Business

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been warned that her flagship pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles risks blowing a £4.8bn hole in the Treasury’s own coffers, with potentially serious knock-on consequences for the small and medium-sized businesses that underpin Britain’s burgeoning clean transport sector.

In a robustly worded letter to Dan Tomlinson, the exchequer secretary, a coalition of trade bodies representing EV drivers, renewable energy firms and charging operators has argued that the Chancellor’s new electric vehicle excise duty, due to take effect on 1 April 2028, could backfire spectacularly. Their case: that the levy will suppress new car sales to such a degree that it ends up costing the Exchequer considerably more than it raises.

Announced in the November 2025 Budget, the duty will charge fully electric car drivers 3p per mile and plug-in hybrid motorists 1.5p per mile. Treasury forecasts put the expected take at £1.1bn in 2028-29, rising to £1.9bn by 2030-31. The industry’s number-crunchers, however, paint a starkly different picture.

Research carried out by Beama, the trade body representing energy infrastructure companies, suggests the Treasury could lose £630m in VAT receipts in 2028 alone, as motorists postpone EV purchases. In a worst-case scenario, where buyers also defer ordering petrol and diesel vehicles ahead of the looming combustion-engine ban, the cumulative hit to the UK economy could reach £4.8bn.

“Introducing the pay-per-mile policy early is a fiscal own goal,” said Matt Adams of Beama. “It will slow EV uptake, reduce EV charging investments and cost the UK economy more than the Treasury stands to raise with the taxation.”

The warning carries particular weight for the thousands of SMEs operating across Britain’s nascent EV ecosystem, from independent charge-point installers and small fleet operators to clean-tech start-ups and aftermarket specialists. Many of these smaller firms have invested heavily on the assumption that EV adoption will continue its upward trajectory, using rising registrations to justify capital expenditure, recruitment and expansion plans. A sudden slump in demand would, the trade bodies argue, leave a long tail of smaller operators dangerously exposed.

The signatories, Beama, ChargeUK, EVA England and the Renewable Energy Association, point to overseas precedents that should give the Chancellor pause for thought. The introduction of a pay-per-kilometre charge in Iceland sent new EV sales tumbling by 75 per cent in 2024, while a comparable measure in New Zealand triggered a 50 per cent slump.

Replicating that pattern on British roads would have profound implications for the public finances, the trade bodies argue, given that electric vehicles cost on average £6,000 more than their petrol and diesel equivalents, and therefore generate proportionally higher VAT receipts on purchase.

Jarrod Birch, head of policy at ChargeUK, said the timing of the proposed levy was particularly ill-judged. “EVs are experiencing a surge of interest as an alternative to roller-coaster petrol prices,” he said. “Government should be doubling down on the transition by making buying and charging an EV affordable for all.”

Recent months have indeed seen EV sales accelerate, buoyed in part by volatility in oil markets following the outbreak of the Iran war. The trade bodies cautioned, however, that this short-term fillip is likely to prove temporary, and that the structural impact of a per-mile charge could weigh on the sector for years to come.

A Treasury spokesperson defended the Government’s broader approach. “This Government is committed to the EV transition, boosting support to save drivers up to £3,750 on a new car and investing over £3 billion into UK manufacturing and more charging points,” they said.

For Britain’s SME-heavy charging and clean-tech sectors, however, the central question is whether those incentives will be sufficient to offset the chilling effect of a tax that critics say risks pulling the rug from under the very transition Whitehall claims to be championing. With less than two years until the duty comes into force, the Chancellor has time to think again. Whether she will is another matter entirely.

Read more:
Reeves’s pay-per-mile EV tax ‘could cost Treasury £4.8bn’, industry coalition warns

Britain’s over-50s are paying the heaviest price for Labour’s workers’ rights overhaul, with the number of older jobseekers unable to find work climbing by 22 per cent since 2023, according to the latest figures.

Just shy of a million workers aged 50 and above are currently locked out of the labour market, the latest Labour Force Survey data shows, with the age group consistently registering the highest rates of redundancy across the workforce.

Some 917,000 people aged 50 to 66 are unable to find a job, rising to 996,743 once those aged 66 to 70, many of whom remain keen to work despite being eligible for the state pension, are included.

Industry leaders have laid the blame squarely at the door of the Employment Rights Act and the Chancellor’s increase in employer National Insurance contributions (NICs), arguing that the combined cost has made firms markedly more cautious about taking on new hires, particularly more experienced and therefore more expensive ones.

