‘This scam is why even Lincoln would have wanted to ditch the penny’

Joel Burgess at USA Today

One of our “greatest presidents is being decoupled from one of the most annoying American scams,” says Joel Burgess. It’s “ironic” that it was “Abraham ‘Honest Abe’ Lincoln whose image was tied to a sleazy marketing ploy, and also that it was President Donald Trump, a serial grifter, who gave Abe relief.” Stamping the “coins cost nearly four times their value, and — let’s face it — pennies aren’t really worth the space they take up in our car cupholders.”

Read more

‘Corporate human rights policies still matter’

Phil Bloomer and Bennett Freeman at Newsweek

The “most influential U.S. companies across five high-risk sectors have, by and large, held steady on their core human rights commitments this year,” say Phil Bloomer and Bennett Freeman. It’s a “trend worth acknowledging, even applauding.” It “reflects a deep recognition among companies that investors and consumers expect respect for human rights, that companies’ long-term sustainability, competitiveness and license to operate on the global stage depends on it and that it’s the right thing to do.”

Read more

‘True climate justice demands a reckoning with colonialism’

Nciko wa Nciko and Samrawit Getaneh at Al Jazeera

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has an “opportunity to issue a landmark opinion affirming the link between colonialism and the harms of climate change to people(s) across the continent,” say Nciko wa Nciko and Samrawit Getaneh. This “would mark a major step forward from the International Court of Justice and in Africa’s fight for reparative justice.” Effective “climate action needs more than science; it also requires political backing for states.”

Read more

‘The Epstein fight shows Trump inching closer to lame duck status’

Jim Geraghty at the National Review

If Trump “didn’t want people to expect the federal government to release all information related to Epstein when he was president, he should not have said he would ‘declassify the Epstein files’ or ‘do the Epstein’ in campaign trail interviews,” says Jim Geraghty. Don’t “get mad at the people who remember Trump saying it, get mad at Trump for making that promise.” Americans “can’t relate to being friends with one of the most notorious sex traffickers.”

Read more

In the run-up to last week's quarterly update from the world's most valuable listed company, there were fears that lacklustre results might trigger a traumatic tech-sector correction. In the event, said Dan Gallagher in The Wall Street Journal, Nvidia's boss Jensen Huang trumpeted yet another period of record revenues and profits.

Sales of Nvidia's world-leading, AI-powering chips surged 56% year-on-year to almost $47 billion – above market expectations. It's Nvidia's slowest growth rate in two years, but it's far more than what other "megacap tech companies are currently managing". And that's with sales of AI chips to China "effectively shut off owing to national security concerns".

China is the big unknown here, said Dewardric L. McNeal on CNBC. What worried me most was the zero revenue from Nvidia's China-specific H20 chip. Alas, US-China tensions are holding it back, just as one of China's challengers, Cambricon Technologies, is "surging". Another likely brake on Nvidia's growth is the vast amount of electricity required to power the AI revolution, said The Economist. An "unstoppable force" is about to come up against "an immovable object. Or at least an object that has not moved much in decades – America's power grid."

Nvidia now trades at a price-to-forwardearnings multiple of 33, a little more than Microsoft or Oracle, but with faster-growing profits, said Lex in the FT. On the PEG ratio (price to earnings, adjusted for growth) it "looks positively cheap". The snag is that the bulk of its current $4.4 trillion valuation rests on "punchy" assumptions about post-2030 revenues. And its 72% gross margin, higher than Apple ever achieved, is an "open invitation to competitors". Huang tells "a compelling story about the world AI will create", and Nvidia's central role in it. "But for now it really is just a story."

'Google could get broken up this week. Here's what it would mean.'

Tim Wu at The New York Times

A "federal district court held that Google broke antitrust laws," and the "specific outcome obviously matters for Google," says Tim Wu. But the "remedy's truer significance is how it will shape the future of artificial intelligence — specifically, how wide it opens the door for a new generation of smaller companies." There "will be a simple measure of its effectiveness: namely, whether people who work at big companies like Google start quitting their jobs to start new companies."

Read more

'Biometric privacy laws must evolve with the times'

Chicago Tribune editorial board

You "could argue that our biometric privacy rules are a very important tool in protecting personal privacy," says the Chicago Tribune editorial board. Or you could argue they're "responsible for regulating a marketplace that is changing by the second — and they're not keeping up. There's truth to that, too." There is a "lot to gripe about when it comes to data centers — their reliance on our natural resources, or their debatable claims of being long-term job creators."

Read more

'The National Guard isn't the Gestapo'

Rich Lowry at the National Review

There's "no doubt that Trump loves the optics and sense of strength that comes with deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities, while many of his political enemies love the thrill of decrying the arrival of the dystopia they've always warned about," says Rich Lowry. But the "Guard troops obviously aren't Trump's equivalent of Mussolini's squadristi or Hitler's brownshirts." They're a "well-trained, entirely lawful military force that isn't engaging in street fights or arresting dissidents."

Read more

'The future is being delivered by Chinese drones'

Maximilian K. Bremer and Kelly A. Grieco at Foreign Policy

While the "United States is playing catch-up with the first drone revolution, China is racing ahead to lead the next one," say Maximilian K. Bremer and Kelly A. Grieco. The "revolution is in delivery drones." These "aircraft are built to carry hundreds or even thousands of pounds over long distances, flying at low altitudes," and the "country that dominates delivery drone technology will not only shape the future of global commerce, but also secure a decisive military advantage."

Read more

Researchers have claimed that Gen Z drink less, don't have much sex but are particularly interested in astrology. Now these teens and 20-somethings face a new accusation – that they don't know how to behave in the workplace.

Bosses in San Francisco are hiring etiquette coaches to teach young workers about everything from eye contact to personal hygiene.

Sweaty and skimpy

Employers complain that Gen Z workers "want to be promoted after only a few months, treat the office like their bedroom, show up in sweats or skimpy office-siren fits, FaceTime friends from their desks, and ghost their managers", said The San Francisco Standard.

Some Gen Z workers leave food packaging on staff room tables, expecting cleaners to throw them away, and don't shower or change their clothes very often, said one boss. Other young staff didn't know how to ask their manager questions politely or how to make eye contact.

Often, the problems begin before the worker is even hired. In a survey of 1,000 employers last year, one in eight said a Gen Z candidate had brought their mum or dad to a job interview. And a study by Resume Builder last year found companies complaining that Gen Z candidates at interviews didn't dress appropriately (58%), made unreasonable salary demands (42%), and didn’t seem very interested or engaged (33%).

Once they're hired, the researchers found that Gen Z workers behave in an entitled way (60%) and are "too difficult to manage" (26%).

Soft skills

Some firms in San Francisco have come up with a novel solution to the Gen Z problem: appointing etiquette experts to coach young employees in basic workplace manners.

One etiquette coach, Rosalinda Randall, said enquiries have risen by 50% over the last two months. Bosses "didn't want to deal with it, so they hired me", she said. Randall has given workshops on everything from how to make eye contact to where to stick your name tag and "how to ask for – not demand, things from your boss".

Another coach, Melissa Franks, has been "flooded" with requests for help, particularly from employers who feel like they're being "challenged by their young colleagues". She said she encouraged bosses to think of such "pushback" as "youthful curiosity" rather than "insubordination".

Jenny Simmons, global head of onboarding and employee learning at Salesforce, has "revamped the company's processes for new workers to beef up the training of soft skills". There are now classes on "presentation, emotional intelligence and Slack etiquette".

But all this is just a "new thing" for companies to "waste money on", said Gizmodo. It's hard to believe that Gen Z is "any better or any worse than any other generation of American worker".

As for Gen Z workers themselves, they "see things differently" to their bosses, said The San Francisco Standard. From their perspective, millennial and Gen X managers have "no work-life balance" and don't offer it to their staff. They're "still waiting for that work-life balance they promised us", said one on X.

OnlyFans, the social media site where "creators" post mostly sexual content for paying subscribers, is quietly up for sale for a reported price of $8 billion (£5.9 billion).

But it could be worth much more, said the Financial Times, if it could shift from being "not safe for work entertainment" – a.k.a. porn – to being "less edgy". Its business model, which takes a 20% fee from video makers, is versatile and scalable, much like others that trade in user-generated content, such as Reddit and Roblox.

'Betting on reinvention'

OnlyFans was founded in 2016 and grew rapidly during the early pandemic. In the year to November 2023 it generated revenues of $6.6 billion (£4.8 billion), having posted $375 million (£275 million) in 2020, said The Times. Ukrainian-born American Leonid Radvinsky bought the company in 2018 and, as sole owner of OnlyFans' holding company, Fenix International Ltd, has made more than $1 billion in dividends in just three years.

But tighter regulation of adult content in some US states has made investors wary. Any buyer would be "betting on reinvention, or at least diversification", said the FT, a transition that OnlyFans is attempting by luring chefs and fitness influencers to post.

A stock market flotation is also being considered but OnlyFans' reputation is a hindrance. Complaints have been found in US police and court records that child-abuse material and non-consensual pornography has appeared on the site since 2019 and there are cases of sex traffickers using the platform to abuse and exploit women, said The Times. And in March, OnlyFans was fined just over £1 million by Ofcom, the UK's media and telecommunications regulator, for failing to provide accurate information about how it was implementing age checks.

'Fame equaliser'

Some non-celebrity creators defend OnlyFans for giving them autonomy and the opportunity to earn millions, although the average annual payout is about $1,300 (£950) per creator, according to Mashable.

OnlyFans' appeal to creators is deftly illustrated by Rufi Thorpe's comic novel "Margo's Got Money Troubles", in which a university student becomes a single mother and turns to OnlyFans as a creatively fulfilling and financially rewarding lifeline. Being an OnlyFans creator offers the characters "a way out", said Nick Hornby in The New York Times. "We want it for them, and they deserve it" – which is the best-case scenario for the platform as potential investors would see it.

The platform is a "fame equaliser, allowing unknown individuals to rise to prominence and build a large fanbase", said The Independent. But OnlyFans also normalises the "commodification of a person's body, sexuality, and privacy", with creators becoming "globally known for performing sexual stunts that, until recently, would only have been conceived of in the farthest extremes of pornography".

Gen Z have become notorious for taking a stand against old-fashioned working patterns. From "quiet quitting" to "work personas", they are "paving the way" for a new kind of workplace environment, said Harper's Bazaar. The latest career culture trend they are pioneering? "Conscious unbossing."

The younger generation, those up to the age of 28, are rejecting linear career progression by refusing promotions to middle-management in favour of a better work-life balance and more autonomy. This should be a "wake-up call" for employers, said Business Insider.

'High-stress, low reward'

Gone are the "good old days" when the "workplace was a ladder" that young people eagerly climbed, said The Times. With the rise of social media and working from home, there are "jobs that didn't exist a decade ago" and they can be "far more lucrative and rewarding than your average corporate gig".

Think flexible jobs like social media influencers, podcasters and online therapists. These "twentysomethings are steering away" from traditional corporate companies and from managerial roles.

A survey carried out last year by Robert Walters found that more than half (52%) of Gen Z professionals in the UK don't want a middle-management role, with 69% saying they are not worth the "high-stress, low reward". A 2023 survey by Capterra found that more than 40% of young managers, in their role for fewer than two years, are "eyeing the exit" and drifting towards "non-management gigs".

'Strategic advantage rather than a liability'

This is an "existential moment for corporate leaders", said Business Insider. Leadership experts are saying that employers need to learn from Gen Z work preferences or "risk being left behind". Ways to keep this generation engaged might include flexible working patterns, opportunities to volunteer and offering career pathways that prioritise a "sustainable balance".

While Gen Z are "leading the charge", this shift away from management jobs "spans all generations", said behavioural expert Dr Diane Hamilton on Forbes. More and more people are "prioritising roles that align with their values and allow them to make an impact without the stress of hierarchical responsibilities".

