Category: Uncategorized

Supermarket giant Morrisons will close 103 outlets across the UK this year — including cafés, florists, pharmacies and convenience stores — in its latest effort to streamline operations and refocus investment on core areas of growth.
The closures form part of a broad restructuring strategy to “accelerate growth” and “optimise operations”, following mounting cost pressures and what chief executive Rami Baitiéh called “significant cost headwinds” since last year’s Autumn Budget.
The company has confirmed that 50 Morrisons cafés will close nationwide, alongside 17 Daily convenience stores, 13 florists, four pharmacies, and all 18 Market Kitchens, its in-store restaurant concept launched to offer freshly prepared meals.
In addition, 35 meat counters and 35 fish counters are also expected to shut as part of the overhaul. The exact closure dates for the Market Kitchens will be announced later this year.
Baitiéh said: “These closures are a necessary part of our plans to renew and reinvigorate Morrisons and enable us to focus investment into areas customers really value.
In most locations, our cafés have a bright future, but some sites face local challenges — and in those, closure and re-allocation of space is the only sensible option.”
He added that the company would seek partnerships with “third-party specialists” in some locations to maintain local services.
Morrisons reported a pre-tax profit of £2.1 billion in the year to October 2024, rebounding from losses of £919 million the previous year and £1.3 billion in 2023.
However, the supermarket chain continues to face higher energy and staffing costs, as well as fresh regulatory and tax burdens following the government’s latest fiscal measures.
“Consumers are feeling the squeeze,” Baitiéh said. “We are continuing to help customers make the most of stretched household budgets while managing the incremental impact of new legislation and cost inflation.”
The list of affected sites
Closures affect stores in London, Leeds, Glasgow, Birmingham, Bradford, Aberdeen, and dozens of regional towns across the UK.
A full list of closing cafés, florists, Market Kitchens and pharmacies is included below for readers to check if their local branch is affected.
Cafés closing (50 locations)
Bradford Thornbury • Paisley Falside Road • London Queensbury • Portsmouth • Great Park • Banchory North Deeside Road • Failsworth Poplar Street • Blackburn Railway Road • Leeds Swinnow Road • London Wood Green • Kirkham Poulton Street • Lutterworth Bitteswell Road • Stirchley • Leeds Horsforth • London Erith • Crowborough • Bellshill John Street • Dumbarton Glasgow Road • East Kilbride Lindsayfield • East Kilbride Stewartfield • Glasgow Newlands • Largs Irvine Road • Troon Academy Street • Wishaw Kirk Road • Newcastle UT Cowgate • Northampton Kettering Road • Bromsgrove Buntsford Industrial Park • Solihull Warwick Road • Brecon Free Street • Caernarfon North Road • Hadleigh • London Harrow Hatch End • High Wycombe Temple End • Leighton Buzzard Lake Street • London Stratford • Sidcup Westwood Lane • Welwyn Garden City Black Fan Road • Warminster Weymouth Street • Oxted Station Yard • Reigate Bell Street • Borehamwood • Weybridge Monument Hill • Bathgate • Erskine Bridgewater Shopping Centre • Gorleston Blackwell Road • Connah’s Quay • Mansfield Woodhouse • Elland • Gloucester Metz Way • Watford Ascot Road • Littlehampton Wick • Helensburgh
Florists closing (13 locations)
Aberdeen King Street • Bradford Enterprise 5 • Canning Town London • Evesham Four Pool Estate • Newcastle-under-Lyme Goose Street • Rubery Bristol Road South • Sheffield Meadowhead • Sheldon Birmingham • St Albans Hatfield Road • St Helens Boundary Road • Stirchley Birmingham • Sunderland Doxford Park • Swinton Hall Road
Market Kitchens closing (18 locations)
Aberdeen King Street • Basingstoke Thorneycroft • Brentford Waterside • Camden Town London • Canning Town London • Cheltenham Up Hatherley • Eccles Irwell Place Greater Manchester • Edgbaston Birmingham • Gravesend Coldharbour Road • Kirkby Merseyside • Leeds Kirkstall • Lincoln Triton Road • Little Clacton Centenary Way • Milton Keynes Westcroft • Nottingham Netherfield • Stoke Festival Park • Tynemouth Preston Grange North Shields • Verwood Dorset
Pharmacies closing (4 locations)
Birmingham Small Heath • Blackburn Railway Road • Bradford Victoria • London Wood Green
Morrisons said the closures will help redirect investment towards areas of growth such as price competitiveness, loyalty schemes and store modernisation — but analysts warn the decision underscores the continuing strain on UK retailers navigating rising costs, changing consumer habits and post-pandemic high-street challenges.