“Older workers, likely on higher salaries than their Gen Z colleagues, have borne the brunt of businesses reassessing their hiring strategies,” said Kevin Fitzgerald, UK managing director at jobs platform Employment Hero.

Alex Hall-Chen of the Institute of Directors echoed the concern, pointing to the Employment Rights Act, the rise in employer NICs and successive increases to the minimum wage as a triple blow that has dampened employer appetite for risk.

Although the Act’s provisions apply to workers of all ages, several measures hit older employees disproportionately hard in practice. The scrapping of the cap on payouts for successful unfair dismissal claims is widely expected to prove costlier in cases involving over-50s, who tend to command higher salaries and whose tribunal awards are typically calculated as multiples of pay.

The Act’s expanded right to request changes to hours or location, particularly where employees are juggling health conditions or caring responsibilities — is also likely to be invoked more frequently by workers in their 50s and 60s, many of whom are supporting elderly parents or managing their own long-term conditions.

Compounding the picture are structural shifts beyond Westminster’s control. The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence across white-collar roles and the lingering hangover from the post-Covid jobs downturn have together hollowed out mid-to-senior positions that older workers have traditionally relied upon.

Lyndsey Simpson, founder of career-coaching platform 55/Redefined, said the fallout from losing a senior or well-remunerated role in one’s 50s can be devastating and long-lasting.

“That’s why people are ‘age-scrubbing’ their CVs. They remove dates, hide early roles and play down seniority because they know age can work against them before they even get an interview,” she said.

Dr Andrea Barry of the Centre for Ageing Better warned that the scale of the crisis among older workers is now comparable to the much-discussed plight of young people not in education, employment or training (Neets), yet receives a fraction of the attention.

“The Government is right to invest in solutions for the current youth employment crisis, but the labour market is in crisis at both ends of the age range and on a similar scale,” she said.

For SME employers already grappling with rising payroll costs, tightening tribunal exposure and the spectre of further regulation, the temptation to play it safe at the recruitment stage is proving difficult to resist, and it is Britain’s most experienced workers who are bearing the cost.

Read more:
Over-50s frozen out: Labour’s workers’ rights reforms backfire as older jobseekers hit record high

HM Revenue & Customs has suffered a major blow in one of the longest-running and most consequential employment status disputes in British tax history, with a tribunal ruling that 60 football referees engaged by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) were genuinely self-employed, not employees, as the tax authority had insisted for almost a decade.

The decision, handed down at the First-tier Tribunal, means HMRC will be denied £584,000 in employment taxes it had argued were owed. The department retains the right to appeal, but the verdict has already been seized upon by tax specialists as a potentially seismic moment for the millions of contractors, freelancers and businesses operating in the UK’s flexible labour market.

Specialist contractor insurance provider Qdos described the outcome as one of the most significant employment status rulings in history, warning that it lays bare a “fundamental flaw” in HMRC’s own Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, the digital instrument introduced in 2017 and used millions of times to determine whether a worker should be taxed as employed or self-employed.

The case turned on two principles long regarded as the bedrock of employment case law: mutuality of obligation (MOO), whether a worker is obliged to accept work and the engager obliged to provide it, and control, namely the extent to which a business directs how services are performed. The tribunal ruled that referees were neither mutually obliged to work for PGMOL nor sufficiently controlled in how they performed their duties to be classed as employees.

Seb Maley, chief executive of Qdos, said the ruling directly undermines HMRC’s interpretation of the very rules it polices.

“This landmark verdict directly challenges HMRC’s very understanding of employment status, exposing a fundamental flaw in the tax office’s employment status tool, which is in desperate need of an overhaul,” he said.

“For years, HMRC has insisted that mutuality of obligation exists in every contract, so much so that its CEST tool barely scratches the surface on it. The latest twist in this case highlights the need for a rigorous review of CEST, which has been used millions of times to set the employment status of individuals, in turn determining whether they pay tax as a self-employed worker or employee.”

Maley added that the result should reassure firms that engage contractors. “Make no mistake, this result is good news for businesses that engage contractors and self-employed workers, ultimately because it proves that factors like mutuality of obligation and control really aren’t as narrow as HMRC has been contending.”