This presents "challenges and opportunities" for employers. Fewer people seeking leadership roles can lead to "gaps in decision-making, team development, and operational consistency", but for some companies "breaking down rigid hierarchies" can lead to "disruptive innovation". If executed carefully, this can be a "strategic advantage rather than a liability".

Walmart announced on Nov. 25 that it was rolling back a slew of initiatives related to DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, becoming the latest company to hop onboard a growing list of brands shunning the practice. The news came after conservative activist Robby Starbuck wrote on X that he had spoken with Walmart executives about doing so. Walmart is just one of many companies that are controversially backing off on DEI initiatives in the wake of conservative backlash. Many companies also cited a desire to appeal to right-leaning customers by eliminating these DEI stances.

Walmart

Walmart's changes, confirmed by the company following Starbuck's post on X, include the winding down of "programs that provide assistance to suppliers that are 51%-owned by women, minorities, veterans or members of the LGBTQ community," said The Wall Street Journal. The retailer also said that it will be phasing out the phrase DEI in its corporate messaging.

Walmart will also "no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race or gender diversity, and will halt sellers from listing some transgender-related or themed items on the website," said CBS News. The company had created the Center for Racial Equality, a philanthropic fund, in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd. The fund is also ending, as Walmart said it would not renew funding for the program when it expires in 2025.

Boeing

While Boeing continues to deal with operational problems, the aircraft manufacturer has "dismantled its global diversity, equity and inclusion department" as it "oversees a broader revamp of the company's workforce," said Bloomberg. Prior to a conservative push, Boeing had "stepped up its efforts to recruit more Black employees and people from other minority groups under former CEO Dave Calhoun."

Hiring on "merit while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity- or affinity-group labels, is the way to go," a source at Boeing said to City Journal. The brand is "shifting from a company whose culture is simply the average of corporate America to a distinct and deliberate vision of leadership."

Harley-Davidson

Perhaps the most iconic motorcycle brand in the U.S., if not the world, Harley-Davidson implemented several DEI policies but announced earlier this year it is changing this amid social media backlash. Harley-Davidson has "not operated a DEI function since April 2024, and we do not have a DEI policy today," the company said in an August 2024 statement. The company had faced pressure from conservative leadership for allegedly "going woke," including pressure from Starbuck.

Harley-Davidson additionally announced it would "review all sponsorships and outside organizations the company affiliates with," said CNN, and stated they would end their relationship with the LGTBQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

Ford

As with Walmart and Harley-Davidson, Starbuck also pressured Ford to scale back its DEI initiatives — and the automaker seemed to listen. Ford "will no longer participate in an annual survey from an LGBTQ advocacy group and would not use quotas for minority dealerships and suppliers," said USA Today. And as with Harley-Davidson, Ford also said it would no longer take part in the Human Rights Campaign's initiatives.

Ford, like the other companies, "cited conservative backlash or changing social and political environments in their announcements," said CNBC. Ford was one of the brands that had "amped up their DEI commitments in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests of the summer of 2020."

Tractor Supply

Like Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply is often associated with rural America, so it is perhaps not surprising that conservative backlash to the company's DEI policies was strong. The farming goods company announced it would "eliminate DEI roles and retire our current DEI goals while still ensuring a respectful environment." The company also said it would not give further data to the Human Rights Campaign.

The company even addressed far-right anger over its environmental goals, announcing it would "withdraw our carbon emission goals and focus on our land and water conservation efforts." These changes "mark a stunning shift in policy and messaging from Tractor Supply, which once touted its diversity and inclusion efforts," said The Associated Press.

The term "Zeitenwende", meaning "a changing of the times", is being heard rather frequently in Germany at the moment, said Dirk Kaufmann and Nadine Mena Michollek in Deutsche Welle (Bonn). Coined by Chancellor Olaf Scholz in relation to shifting foreign and defence policy demands after Russia invaded Ukraine, it has also come to describe massive changes in the German economy . And no company symbolises these changes quite like Volkswagen, which is reportedly considering closing three of its ten German plants, axing tens of thousands of jobs and cutting pay, as it looks for €4bn in savings after seeing its profits massively eroded by Chinese competitors.

There are some companies that, owing to their size and history, are almost impossible to separate from their home country, said Michael Rasch in Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Zürich). "Volkswagen is one of them." Founded by the Nazis in 1937 as a state-owned carmaker, it became a symbol of German economic might. And today, following two years of stagnant growth in Germany , it is seriously struggling: profits were down by nearly 64% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2024, and its 300,000-strong workforce could be facing a collective 10% wage cut.

Most of Volkswagen's problems can be traced to China, said Jordyn Dahl on Politico (Brussels). For years, the Asian superpower had been VW's biggest export market: in 2017, 41% of the 10,038,650 passenger vehicles it sold went there. But that figure has plunged to a third in recent years, as Chinese consumers have flocked to electric cars made in their own country. Today, EVs account for about 43% of all sales in China; 16 of the world's top 20 EV brands are Chinese; and the likes of EV powerhouse BYD have "left VW in the proverbial dust".

Volkswagen, which also owns Audi and Porsche, only has itself to blame, said Hans Well in Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich). When the EV revolution began to take hold a few years ago, it should have poured resources into developing affordable electric cars with cutting-edge battery technology. Instead, it kept producing "ever-larger" gas-guzzling SUVs, which could be sold for bigger profit margins, while its "frustrated electric engineers went to China", whose companies are now flooding European car markets, too.

Worse, VW did all this while allowing unions to ride roughshod over its business interests, said Christian Müssgens in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Volkswagen employees have long benefited from generous pay deals and cast-iron job security, while resisting all efforts by the management to rein in costs to cope with challenges such as soaring energy prices. Now, tens of thousands of employees face the prospect of losing their jobs. That will come as a bitter blow to the workers affected. But if Volkswagen is to have any chance of catching up with the competition, it has little choice but to act.

One of the largest steel producers in the world, Japan's Nippon Steel, is attempting to purchase the American-based U.S. Steel, but is facing pushback from the U.S. government due to concerns over the potential takeover's effect on the economy. U.S. Steel was once the preeminent steel conglomerate in the world, but is no longer in the top 10 of steel production companies anymore. As a result, the company has been looking to foreign lifelines, but regulators and politicians in the United States are expressing concern.

The deal, first announced last year, would see Nippon acquire U.S. Steel for $14.9 billion, if approved by regulatory agencies. However, there have been concerns raised that the purchase would create not only the aforementioned economic problems but also open the United States to additional national security risks. Despite this, both companies are attempting to go full-steam ahead with inking the deal.

Why is the government concerned about the takeover?

The Biden administration as well as the Harris and Trump campaigns have all opposed the deal due to economic and security concerns. As the potential closure of the takeover looms, President Joe Biden is "preparing to announce that he will formally block" the takeover, said The Washington Post. Biden's blocking of the acquisition is a "stunning move to kill a deal featuring a corporation from Japan, a close U.S. ally," said the Post.

Biden could not officially halt the deal until receiving a recommendation to do so from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). But it appears this recommendation is looming, as the committee believes that the deal "would create national security risks because it could hurt the supply of steel needed for critical transportation, construction and agriculture projects," said Reuters. CFIUS also "cited a global glut of cheap Chinese steel and said that under Nippon, a Japanese company, U.S. Steel would be less likely to seek tariffs on foreign steel importers."

The White House "previously described Nippon's proposed acquisition as a security risk, which many foreign policy experts and some administration officials in private have ridiculed," said the Financial Times. Much of this ridicule is a result of Japan being the "most important U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific and has been working very closely with Washington on a range of efforts to counter China." But concerns over the effects the deal would have regarding China remain: China's "persistent use of market-distorting government interventions has allowed the country to unfairly gain dominance in the global steel market, as it exports extensive surplus steel that artificially lowers international prices," said Reuters.

What have other responses been?

Both Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel have pushed back against claims that the deal would cause economic hardship or national security duress, with the latter claiming that blocking the deal would cost numerous jobs and could lead to U.S. Steel abandoning its Pittsburgh headquarters. Without the deal, U.S. Steel will "largely pivot away from its blast furnace facilities, putting thousands of good-paying union jobs at risk, negatively impacting numerous communities across the locations where its facilities exist and depriving the American steel industry of an opportunity to better compete on the global stage," the company said in a statement.

But while the "political sands are shifting beneath U.S. Steel's proposed sale," it is "perhaps too late for President Biden to change his mind about stopping the deal," said Axios. And beyond any economic consequences, the "political reaction was predictable: Don't let a foreign company buy an American icon, even if it's no longer the country's largest steelmaker."

Despite the controversy, the American steel industry "will be on much stronger footing because of Nippon Steel's investment in U.S. Steel," a spokesperson for Nippon Steel said to Fox Business. But questions over the deal remain, as "while the resilience of U.S. domestic steel capacity is clearly in the national interest, it is unclear how ownership by a firm domiciled in a major treaty ally would fundamentally threaten this," Sarah Bauerle Danzman, an international studies professor at Indiana University, said to CNBC.

Grindr, the world's largest LGBTQ dating app, has been accused of illegally sharing UK users' personal data, in a lawsuit filed at the High Court in London.

Law firm Austen Hays alleges the data was shared with two analytics firms employed by Grindr, the BBC reported, as well as a "potentially unlimited number" of advertising partners – some of whom "may then have retained some of the shared data for their own purposes".

Depending on what members shared on their public profile, that information could include "a user's HIV status and their last test date, their sexual preferences, and their GPS location", said technology website The Register.

Grindr "announced it would stop sharing users' HIV status with third-party companies in April 2018", says The Guardian following negative media coverage of the practice. The current case relates to data use before 3 April 2018, but also the period from 25 May 2018 and 7 April 2020.

Chaya Hanoomanjee, the lawyer leading the suit, said many of the 670 users who had signed up to the claim had "experienced significant distress", and suggested Grindr "owes it to the LGBTQ+ community" to compensate those affected.

The US-based company has said it intends to respond "vigorously" to the claims of wrongdoing, which it described as "a mischaracterisation of practices from more than four years ago".

It's not the first time Grindr has been in the spotlight over its data handling practices. Grindr was "fined $6 million [£4.8m] by Norway in 2021 for data privacy behaviour that breached Europe's strict privacy laws", says Bloomberg. An appeal over the fine is ongoing.

The company "is also facing flak in the US", The Register said, stemming from reports in October 2023 that it was "retaining user data even after accounts were deleted". Grindr has described the claims as "unfounded".

London's hospitality sector is "booming", said Bloomberg, as bookings for office Christmas parties come "roaring back". 

Reservations have "soared" past 2019 levels, wrote the site's Ellie Harmsworth, following years "blighted" by Covid lockdowns and strikes. Restaurants, pubs and bars across the capital report being fully booked this festive season, amid "intense" demand for office parties and dinners.

Yet while many companies are scrabbling to secure venues, a growing number of employees are "RSVPing 'no'", said Startups. The Christmas party was once "an important diary entry in the professional calendar", Janine Blacksley of recruitment company Walters People UK told the business advice site. But this year "feels like there has been a tide change", she continued. 

'Chance to let off steam and a reward'

From as far back as when Ebenezer Scrooge's former boss Fezziwig threw a Christmas party in Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol", employers have been hosting festive gatherings to "show their appreciation for their employees' hard work", said HR-Brew.com.

Today, in a hybrid work environment, staff may be "looking for occasions to connect with colleagues", said Emma Jacobs in the Financial Times. And if done well, company events such as Christmas parties "can boost morale".

After all, wrote Jacobs in another opinion piece for the paper, an office party is "a chance to let off steam, a reward for working hard, a reminder that work is a collective enterprise and an opportunity to discover new sides to colleagues".

Better team morale can mean "better staff retention" too, said TechRound, and boost productivity levels, which can all have "a positive influence on employees' well-being" as well as benefiting businesses.