Read more:
Morrisons to shut 103 outlets including cafés, florists and pharmacies in major restructure

Former Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg has warned that the current wave of valuations across the artificial intelligence sector is “crackers”, arguing that many AI businesses have yet to demonstrate viable paths to profitability despite the billions pouring into machine learning.
Speaking at The Times Tech Summit, Clegg said that even the world’s leading AI firms — including so-called “hyperscalers” developing large-scale models — are struggling to show how their capital expenditure will translate into sustainable returns.
“I think there’s certainly a correction coming in valuations,” he said. “These valuations do seem pretty crackers. I don’t see any business model yet, even of the leading AI hyperscalers, that can recoup that capital expenditure. Some of the AI labs that don’t have a particularly good business model will be very exposed in a market correction.”
Clegg’s comments add to growing concerns from economists and regulators that the AI boom may be inflating a bubble similar to the dotcom era. The International Monetary Fund’s chief economist recently drew parallels to the early 2000s internet crash, which wiped $5 trillion from markets, while the Bank of England has cautioned against a potential “sudden correction” in AI-related valuations.
Investors have poured tens of billions into foundation model developers and AI infrastructure providers, betting on long-term dominance in generative and enterprise applications. But analysts warn that high compute costs, slow commercial deployment and unclear monetisation models are creating tension between hype and profitability.
Clegg, who stepped down this year as Meta’s president for global affairs after six years with the company, also used his appearance to criticise Britain’s heavy dependence on American technology infrastructure.
“I think it’s pretty difficult to assert anything other than that we are a vassal state of American technology,” he said. “We are wholly dependent on every level of the stack for technology from a country where the geostrategic interests are no longer aligned in the same way they have been for the last 30 years.”
He warned that the UK’s lack of domestic AI infrastructure and homegrown capability left it in a “perilous state”, particularly amid widening political rifts between the United States and Europe.
Clegg’s intervention reflects a wider unease in Silicon Valley and global markets as AI development enters its first period of scrutiny since the 2022–23 hype cycle. While some companies — including OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind — continue to secure massive funding rounds, investors are beginning to demand clearer paths to revenue growth and operational sustainability.
Analysts expect 2026 to mark a turning point for the sector, with a likely market correction separating commercially resilient players from speculative bets. For now, Clegg’s warning serves as a reminder that even amid rapid innovation, the AI gold rush may be running ahead of economic reality.
Read more:
Nick Clegg: AI company valuations are ‘crackers’ and ripe for correction

It was one of those small domestic moments that tells you everything you need to know about the modern British service industry. I was visiting my parents, both octogenarians, both long past the stage of bothering to shop around for anything,  when an envelope from the AA thudded onto the doormat. My mother opened it with the slight suspicion that all letters now require, only to find the annual renewal notice for their breakdown cover.
“Two hundred and sixty pounds thirty-eight,” she said, frowning at the figure as if it were a medical diagnosis. “Though that’s apparently cheaper than last year – it was £280.25 – and they’ve given us a discount of £107.25.” She seemed reassured, which is precisely how the AA likes it.
Then my eye caught a line in bold type: ‘Thank you for your 64 years of loyalty’.