He also took aim at the sheer length of the proceedings. “With the first hearing in 2018, we’re nearly a decade into this case, the result of which could yet be appealed. If that doesn’t highlight the desperate need for the simplification of employment status, I don’t know what does. With a government consultation on the matter underway, it’s vital that verdicts like this, which put people through hugely stressful ordeals and cost the taxpayer a staggering amount, are taken into account.”

A decade in the courts

The dispute stretches back to PGMOL’s engagement of referees as self-employed contractors during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years. HMRC opened the first front in 2018, arguing at the First-tier Tribunal that the officials should have been treated as employees because they were mutually obliged to work for PGMOL.

The FTT disagreed, finding insufficient mutuality of obligation. HMRC appealed and lost again at the Upper Tribunal in 2020, which upheld the original ruling that the minimum test for employment had not been met.

A further HMRC appeal took the case to the Court of Appeal in 2022, which reversed the earlier decisions and concluded that mutuality of obligation did exist on each match day, sending the dispute back to the FTT for reconsideration.

PGMOL escalated matters to the Supreme Court in 2024, where its appeal was dismissed, again sending the case back to the FTT. It is at this latest hearing that PGMOL’s position has now finally been vindicated, with the judge ruling that the referees were neither mutually obliged to work nor sufficiently controlled by PGMOL to be employees.

For Britain’s SME community, which leans heavily on freelance and contract labour, the decision is more than a footnote in a niche sporting dispute. It strikes at the heart of how HMRC interprets and enforces the very employment status rules it designed, and adds further pressure on Whitehall to deliver the long-promised simplification of a system that has tied businesses, workers and the courts in knots for years.

Read more:
HMRC loses landmark £584,000 tax battle as referees ruled self-employed

Britain’s pub trade is calling time at a rate of nearly two locals a day, with industry leaders pinning the blame squarely on Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s autumn Budget.

Fresh figures from the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) show 161 pubs shut their doors for good in the first quarter of 2026 alone — a 26 per cent jump on the same period last year and the equivalent of one publican turning out the lights every 13 hours.

The closures have already cost more than 2,400 jobs since January, with around half of those losses falling on workers under the age of 25. The hospitality sector as a whole has now haemorrhaged more than 100,000 roles since Labour took office in October 2024.

Writing in The Telegraph, BBPA chief executive Emma McClarkin warned that Britain’s locals were buckling under “a heavy and uneven burden”. She pointed out that £1 in every £3 spent over the bar goes straight to the Treasury, before pubs even consider rising energy bills, wage pressures and tightening regulation.

“Otherwise-viable businesses have been pushed to the brink,” Ms McClarkin wrote, calling for cuts to beer duty and VAT alongside structural reform of business rates.

The figures land at an awkward moment for ministers, who have spent recent weeks insisting they are “backing Britain’s pubs”. A 15 per cent reduction in business rates bills, secured for the sector from April, was followed by a two-year real-terms freeze. The Treasury has also extended World Cup opening hours and unveiled a £10m hospitality support fund.

Operators, however, say the relief is being swallowed whole by other Budget measures. The increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions, sharp rises to the National Living Wage and revisions to the business rates regime have, the BBPA estimates, added £322m to the costs faced by pubs and brewers.

Kate Nicholls, chair of UKHospitality, said the trade was now carrying “the highest tax burden in the economy”. She warned: “Local people, local communities and our economy suffer enormously when a pub closes. The Government needs to cut hospitality’s costs and give it the support it needs to do what it does best, drive growth, create jobs and regenerate our high streets.”

The Conservatives have wasted little time exploiting the closures politically. Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of pursuing “ruinous policies” and said a future Tory government would cut business rates “for thousands of pubs and shops on our high streets”.

A Government spokesman pushed back, citing the rates relief and support fund, and Ms Reeves has promised a review into how pubs are valued for business rates, a long-standing grievance among publicans, who argue the current turnover-based methodology unfairly penalises them compared with their high-street neighbours.

For now, the data tells a starker story than the political point-scoring. With margins already razor-thin and consumer confidence wavering, even modest additional costs can be enough to tip a marginal pub into the red. Unless the Government moves on duty, VAT or rates ahead of the autumn statement, industry insiders fear the rate of closures will only accelerate as the colder months arrive.