'Give millions of people sleepless nights'

"Re-cork the prosecco and shut away the photocopier," said Startups's lead writer Helena Young. While many companies are steaming ahead with their Christmas party plans – in London, at least – recent survey findings from Walters People suggest that almost half (48%) of UK employees will be no-shows this year, while 20% will just "show their face" and then leave.

Of the no-shows, 37% said attending would be "too much effort", while 31% were worried about the associated costs. 

Fears about embarrassing behaviour are also a factor. A separate study, by Premier Inn, found that nearly three-quarters of workers believed office parties were a "cringe hotspot".

The research also revealed that festive parties "give millions of people sleepless nights", said the Daily Star. One in four reportedly "lies awake worrying over what we did or fear we're about to do" at the annual office bash. 

The lack of festive cheer isn't confined to staff either, amid "skyrocketing business rates and inflated commercial rent costs", said Startup's Young. The Walters People study found that 59% of workplaces across the country were scaling back celebrations, or cancelling them entirely, to "cut costs". 

It's the same story across the Atlantic, said Anne Marie Chaker in The Wall Street Journal. Many firms that used to throw "opulent dinner parties" are downsizing to "low-key office potlucks", partly because employees have said "they won't show up to anything outside of work hours". 

Some workers "echo a longstanding refrain", added Chaker, that companies should "forgo celebrations and distribute the money saved directly to staff".

Microsoft's new offer to buy "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard has been approved by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), bringing an end to a near two-year bid to secure the gaming industry's biggest-ever takeover.

The approval follows a "restructuring of the deal" and a "major concession made by Microsoft" to the regulators, said PC Mag. This comes after the CMA blocked the original $69bn (£59bn) bid in April over concerns that Microsoft, which makes the Xbox console, would dominate the new cloud gaming market.

The Financial Times saw the approval differently, saying it "marks a win" for Brad Smith, the Microsoft executive who "led the company's legal campaign to defend a deal that many investors and analysts had written off earlier this year".

Writing on social media, Smith said Microsoft was "grateful" for the CMA's thorough "review and decision", which "we believe will benefit players and the gaming industry worldwide".

The CMA said the revised deal would "preserve competitive prices" in the gaming sector and offer more choice and better services, but the BBC said it has "proved controversial and received a mixed response from regulators around the world". It is the "biggest ever tech deal", said The Telegraph.

Even as it finally approved the takeover, the CMA reprimanded Microsoft, which had criticised the watchdog's initial rejection as "bad for Britain". The CMA's chief executive, Sarah Cardell, said that businesses and their advisers "should be in no doubt that the tactics employed by Microsoft are no way to engage with the CMA".

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt had earlier intervened, urging the CMA to "understand their wider responsibilities". The UK regulator had "appeared increasingly isolated" in blocking the takeover after its EU counterparts passed the deal and the US competition regulator failed to secure a court injunction to stop it, said The Guardian.

Co-founder and CEO of artificial intelligence company Scale AI, Alexandr Wang became the "youngest self-made" billionaire in the world in 2022, when he was just 25. His San Francisco-based business, supplies labour and software for tech tasks such as "labelling data to train AI" for "large language models such as Chat GPT".

Wang has now doubled his worth to an estimated $2 billion, said Forbes. And he’s managed this despite "falling from the billionaire ranks" in 2023, after his company's valuation "plummeted". Fresh from a huge injection of investment, Scale AI is now valued at close to $14 billion, and Wang has an "estimated 14% stake".

Who is Alexandr Wang?

Wang's "privileged upbringing" was crucial in giving him "a solid foundation in science and technology", said Mashable. Born in New Mexico, his Chinese immigrant parents "both worked as physicists on projects for the US Air Force and the military" and the future tech CEO "clearly had a brilliant mind passed down from his parents". He was "a maths whiz" as a child and "fond of participating in coding competitions", said ZeeBiz.

Wang "spent just one year at MIT" studying mathematics and computer science before teaming up with Lucy Guo, "another dropout", to start Scale in 2016, according to Forbes. Several rounds of investment followed, culminating in 2021 when the company was valued "north of $7 billion". It had taken Wang "just five years to become the youngest self-made billionaire in the world".

What is Scale AI?

Scale AI is a "labour-intensive operation", with more than 100,000 contract workers performing the "grunt work that powers the modern AI boom", said the WSJ.

"Unlike its biggest customers", which include Meta, OpenAI and Microsoft, Wang's company "is not building its own generative AI models". But it is able to provide "enormous volumes of accurately labelled data" to train AI tools, and so give itself a "central position in the booming sector", said the FT.

"Behind even the most impressive AI system are people," said The Verge, and any AI company trying to be competitive requires "huge numbers of people labelling data to train it, and clarifying data when it gets confused".

An army of outsourced workers around the world are employed by Scale's data annotation subsidiaries Remotasks and Outlier AI, which Wang describes as "very, very important to the process of building powerful AI systems".

But Scale's mass use of contractors to fulfil its data-labelling tasks is not without controversy. It is facing a class-action lawsuit from some workers, and is accused of "fostering an 'extremely predatory' relationship" with contractors, said the Inc. site. Allegations include "partially or unpaid work, and chronic mismanagement" at Scale's subsidiaries. Wang is named as a defendant in the case, accused of knowingly breaking work laws, along with other Scale executives.

Why is Wang so influential?

Wang has shown himself to be a "crafty opportunist" since starting Scale, said Cory Weinberg on The Information. He has "cemented himself in the upper echelons of Silicon Valley, partly through his knack for getting into the right rooms and securing the high-powered connections that can propel a young founder's fortunes". He also has a knack for "shifting Scale toward fresh pools of revenue when old ones dried up".

Wang's influence extends beyond California, too. His "deep connections in Washington" make him "stand out in the California-centric tech industry", said Louise Matsakis in the Semafor Technology newsletter. One lawmaker even called Wang a "real friend" – which is "a real compliment in DC".

Wang often speaks to legislators about his "hawkish views" on China, which he describes as "the greatest geopolitical competitor" to the US. He's twice briefed the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, with Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi praising him as "very insightful and at the same time personable".

Although OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman is the industry figure who "has been dominating the spotlight", Wang is "increasingly influencing how the industry is perceived" by regulators, said Matsakis. Scale AI's "outsized presence" in Washington may also "open lawmakers' eyes to the immense amount" of human labour that goes into AI.

It all began “with an idea”, according to the Center Parcs website: “the idea of bringing people and nature together”.

In 1968, Piet Derksen, a Dutch entrepreneur who owned a successful sporting goods chain, Sporthuis Centrum, set up De Lommerbergen, a holiday retreat in the woods near Reuver, close to the German border: initially just a series of tents in a field for his staff and customers.

But Derksen, who was also a devout conservative Catholic, soon grasped its potential, and conceived a vision of what he called “the villa in the forest”: an idyllic escape from city life. He commissioned the architect Jaap Bakema to make his vision a reality. Bakema designed a plan for a holiday village, with 30 simple, modernist bungalows nestled unobtrusively in the woodland, clustered around a “Center” that combined a swimming pool and other sports facilities. It provided a blueprint that is still replicated in Center Parcs today.

How did the company grow?

The concept was an instant hit, and in the 1970s five more villages were constructed. However, the winning formula was not really completed until 1980, when the “Aqua Mundo” was built at the De Eemhof village near Amsterdam: a glass dome containing a swimming pool complete with slides, wave machines and Jacuzzis, surrounded by lush tropical foliage. This was a big moment for the brand, writes the architect Tim O’Callaghan in his dissertation on what he calls “the paradise machine”, “cementing its ability to compete as a year-round destination, while also providing its first real architectural icon”. It was renamed Center Parcs in 1986. By 1987, when the first resort opened in the UK, in Sherwood Forest, there were Parcs in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Today there are 27 in mainland Europe, and six in the UK and Ireland. (The two companies have been separately owned since 2001; Derksen sold his shares in 1989.)

What’s the attraction?

The resorts present themselves as a safe, stress-free, traffic-free haven, offering a wide array of leisure activities, from swimming and cycling to falconry and fencing. Cars must be left at the entrance, but all resorts are conveniently close to a motorway or commuter hub. Guests still stay in “villas” or “treehouses” nestled in woodland. The British villages are all about 400 acres in size. They provide proximity to a manicured version of nature, but also access to artificial lakes, sports pitches, spas and restaurants; there are branches of Starbucks and Café Rouge on site. At the heart of all six UK and Irish sites sits a vast glazed “Subtropical Swimming Paradise”, heated to 29.5°C year-round – a geodesic dome in Sherwood Forest, a pyramid in Elveden Forest, a “giant clam” in Woburn Forest – providing weather-proof entertainment. Center Parcs has been described as a middle-class utopia, a Shangri-La for parents with young children, a “Boden Butlin’s”.

What about the downsides?

Center Parcs certainly has its detractors. “We all have our own idea of what hell looks like,” Kathryn Knight told the Daily Mail, “and mine is the domed Subtropical Swimming Paradise at Center Parcs in Woburn Forest, on a Saturday morning.” The Parcs have been described by critics as like living in a giant Ikea or an open prison (they all have perimeter fences to keep children in and unwanted visitors out). The identikit lodges, some complain, are soulless and give the place a “Truman Show”-like feel; the food, some say, is expensive and mediocre. Mainly, though, it’s the prices that people object to: in school holidays, these will often exceed an all-inclusive holiday abroad. A four-night break for a family of four in August costs between £1,449 and £4,199 (for an “exclusive lodge”). On top of that, guests have to shell out for food (the lodges are self-catering) and though swimming is free, activities cost extra: from hiring bicycles to teddy bear making (£25.50 for ten minutes), table tennis (up to £8.75 for 30 mins) and “quad bike safari” (up to £47.50 an hour).

How popular are they?

Despite the high prices, and the odd PR disaster (the business tried to banish guests for 24 hours “as a mark of respect” over The Queen’s funeral last year, though it later U-turned on the decision), Center Parcs are still hugely popular. The British and Irish resorts attract more than two million visitors each year, and they are effectively full, all the time: the annual occupancy rate is over 97%. More than half of visitors return within five years. Since Covid, Center Parcs have benefitted from the boom in “staycations”, and during the cost-of-living crisis, they seem relatively affordable: they offer budget options, and also appeal to wealthier customers trading down from foreign trips.

How big is the business?

The UK and Irish business is being put up for sale by its owners, the global real estate group Brookfield Property Partners. Although no official statement has been issued, the price tag is reported to be between £4bn and £5bn – about double the £2.4bn Brookfield bought it for in 2015. If that seems exorbitant, the company is a giant cash machine: it booked revenue of £426.6m between April and December 2022, up 18% on its pre-pandemic figures. It made pre-tax profits of £66.2m for the year to April 2022.

What does the future hold?

Center Parcs is hoping to build another village in the UK (though plans for another site in West Sussex, near Gatwick, were rejected on environmental grounds). And whoever owns it, Europe’s answer to Disneyland, offering a safe, sanitised version of nature, looks likely to go from strength to strength. The secret of the brand’s success is that people will pay through the nose for child-centred holidays. As customers say: “If the kids are happy, we’re happy.”

McDonald’s is temporarily closing its US offices in order to prepare for mass lay-offs in the latest round of corporate job cuts.

In an email seen by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), McDonald’s told office staff to work from home from Monday to Wednesday and to cancel all in-person meetings, in order to virtually inform staff of their fates.

“During the week of April 3, we will communicate key decisions related to roles and staffing levels across the organization,” the Chicago-based company said. “We want to ensure the comfort and confidentiality of our people during the notification period.”

McDonald’s reportedly also considered the fact that the week of Easter would be busy for personal travel. According to CNN, the company told staff who weren’t able to access their computers to give managers their personal contact details.

The corporate vice president of insurance was told that his position – which he had been in for 20 years – “was being eliminated”, said the WSJ.