Sixty-four years! That’s longer than most marriages, and certainly longer than any of the call centre staff at AA Insurance have been alive. My stepfather has been a paying customer since the Beatles were still playing in Hamburg. If loyalty were a virtue the AA truly valued, he’d have a gold card, a free tow truck, and a man in a yellow jacket stationed permanently outside the house.
But no. The letter was a masterpiece of corporate doublespeak – a thank you note wrapped around a quiet mugging. £260.38 for a service that, as it turns out, could be had for a third of the price if you knew where to look.
Being the dutiful son (and, frankly, unable to resist a little consumer sleuthing), I fired up the laptop. Three minutes on the AA’s own website later, I had a quote for exactly the same cover: £97.64. “Introductory offer,” it said. “Full price £162.43.”
So, £97.64 for a new member, or £260.38 for a customer of sixty-four years. You don’t need a degree in behavioural economics to see what’s going on here. The so-called “discount” on the renewal was a magician’s trick: look at this £107 off! – while your wallet quietly disappears.
It’s a swindle dressed in the polite language of British customer service. And my parents, like so many others of their generation, would have paid it. Because that’s what loyal customers do. They trust. They assume that six decades of prompt payment and polite correspondence entitles them to fairness. But in the world of modern subscriptions and annual renewals, loyalty isn’t rewarded, it’s monetised.
The British have always had a sentimental attachment to loyalty. We like to think that staying with the same insurer, bank or utility company means something. It’s a vestige of that post-war mindset where you had your man from the Pru, your chap at the bank, and your account with the AA. You stuck with them and they looked after you.
But that social contract has long since been ripped up. Today, loyalty is treated as a sign of weakness. Companies like the AA rely on inertia,  on the quiet assumption that most customers, especially the elderly, will simply renew whatever number appears on the letter.
Meanwhile, the marketing department pours its energy into wooing the new, the fickle, the flighty, those who’ll take their “introductory discount” for a year, cancel at renewal, and start again under another email address. The whole business model has become a revolving door of introductory offers and loyalty penalties.
It’s not just the AA, of course. Every industry plays the same game. Broadband providers, insurers, even the streaming platforms. The longer you stay, the more you pay. It’s a perverse inversion of what loyalty once meant. It’s like being charged extra for ordering the same pint every night at your local.
What’s really galling is how clever it all is. The renewal letters are written to sound reassuring, trustworthy, a little paternal even. They thank you for your custom, list your “discounts”, and refer vaguely to “enhanced cover” you probably never asked for. They hope you’ll glance at the total, shrug, and write the cheque.
In my parents’ case, it was only luck, or filial nosiness, that stopped them being charged nearly triple what the policy was worth. And there’s something morally wrong about that. It’s one thing to overcharge the inattentive; quite another to quietly exploit a generation that built your business in the first place.
Imagine if the AA sent out a letter saying: “Dear Mr X, as one of our longest-standing members, we’re delighted to offer you the same price we give to new customers.” Now that would be loyalty. But of course, that would mean voluntarily surrendering profit. And in the boardroom logic of today’s Britain, that’s heresy.
There’s a wider moral here for all businesses, especially those that like to boast about their heritage. True loyalty is built on mutual respect, not on tricking your oldest customers into overpaying.
We’re entering an era where trust is the scarcest commodity. Consumers are savvier, angrier, and far less forgiving than they used to be. Social media ensures that one story of a pensioner being overcharged can go viral in hours. And yet, the temptation to milk existing customers remains irresistible – it’s easy revenue, and it rarely makes the news.
But brands that behave this way are mortgaging their reputation for short-term gain. Because once people cotton on, as they inevitably do, the damage is irreversible. Sixty-four years of loyalty can vanish in sixty-four seconds.
In the end, I cancelled my parents’ renewal and signed them up anew. The process took less time than boiling the kettle. My mother was delighted. My stepfather, ever the gentleman, just shook his head. “So much for loyalty,” he said.
Quite. The AA may get them back on the road when the car breaks down, but when it comes to customer loyalty, it’s the company itself that’s stranded on the hard shoulder – hazard lights flashing, engine sputtering, wondering where all its good will went.
