Month: March 2025

British manufacturers are facing fresh uncertainty as Donald Trump’s sweeping new steel and aluminium tariffs threaten more than £2.7 billion ($3.43bn) worth of UK exports to the United States — a move that is already prompting order cancellations, price hikes, and long-term strategic questions for exporters.
The tariffs, reinstated by executive order as part of the US president’s campaign to revive American industry, apply not only to raw materials but also to a wide range of finished products that contain steel or aluminium — from aircraft components to luxury barbecue ovens.
A new analysis by the UK Trade Policy Observatory estimates that out of the $60.8 billion in UK goods exported to the US annually, around $3.43 billion will now be subject to the new tariffs. While $608 million of that relates to raw materials, the bulk — $2.85 billion — consists of manufactured goods incorporating steel, many of which had previously flown under the radar.
One company feeling the impact is Charlie Oven, a Nottinghamshire-based manufacturer of luxury charcoal ovens. Co-founder Neil Quick said the tariffs introduce real pricing uncertainty: “It’s a significant market for us. Do we pass the cost on to customers, or absorb it ourselves? It’s that lack of clarity that’s difficult.”
Although their high-end customers may tolerate a price rise — each oven retails for more than £5,000 — many other UK exporters operate in far more competitive markets.
Among the sectors most exposed is aerospace, with military aircraft and helicopter components alone accounting for $831 million in UK exports that now face tariffs — nearly a quarter of the total impact. Paul Smith of Coventry-based Aerocom Metals, which supplies materials for Airbus and Boeing, expects business to continue with elevated costs simply passed along. “Switching suppliers takes years in this industry,” he said.
However, for raw steel exporters, the effect is already more disruptive. Tata Steel UK’s chief executive Rajesh Nair told MPs that American customers had begun cancelling orders and demanding compensation, while British Steel’s commercial chief Allan Bell echoed similar concerns about market confidence.
The cumulative effect on UK exporters depends in part on how the tariffs are applied. Some manufacturers can choose whether to pay tariffs on the steel content alone or on the full product price. But for firms like Suffolk-based Claydon Drill — which sells advanced agricultural machinery — calculating the proportion of steel in each product is far from straightforward.
“We’ve been making a push into the US recently, but this might stall those plans,” said commercial director Spencer Claydon. “It’s not a huge market for us yet, but it was part of our strategy.”
While Trump has framed the measures as essential for US national security and industrial revival, many analysts believe the wider scope of the tariffs is about creating negotiating leverage. “You can argue that anything with steel in it undermines US industry — even if it’s a barbecue oven,” said Matthew Oresman, managing partner at law firm Pillsbury.
Ironically, similar tariffs introduced during Trump’s first term backfired. A study by the US Federal Reserve found that while they offered minor protection to domestic producers, they ultimately caused a 1 percentage-point drag on the US economy — due to lost manufacturing jobs, higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs.
That broader impact may be even greater this time. “We’re looking at around $150 billion in US consumer goods being affected, far more than last time,” said Laura Cooper, global investment strategist at asset manager Nuveen. “This could seriously dent business confidence and industrial output.”
Back in the UK, manufacturers like Charlie Oven are standing firm — for now. “We could move production elsewhere, but we believe in making our product in Britain,” said Tara Quick. “It’s part of our identity. We just hope we can ride out the storm.”
Read more:
Trump’s steel tariffs put £2.7bn of UK exports at risk as British manufacturers brace for impact