“The McDonald’s layoffs – which are expected to focus on corporate employees – appear to be driven heavily by the company’s own business decisions and interest in expansion,” said Vox. The company hasn’t expanded significantly domestically in the past decade, and the company intends to reach more customers through innovations like pre-order drive-thrus. However, “the company has also expressed worries about ongoing inflation and higher costs”, added the website.

In an interview in January with the WSJ, chief executive Chris Kempczinski said that he “expected to save money as part of the workforce assessment”. However, “he did not provide a specific dollar amount or job reduction target”, Forbes noted.

What is the significance?

“McDonald’s has been a star of the pandemic,” said CNN. The chain has managed to keep sales up, reporting a net income of $1.9bn in the fourth quarter of 2022 – up 16% from the year before – despite customers buying fewer items. Its sales were apparently boosted by consumption of adult Happy Meals, said The Wall Street Journal in January.

McDonald’s is a big player in the industry, with more than 150,000 global employees – 75% outside the US. But “the company has undergone several rounds of layoffs in recent years”, said Forbes. In 2018, it said it would be cutting management to be “more dynamic, nimble, and competitive” as part of a plan to shrink administration costs. Staff numbers are down significantly from the 235,000 the company boasted in 2017.

The lay-offs are part of a wider labour trend to reduce staff amid fears of an economic slowdown. The tech sector, in particular, has seen swathes of drastic cuts with some of America’s biggest companies including Amazon, Google and Microsoft having implemented mass lay-offs.

If a retail company that has bucked the pandemic trend and kept its profits up is planning to grow its business with fewer staff, questions have been raised as to what this means for the industry more widely.

What happens next?

The reports of McDonald’s lay-offs have “spurred fears the labour market could be softening in the restaurant industry”, said Barron’s, “but analysts say they don’t see reason for alarm.” The labour market remains strong with employment shortages across various sectors like retail and hospitality.

McDonald’s “has been implementing a growth plan since the start of the pandemic”, said CNN, and reported 10.9% growth in global sales at new locations. “The company is planning to open 1,900 new restaurants throughout the world in 2023.”

“It sounds like they want to reorganise the company into different structures to grow faster,” the BTIG restaurants analyst Peter Saleh told Bloomberg in January. “Maybe they feel like they don’t have the right people in place.”

“As the fast-food industry continues to evolve in response to changing consumer preferences, economic pressures and technological advancements, McDonald’s ongoing restructuring efforts demonstrate the company’s commitment to staying ahead of the curve,” said Forbes. While the exact number of lay-offs is not yet known, “this move demonstrates McDonald’s dedication to becoming more dynamic and competitive”.

But laying off staff virtually is also “a practice that has sparked criticism from other companies’ employees and management experts”, said Bloomberg. “Asking staff to work from home during job cuts protects their privacy but can also lead to backlash.”

The demise of Britishvolt – a battery-making startup with ambitious plans to build a £4bn gigafactory in Northumberland – has sent shockwaves through industry and politics, said The Sunday Times. “Billed as the great hope” of the country’s electric vehicle future, and once valued at £1bn, the company’s collapse “has thrown up tales of reckless spending”, lavish salaries and incompetence.

Britishvolt was bigged up by ministers, even as it “struggled to land a major customer”, and its failure “poses difficult questions about the future of highly skilled manufacturing, the Government’s ability to level up deprived regions, and the UK’s reputation as a place to develop business”.

Formed in 2019 by two Swedish businessmen (neither of whom had experience in EVs), the firm projected that by 2028, European battery demand would outstrip supply by 554GWh – “enough for 15 Britishvolts”. Plenty of investors bought the story, said Jasper Jolly in The Guardian: including Ashtead, Glencore, Tritax (an Abrdn-owned fund) and backers from Norway and Indonesia.

But in summer 2022, construction of the gigafactory was put on “life support” until Britishvolt could find more funds. It emerged that managers had been splashing out on Porsches, high-grade computer kit, yoga lessons and a £2.8m mansion with a swimming pool and Jacuzzi-style bath “for workers” – most of whom have now lost their jobs.

Some thought the Britishvolt project doomed from the outset, said the FT. It was founded on the idea of “build it and they will come” – when standard industry practice suggests it is better to secure orders first.

As the blame game gets under way, EY (whose consulting arm is itself a creditor) has now put “the UK’s most promising” gigafactory site back onto the market. The Australian battery company Recharge Industries has already made a preliminary bid, as it seeks to capitalise on closer ties between Australia and the UK. Recharge Industries founder David Collard said “a potential Anglo-Australian deal for Britishvolt” would be preferable to a takeover by a company from China, which “dominates global supply”, reported The Times.

Thames Water will be forced to return more than £50m to its customers and Southern Water almost £30m after both water providers missed key performance targets.

Yorkshire Water, which has to return £15m, and Anglian Water, which has to return £8.5m, are among the dozen companies in England and Wales facing penalties by the water services regulator, Ofwat.

The watchdog’s chief executive, David Black, said “too many water companies are failing to deliver for their customers” with the “poorest performers”, Thames Water and Southern Water, “consistently falling beneath our expectations and those of their customers”.

The penalties come after the industry faced “the biggest wave of protests since privatisation more than 30 years ago due to untreated sewage pouring into rivers and coastal waterways near popular beaches”, reported the Financial Times (FT).

Why are the companies being fined?

According to Ofwat, the companies are being hit with penalties for “missed targets on areas such as water supply interruptions, pollution incidents and internal sewer flooding”.

Water companies are allowed to dump sewage in rivers, lakes and seas at times of exceptional rainfall, to help relieve pressure on the sewerage system. But some companies are under investigation by the Environment Agency for “significant and widespread breaches” of the legal permits.

Since the industry was privatised in 1989, water companies in England and Wales have paid out billions of pounds in dividends “despite enjoying a natural monopoly”, said The Guardian. Because customers cannot switch suppliers if their water company underperforms, “Ofwat instead runs the ‘outcome delivery incentives’ system of automatic payments or penalties according to pre-agreed targets”, the paper added.

Where will water bills go down?

Thames Water and Southern Water, which service London and the southeast of England, were the “poorest performers” and have been ordered to repay a combined total of almost £80m, Ofwat said.

The companies ordered to return money to customers are:

Affinity Water £800,00

Anglian Water £8.5m

Dŵr Cymru £8m

Hafren Dyfrdwy £400,000

Northumbrian Water £3.6m

SES Water £300,000

South East Water £2.9m

South West Water £13.3m

Southern Water £28.3m

Thames Water £51m

Wessex Water £2.6m

Yorkshire Water £15.2m

Mike Keil, policy director at the Consumer Council for Water, told the FT that the penalties would “help to ensure bills do not rise as much as anticipated next April for some customers, but it won’t be enough to cushion the blow for the one in ten households that already say their water bill is unaffordable”.

Will some water bills go up?

The “outcome delivery incentives” system works both ways, so “companies exceeding their targets will be allowed to raise prices, meaning bills could go up for millions of people”, said Glasgow-based paper The Herald.

Bristol Water £600,000

Portsmouth Water £400,000

Severn Trent Water £101.8m

South Staffs Water £3m

United Utilities £24.2m

To check which company provides your water and sewerage services, enter your postcode in the search tool at the Water UK website.

What other support is available?

Thousands of Britons may be eligible for 50% off their water bills to help with the cost-of-living crisis. Anglian Water has announced a support package for customers, with £135m to support customers struggling throughout 2023.

The package will help “an estimated 330,000 customers”, said the Daily Express, with “discounted tariffs on water bills, temporary payment plans, forgiveness schemes and payment breaks in certain circumstances”.

With many customers now struggling to cope as a result of the cost-of-living crisis, Ofwat has urged water suppliers “to pilot new ways to help vulnerable households, including seasonal charging to help lower water bills in the winter when energy costs are higher”, said the FT.

What is it about French tycoons and British phone companies? While Patrick Drahi lays siege to BT, another “French rebel”, Xavier Niel, has begun storming the ramparts of Vodafone, said Jamie Nimmo in The Sunday Times. Niel has built a 2.5% stake worth £750m in the UK mobile phone giant via his Atlas Investissement vehicle.

The founder of the Iliad telecoms empire is something of a celebrity entrepreneur in France, his profile raised by his long-term relationship with the heiress to the LVMH fortune, Delphine Arnault. Niel’s exact plan for Vodafone is anyone’s guess. He has left the market, and the company’s top brass, guessing.

“Brexit was supposed to awaken a latent buccaneering spirit,” said Tom Braithwaite in the Financial Times. “And so it has. For the French.” The Iliad/Vodafone tilt is just one of “a flurry of cross-Channel deals” struck on a single day last week, involving tech, satellite and recycling companies. Is this some kind of “dastardly” French plot? Bankers point instead to the relative decline in valuations and currency. Prepare for a rash of American companies to join the French “at the UK’s bargain bin”.

“Even before sterling got this low, foreign corporate and buyout bidders were taking advantage of relative dollar strength to pounce on London-listed companies,” said Chris Hughes on Bloomberg. Thanks to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, this “UK is cheap” narrative has “gotten another leg”.

Analysts at Canaccord Genuity recently drew up a list of 100 companies it considers to be targets – including ITV, Next, Greggs, BAE Systems, Flutter and The Week’s publisher, Future, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. The most “vulnerable” are the “cheap and cash rich”. The “rock bottom pound” has turned some of our best companies into “sitting ducks”.

Center Parcs announced last week that it would close its UK “villages” for the Queen’s funeral, “as a mark of our respect and to allow as many of our colleagues as possible to be part of this historic moment”.

Amazingly, no one anticipated the “huge backlash from angry holidaymakers” who faced being turfed out mid-stay, said Andrew Ellson in The Times. The inevitable U-turn rendered the situation farcical. At one point Center Parcs suggested guests could only stay on site if they remained “in their lodges”. This too was soon reversed.

“For all the horror and tragedy of death”, it can produce “unexpected moments of light relief”, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian. To that extent, we owe Center Parcs a debt. It was just “impossible” not to picture oneself in a “lodge-effect detention hut, cowering by the forest-mural feature wall as village guards toured the site”.

On Twitter, the wags excelled themselves. “Good luck removing guests from the parks,” wrote one. “You’ve trained them in archery, shooting, swimming, canoeing and swinging through the trees like apes. You’ve basically got five village-loads of ninjas to clear out.”

This fiasco was merely the most extreme example of a brand making a mess of its royal tribute, said Guy Kelly in The Daily Telegraph – or seeking, in the crassest of ways, to profit from them.

Center Parcs, which is owned by Brookfield Property Partners, will probably emerge unscathed, said Emma Jacobs in the FT: it confused customers, but didn’t commit the cardinal sin of insulting them. But, overall, the mass outbreak of corporate “virtue-signalling” ran counter to the Queen’s enduring example of “dignified restraint”. As one PR expert put it: “If you have a royal warrant, then it’s fine to put something out there. But otherwise, just shut up.”

Hopes that supersonic passenger planes might boom again have been aired from time to time ever since Concorde’s last flight in 2003, said Graeme Murray in The Mirror. Now, they are soaring, on the back of the news that American Airlines has purchased 20 Overture jets from the Colorado-based manufacturer Boom Supersonic. Two other big airlines – Virgin Atlantic and United Airlines – have also placed orders for the plane, dubbed “son of Concorde” by its makers, which is set to begin production in 2025 and “aims to run on 100% sustainable aviation fuels”. Founder CEO Blake Scholl said he hoped to consign jet lag to history; some have speculated that the first commercial flights could run as early as 2026.

Overture is certainly a speedy bird, said Rupert Neate in The Observer. It promises top speeds of Mach 1.7: below Concorde’s Mach 2.04, but “twice the speed of today’s fastest commercial aircraft” – nearly halving times on many routes. Concorde was “a technological marvel for the 1960s”, says Scholl. “But they weren’t focused on the economics.” More efficient technology means “we can get the cost right down”. The plane’s 65-80 seats will initially be priced “at business-class rates”, eventually falling to “standard” prices.