We asked the AA for a response and an AA spokesperson said: “Our pricing reflects the service offered. The new member price is discounted, but doesn’t provide the same member benefits.
“We would welcome the chance to talk to this member to look at their renewal and see what they are comparing it to online.” My response to  this, is sorry AA, but it is exactly the same service for exactly three times the cost.
Read more:
The AA’s loyalty problem: sixty-four years and still taken for a ride

Pizza Hut’s UK dine-in business has entered administration, placing hundreds of jobs at risk and marking another blow to the increasingly fragile casual dining sector.
The chain, owned by US-based Yum! Brands, has appointed FTI Consulting to oversee the process. While delivery and takeaway operations remain unaffected, the administration raises serious questions about the long-term viability of mid-market dining brands on the high street.
Industry commentators say the brand failed to position itself clearly in a market increasingly dominated by polarised consumer preferences.
“Being second-best at everything kills you faster than being excellent at one thing,” said Tony Redondo, Founder of Cosmos Currency Exchange. “Premium chains like Pizza Express offer craft quality and ambiance, while Domino’s dominates on affordability and convenience. Pizza Hut got stuck in the middle—neither premium enough nor cheap enough to compete.”
He added that the brand’s delivery infrastructure lagged behind rivals, reducing competitiveness at a time when ordering in has become a dominant revenue driver.
Dariusz Karpowicz, Director at Albion Financial Advice, said the collapse reflects “a bitter slice of reality” for the wider high street: “Soaring energy costs, rising employment expenses, and families treating restaurant meals as luxuries rather than regular treats have left margins painfully thin,” he said. “Delivery apps have eaten into traditional dine-in profits, while post-pandemic consumer habits have fundamentally shifted.”
He warned that the fallout extends far beyond one brand failure: “It’s hundreds of local jobs vanishing and more empty shopfronts joining Britain’s hollowed-out high streets. The government needs a genuine long-term strategy, not election-winning soundbites.”
Kate Underwood, Managing Director at Kate Underwood HR and Training, said the administration process will create lasting uncertainty for employees.
“When we read that ‘thousands of jobs have been saved’, it sounds like the story has a happy ending,” she said. “But those of us in HR know it is rarely that simple. Many Pizza Hut employees have now lived through two rounds of uncertainty in less than a year.”
While TUPE regulations may protect contracts, she said this does little to restore morale: “A pre-pack deal might stop the headlines getting worse, but it does not rebuild trust overnight. It takes time to restore belief, culture and calm.”
Omer Mehmet, Managing Director at Trinity Finance, described the administration as “another reminder that the casual dining model hasn’t recovered from the pandemic hangover.”
“Rising costs, tighter consumer budgets and competition from delivery apps have squeezed margins to breaking point. Eating out has become a luxury for many families. Even household names aren’t immune.”
Analysts say Pizza Hut’s situation is symptomatic of a broader trend affecting chains that cannot deliver either premium experience or ultra-convenience at scale. With consumers trading either up for experiences or down for value, mid-market operators are increasingly exposed.
As hospitality businesses brace for ongoing cost pressures and softer discretionary spending, further restructuring across the casual dining sector is expected in 2025.
Read more:
Pizza Hut ‘stuck in the middle’ as UK dine-in arm collapses into administration

The Government has announced plans to introduce a new suite of vocational qualifications — known as V-levels — for students aged 16 and over, in a bid to simplify what ministers describe as a “confusing” post-GCSE landscape and strengthen the UK’s skills pipeline.
The new qualifications are set to replace Level 3 BTecs and other post-16 technical courses currently available in England. A consultation has now been launched as part of the Government’s wider post-16 education and skills white paper, amid long-running calls to create clearer and more coherent routes into work, apprenticeships and higher education.