The UK’s life sciences sector is falling behind international competitors, missing out on an estimated £15 billion a year over the past decade due to declining foreign investment, falling export share and a drop in clinical trials.
This is according to a new report by LEK Consulting for the Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
Despite being named one of the eight priority sectors in the government’s forthcoming industrial strategy, the life sciences sector is struggling to convert its world-class research base into commercial and economic success.
The report, Unlocking Value in Life Sciences, reveals that the UK’s global pharmaceutical export share has almost halved over the last decade — from 7.3 per cent in 2013 to just 3.8 per cent in 2023. Meanwhile, the number of clinical trials initiated in the UK has been falling by around 8 per cent annually since 2017–18, signalling a significant loss in global competitiveness.
Sharon Todd, chief executive of SCI, said the figures should serve as a wake-up call: “The government must heed this wake-up call and act to save the UK’s life science sector before it is too late. We have all the ingredients — world-class research, universities, and a strong industrial base — but we’re losing out to countries that are doing more to keep investment and talent within their borders.”
The warning comes at a time when ministers face mounting pressure from senior executives of multinational pharmaceutical firms to reform the NHS’s branded sales rebate scheme, which they argue is overly burdensome. The recent decision by AstraZeneca to cancel a £450 million expansion of its vaccine manufacturing site in Liverpool has further fuelled concern, after the company revealed that the government failed to meet a deadline to confirm financial support.
The UK is home to four of the world’s top ten universities, produces 7 per cent of all global academic publications, and supports over 300,000 jobs within the life sciences sector. However, the report warns that structural issues — including sluggish regulatory processes, a lack of commercial incentives, and insufficient support for scale-ups — are limiting growth.
SCI has called on the government to introduce a “holistic incentive system” to support early-stage businesses, scale-ups, and advanced clinical trials. It is also urging accelerated reform of the MHRA to streamline the approval process for novel treatments, and for greater strategic use of NHS data to power real-world research — giving UK firms a competitive edge in evidence generation.
A government spokesperson responded by reaffirming the UK’s ambitions for the sector: “We are committed to making the UK a life sciences powerhouse to kick-start economic growth. We have already allocated up to £520 million to boost manufacturing of treatments, devices and medtech in the UK. Our upcoming life sciences sector plan will take targeted, concerted and bold action to unlock the full potential of this sector to fast-track cutting-edge treatments and health innovation to patients.”
With international rivals increasingly focused on strengthening their own life science ecosystems, industry leaders are urging the UK to act decisively to retain its scientific edge and turn research excellence into commercial impact — or risk missing out on the next decade of global innovation and economic opportunity.
Read more:
UK life sciences losing £15bn a year to global rivals

More than 200,000 jobs in family-run businesses and farms could be lost as a result of upcoming changes to inheritance tax rules, according to new research that warns of a substantial hit to investment, employment and long-term economic growth.
A nationwide survey of 4,200 family-owned firms and agricultural businesses — commissioned by lobby group Family Business UK and conducted by CBI Economics — found that the government’s decision to cap relief on business and agricultural property is already having significant consequences, with more expected from 2026 onwards.
From April next year, inheritance tax relief on qualifying business and agricultural assets will be capped at a combined £1 million per estate. Beyond this threshold, relief will fall from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. While individuals can still pass on £325,000 tax-free (rising to £1.5 million for couples passing on homes to direct descendants), the changes are expected to impact some of the UK’s most productive family businesses — especially in agriculture.
According to the research, over half (55 per cent) of family businesses have already cancelled or paused investment since the changes were announced in October 2023, and nearly a quarter have put recruitment on hold or cut jobs. If these trends continue, the sector could lose 208,000 jobs between 2026 and 2029, including 28,000 in farming alone.
The report warns this could wipe £14.4 billion from the economy over the current parliament, with investment down by an average of 19 per cent and headcount shrinking by 9 per cent across family firms. The government’s estimated £500 million per year windfall from the reform could be more than offset by lost tax revenue, with the survey predicting a net loss to the Exchequer of £1.9 billion over the same period.
“This research shows unequivocally that family businesses will respond by cutting jobs and investment, massively reducing tax revenue,” said Neil Davy, chief executive of Family Business UK. “The OBR must reassess its policy costings and the government should reconsider these damaging reforms.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility has already acknowledged that the revenue estimates are subject to “high uncertainty”, warning that behavioural changes such as increased gifting of assets or business sales could limit the policy’s effectiveness. The survey supports this: one in ten businesses said they are planning to sell to meet the tax obligations, and 9 per cent have already done so. Two-thirds have sought legal advice to mitigate the financial impact.
In 2021-22, over 1,800 estates claimed £550 million in business and agricultural property relief, with the largest farms accounting for nearly £220 million of that. Critics of the current system argue that the relief disproportionately benefits wealthier landowners — a claim the government cited in justifying the reform.
However, Davy contends the impact will be felt across the country. “It’s not too late for the government to revisit this policy. We’ve repeatedly asked to work constructively on a solution that raises necessary tax revenue while protecting jobs and reincentivising investment in Britain’s family business backbone.”
Family Business UK is calling for a full consultation with ministers ahead of implementation to explore more targeted reforms that balance the need for revenue with the imperative to support enterprise and regional growth. Without a shift in approach, Davy warns, the tax could do lasting damage to Britain’s “engine of local employment and economic resilience.”
Read more:
Inheritance tax reform could threaten 200,000 jobs in family businesses and farms, survey warns