Read more:
Last orders: two pubs a day shut as Labour’s tax raid bites

The dust hangs thick in the air at Sharp Group’s recycling facility in Rainham, east London, where the relentless rumble of hoppers and conveyor belts sets a punishing tempo. It is, by any measure, an unforgiving place to earn a living, and increasingly, that is the problem.

The family-run skip and waste management business, which processes up to 280,000 tonnes of mixed recycling a year, depends on 24 agency workers stationed along its rapid conveyor belts. They sift, in real time, through a procession of debris that ranges from old trainers and VHS cassettes to slabs of concrete. It is the sort of work that few are queueing up to do, and the figures bear that out. Annual staff turnover at the plant runs at 40%, mirroring an industry-wide retention crisis that is now forcing British SMEs to confront a question once reserved for car factories and Amazon warehouses: can robots do this instead?

For Sharp Group, the answer may be taking shape on the line itself. A humanoid robot known as Alpha, the Automated Litter Processing Humanoid Assistant, is being trained to pick through the waste stream alongside the human pickers it may one day replace. Built by China’s RealMan Robotics and adapted for British recycling conditions by London-based TeknTrash Robotics, Alpha represents an unusual bet on humanoid form factors in an industry that has, until now, leant towards bespoke automated kit.

“The attraction of a humanoid is that you can put it here and it stays here,” says Chelsea Sharp, the plant’s finance director and granddaughter of founder Tom Sharp. “It will pick all day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s not going to apply for a holiday, it’s not going to have a sick day.”

That blunt commercial logic sits against an equally blunt safety case. Work-related injury and ill-health in the waste sector run 45% higher than the national average across other industries, and the fatality rate is a sizeable multiple of the broader workforce. Sharp Group is proud of its own safety record, but the maths of recruitment in such an environment is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

“The belt is moving all the time, you’re constantly picking. I go through a lot of pickers because they just aren’t up to the job,” says line supervisor Ken Dordoy. The firm rotates staff through different waste streams every 20 minutes, with periodic stoppages built in for respite, a regime that speaks volumes about the strain involved.

Alpha, for now, is no quick fix. It is in the early stages of an exhaustive training programme, with a plant worker wearing a VR headset alongside the robot to demonstrate what good picking looks like. The dual challenge, TeknTrash founder and chief executive Al Costa explains, is teaching the machine first to identify objects on a moving belt, and then to lift them reliably. His firm’s HoloLab system feeds Alpha a torrent of data from multiple cameras, generating millions of training data points a day.

Costa is candid about the gap between marketing hype and operational reality. “The market thinks these robots are prêt‑à‑porter, that all you need to do is plug them into the mains and they will work flawlessly. But they need extensive data in order to be effectively useful.”

The humanoid approach has the advantage of slotting into existing infrastructure without expensive plant redesign, no small consideration for SMEs operating on the thin margins typical of the recycling sector. The alternative, increasingly favoured by larger operators, is wholesale retrofitting with bespoke automated kit.

Colorado-based AMP, which runs three of its own plants and supplies equipment to dozens of facilities across Europe and the UK, takes that route. Its systems use air jets to fire items into chutes, with AI continuously sharpening the machine’s ability to identify and sort materials. “Our robots are much more efficient than humans, probably eight or 10 times the pace,” chief executive Tim Stuart says. “The AI technology and jets have really increased the capacity and efficiency and accuracy of what we can do.”

California’s Glacier, co-founded by Rebecca Hu‑Thrams, deploys mounted robotic arms paired with AI vision. She is quick to note the sheer unpredictability of the material her machines must contend with. A leaking beer can may threaten sensitive equipment; her customers, she adds, have seen “unbelievable things like hand grenades and firearms coming through their facility”. The proposition, she says, is improvement at scale: “As our models learn from more than a billion items, the AI gets better and better. And we’ve always designed our technology so it works not just for big urban plants, but for the semi‑rural facilities running on much tighter budgets.”

For all the differences in approach, the conclusion across the industry is converging. The labour-intensive model that has propped up British waste processing for decades is reaching the end of its useful life. Academics studying the sector see the same trajectory. Professor Marian Chertow of Yale University argues that “robotics coupled with AI-driven vision systems offers the greatest potential for improving material recovery, worker experience, and economic competitiveness in the recycling sector”.