Alongside the launch of V-levels, ministers also plan to introduce a “stepping stone” qualification to reduce the number of students repeatedly resitting English and maths GCSEs — a process that has faced growing criticism due to low pass rates and its impact on learner confidence.
Unlike highly specialised T-levels, which were launched in 2020 and are aimed at students who are already certain about a specific career path, V-levels are expected to provide a more flexible route for students exploring a wider range of vocational options. A-levels and apprenticeships will continue to be available.
Skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith said: “There are over 900 courses at the moment that young people have the choice of, and it’s confusing. V-levels will build on what’s good about BTecs — practical learning with a clear line of sight to employment — while offering a simpler and more recognisable framework.”
The Department for Education has suggested early subject areas may include craft and design and media, broadcast and production.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson added that the reforms aim to create a “vocational route into great careers” by simplifying a fragmented system and ensuring there are enough teachers and resources in further education to support delivery.
However, education leaders have expressed caution about removing BTecs before the new qualifications are fully established.
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, warned: “There is a risk that the new V-levels will not come close to filling the gap left by the removal of applied general qualifications.”
Others, including David Hughes, CEO of the Association of Colleges, suggested the reforms could bring greater “clarity and certainty” to technical education but stressed that success would depend on careful design and long-term investment.
Myles McGinley, managing director of exam board Cambridge OCR, described V-levels as a “tremendous opportunity” but said schools, colleges and industry partners would need sufficient time to co-develop courses that reflect real-world demand.
For many young people, the changes may provide new opportunities to explore vocational routes without committing to a highly defined occupation at 16.
T-level student Simba Ncube said access to V-levels would have made him consider different pathways after his GCSEs: “It leaves you with so many options you can narrow down without being limited.”
Seventeen-year-old Lola Marshall, who hopes to start an apprenticeship after completing a health and social care diploma, said vocational pathways were still rarely emphasised at school: “Everyone always talked about university.”
The Government also plans to introduce a new “stepping stone” qualification for students who have to continue studying English and maths after failing to achieve a grade 4 at GCSE. While many will still be expected to resit, the new course aims to prevent students from becoming trapped in what ministers called a “demoralising roundabout” of repeated failures — especially among disadvantaged pupils, who are twice as likely to resit.
The reform package comes as ministers prepare to set out new proposals for higher education funding, including revisions to university tuition fees in England. Many universities are currently operating under financial strain after years of frozen fee caps and a drop in international student recruitment.
Prof Shearer West, vice chancellor of the University of Leeds, said while the slight increase in fees to £9,535 this year was welcome, the sector continues to face mounting cost pressures. “We’re being asked to do more research with less money and teach more students with fewer resources,” she said.
The Government will now consult on the structure, timeline and subject scope of V-levels, as well as the rollout of the stepping stone qualification. Full implementation timelines have not yet been confirmed.
The reforms support Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s goal for two-thirds of young people to either attend university or gain a high-quality technical qualification.
With employers facing ongoing skills shortages and the economy demanding more applied technical capabilities, business leaders will be watching closely to see whether V-levels deliver a more workforce-ready generation — or risk leaving a gap where BTecs once stood.
Read more:
Government unveils new ‘V-level’ qualifications to replace BTecs and simplify post-16 education

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has suggested the government is considering cutting the 5% rate of VAT on household energy bills, as ministers prepare measures to tackle the deepening cost-of-living crisis ahead of next month’s Budget.
Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Miliband refused to confirm whether a VAT cut was being actively pursued but acknowledged that households were struggling under high energy costs and that “all of these issues” were under review.
“We face a longstanding cost-of-living crisis that we need to address as a government,” he said. “We also face difficult fiscal circumstances… so obviously we’re looking at all of these issues.”
Labour pledged ahead of the last general election to cut average energy bills by £300 a year by 2030, a commitment Mr Miliband insisted still stands. However, he argued that long-term price stability depends on accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels towards clean, domestically generated energy.
“There is only one route to get bills down — clean, home-grown energy that we control, so we’re not at the behest of petrol states and dictators,” he said.