We’ve talked a lot about purpose, and while it should be at the very heart of your organisation, it’s been long debated what should come first – a clear purpose or the ‘right people’? It’s ‘the chicken or the egg?’ equivalent for business.
Wait – here comes the bus!
Jim Collins’ famous concept of “getting the right people on the bus”, introduced in his book Good to Great, endorses getting the right people around the table (or on the bus) before you discuss purpose, objectives or strategy for your business.
My question is this, can you even attract the ‘right people’ if you don’t know where your bus is going, or if you aren’t sure what type of bus you are driving?
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. If you don’t ultimately know why your organisation exists, you will struggle to identify or attract the ‘right’ type of employees. However, the right employees can be essential to helping you refine the size, shape and destination of your bus.
Alright, so who am I looking for’?
Well, it changes depending on your purpose and what you are trying to achieve – it’s not one size fits all (yes, we will be talking about diversity shortly!). For example, if you are looking to be an industry disruptor, you will likely need to employ people who have a bit of ‘oomph’ – people not afraid to challenge the norm. If your business is based on sales, you will need savvy people who are good communicators… you get the gist.
What we are talking about here is less about the core skills people have, and more about the values, attitude and behaviours they bring to the business. While at first glance this may feel woolly, or difficult to articulate, defining your organisation’s values and the behaviours you expect to see from your team, will become increasingly important as your business grows.
Is my team on the bus?
So, what if you’re a business with an existing team? How do you know who can help you drive your business forward? Well, the answer still stands – it all starts with values and behaviours.
Many organisations have values they use for marketing and little more. But values can only be lived if they are upheld by behaviours for employees to emulate, and this must be led from the top.
Without this framework, singling out ‘your kind of people’ without articulating what that means, can get you into all sorts of bother.
I told you we’d talk about diversity
Diversity of team becomes critical to any organisation that is genuinely committed to doing something different. I’m not just talking about a male/female split, I’m talking about diversity of demographics, backgrounds, skills, mindsets.
Too often, the differences between individuals are blamed for creating friction within teams. But difference is not the cause of the problem. A lack of clearly defined purpose, values and behaviours often is.
Today’s workplace is an intersection of multiple generations and diverse backgrounds, each with their own strengths, challenges and ways of doing things. When people work successfully together, they don’t just learn from one another – they energise each other, bringing new ideas and helping to attract fresh talent to the organisation, thus creating a more dynamic and innovative workforce.
Getting this dynamic right doesn’t happen by accident. It is the result of clear leadership – someone that is prepared to put in the time, energy and effort it takes to curate a cohesive and empowered team of people who align to your values, demonstrate the right behaviours and have a genuine passion for your purpose. It’s about setting a clear framework for who you are looking for and getting them ‘on the bus’ from the outset.
Tell me again why it’s so important
To borrow a line from a famous shampoo brand…because it’s worth it.

The right people drive the purpose
The best people, those aligned with your company’s values, will bring passion, adaptability and the expertise needed to help your company evolve as it grows.
Cultural fit is key
The right team will naturally contribute to building and developing the kind of culture that supports your company’s purpose. This in turn helps to keep that team motivated, committed and fulfilled.
Flexibility over rigid plans
The best people are flexible, creative and capable of adjusting strategies as the business landscape shifts. Rather than sticking to a rigid plan, the right team will enable you to continuously refine your direction and stay competitive.

The Bottom Line
A successful business is built on a strong culture founded in meaningful, lasting connections. As a leader, rising to the challenge of uniting your team and celebrating differences to create a collaborative environment, enables everyone to thrive.
When you focus on getting the right people on the bus, you set the stage for success, not just in terms of strategy and purpose but also in creating a business that values collaboration, adaptability and mutual respect.
So, let’s make sure your team is engaged and excited about your organisation’s journey. The itinerary may be flexible, but the proposed destination should be on everyone’s wish list!
Read more:
What came first, the purpose or the people?