That leaves the awkward question of what happens to the people currently doing the picking. Chelsea Sharp does not pretend the work is anything other than gruelling. “This is a really dirty place to work. You can see the dust, you can hear the noise. It’s not that nice.” Her stated plan, however, is reskilling rather than replacement. “The plan is to upskill those staff. They’ll be maintaining and overseeing the robots. And it brings those same people away from any dangers, including the unpleasant environment, heavy lifting and noise.”

Whether the rest of the sector follows Sharp’s lead, or whether automation ushers in a quieter, leaner workforce by default, will become clear over the next few years. What is no longer in dispute is that the British recycling line of 2030 will look nothing like the one running in Rainham today.

Read more:
Humanoid robots step onto the recycling line as waste firms battle 40% staff turnover

GameStop, the American video game chain that became the standard-bearer of the 2021 meme stock frenzy, has stunned Wall Street with an unsolicited $55.5bn (£40.9bn) cash-and-stock offer for the online marketplace eBay, an audacious reverse takeover that would see a company worth roughly a quarter of its target attempt to swallow it whole.

The bid, pitched at $125 a share, represents a $20 premium on eBay’s closing price in New York on Friday. Ryan Cohen, GameStop’s chief executive and the activist investor who engineered the retailer’s improbable turnaround, has signalled he is prepared to take the offer directly to eBay shareholders should the board rebuff him.

Cohen, who has built a reputation for cage-rattling boardroom interventions since making his name as the founder of online pet retailer Chewy, told the Wall Street Journal that eBay “should be worth, and will be worth, a lot more money,” adding that the marketplace “could be a legit competitor to Amazon” under fresh ownership. Under the terms tabled, he would become chief executive of the enlarged group on neither salary nor bonus, taking remuneration solely on the basis of share price performance.

The proposal has been met with thinly veiled scepticism from the City and Wall Street alike. Morgan Stanley described the two companies as having “fundamentally different” business models, while analysts at Bernstein pointed to the yawning gap between GameStop’s balance sheet and the scale of the prize, saying they would be “surprised if anything became of it”. Sucharita Kodali, retail analyst at the research firm Forrester, was equally blunt in conversation with Business Matters, warning that the deal “would saddle eBay with GameStop’s debt” and noting drily: “The truth is, we are not necessarily putting two strong companies together.”

Even so, the financial architecture is in place. GameStop, currently capitalised at around $11.9bn, has secured a commitment letter from TD Securities for some $20bn of debt finance, and Cohen has earmarked $2bn of annual cost cuts within twelve months of completion, savings he intends to wring largely from eBay’s sales and marketing function, which he argues has failed to capitalise on what GameStop terms a “marketplace with near-universal brand recognition”.

For eBay, the approach lands at a delicate juncture. Founded in 1995 as a haven for hobbyists and collectors, the platform was once a defining icon of the early internet but has watched its active user base contract from 175 million in 2018 to 136 million today, ground steadily lost to Amazon, Shopify-powered direct-to-consumer brands and a new wave of social commerce upstarts. The board confirmed it would consider the proposal, though insiders have privately questioned whether a leveraged bid from a smaller bricks-and-mortar operator constitutes a credible route forward.

GameStop’s own story remains one of corporate theatre. Catapulted into the public consciousness during the pandemic, when an army of retail investors organising on Reddit forced a short squeeze that briefly rewrote market mechanics, the company has since used its inflated valuation to shore up its balance sheet and pivot under Cohen, who took the chief executive role in 2023. Net profit climbed to $418.4m in 2025, up from $131.3m the previous year, although top-line sales continued to slide, the familiar pattern of a retailer cutting its way to profitability rather than growing into it.

Investors delivered their verdict swiftly. eBay shares closed up 5 per cent in New York on Monday, while GameStop tumbled by more than 9 per cent, the market’s blunt assessment that any value created by the deal would flow firmly in one direction.

For Cohen, however, the strategic logic extends beyond the spreadsheet. GameStop’s network of roughly 1,600 American stores would, he argues, hand eBay a ready-made physical footprint for live commerce, authentication services and other ventures that have struggled to gain traction online alone. Whether that proposition is sufficient to overcome the structural and financial objections piling up against the bid is, for the moment, very much an open question.

What is not in doubt is that Cohen has, once again, ensured that the corporate establishment cannot ignore him.