Scrapping the current 5% VAT rate on domestic energy bills would save the average household around £86 a year, according to Nesta, and cost the Treasury an estimated £2.5bn annually.
Energy prices soared in 2021 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, despite falling from peak levels, remain historically high. Earlier this month, Ofgem increased its price cap by 2%, pushing a typical annual bill to £1,755, up £35 on the previous quarter.
A Treasury spokesperson declined to comment on potential tax changes, stating only: “We do not comment on speculation.”
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has already indicated that “targeted action” on energy bills is being considered ahead of the 26 November Budget. Business Matters understands this could include reducing so-called “policy costs” — regulatory levies that currently account for around 16% of electricity bills and 6% of gas bills, funding green subsidies and social schemes.
The Climate Change Committee has long recommended shifting these charges away from bills and into general taxation to ensure households can feel the financial benefits of the net-zero transition more directly.
Mr Miliband acknowledged the debate, saying: “That’s always a judgement for the chancellor… but we know we’ve inherited difficult fiscal circumstances.” He added that infrastructure upgrades require ongoing investment, meaning a “balance” must be struck between public expenditure and consumer levies.
The issue of energy affordability has become a major political battleground, with the Conservatives and Reform UK arguing that net-zero policies have inflated costs.
The Conservatives have pledged to scrap the Climate Change Act and remove carbon taxes on electricity generation, while Reform has proposed rolling back renewables incentives. Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho claimed such measures could reduce bills by 20%.
By contrast, the Liberal Democrats accused both parties of promoting fossil fuel dependency, arguing that energy security depends on cleaner domestic generation. Pippa Heylings, the party’s energy spokeswoman, called for the decoupling of electricity prices from gas markets, saying: “People aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power.”
Green Party leader Zack Polanski reiterated his party’s call to nationalise energy companies and introduce a tax on carbon emissions to drive investment into green infrastructure. He rejected claims that businesses would pass on the costs, insisting the policy would target large corporations rather than SMEs.
With household energy bills still elevated and winter approaching, expectations are mounting for a significant intervention in the November Budget. Whether the government opts for a VAT cut, levy reform, targeted subsidies or accelerated clean energy investment, the political stakes are high as affordability and energy security continue to dominate public concern.
Read more:
Ed Miliband signals potential VAT cut on energy bills as affordability pressures grow

Former Chancellor George Osborne has warned that Reform UK “cannot be trusted to run the economy”, accusing Nigel Farage’s party of lacking fiscal credibility at a time when economic stewardship is likely to define the next general election.
Speaking amid growing scrutiny of Reform’s costed plans, Mr Osborne dismissed the party as economically unreliable, pointing to its proposals to lift the two-child benefit cap and nationalise water companies — policies that have already been branded “socialist” by Conservative critics.
“I don’t think people are going to pick Reform to fix the economy,” he said. “I would just be: economy, economy, economy, economy, economy as much as you possibly can.”
His intervention comes as the Conservatives, led by Kemi Badenoch, fall further behind in the polls. A recent MRP survey from Electoral Calculus puts Reform at 36 per cent, with the Tories trailing on just 15 per cent — leaving the Conservatives projected to win only 24 seats, behind the SNP.
Reform UK recently dropped its pledge for £90bn of tax cuts amid increasing concern over the party’s fiscal realism. Nonetheless, Mr Osborne questioned whether Mr Farage has the resolve to make “tough decisions on the economy”, noting that electoral success hinges on managing growth, spending and taxation with credibility.
The former Chancellor, who presided over austerity measures during the Cameron-led coalition government, argued that the Conservatives’ best hope of clawing back support lies in reasserting their reputation for economic discipline.
“Fundamentally, people vote for the Conservatives when they want the grown-ups to be in charge of the economy,” he said. “That is the history of Conservative oppositions – they have succeeded when they have won over the confidence of the country on the economy.”