UK consumer confidence saw a marginal improvement in March, rising by just one point to -19, according to the latest GfK index.
While the figure beat analysts’ expectations of a fall to -21, experts warned there is still “little evidence of a recovery” as households remain cautious in the face of persistent economic pressures.
The slight uptick was largely driven by a more positive view of the economy’s performance over the past year and cautious optimism for the year ahead. However, the survey was conducted before the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that GDP shrank by 0.1 per cent in January, tempering hopes of sustained momentum.
Although the consumer confidence index has recovered somewhat from its record lows during the peak of the cost of living crisis in late 2022, it remains well below the long-term average of -10.
Neil Bellamy, consumer insights director at NIQ GfK, likened the current state of sentiment to a hospital patient. “Consumer confidence remains subdued… If [it] were a patient languishing in a hospital bed, a doctor would say there is little evidence of a recovery as yet,” he said.
Consumer sentiment is a critical barometer for economists, reflecting public perceptions of household finances, job security, and the broader economic climate. Despite wage growth outpacing inflation for the past 18 months, March saw a slight dip in personal finance expectations for the year ahead.
GfK’s separate savings index also fell, dropping five points to 25, which could suggest that some households may be willing to dip into savings to maintain spending — a potentially short-term boost for retailers but a sign of longer-term financial strain.
The Bank of England, meanwhile, held interest rates steady at 4.5 per cent last week, with the Monetary Policy Committee voting 8-1 in favour of no change. Despite three rate cuts since the peak of 5.25 per cent last year, borrowing costs remain significantly higher than the levels seen over the past decade and a half — incentivising saving over spending.
Retail sales rose 1.7 per cent in January, according to the ONS, but business sentiment has started to falter. Separate indicators, including the Purchasing Managers’ Index, have shown weakening confidence among employers and a slowdown in hiring intentions — partially attributed to Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions for employers.
Further pressure on consumer sentiment may come from wider geopolitical developments. The Bank of England this week warned that renewed tariff threats and protectionist signals from US President Donald Trump had “intensified” global uncertainty, heightening market volatility and posing risks to UK growth.
With Reeves expected to announce additional public spending cuts in Wednesday’s Spring Statement to shore up fiscal headroom, the coming months may test the resilience of both household confidence and broader economic recovery.
Read more:
Consumer confidence edges up in March but recovery remains elusive

In the world of finance, where the pursuit of profit often overshadows ethical considerations, Eric Koeplin stands out as a beacon of integrity and commitment to social responsibility.
As the CEO and founder of Alpha Principle, Eric has made it his mission to demonstrate that investing can be a powerful force for good, aligning financial success with positive social impact.
A Foundation in Ethics
Eric’s journey into the world of ethical investing began in his youth, marked by his achievements as an Eagle Scout. “The values I learned as an Eagle Scout—trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, and kindness—have shaped my approach to business and leadership,” Eric explains. These principles have guided him through his education at the University of Colorado and into his professional life, compelling him to look beyond the balance sheets to the broader impact of investment decisions.
Pioneering Change in Finance
Before founding Alpha Principle, Eric Koeplin held significant roles in established financial firms, including AdvicePeriod and The Milestone Group, where he was instrumental in managing substantial assets. During his tenure in these roles, he noticed a gap in the market for investments that not only yield attractive returns but also contribute positively to society. “I saw an opportunity to create something that wasn’t just about pursuing attractive profits but also about making a real difference for the betterment of human life,” he recalls.
With Alpha Principle, Eric has focused on investments that support social good. His firm is committed to ethical practices that extend beyond mere corporate responsibility, integrating these principles into the core operational strategies of the business. This approach has resonated with clients and colleagues alike, setting a new standard in the financial industry.
Driving Social Impact
One of Eric’s key strategies is integrating charity and community engagement into the fabric of his business operations. His firm’s involvement in various charitable initiatives and ethical projects reflects a genuine commitment to fostering community development. “Integrating philanthropy into our business model isn’t just a side activity; it’s central to who we are as a company,” says Eric.
Challenges and Innovations
Eric Koeplin acknowledges the challenges in the industry, particularly around convincing others of the viability of ethical investing. Despite these hurdles, he remains optimistic about the future and is continuously looking for innovative ways to enhance the impact of his investments. “It’s about finding new ways to do things that not only create financial returns but also generate real, lasting social benefits,” he asserts.
Technology plays a crucial role in Alpha Principle’s strategy, with Eric leveraging cutting-edge tools to enhance transparency and efficiency in investments.
Looking Forward
As for the future, Eric is excited about the potential for ethical investing to continue growing. He envisions a world where more firms and investors recognize the importance of their financial decisions on the world around them. “My hope is that our approach can inspire others to take up the mantle of responsible investing, leading to broader changes in the industry,” he shares.
Conclusion
Eric Koeplin’s journey is a testament to the power of combining financial acumen with a strong ethical compass. Through Alpha Principle, he continues to challenge the norms of the investment world, proving that it is possible to succeed financially while making a positive impact on society. His story is not just about financial success; it’s about setting a new standard for what it means to be a leader in the modern world.
Read more:
Spotlight on Eric Koeplin: Champion of Ethical Investing