Read more:
Gamestop tables shock $55.5bn swoop for eBay as Cohen sets sights on Amazon

NatWest has cashed in on the surge in borrowing costs unleashed by the war in Iran, posting a 12.2 per cent jump in first-quarter pre-tax profits to £2 billion and lifting its revenue guidance for the year, the latest sign that Britain’s biggest lenders are reaping the rewards of a market that no longer expects the Bank of England to keep cutting rates.

The FTSE 100 bank comfortably outpaced the £1.9 billion pencilled in by City analysts, with results published on Friday showing total income up 9.5 per cent year-on-year at just shy of £4.4 billion. Crucially for shareholders, its net interest margin, the gap between what the bank charges on loans and pays out on deposits, widened to 2.47 per cent from 2.27 per cent a year earlier.

Buoyed by the stronger quarter, NatWest told investors it now expects full-year income, stripping out one-off effects, to land at the “top end” of its previously guided range of £17.2 billion to £17.6 billion, citing “our latest expectations for interest rates and economic conditions”.

The numbers complete a hat-trick of bumper updates from Britain’s high-street giants, following similarly strong figures from Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays earlier in the week. Together they underline how the higher-for-longer rates regime, re-imposed by the energy price shock that followed the outbreak of war on 28 February, has transformed the economics of UK retail and commercial banking, at least in the short term.

Paul Thwaite, chief executive of NatWest, was at pains to play down any suggestion that the bank was simply riding a geopolitical wave. “It’s a good set of numbers but the numbers are driven by doing things for customers,” he said, pointing to deposits up 2.5 per cent year-on-year at £445.5 billion and net lending 6.6 per cent higher at £396.4 billion.

For the millions of households and small businesses on the receiving end, however, the numbers tell a more uncomfortable story. With inflation expectations climbing, swap rates, the wholesale benchmarks that lenders use to price fixed-rate mortgages, have jumped sharply. The average two-year fixed residential deal stood at 4.83 per cent before the conflict, according to data provider Moneyfacts, but has since climbed to 5.78 per cent. The Bank of England held its base rate at 3.75 per cent this week but warned that borrowing costs may need to rise “significantly” if price pressures persist.

Higher rates, of course, cut both ways. They flatter margins, but they also stress-test the loan book. NatWest set aside a £140 million charge to reflect the war’s likely drag on the economy, taking its quarterly impairment for expected credit losses to £283 million, up from £189 million in the same period last year. The bank is now modelling UK economic growth of just 0.4 per cent this year, with unemployment peaking at 5.7 per cent.

Thwaite was candid about the limits of forecasting in the current climate. “None of us know exactly how it’s going to pan out over the course of the rest of the year; a lot of that will depend on the duration of the energy shock,” he said.

For now, though, NatWest’s books are holding up. Katie Murray, the bank’s finance chief, said the lender had “not seen significant shifts in customer behaviour or signs of stress”, a guarded but pointed reassurance for investors mindful that today’s fatter margins could quickly be eroded if SME borrowers and mortgage holders begin to buckle under the weight of dearer debt.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses, already navigating tighter credit conditions and weaker demand, the read-across is sobering: the banks may be thriving on the new rate environment, but the cost of capital for the rest of the economy is heading in only one direction.

Read more:
Natwest profits jump to £2bn as Iran conflict drives mortgage rates higher

Microsoft is to plant a fresh flag in central London, taking the entirety of Film House, an eight-storey Art Deco landmark on Wardour Street, to serve as the principal home of its rapidly expanding UK artificial intelligence operations.

The deal underscores how the world’s deepest-pocketed technology groups are doubling down on the capital as the AI arms race intensifies. Microsoft, alongside Meta and Amazon, is committing billions of dollars to compute, talent and real estate in pursuit of a slice of what is shaping up to be the defining commercial contest of the decade.

Film House carries no small amount of cinematic provenance. Built in the 1920s as the first British outpost of French film studio Pathé, complete with private screening rooms, the building later housed HMV before serving as Nike’s UK headquarters. Texas-based developer Hines acquired the property in 2023 and has since refurbished it to court the buoyant demand for premium workspace. Tenants will find a gym, a bar, a rooftop terrace, a so-called hidden courtyard, showers and changing rooms, and, in a nod to the building’s heritage, a cinema in the basement.

Even with Film House secured, Microsoft is understood to be hunting for a substantially larger London headquarters to consolidate its wider workforce in the capital. Property agents suggest the company has its eye on a 300,000 sq ft footprint, three times the size of the Soho building, somewhere along the Elizabeth Line, where transport connectivity has reshaped occupier appetite.