He added that Labour remains vulnerable on economic competence, citing Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s struggle to boost growth while maintaining fiscal discipline. In particular, he claimed Labour “lost some of its reputation with business” following last year’s £25bn National Insurance increase.
Osborne made the comments during an interview with The Telegraph at Coinbase’s London Crypto Forum, where he also called on the Conservatives to seize ground in the digital finance sector to neutralise Reform’s appeal.
Mr Farage has positioned himself as a crypto champion, pledging to establish a UK-backed Bitcoin reserve — a policy echoing moves in the US where Donald Trump has positioned America as a prospective “Bitcoin superpower”.
But Mr Osborne argued that the Conservatives should take the lead in positioning the UK as a pro-innovation financial hub. “We don’t have to worry too much about what Reform is saying, but just say some good things ourselves,” he noted.
Despite recent volatility — with crypto markets losing around $400bn after Mr Trump threatened China with 100 per cent tariffs — Osborne called on the UK to accelerate regulatory clarity, warning that Britain risks falling behind as the US, EU and UAE race ahead in fintech policy.
“One of Britain’s biggest strengths is financial services,” he said. “You don’t want major financial services activity to be happening in other jurisdictions because we are not allowing it here.”
With the Budget looming in November, Osborne also urged Ms Reeves to curb public spending rather than rely on tax rises alone to manage a £30bn shortfall in the public finances, claiming an over-reliance on revenue-raising measures would be “very damaging for the economic performance of the country”.
Despite internal Conservative divisions and a bruising electoral outlook, Osborne insists the Tories retain a pathway back to economic credibility if they focus relentlessly on fiscal responsibility, investment, productivity and pro-business growth strategies.
“We are the fiscally responsible, pro-business people – and we are prepared to take difficult decisions on public expenditure,” he said.
A spokesperson for Reform responded: “At the next election, we will present a rigorous and fully costed manifesto. Reform will never borrow to spend, as Labour and the Tories have done for so long; instead we will ensure savings are made before implementing tax cuts.”
Read more:
Osborne warns Reform UK ‘not fiscally fit to run the economy’

The Government has unveiled a national plan to create 400,000 green energy jobs within the next five years, in what ministers say will be one of the most significant workforce transitions in modern British history.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the programme aims to double the number of people working in the UK’s low-carbon sector by 2030, with a sharp focus on equipping tradespeople, school leavers, ex-service personnel and workers leaving fossil fuel industries with the skills needed to support the transition to net zero.
At the core of the initiative is a commitment to prioritise 31 skilled trades, including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and welders. An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 additional plumbers and heating engineers will be required by 2030, while between 4,000 and 8,500 extra electricians, welders and carpenters will also be needed to meet growing demand from renewable energy projects.
The Government has pledged that firms receiving public contracts or green energy grants will be expected to create “good quality, secure jobs” and support trade union recognition and collective bargaining across the sector, including in offshore roles.
“The national plan answers a key question about where the good jobs of the future will come from,” Miliband said, adding that it provides a clear signal to regional mayors, industry and education providers about future employment needs. He argued that the blueprint would help underpin local industrial strategies and ensure further education institutions realign course provision with high-growth green sectors.
Trade unions, including Unite and the GMB, which have long pushed for a detailed plan for a “just transition” away from fossil fuels, welcomed the move. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Well paid, secure work must be at the heart of any green transition. Unite members will welcome the commitment to 400,000 green jobs with strong collective bargaining rights.”
Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, national officer at the GMB, described the plan as a “jobs-first transition” and praised ministers for listening to workers.
To support the expansion of the green economy, five new technical excellence colleges will be established to train young people for specialist roles in sectors such as wind power, hydrogen, nuclear and electrical networks. Pilot programmes in Cheshire, Lincolnshire and Pembrokeshire will receive £2.5 million for new training centres, courses and careers support.
Additional schemes will focus on transitioning experienced oil and gas workers, supported by up to £20 million in joint funding from the UK and Scottish governments. Veterans will be matched with new roles in solar, wind turbine and nuclear facilities, while tailored initiatives will support ex-offenders, school leavers and the long-term unemployed.