The UK is on course to deliver full-fibre broadband to nearly every household by 2027, according to Ofcom, marking a major milestone in Britain’s digital infrastructure ambitions.
In its latest telecoms access review, which will shape broadband regulation from 2026 through to 2031, the communications regulator said that 96% of homes and businesses could be connected to high-speed fibre within the next two years—up from 69% today.
Ofcom said it would focus on “clarity and stability” rather than stricter regulatory controls to maintain the strong momentum behind the rollout.
Natalie Black, Ofcom’s group director for networks and communications, said: “It means that people and businesses in nearly all corners of the country will get faster, better broadband, fuelling economic growth and enabling technologies like artificial intelligence to benefit everyone.”
To support sustainable competition, Ofcom confirmed it would retain restrictions on certain discounting practices by Openreach, the broadband arm of BT. The regulator also extended the required notice period for Openreach’s discount offers from 90 to 120 days to prevent anti-competitive pricing that could deter internet providers from using rival networks.
Mark Shurmer, managing director for regulation at Openreach, welcomed the broad continuity in Ofcom’s approach but said the company would work closely with the regulator “to make sure the rules continue to prioritise investment, growth and customer satisfaction throughout the country.”
Ofcom indicated that it may reduce regulation after 2031 if a healthy competitive market emerges between Openreach and alternative network providers (altnets) such as Virgin Media O2 and CityFibre.
Kester Mann of CCS Insight noted that any such decision would depend on factors like rural connectivity, network performance and market competition.
Greg Mesch, chief executive of CityFibre, praised the review as “yet another major milestone in creating a sustainable competitive market,” adding: “Ofcom’s recognition that there’s more to do is critical and we welcome the clear support for further investment and the network competition the UK deserves.”
However, challenges remain for many of the UK’s smaller altnets, which have come under pressure from high borrowing costs and slowing customer growth. Market speculation continues around potential consolidation as some smaller providers struggle to scale up.
Importantly, Ofcom signalled it is not inclined to introduce tougher cost-based price controls on fibre networks—even after 2031—allowing infrastructure providers to maintain a return on their investments.
The full-fibre rollout is seen as vital to the UK’s long-term productivity, innovation and digital economy. With strong backing from both government and regulators, and continued investment from private sector players, Britain’s broadband landscape is set to be transformed over the next two years.
Read more:
UK on track for nationwide full-fibre broadband rollout by 2027, says Ofcom

The BBC, ITV, BT and IMG have been fined a combined £4.2 million after admitting to colluding on pay rates for freelance sports broadcasting staff, following a major investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
The CMA found that the four companies had shared confidential information to coordinate how much they paid freelancers such as camera operators and sound technicians—undermining fair competition in the labour market.
Sky, which was also involved in the illegal discussions, avoided a financial penalty after reporting its own involvement to the regulator before the investigation began in 2022.
According to the CMA, the companies frequently exchanged details about rates and agreed not to compete. In one case, a business stated it had “no intention of getting into a bidding war” and instead wanted to “benchmark the rates” with a competitor. In another instance, a company said it aimed to “present a united front” on pay.
Sky was identified as the most frequent participant, involved in 10 separate infringements. BT and IMG were each found to have broken the rules six times and were fined £1.7 million each. ITV and the BBC were fined £340,000 and £420,000 respectively for five and three breaches.
All four organisations received reduced fines after admitting liability and settling the case.
Juliette Enser, executive director of competition enforcement at the CMA, said the practice unfairly impacted freelance workers behind the scenes of sports broadcasts. “Millions watch sports on TV each day, with production teams working hard to make that possible – and it’s only right they’re paid fairly,” she said. “Companies should set pay rates independently to keep the market competitive. Not doing so can leave workers out of pocket.”
Each of the broadcasters issued statements in response to the ruling.
A BBC spokesperson said the organisation had cooperated fully and admitted its role in the breaches as soon as possible. “We highly value the freelancers we work with and will continue to invest in and develop talent,” they added.
ITV said it had strengthened compliance measures across the business, stating it is “fully committed to competition law.”
IMG confirmed it had taken all necessary steps to address past compliance issues, while BT said it had introduced additional safeguards to ensure its competition law obligations are embedded across the organisation.
Sky has not yet issued a public comment.
Read more:
BBC and rival broadcasters fined £4.2m for colluding on freelance pay

