedule is shaping up to be the most precarious Europe’s aviation sector has faced in a generation.

Read more:
Europe faces jet fuel crunch as gulf supply crisis deepens