Don’t be seduced by Boom’s supersonic vision, said Steff Chávez in the FT. Its claims about profitable “ultrafast jet travel” have been met with “intense industry scepticism”. The Overture, which currently lacks an engine-maker, is only “a paper aeroplane right now”, according to AeroDynamic Advisory. Others reckon the firm is also guilty of massive “greenwashing”. Boom has so far raised at least $270m from investors. It will need billions more to complete the plane. “Orders from some of the world’s largest airlines have given some credibility to a project that many analysts and aviation executives say will never come to fruition.”

The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general has told the Secret Service to stop looking into its erased text messages related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack because the watchdog has launched an "ongoing criminal investigation" into the matter, CNN reported Thursday, citing a letter from DHS to the Secret Service.

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi confirmed that the inspector general sent the letter notifying the agency about the investigation, and said the Secret Service alerted members of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack, according to The Washington Post. The House select committee last week issued a subpoena seeking the texts.

Cryptocurrencies have become “emblematic” of the “flight from speculative assets”, as monetary policy has tightened around the world to fight inflation, said Bloomberg. This week delivered another “white-knuckle ride”. The latest trigger for big falls was “crypto lender” Celsius, which sparked panic on Monday when it froze withdrawals, citing “extreme market conditions”. In the ensuing turmoil, the values of all major coins were hit. Bitcoin dropped by 15% to $23,629; ether fell 17%; the ferocious sell-off prompted the world’s largest crypto exchange, Binance, to temporarily suspend bitcoin withdrawals. The value of the total crypto market is now below $1trn, according to CoinMarketCap – from almost $3trn in November.

Celsius, which bragged that its 1.7 million customers could “borrow like a billionaire”, had “seemed to offer the best of all worlds to crypto enthusiasts”, said Lex in the FT. Advertising “an annual percentage yield of 18.63%” on crypto deposits, it paid interest in crypto assets but also let customers borrow US dollars. The lender, which had estimated assets of $12bn in May, may now be insolvent, said Tim Hakki on Decrypt. So what happened? “The short answer: nobody really knows.” But the big worry is contagion. Unlike crypto’s last big blow-out – the collapse of TerraUSD in May – Celsius was intricately connected with many other crypto “ecosystems”.

The fear now, said Martin Peers on The Information, is “a self-perpetuating spiral, as investors liquidate their positions” to conserve capital. Most at risk are “real world” firms that have borrowed against their crypto holdings – such as MicroStrategy, a software business that has invested $4bn in bitcoin. This punishing bust may have much further to run.

Last week, the U.S. Postal Service announced a new stamp honoring former first lady Nancy Reagan, the wife of President Ronald Reagan. The stamp was unveiled on what would have been Nancy's 101st birthday. She died in 2016.

One of the speakers at the ceremony was first lady Jill Biden, who said her predecessor "made such a difference" and stands as a reminder that we "can all change the world in big ways and small ones." However, the stamp and Jill Biden's role in unveiling it quickly drew the ire of the LGBT community.

The LGBT backlash

"Nancy Reagan had private friendships with LGBTQ+ people, but she and her husband, President Ronald Reagan, were publicly homophobic, and the Reagan administration was notorious for its inaction as AIDS took the lives of many gay and bisexual men," wrote Trudy Ring of LGBT publication The Advocate. Harvard Law School instructor Alejandra Caraballo also expressed outrage that the stamp was released during Pride Month and claimed that the former first lady had "participated in a genocide."

Also contributing to the backlash was an infamous incident in which Nancy Reagan declined to help a friend, actor Rock Hudson, gain access to AIDS treatment at a French military hospital, though NPR notes that Hudson did ultimately gain admission to the hospital.

The current first lady was also the target of outrage. Some disparaged Jill Biden as emblematic of an insufficiently combative Democratic Party. Others castigated her for appearing alongside Louis DeJoy, the Trump-appointed postmaster general who has been accused of sabotaging the postal service to help Trump win the 2020 election.

Response from the right

Right-leaning commentators and media outlets remained largely silent about Stampgate. One of the few exceptions was Wallace White of the conservative Media Research Center, whose outrage at the people outraged about the Nancy Reagan stamp matched the outrage of the people outraged about the Nancy Reagan stamp. "Pride month is more than just a simple month to celebrate LGBT people … Anything that is seen as an encroachment on pride will be the new target for the woke mob, even a simple honoring of Nancy Reagan with something as banal as a postage stamp," White wrote.

Speaking at the stamp's unveiling, Fred Ryan, who chairs the board of trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, took a more subtle approach. In what may have been an attempt to head off criticism related to the AIDS crisis, Ryan claimed that "Nancy Reagan cared deeply about the health and well-being of her fellow Americans," praising her for leading the "Just Say No" campaign against drug abuse. He also cited her public decision to undergo a mastectomy after being diagnosed with breast cancer, writing that the former first lady raised "greater awareness of breast cancer and inspired generations of women in their own battles against the disease."

Nancy's legacy

Nancy Reagan remains a beloved figure for many conservatives who look back fondly on the Reagan administration. Last year, traditionalist influencer Abby Shapiro tweeted two pictures: the first showed pop star Madonna lying suggestively on a bed dressed in fishnets and lingerie, while the second showed Nancy Reagan surrounded by her husband, children, and grandchildren. "This is Madonna at 63. This is Nancy Reagan at 64. Trashy living vs. Classic living," Shapiro wrote.

The anti-Reagan, pro-Madonna crowd — a Venn diagram that, at least on Twitter, appears to be very nearly a circle — was quick to respond. Some praised Madonna for her response to the AIDS crisis, while others seized on allegations from a 1991 biography that claimed Nancy Reagan was notoriously promiscuous during her career as a Hollywood actress.

Karen Tumulty, the author of a later biography of the former first lady, told Slate that the dust-up "says more about Twitter than it says about Nancy Reagan," who she said became a "lightning rod" for criticism both during and after her husband's presidency. Tumulty also said the criticisms of Nancy's sex life in Hollywood were "puritanical" and ignored the potentially predatory nature of some of those relationships.

Sheryl Sandberg intended to spend just five years at Facebook when, in 2008, she joined the fledgling company from Google as Mark Zuckerberg’s “right-hand woman”, said Hannah Murphy in the FT. Instead, she stayed for 14 years as Facebook’s (and later Meta’s) chief operating officer, “becoming one of the most recognisable and polarising figures in Silicon Valley”. In recent years, the “power duo” have drifted apart; now Sandberg is off for good in the autumn. She leaves behind a mixed record. On the one hand, she is the female role model who helped grow Facebook into a $500bn-plus company “by supercharging its digital advertising machine”. On the other, she became “a lightning rod for criticism” as the company lurched from scandal to scandal. “Facebook would not be Facebook without Sheryl,” said David Jones of the Brandtech Group – “for good and bad.”

The deal that Zuck struck with Sandberg was that he’d focus on the product, said Danny Fortson in The Sunday Times. Anything “with a low-geek quotient” – sales, policy, legal, communications, lobbying – was left to his polished “consigliere”, who had useful contacts in Washington, having worked for Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, Larry Summers. The deal, which effectively split Facebook into two domains, will “go down as one of the most consequential in business history”. It made Facebook, which went on to buy Instagram and WhatsApp, a new media juggernaut. But Sandberg also contributed to its “worsening image”. Critics held her responsible for Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica data-privacy scandal, as well as Russian disinformation, and the proliferation of hate speech and fake news.

Sandberg’s exit leaves a vacuum at Meta at a tricky time, said Gina Chon on Reuters Breakingviews. The group had its troubles under her leadership, but “at least it had a business model and a top-tier executive who could sell it to investors”. Zuckerberg’s “ambitions lie in more abstract directions”, such as the still-vague “metaverse”. But her real legacy is much broader, said Stephanie Hare in The Observer. Having led the transformation of Google into “the world’s leading advertising business”, she performed a similar trick at Facebook. “Yet where Sandberg sees scale, others see something sinister.” Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff – author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism – argues that Sandberg is the “Typhoid Mary” of her age, “owing to her role in spreading Google’s data-mining practices to Facebook”. She will go down in history for her extraordinary success in growing these companies – “and her failure to deal with the costs of that success”.

Tesla’s boss Elon Musk has “a super bad feeling” about the economy, according to an internal email sent to executives, said Julien Ponthus on Reuters. This has prompted him to contemplate cutting 10% of the electric carmaker’s staff and put a freeze on hiring. Now he’s turning up the heat on Twitter, too, with a threat to scrap his $44bn deal to buy the social media platform, because of what he calls “a clear material breach” of the agreement terms. He claims that Twitter has failed to provide him with information on its problem with “bots” – spam and fake accounts.

This looks very much like a “manufactured” quarrel to get Musk off the hook, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. If he was truly as worried as he claims about Twitter’s “bots”, he could have demanded detailed information before he signed the deal. Perhaps he “just enjoys making mischief”; but it’s more likely that “the slide in tech valuations” has made his $54.20 per share deal “look far too generous”. The tactic “seems designed to weary Twitter’s board to a point at which it either agrees to cut the takeover price or… call the whole thing off”. For the moment, the board is holding firm. But it’s not a risk-free option. “A court battle with the untameable and unpredictable Musk would be a serious distraction for years.”

It may be, said Lex in the Financial Times, that the banks providing $13bn in debt financing for the Twitter deal “are equally nervous”. Tesla investors certainly are, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. “The damage has been extraordinary.” When Musk first disclosed his Twitter adventure in early April, shares stood at $1,145; they’re currently trading at around $714. Musk can blame the economy, if he likes, for his “super bad feeling”. But there’s a cause closer to home. “He could also look in the mirror.”

The Department of Homeland Security's ill-fated disinformation board met its predictable, if temporary, end this week. The people involved in the Biden administration's efforts naturally lamented it as a victim of the very forces it was conceived to combat.

This framing illustrates precisely the problem, of course: viewing disinformation, at least the bad kind, as a more or less conservative phenomenon while ignoring dubious views common on the left. This was personified by Nina Jankowicz, the defenestrated face of the now-paused board, who believed all the conventional things about Trump-Russia collusion, Hunter Biden's laptop, and COVID-19's origins that turned out to be wrong or at least not as cut and dry as the received wisdom would have it.

Disinformation has a specific definition involving the deliberate spread of propagandistic and false claims, often by hostile foreign powers. It was this phenomenon that the Biden administration insisted their board was intended to combat, not bad tweets. But the inclination of Jankowicz and her circle to speak publicly as if the problem was anything that undercut liberal narratives or amplified conservative ones, no matter how debatable, made it impossible for many ordinary citizens to take this seriously.

All this was made inevitable by sloppy disinformation talk that long predated the Biden White House, including an imprecise definition of what constituted Russian election interference in 2016. Those efforts ranged from crude propaganda to stealing emails in an attempt to swing American public opinion, as opposed to altering vote totals (as many partisan Democrats believe without evidence). And it included some information that, however illegally or unethically obtained, that was both accurate and a legitimate object of public concern. Among the revelations were some of Hillary Clinton's opinions and the Democratic National Committee's less than neutral stance toward Bernie Sanders.

The propriety of all this and what to do about it can be debated. We don't want Russia, or other foreign governments (much less illiberal ones) influencing our elections. But a lot of good journalism is based on leaked information, and the whole affair was swept up under the rubric of the Kremlin "hacking the election."

It was into that climate, plus the argument over Big Tech censorship and gatekeeping, that Jankowicz and her merry board stepped. No surprise that it failed.