A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment on the Film House lease but said: “We are committed to the UK and have facilities across the country. We regularly review our portfolio to make sure it meets the needs of our people and our long-term business.” Hines also declined to comment.

The American group is far from alone. Last month OpenAI signed a lease for a larger base near King’s Cross, just around the corner from rival Anthropic, which recently confirmed plans to move into the same neighbourhood. The clustering effect is unmistakable, and is rippling through the wider SME ecosystem of AI start-ups, scale-ups and supporting professional services drawn to the gravitational pull of the majors.

Mike Gedye, head of European technology leasing at CBRE, said: “We expect London’s depth of talent and established tech ecosystem to continue reinforcing its position as a global hub for technology and AI. Tech and AI businesses are making a footprint in London on a relatively small or short-term lease, but upsizing significantly within 18 to 24 months.”

That trajectory has profound implications for the capital’s commercial property market. CBRE estimates AI companies could absorb close to half of all the speculative office space currently under construction in London. Between now and 2033, the firm’s analysts forecast that AI occupiers will take up to four million sq ft of workspace, the equivalent of roughly eight Gherkins.

Not everyone is convinced the boom will hold. Some in the property industry warn that AI’s productivity gains may ultimately translate into fewer jobs across the wider economy, eroding tenant demand. Landlords, however, are betting the other way, calculating that the explosive growth of start-up technology businesses will more than compensate for any contraction at more traditional employers.

For London’s smaller technology firms, the message from Microsoft’s Soho move is clear: the capital’s AI gold rush is gathering pace, and the postcodes around it are about to get very crowded indeed.

Read more:
Microsoft plants AI flag in Soho with Film House lease as London tech land grab accelerates

Online trading has transformed how investors access global markets. What once required brokers and large capital can now be done instantly from a laptop or phone. From crypto to forex, traders today expect speed, flexibility, and control.

As more platforms enter the space, the focus has shifted toward performance and reliability. This is where UKX Capital is starting to gain attention among UK-based traders.

What Is UKX Capital

UKX Capital is a multi-asset trading platform offering access to cryptocurrencies, forex, indices, and commodities. It’s built around fast execution and a simplified interface, aiming to support traders who want quick access to market opportunities without unnecessary complexity.

Range of Markets

The platform provides a solid mix of trading options:

Cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, altcoins)
Forex pairs
Indices
Commodities

This allows users to diversify strategies while staying within one ecosystem.

Score: 9/10

Deposits and Withdrawals

UKX Capital focuses on making transactions smooth and efficient. Traders can expect:

Straightforward deposit process
Reasonably fast withdrawals
Multiple payment options (depending on region)

Consistency in processing adds to overall trust in the platform.

Score: 8.8/10

Mobile Trading

Mobile trading is a key strength. The platform offers:

Full functionality on mobile devices
Real-time charting and execution
Smooth navigation without lag

This makes it easy to stay connected to the markets at all times.

Score: 9.2/10

Fees

Fees are competitive compared to many modern platforms. While exact structures may vary, the focus is on:

Tight spreads
Transparent pricing
No unnecessary hidden charges

This is particularly important for active traders who execute frequently.

Score: 8.7/10

Trading Platform

The platform itself is designed for efficiency:

Clean and intuitive layout
Fast order execution
Easy switching between assets

It avoids clutter, which helps traders focus on decision-making rather than navigation.

Score: 9.1/10

Education

Educational resources are available but not the main focus. Users will find:

Basic guides and onboarding support
Limited advanced learning materials

This suggests the platform is more suited for users who already understand trading fundamentals.

Score: 8.5/10

Security

Security plays an important role in building trust. UKX Capital emphasizes:

Secure account management
Data protection measures
Reliable platform infrastructure

While details may vary, the overall setup aims to provide a safe trading environment.

Score: 9/10

Support

Customer support is accessible and responsive:

Assistance for account and trading issues
Multiple contact options
Reasonable response times

There is still room for faster response in peak periods.

Score: 8.6/10

Bottom Line

UKX Capital positions itself as a modern trading platform focused on speed, simplicity, and crypto accessibility. It performs strongly across key areas like execution, mobile trading, and market range.

While it may not offer deep educational content, it compensates with a streamlined experience that suits active traders.

Overall Score: 9/10

FAQ

Is UKX Capital suitable for UK traders?