Government analysis suggests that more than 13,700 unemployed individuals already possess transferable engineering and skilled trade capabilities relevant to clean energy roles. Miliband highlighted that salaries in wind, nuclear and electrical network roles typically exceed £50,000 — substantially higher than the national average of £37,000 — and are often located in coastal and post-industrial regions in need of economic regeneration.
Miliband positioned the plan as a central pillar in the Government’s industrial strategy and a direct response to opposition parties questioning the value and pace of the net zero transition. He accused Reform UK of “waging war on clean energy” and argued that public backing for renewable job creation remains strong.
“This is a massive fight,” he said. “People want the jobs, they want the lower bills, and they understand that clean energy is part of our economic future. I’m confident we can win this argument.”
The initiative marks one of the clearest attempts yet by the Government to link environmental policy with economic opportunity, with Business Matters understanding further investment incentives for green manufacturing and infrastructure may follow in the coming months.
Read more:
Government targets 400,000 new green energy jobs in major national skills drive

The Chancellor has been warned she is “flying blind” into November’s Budget after fresh analysis suggested far more non-domiciled residents have left the UK than the Government anticipated, with billions in expected tax revenues now at risk.
In a report published today, economics consultancy ChamberlainWalker says early evidence points to a significantly larger exodus of non-doms following the abolition of non-dom status in April 2025. The firm argues that Treasury assurances—based on HMRC payroll returns—that departures are broadly in line with forecasts understate the scale of outflows because many of the wealthiest non-doms are investors rather than salaried employees and therefore fall outside PAYE data.
ChamberlainWalker cautions that the Government’s projected £34bn haul from the reforms rests on “optimistic and incomplete” assumptions about behaviour, including that only 1,200 people would leave and that a small group—“in the mid-thousands”—would remain and pay substantially more under the new foreign income and gains (FIG) regime.
Chris Walker, founding partner at ChamberlainWalker and a former government economist, said: “It is worrying that the Chancellor is heading into the Budget with so little understanding of the fiscal impact of the reform of non-dom status. The Treasury is effectively flying blind about the behaviour of the most responsive group of non-doms.”
The report argues that who leaves matters more than how many. If departures are skewed towards the richest non-doms—particularly former RBC payers—the impact could be a “triple whammy” for revenues:

A larger-than-expected hit to the UK income tax base as top contributors exit.
A smaller-than-modelled FIG tax base as high-earning individuals take foreign income and gains offshore.
Lower proceeds from the Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) if fewer assets are onshored.

The consultancy also notes that official reassurance from real-time payroll data is inherently limited at this stage. Behavioural responses to tax changes tend to play out over multiple years; ChamberlainWalker expects much of the adjustment to occur within two years of implementation, i.e. by April 2027.
HMRC’s forthcoming review of the reforms is expected to publish more granular data, but the report contends current sources cannot “meaningfully capture” the true impact—particularly among investor-type non-doms. On that basis, the authors urge ministers to exercise caution and consider interim adjustments to shore up revenue certainty and competitiveness while the evidence base improves.
Pre-reform modelling envisaged 25% of non-doms with trusts and 12% without trusts leaving, equating to about 1,200 leavers in 2025/26. It also assumed 7,700 non-doms and deemed-doms would be worse off (and therefore generate most of the extra FIG tax), with 14,200 eligible for a four-year FIG tax break and thus no worse off initially. ChamberlainWalker’s estimate that 1,800 have already departed implies the official scorecard could be materially off course if the composition of leavers is tilted to the top end.
With the Budget weeks away, the political and fiscal stakes are clear. If the exodus accelerates—and continues to be weighted towards the wealthiest—the Treasury’s £34bn headline could prove significantly overstated, forcing either policy refinement or compensating measures elsewhere in the fiscal plan.
Read more:
Non-dom exodus ‘far worse than forecast’, new report warns Chancellor ahead of Budget