McDonald’s Russian restaurants had an element of exoticism missing from some Western branches, said the Financial Times. Local specialities included “Beef a la Russe burger on a black bread bun”. But now they are shutting for good. Two months after temporarily closing 850 outlets, the US fast food chain is selling its Russian business. The company hopes to find a local buyer to hire employees, but nonetheless expects to write off a non-cash charge of up to $1.4bn “in its first exit from a large market”. The move marks a symbolic retreat, 32 years after McDonald’s opened its first outlet on Moscow’s Pushkin Square. Having “embodied the very notion of glasnost”, said CEO Chris Kempczinski, “the Golden Arches will shine no more”.

Kempczinski stated that remaining is not “consistent with McDonald’s values” amidst “the humanitarian crisis” of the Ukraine war. Its exit will put pressure on others, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. Unilever says that it is remaining in the country, at no profit to itself, so that it can continue supplying “essential goods” (Wall’s ice cream anyone?) to the Russian people, and to support employees. “Nobody should deny the complexities, but Unilever looks increasingly isolated.”

In one of the most significant retreats yet, Renault is selling its whole operation, including its 67.7% stake in Lada-maker Avtovaz, to Russian state entities for a “token” two roubles, said Lex in the FT. The €2.2bn write-down means that the French carmaker, shaved of its Russian assets, is now worth barely more than its large shareholding in the Japanese group Nissan. The quality of Russian-made cars has improved greatly since Lada’s Soviet heyday. “Jokes about rusty old clunkers now apply more pertinently to Renault than they do to Lada cars.”

Ferries are a major issue in the west of Scotland. The 45,000 or so inhabitants of the Hebrides depend on ferry links to deliver essential supplies; to take people back and forth to jobs and medical appointments on the mainland; and to bring in tourists, their economic lifeblood.

One state-owned company, CalMac – Caledonian MacBrayne – has an effective monopoly on the Clyde and Hebrides network, providing “lifeline services” to 22 of the bigger islands. On an average day, its 34 vessels complete 446 crossings, ranging from five minutes (to the Isle of Bute) to seven hours (Oban to Barra).

But in recent years, its network has been plagued with cancellations and disruptions. CalMac blames its “ageing fleet”: its ships are, on average, 24 years old; many of its biggest are more than 30. And attempts to update them have embroiled the Scottish government in a major scandal.

What is the scandal about?

It centres on a botched procurement process. In the summer of 2014, the last shipyard on the lower Clyde, Ferguson Shipbuilders, went bust. It appeared to be heading towards oblivion – until, in August that year, in a deal brokered by then-first minister Alex Salmond, the industrialist Jim McColl, then a firm supporter of Scottish independence, stepped in to save it. Clyde shipbuilding is an emotive issue, and this was just before the independence referendum when the SNP was promising “the reindustrialisation of Scotland”.

A year later, the Ferguson yard received a major boost when it won a £97m contract from the SNP government to build the two new ships CalMac needed (and still needs) to replace two ageing ferries: the first to serve the Isle of Arran route, the second, the “Uig triangle” of Skye, North Uist and Harris.

What went wrong?

A great deal. Hull 801 and Hull 802, as they were known, were expected to be delivered in mid-2018. But the former, now named Glen Sannox, won’t be finished until at least spring 2023 at the earliest; Hull 802 has only just had its bow fitted. The cost so far is £240m, two-and-a-half times the original budget. At standard industry prices, that should have been enough to replace much of CalMac’s fleet. And the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Usually, cost overruns would be covered by the manufacturer: one of the main requirements for the CalMac contract was a “builders refund guarantee”, giving full protection for the buyer. In this case though, the ship­ yard, Ferguson Marine Engineering Limited, wasn’t able to give such a guarantee. But despite the concerns of Caledonian Marine Assets Ltd (CMAL) – the public corporation that owns CalMac – Scottish ministers signed it off anyway.

What caused the long delay?

The ferries were built to a hybrid design, powered by marine diesel oil and liquefied natural gas – a first for a UK shipyard. The technology has been used elsewhere in the world, but the Ferguson shipyard ran into trouble. Within a year, CMAL was reporting serious technical and quality concerns.

In 2017, the Glen Sannox was “launched” at a ceremony attended by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. But it was, in fact, far from finished: the bridge had painted-on fake windows; most of the internal outfitting had not been completed; and, soon after, its “bulbous” bow was found to be defective, and had to be replaced.

In 2019, CMAL reported that “no more than six people were working on 801 and no more than two people were working on 802 at any one time”. Ferguson disputes this, but soon after, the yard went bust, with debts of more than £70m – including £50m to taxpayers – and was nationalised by the Scottish government, which loaned it a further £45m.

Who’s to blame?

CMAL blamed the Ferguson shipyard, which missed every “milestone” date in the contract, except the date on which the first cutting of the steel took place. Ferguson, in turn, accuses CMAL of interfering in its work, and moving the goalposts on specifications. McColl, Ferguson’s former boss, claims his firm was forced to work to “a purely political timetable”: that the SNP wanted a good news story to announce at its party conference, and rushed through the contract without normal safeguards.

A report by Audit Scotland published in March cited the absence of a full-refund guarantee as the fundamental issue. It found there was “insufficient documentary evidence to explain why Scottish ministers accepted the risks” in the face of CMAL’s warnings.

What does the SNP say?

Sturgeon says she takes full responsibility, but that the one who signed off the contract was actually former junior transport minister Derek Mackay, who resigned in 2020 over reports that he had sent inappropriate texts to a teenage boy. Mackay says he has been scapegoated, and wants to “set the record straight”.

Can the problem be resolved?

There’s still no confirmed launch date for the two new ferries and, as recently as January, there were still 175 outstanding technical, safety or quality concerns over them to be resolved. McColl has suggested that it would be cheaper to scrap the second ship, Hull 802, and start again.

Many commentators argue that the island communities would anyway be better served by a larger number of smaller, cheaper, more efficient vessels, such as the catamarans used for years by the unsubsidised privately-run Pentland Ferries for their service to and from Orkney Islands (CalMac receives a subsidy of £120m-£150m in a normal year).

In the meantime, CalMac has been scouring the world for second-hand ferries. And in March, a £105m contract to build two new CalMac ferries to serve Islay was awarded to a Turkish company, Cemre Marin Endustri. Ferguson shipyard did not make the shortlist.

Some claim that Elon Musk’s $44bn deal to acquire Twitter is the largest leveraged buyout in history. It’s a moot point, said The New York Times: Dealogic thinks it is merely the biggest in the past two decades. But that doesn’t detract from the shock and awe. This was indeed “one of the most frenzied and unpredictable takeover bids ever”, said Bloomberg. A month ago, Musk’s main connection to the social media platform was as “a prolific user”. In quick succession, “he outed himself as Twitter’s largest shareholder, a short-lived prospective board member, a hostile suitor, and finally a successful dealmaker”. Musk moved at “breakneck speed” – he even “waived the chance to look at Twitter’s finances beyond what was publicly available”. A big breakthrough was speedily securing the finance for the purchase. After bringing on Morgan Stanley as an adviser, Musk “was able to get a dozen banks to commit $25.5bn in debt financing”, pledging another $21bn in equity financing himself. The bankers were impressed. One said that “while Musk has a public persona of shooting from the hip, in private he was curious, thoughtful and open to feedback”.

Tell that to Tesla shareholders, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian – the “forgotten constituent” of this deal. Shares in Musk’s electric vehicle business plunged 12% “as the market digested the meaning of the boss’s latest adventure”. One obvious risk is sales of Tesla stock by Musk to fund the $21bn equity portion of the package. “Another is spillover political risks, in the US and elsewhere.” Twitter is blocked in China because the platform rightly refuses to bow to Beijing’s censorship laws. “But Musk, wearing his Tesla hat, is a beneficiary of Chinese largesse in the form of financial incentives to build cars in China.” Rich Chinese consumers are big Tesla buyers, and the firm sources key elements needed for its vehicles’ batteries from the country. “What would happen if Beijing were to suggest that Twitter might wish to give the Chinese Communist Party an easier ride in the interest of smooth commercial relationships for Tesla?” Maybe that’s an extreme case, but the “potential for hassle and expense” is clear.

Investors are already concerned, said Sky News. And the deal has yet to be approved by shareholders. At best, it is a distraction for them; at worst, it is a real business risk. Unlike Twitter, which lost money in the last two fiscal years, Tesla is “nicely profitable”, making gross margins of 27% last quarter, said Pete Sweeney on Reuters Breakingviews. “Free speech is a public good worth defending”, but Tesla shareholders may end up paying “a lot of rent” for Musk’s “patch of moral high ground”.

“We do not want this company to be in this temporary state longer than is absolutely necessary,” Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng told Parliament last November, when announcing the £1.7bn quasi-nationalisation of Bulb Energy. Nearly six months on – amid mounting embarrassment and expense – the need to offload Bulb is becoming pressing, said Gill Plimmer, Michael O’Dwyer and Jim Pickard in the Financial Times.

Last week, co-founder Hayden Wood disclosed he is still being paid £250,000 a year to run the collapsed energy supplier. Meanwhile, around £2m has been forked out on bonuses to retain key staff. The overall bill for taxpayers is estimated to reach £2.2bn by next year, “making it the biggest state bailout since Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008”.

Wood and his co-founder, Amit Gudka, each “extracted” more than £4m from the disruptive but perennially loss-making company in 2018, said The Sunday Times. Yet it was their “naivety” in failing “to hedge properly” against rising wholesale prices that felled Bulb. Fortunately for the Government, a couple of bidders have hoved into view. British Gas owner Centrica is offering to take on Bulb’s 1.7 million customers – “leaving behind the staff, offices and brand”. The Abu Dhabi clean energy company Masdar has put in a competing bid for the business as a whole.

Neither tilt is “unproblematic”, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. Masdar has no experience of the UK retail energy market. And handing Bulb to Centrica “would entrench the market leader’s dominance”, and mean paying the “dowry” it is demanding to cover energy costs. Ultimately, “plan B” – a full break-up of Bulb – may be the best way “to clear a developing political headache”. In the meantime, “there is no justification” whatsoever for Wood’s “generous retainer”.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has set his sights on Twitter, said Christine Emba in The Washington Post. A keen tweeter himself, with more than 82.6 million followers, the Tesla tycoon began by “secretively” purchasing a 9.2% stake in the social media company, making him its largest individual shareholder. Now he has launched a hostile takeover bid worth $43bn, at $54.20 a share.

But while Musk’s fanbase will cheer, the rest of us shouldn’t. Twitter has 217 million users: journalists, activists and ordinary citizens tweeting on serious issues from the situation in Ukraine to Black Lives Matter. “What does it mean when a billionaire can almost single-handedly swoop in and eat up this sort of platform?” The answer: “nothing good”.

Musk has often misused his own Twitter account, said Ryan Coogan on The Independent. He has used it to boost his own share prices, to share Covid “misinformation”, and to baselessly slur the British caver Vernon Unsworth as “pedo guy” after he’d “committed the grave sin” of helping to rescue Thai children from a flooded cave. He’s an “anarchist”. Putting him in charge of Twitter “would be like handing a toddler a loaded gun”.

On the contrary, said Gerard Baker in The Times: a Musk-owned Twitter would be a great improvement, because Musk actually believes in free speech. Twitter has much fewer users than, say, Facebook, but it does play an “outsized” role in the lives of journalists, politicians and other news obsessives. As a result, it “drives much of our public discourse”, particularly in the contentious areas of party politics, gender and race.

In recent years it has played an important role in the progressives’ “war on heretical comment and inconvenient facts”. It banned Donald Trump in 2021 and, just before the 2020 election, it blocked a critical New York Post story about “influencepeddling” by Joe Biden’s son Hunter, which later turned out to be true. Under Musk, that would all change.