It’s a strange thing, the way we form connections with voices. Proper, deep-rooted, personal connections. The kind that feel like friendship, even though the other person has no idea we exist. The kind that, when news breaks of their passing, leaves us unexpectedly bereft—as though a part of our own personal history has just been snatched away.
That’s exactly how I felt when I heard that former F1 team boss Eddie Jordan had died this morning. I never met the man, never stood in a paddock and shook his hand, but for the past year or so, I’ve had him in my ears week in, week out.
His podcast with David Coulthard, Formula For Success, was part of my routine. That distinctive Irish lilt, the playful jabs, the slightly rogue opinions—he was as much a fixture in my week as my Yorkshire Tea in the morning. And now he’s gone.
But it doesn’t just feel like a public figure has died; it feels personal. And that got me thinking—why is it that voices, specifically those on radio and podcasts, feel so much more intimate, more emotive, than anything we watch on screen?
Growing up, the biggest influence on my musical taste wasn’t an older sibling as I didn’t have one, a cool cousin, they just tried to subvert my choice of football team, or a particularly progressive music teacher, sorry Mr Powell. It was Robert Elms. His show on GLR (or BBC London, or whatever incarnation the station was in at any given time) soundtracked my GCSE ‘revision days’ and has been a companion ever since. Robert is the reason I’m a jazz obsessive, the reason I’m a member of Ronnie Scott’s, the reason I first heard Amy Winehouse—long before Frank was even a glint in a record exec’s eye. He had met her father in a sauna, as you do, and invited her on the show. One listen and I was hooked.
And before that? Before I had the excuse of ‘revising’ with the radio on? There I was, an 11-year-old, sneaking a radio under the covers at my grandparents’ house, listening to Steve Allen on LBC. Back then, it was less political and more just… soothing. A familiar voice in the dark, shaping thoughts, sparking curiosity, and making me feel part of something bigger than myself.
Compare that to television. I watch a lot of it. Too much, probably. But if one of my favourite TV personalities or actors were to suddenly pass away, and there are far too many to name check, I wouldn’t feel that same pang. I might be sad, I might reflect on their best performances and dive down a Youtube rabbit hole on their work for an evening, but I wouldn’t feel like I knew them. There’s a certain detachment with TV. Even with the most brilliantly written characters, the most charismatic presenters, there’s always a screen between us.
But audio? Audio is different. It’s direct. It bypasses all the visual noise and speaks straight to the brain. It’s there in your ear, shaping the way you think, the way you feel. And because it lacks the distraction of visuals, it forces you to truly listen.
And it’s not just me. Think about the power of radio in times of crisis. Think about Churchill’s wartime broadcasts, the way people clung to every word as though it was a personal reassurance, not a national address. Think about the shipping forecast—still listened to religiously by thousands who have never set foot on a boat, or know where either Dogger or German Bight are. There’s a romance to radio, a directness to podcasts, a kind of intimacy that screen-based media just can’t replicate.
Maybe it’s because a voice in your ear feels like a one-to-one conversation, whereas TV and film are always a performance. Maybe it’s because we consume audio in moments of solitude—walking, commuting, lying in bed—whereas TV is more often a shared, passive experience. Or maybe it’s because when you listen to someone long enough, week after week, year after year, their voice becomes a fixture in your life, as familiar and comforting as a friend’s.
That’s why Eddie Jordan’s passing hit harder than I expected. It’s why losing a radio presenter or a podcaster often feels like losing a mate. It’s why I’ll keep tuning into Robert Elms for as long as he’s on air, and why I’ll always treasure the nights spent under the covers with a crackly old radio, absorbing the world through sound alone.
Because audio isn’t just background noise. It’s connection. It’s companionship. And in a world where screens dominate, it’s a reminder that sometimes, the most powerful stories aren’t seen at all—they’re simply heard.
Read more:
Eddie Jordan made me feel like I knew him: why voices on radio and podcasts move us more than TV ever can