Yes, it offers features and market access that align well with UK-based investors.

Can I trade crypto on UKX Capital?

Yes, crypto is a major part of the platform alongside other assets.

Are fees competitive?

Yes, fees are generally competitive with a focus on transparency.

Does it support mobile trading?

Yes, the mobile experience is one of its strongest features.

Is UKX Capital beginner-friendly?

It’s more suitable for traders who already have basic knowledge of trading.

Read more:
UKX Capital Review: In-Depth Look at the Platform

Nathan Weingarten is known for his disciplined mindset and consistent approach to personal and professional growth. Born in New Jersey and raised as the youngest in his family, he developed a strong sense of observation and curiosity early on. These traits would later shape how he approaches challenges and opportunities.

He pursued his education in New York City, where he built a structured way of thinking and a focus on long-term progress. Over time, Nathan developed a reputation for staying grounded, focused, and analytical in his work. Rather than chasing short-term results, he prioritises steady improvement and clear decision-making.

Nathan’s career is centred in software development, where he works on building scalable systems, improving application performance, and designing reliable backend architectures. He approaches engineering with a methodical mindset, often breaking down complex technical problems into simple, manageable components. This ability has made him effective in fast-paced development environments where clarity and precision matter.

“I’ve always believed that doing the basics well, over and over, creates real progress,” he says.

Outside of his professional life, Nathan maintains an active lifestyle. He enjoys tennis, cycling, padel, and swimming, using these activities to stay balanced and energised. He is also an avid reader and traveller, constantly seeking new perspectives.

Nathan supports charitable efforts in both the United States and Israel. He believes that long-term success is not just about personal achievement, but also about contributing to a wider community.

Nathan Weingarten on Discipline, Growth, and Staying Focused

Q: Let’s start from the beginning. What shaped your early mindset?

I became interested early on in how systems work and how people solve problems. That curiosity stayed with me and eventually led me toward software development, where structured thinking and problem-solving are essential.

Q: How did your time in New York City influence you?

New York gave me structure and intensity. It’s a place where you have to stay focused because everything moves quickly. That environment taught me how to prioritise, manage time effectively, and stay clear under pressure. Those lessons translate directly into how I approach engineering work.

Q: What would you say defines your approach to your career?

Consistency. In software development, results come from repetition and refinement. I focus on building things properly, step by step, rather than rushing outcomes. I also prioritise simplicity, especially when solving complex engineering problems.

Q: Many people struggle with distractions. How do you stay focused?

It’s about being intentional with attention. In technology, there is constant noise, new frameworks, tools, and trends. I try to stay focused on what actually improves system quality and long-term stability rather than reacting to everything new.

Q: You often speak about long-term thinking. Why is that important?

Because in software development, short-term decisions often lead to technical debt. Long-term thinking helps you design systems that scale, remain maintainable, and reduce future issues. It leads to better engineering outcomes.

Q: What role do habits play in your daily life?

Habits create structure. Staying active with tennis, cycling, and padel helps maintain balance and mental clarity. I also read regularly, including technical material, which supports continuous learning and growth in software development.

Q: How has travel influenced your perspective?

Travel exposes you to different approaches to problem-solving and system design. It helps you see how varied environments handle efficiency, structure, and communication, which is useful when thinking about software systems at scale.

Q: What challenges have helped shape your growth?

One of the biggest challenges is patience in development work. Software rarely works perfectly on the first attempt. Iteration, debugging, and refinement are part of the process. Staying consistent through that cycle is where real improvement happens.

Q: How do you define leadership?

In software development, leadership is demonstrated through technical clarity and consistency. It’s about setting standards through your own work, writing clean and maintainable code, and helping others do the same.

Q: You’re also involved in charitable efforts. Why is that important to you?

It provides perspective. While software development is highly technical and focused, it’s important to stay connected to broader communities and contribute in meaningful ways beyond work.

Q: What advice would you give to someone trying to improve their focus?

Keep it simple. Focus on fundamentals in both life and engineering. Avoid overcomplicating problems. Consistent improvement over time matters more than intensity or speed.

Q: Final question. What continues to drive you?

Building better systems. In software development, there is always something that can be improved, refined, or simplified. That ongoing process of improvement is what keeps me motivated.

 

Read more:
Nathan Weingarten Discusses Consistency and Long-Term Thinking