There’s no guarantee that Musk will get his way, since Twitter’s board really doesn’t want him in charge, said Kari Paul in The Guardian. They’ve unanimously approved a plan known as a “poison pill”, which will allow existing shareholders to buy stocks “at a substantial discount in order to dilute the holdings of new investors” if any of them buys more than 15%. So “in theory, the hostile investor’s cash would eventually run out”. The catch in this case is that Musk is worth around $260bn. Some have suggested this whole thing is an elaborate joke for him. We’ll soon find out how serious he is.

Britain has had no fewer than four secretaries of state for housing since June 2017 when a devastating fire, fuelled by flammable cladding, ripped through Grenfell Tower in west London, said Emma Haslett in the New Statesman. In February the latest incumbent, Michael Gove, effectively gave builders an ultimatum: “pay for your cladding mistakes or face my wrath”.

The threat seems to have been singularly successful, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. “Fifty-three developers were invited, on pain of being cut out of planning approvals, to sign a building safety pledge”, committing them to funding the remediation of defective cladding throughout the country. By last week’s deadline, all the big players were on board.

That doesn’t mean they’re happy, said Ben Gartside in The Sunday Telegraph. Indeed, Gove stands accused of taking a “wrecking ball” to bottom lines. As one analyst notes, Bellway and Redrow have “signed away provisions worth half of annual pre-tax profits”, when they’re already facing big input costs and are “highly exposed” to a potential downturn in the housing market. No wonder they’re digging in to avoid being whacked by the “next stage of negotiations” to increase the pot to £4bn.

Public sympathy is likely to be limited, said Lex in the FT. Persimmon’s £75m bill, for instance, is the same amount it paid former boss Jeff Fairburn as a leaving bonus. Still, there must come a point at which the remaining costs are “spread more widely”, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. The tally for “orphan” buildings (mid-rise blocks built by foreign or defunct firms), or those on which “local authorities may have installed defective cladding after construction”, could be as high as £3bn. UK developers might reasonably ask “how hard Gove is trying to trace and chase” those responsible.

There’s no denying it now, said Rod Dreher in The American Conservative. The Walt Disney Company is, as critics of the supposedly family-friendly entertainment group have long suspected, seeking to indoctrinate the young with “woke” ideology.

The proof comes in the form of leaked footage from a Disney teleconference in which executive producer Latoya Raveneau boasts of incorporating pro-LGBT material into a show she directs. Everyone she has worked with, she says, has welcomed her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda”, which is to add “queerness” to shows, including her series The Proud Family. Wake up, parents. “Disney is the enemy of your family and your children.”

Conservatives have leapt on this leaked tape, said Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times, seeing it as powerful ammunition in their burgeoning culture war with Disney. The company has been in their sights since it denounced Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s controversial Parental Rights in Education Law – dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its critics – which restricts classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity to older year groups. Disney, which is one of Florida’s largest employers, with about 80,000 workers, has suspended political donations in the state in response to the law.

Raveneau’s comments were clearly tongue in cheek; and the results of her “agenda”, such as it is, seem “sweetly anodyne”: one character in her show has a gay friend; another has gay dads. It’s harmless stuff, given most people these days are relaxed about the presence of gays, lesbians and transgender people in public life. But the Right has seized on the remarks as proof that Disney is out to sexualise children and corrupt their minds. On Fox News, host Laura Ingraham called it “propaganda for grooming”. Yes, the QAnon conspiracy theory that liberals are “a cabal of paedophiles has gone mainstream”.

Disney may not be out to corrupt children, said Sheila McClear in Los Angeles Magazine, but there’s no doubt that it is becoming increasingly political, in a way that rankles with many people. Last summer it removed all “gendered greetings” from its parks: no more “boys and girls”, now it’s “Hello, friends”. And in a company-wide Zoom call last month, Disney’s general entertainment head Karey Burke said that “as the mother of one transgender child and one pansexual child”, she wanted to ramp up queer visibility within the Magic Kingdom.

No wonder a recent poll found that 65% of Americans believe corporate wokeness has gone too far, said Harrison Rogers on RealClearPolitics.com. Parents don’t want a “pansexual Lion King” or a “trans Cinderella”. They “just want quality content”, devoid of sexual and political messaging.

This is what happens when corporations start staking out positions on legislation, said Megan McArdle in The Washington Post. Disney was encouraged to weigh in on the Florida bill by progressives who think it has the whip hand over the state. They’re wrong. Corporations do wield influence when it comes to lobbying for things like tax breaks; but on “major issues, where the public cares a lot, a million votes matter far more than a million corporate dollars”.

Disney’s criticism of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill has had no discernible effect on Florida Republicans, other than giving them a handy target to rail against. “After all, why should they care what Disney thinks?” It’s not as if the company can up sticks and move Disney World to another state. The resort is roughly the size of San Francisco. The company won’t find a developable site of that size again. Disney would have done better to stay out of this fight.

Tesla founder, Elon Musk, loves to set the cat among the pigeons. In that respect, his decision to spend $2.9bn on a 9.2% stake in Twitter – making him the company’s largest shareholder – was a textbook move, said Martin Peers on The Information; and to add to the fun, “the world’s most talkative CEO” suddenly came over all “coy” about his motivations. “Oh hi lol,” he tweeted to his 80 million followers as shares in the platform jumped by 27.1%. Musk recently indicated that he was interested in shaking up social media to advance “free speech”. It had been thought he was thinking about starting his own platform, noted The Times, but he has now joined the Twitter board. Conveniently, founder Jack Dorsey – a friend of Musk – is “due to vacate his seat next month”.

There was speculation that Musk’s investment was simply “a canny value play” for a stock that has fallen by 40% in the past year, said Lex in the Financial Times. His move onto the board suggests he could look to create a “meme stock”. Either way, given his online pull and the tendency of past tweets to land him in “regulatory hot water”, Washington should “set a Twitter alert” if the world’s richest man puts more capital into this deal.

“The hearts of Tesla shareholders must sink every time Elon Musk takes on a new project,” said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. At least this deal (unlike his huge bitcoin investment through Tesla) is “with his own money”. Still, the Twitter stake has the potential to be “a serious distraction from the day job”. Musk’s high profile has saved Tesla a fortune in advertising; but there’s little upside to him getting “sucked into toxic battles” about the role social media plays in the US’s politics. “Leading the electric vehicle revolution is hard enough without unnecessary detours.”

BP’s decision to ditch its 20% stake in the Russian state oil giant Rosneft was almost a foregone conclusion following accusations that it was “fuelling the invasion of Ukraine”. And it was swiftly joined by Shell, which is divesting its stake in the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural gas project, said Bloomberg.

The two companies “will write down billions of dollars”, but the moves have a greater significance. In just two days, Britain’s twin energy giants have dumped Russian investments nurtured over decades and shut themselves out of the world’s largest energy exporter, probably forever.” The US titan Exxon announced that it would follow; France’s Total is reviewing its Russian business.

Given that the total cost of jettisoning Rosneft could hit $25bn (including $11bn in forex losses), the immediate hit to BP’s shares was “a modest 4%”, noted Nils Pratley in The Guardian. The fall might have been steeper had the board “risked serious reputational damage” by ignoring “the UK government’s entreaties”. The hit to Shell, at around $3bn, is much less.

Neither company has outlined the “mechanics” of their exits. BP can either seek a buyer – at a fire-sale price – “or accept whatever token sum of devalued roubles” Rosneft cares to offer. “The latter looks more likely.”

BP boss Bernard Looney, and his predecessor Robert Dudley, are now off Rosneft’s board. Welcome news, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. But BP should have ended its tumultuous relationship with Russia years ago. “How much evidence did it need that Putin is no business partner?”

In time, a greener, cleaner BP may thank Ukraine for forcing its hand, said George Hay on Reuters Breakingviews. It is now “rid of an asset that presented an increasing headache on environmental, social and governance grounds”.

No wonder Mark Zuckerberg is so keen on the idea of the metaverse, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. The “real world” can be very hard to bear. More than $230bn was wiped off the value of Meta – parent of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – in a day last week, when the group released full-year figures showing a decline in users for the first time in its 18-year history. The problem, in a nutshell, is that Meta is losing users to TikTok, while Apple’s changes to privacy settings (making it harder to track personal data) will cost Meta $10bn in ad revenues this year. As commentators were quick to note, the $31bn drop in Zuckerberg’s personal fortune was equivalent to the annual GDP of Estonia. All in all, rather a nasty “brush with reality”.

Talk about a “Zuck shock”, said Katie Martin in the FT. The 26% plunge “was the biggest drop in absolute terms in a US company’s market value ever”, and enough to produce the worst day for the whole S&P 500 in more than a year. For years, “those of a more nervous disposition have been concerned about the outsized role Big Tech plays in US markets” – the worry being that “if they hit a bump, they could topple the rest of the market with them”. After last week’s carnage, that fear is no longer so theoretical.

“There comes a time in every great bull market where the dreams of investors collide with the changing facts on the ground,” said The Economist. Far from being “invincible”, Meta comes across “as a business with decelerating growth, a stale core product and a cost-control problem”. Its troubles reflect two kinds of competition. The first is within social media, where the Chinese-owned app TikTok has become a formidable competitor, despite attempts by former president Donald Trump to ban it on national security grounds. The second is the “intensifying contest” between the Big Tech platforms themselves as they diversify into new services. “The narrative of the 2010s – of a series of natural monopolies with an almost effortless dominance over the economy and investment portfolios – no longer neatly reflects reality.” New winners and losers are emerging.

This has been a week of wild price swings, said James Mackintosh in The Wall Street Journal – as illustrated by Amazon, which, a day after Meta’s big bust, notched up “the biggest market value gain of any US company ever”. These extraordinary moves in Big Tech stocks “in response to small changes in their earnings” shows “what a wacky market we’re in”. Uncertainty about the future of the economy and the tech sector in particular is extremely high. Last week, Meta paid the price.

“Not for the first time in his maverick career, Neil Young has opened a can of worms,” said Dorian Lynskey in The Guardian. The Canadian musician’s boycott of Spotify – in protest at sharing a platform with the vaccine-sceptical US comedian Joe Rogan – has proved “a PR disaster” for the music-streamer, which acquired Rogan’s show for $100m in 2020. Enraged by what he views as the promotion of “life-threatening Covid misrepresentation”, Young, 76, issued an ultimatum: “They can have Young or Rogan, but not both.”

Spotify’s choice was a foregone conclusion. Rogan’s show is its “most popular podcast”, with an audience of 11 million per episode. And Spotify is “banking on podcasts to drive subscriptions”. Still, Young’s stand wiped more than $2bn off the Swedish streamer’s value as many joined the boycott. It drew widespread support – notably from his old friend Joni Mitchell, who also withdrew her catalogue.

Spotify’s boss Daniel Ek has responded “by sticking warning labels” on podcasts about Covid, “probably” preventing a further exodus, said Karen Kwok on Reuters Breakingviews. But the decision to prioritise polarising podcasts is risky given that music subscriptions accounted for more than 85% of Spotify’s $8.8bn revenue last year. Ek has strayed onto political territory; this looks like his “first Facebook moment”.

“Just like the social media giants, Spotify has quietly turned itself into a publisher, but prefers to pretend it is simply a platform,” said Matthew Lynn in The Daily Telegraph. Yet this bust-up has wider ramifications for companies of all sorts. Most have been “sitting on the fence” on the vexed question of vaccines. Yet as offices reopen, the issue is being forced into the open. Pro- or anti-vax? “Neutrality is not going to work any longer.”

“A company that feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost the plot,” sniped investment firm Fundsmith last week, in a “withering criticism” of Unilever’s woke ideology and poorly performing shares, said The Economist. CEO Alan Jope had the perfect retort. The conglomerate has been quietly plotting a blockbuster £50bn mega-merger with GlaxoSmithKline’s consumer healthcare arm to create an all-British consumer goods champion, with brands ranging from Marmite, Pot Noodle and Dove (Unilever), to Sensodyne, Panadol and Tums (GSK). Forget allegations of navel-gazing. How’s that for action?

GSK, which has thrice turned down Unilever’s overtures, isn’t keen, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. CEO Emma Walmsley wants to list the consumer arm (currently part-owned by Pfizer) instead. Neither is the market keen: it sent Unilever’s shares 7% south. “This is a very bad idea,” said BNP Paribas. “Please don’t,” added RBC Capital Markets, which reckons Unilever’s attempt at empire-building is “to compensate for, and distract attention from” its problems. History certainly suggests that giant deals like this tend to “destroy value”.

Unilever’s logic is that “demand for health, hygiene and beauty products is likely to grow faster than food brands”, said Dasha Afanasieva on Reuters Breakingviews. But the high price GSK will probably demand could leave Unilever with “indigestion”. Walmsley, who’s had her own problems with disgruntled investors, “must be delighted”, said Ruth Sunderland in the Daily Mail. Unilever’s tilt “sets a new base price for the business” and widens her options. Should she open the field to other bidders? Make Jope up his ante? Stick with the float? Over to you, Dame Emma.

Swedish homeware giant Ikea has fuelled debate about sick pay entitlement during the pandemic by axing payouts for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate after Covid close contact.

Self-isolation rules for people who have been jabbed have been relaxed from this week, but under government guidance, unvaccinated people are still required to stay at home for ten days after first being exposed to the coronavirus.

Ikea’s sick pay decision means that some unjabbed staff “could receive as little as £96.35 a week under Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) obligations, a legal minimum”, reported The Mail on Sunday.

By comparison, the average weekly pay for Ikea shopfloor staff is £404 outside London and £452 in the capital, according to the newspaper.

‘Emotive topic’

A spokesperson for Ikea said the company – which employs more than 10,000 people in the UK – appreciated that the sick pay cut was “an emotive topic”.

Bosses would take into consideration “mitigating circumstances”, such as pregnancy or medical issues, when applying the policy, added the spokesperson, and “all circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case basis”.

Utilities company Wessex Water has also cut sick pay from this week for staff who have not received at least one Covid vaccination or have no appointment to be jabbed.

Other big companies that have introduced similar policies include supermarket chain Morrisons. Announcing the pay change in September, the supermarket chain’s chief executive David Potts cited the “biblical costs of managing Covid”, The Guardian reported.

Companies must ‘tread carefully’

Julian Cox, head of the employment practice at law firm BLM, warned that companies needed to “tread carefully” when cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff.

“Whilst some businesses view this as an attractive way to encourage staff to get vaccinated, there are potential bear traps for the unwary including claims of breach of contract, constructive dismissal and discrimination,” Cox told the Financial Times.

According to People Management, any rule or practice requiring employees to be vaccinated “could be challenged as discriminatory”.

“For example, the group of employees who are least likely to be vaccinated are younger females, who have concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on either fertility or pregnancy,” said the human resources publication. “Certain ethnic groups are also less likely to be vaccinated.”

However, employers may seek to justify such pay cuts “as being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, such as “a wish to promote good attendance at work – and avoid large proportions of the workforce having to self-isolate”, the site added.

A recent survey of more than 200 employers at an employment law conference hosted by People Management reportedly found that 10% were “looking to adjust their sick pay rules for unvaccinated staff”.

General sick pay rights

Employees who are too ill to work can get £96.35 per week of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), which is paid by employers for up to 28 weeks.

The rules on SSP were changed in March 2020 to also make the payments available to staff self-isolating from day one of exposure to Covid.

The government website explains that staff could qualify for SSP if they or someone they live with has Covid symptoms or has tested positive, or if someone in their support bubble has symptoms or has received a positive test.

Staff could also get SSP if they’ve been been notified by the NHS or public health authorities of close contact with a Covid case, or have been advised by a doctor or healthcare professional to self-isolate before going into hospital for surgery.

It was a “truly historic year” for Rolls-Royce Motor Cars in 2021 as the luxury marque reported record annual sales in its 117-year history. Buoyed by orders for the Ghost, Cullinan and Phantom models, the Goodwood-based company delivered 5,586 vehicles last year – a 49% increase on 2020.

All-time record sales were achieved in most regions, including China, the Americas and Asia-Pacific. And order books are “full well into the third quarter of 2022”, the company said in a statement. In fact, even if a customer ordered a Rolls-Royce today, “you will expect to take delivery of it about a year from now”.

Despite “all the volatility wrought by the pandemic”, demand worldwide for luxury vehicles has “surged”, Reuters said. Premium and luxury car sales have been “growing more broadly” in key markets such as China and the US as travel restrictions have left wealthy consumers “with more disposable income”.

‘Live now rather than postpone’

Covid-19 “spurred” wealthy motorists to “buy more Rolls-Royces than ever”, The Guardian said. And the pandemic reminded customers of “their own mortality” by splashing out on luxury cars.

Many “witnessed people in their community dying from Covid”, said Torsten Müller-Ötvös, CEO of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars. “That made them think life can be short and you’d better live now rather than postpone until a later date. That has helped Rolls-Royce.”

Mainstream carmakers were “hit last year by a lack of semiconductors”, the FT reported. But Rolls-Royce was “able to avoid a squeeze” because it makes fewer vehicles and therefore needs fewer chips. Müller-Otvös revealed that parent company BMW was able to help source the chips. “We have fought hard to get the chips we needed for all cars,” he said.

The age of electric

Rolls-Royce aims to build on the success of 2021 as it looks towards the future. In September last year it announced that its entire line-up will be fully electric by 2030.

The company will enter the new age with the “Spectre”, the brand’s first pure electric car. Describing it as a “seminal moment” for the marque, Müller-Ötvös said the Spectre is “not a prototype” and customers will take first deliveries of the car in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Pret A Manger is at the centre of a brewing row after thousands of customers complained about the chain’s £20-a-month drinks subscription service.

Pret launched what was described as “the UK’s first ever in-shop coffee subscription” in September last year. The company said that subscribers could “enjoy up to five barista-prepared drinks per day”, including all coffees, ice coffees, teas, hot chocolates, smoothies and frappes.

But according to the BBC, the high-street chain has received “5,000 complaints about the offer, such as smoothies often being unavailable”. And after being contacted by fed-up customers, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has stepped in to rebuke Pret too.

‘Only filter coffee’ available

One customer told the broadcaster that his repeated efforts to order a mango and pineapple drink after subscribing to Pret had become a “long-standing joke with the staff”. He added: “I laughed it off for a while, but now I’m getting angry and I’m starting to feel I’ve been ripped off.”

Another former subscriber told The Times that the deal as a “total waste of money” and that a staff member “even told me to cancel the sub because ‘it’s shit’”.

“The highlight was when every shop in the City near my office claimed their ice machine had broken,” he added. “Basically, you could only get a filter coffee.”

‘Staff can’t take much more’

Some former Pret employees told the BBC that working for the chain had become “unbearable” as a result of the subscription service. Making smoothies and frappes is “really time consuming”, said an ex-staffer. “Try to make 50 smoothies daily one by one and you will feel it.”

Another warned that “the staff can’t take much more”.

Ad regulator intervention

After receiving complaints from Pret customers, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has told the company to “consider reviewing the ads for their subscription service”. Pret pledges: “If our baristas brew it, blend it or steam it, you can have it!”

The watchdog said the chain had been told that the ads “should not state or imply that the service was available in all store locations, or that it covers their entire range of products if that wasn't the case”.

A Pret spokesperson said: “We have spoken with the ASA to ensure all Pret marketing for the coffee subscription is in accordance with their latest guidance.”

The subscription scheme was “incredibly popular” and “we’re constantly working with our teams and customers to make it better”, the spokesperson added.

‘Public outcry’ over smoothies

A Pret spokesperson told the BBC that when the chain suggested earlier this year that frappes and smoothies might be removed from the deal, “there was a public outcry so Pret listened and kept them as part of the subscription”.

The company said that “less than 1% of all coffee subscribers have raised any concerns” about availability and that “we always welcome feedback to try and provide the best possible experience for every customer”.

But some hacked-off subscribers may be unconvinced. One tweeted last month that their local Pret in Wimbledon had “removed smoothies from the signs and been saying for a week that the machine is broken”.

“It seems every branch has either a broken freezer or machine,” the fed-up customer added. “Where are Pret getting their equipment from for it to break in EVERY store???”

The US pharmacy giant Walgreens is pondering a sale of Boots, potentially undoing the “blockbuster transatlantic merger” engineered by the Italian billionaire Stefano Pessina in 2014, said Aaron Kirchfeld on Bloomberg. Goldman Sachs has reportedly been hired to advise on “a review of options” for the British health and beauty retail chain – including a sale or a separate listing – enabling Walgreens “to focus on its North American business”.

At 80, Pessina (nicknamed the “silver fox” for his hair and dealmaking nous) remains the group’s chairman and biggest shareholder, but this year he handed the reins of the alliance to CEO Roz Brewer. The “spry” Italian once dreamt of dominating “wholesale and retail pharmacy in Europe, the US and even China”, said Alex Brummer in the Daily Mail. Boots, with its coveted No. 7 beauty brands, “would help spearhead the assault”. It hasn’t quite worked out that way.

The sale would mark an “abrupt exit” for Walgreens, which paid $22bn to acquire Boots from Pessina and the private equity group KKR in 2012-2014, said Robert Cyran on Reuters Breakingviews, but it “probably makes sense”. Neither chain has flourished and “with private equity snatching up British assets, it’s a good time to sell”.

Founded in Nottingham in 1849, Boots has had a rough 21st century since losing its standalone status in 2005, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. The debt-laden chain shrivelled to become a “distant and forgotten outpost” of the Walgreen empire, “starved of investment”. Under “more nurturing management”, Boots might have evolved into an online health and beauty Goliath. Yet the company’s sales halved at the height of the Covid crisis. There’s an opportunity here to revitalise an old “stalwart”. Let’s hope it “ends up in the right hands”.

Just in time for “panto season” comes word of a bid for BT from Reliance Industries – the behemoth owned by Asia’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. Surely not a serious offer? “Oh, yes it is,” says The Economic Times of India. “Oh, no it isn’t,” retorts Reliance, which calls the rumour “completely speculative and baseless”. Nonetheless, the Government is reportedly monitoring the situation at the former state telco. BT’s shares jumped nearly 10% on the story – and were still up after it was dashed, perhaps reflecting the fact that “there’s been bid talk” ever since the French-Israeli billionaire Patrick Drahi’s outfit, Altice, quietly “snaffled” a 12.1% stake in June. The big prize is seen as BT’s Openreach broadband operation.

Investors are eager for “a quick win”, said Helen Thomas in the FT. Quite understandable given shares have “halved in the past five years”, and “the company is sinking more than £1bn a year into rolling out its full fibre network” for “an as yet uncertain return”. The “euphoric reaction” was also influenced by the huge €33bn bid for Telecom Italia recently tabled by the US buyout giant KKR. Yet even assuming that Openreach could be easily separated out, there’s the “albatross” of BT’s huge pension scheme – not to mention a challenging “political climate”, with even tougher rules to protect national security due in January.

I blame the locals, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. If City fund managers “aren’t willing to invest in this country’s future infrastructure, perhaps we can’t complain if an overseas buyer steps in”. Had Britain’s institutional shareholders valued BT correctly, instead of baulking at the upfront roll-out costs, it would never have fallen to becoming “a plaything for international billionaires”.

1. UK retail: last hurrah

Haven’t we all had enough of Black Friday, that US-imported “carnival of consumerism” that now “afflicts us in the final week of November”, asked James Bloodworth in the New Statesman. Given that British consumers have already racked up £4.1bn in outstanding debt this year, it feels “increasingly untethered from reality” – particularly as “mindless consumerism” is “hastening the destruction of the planet”.

Yet despite survey evidence that shoppers are growing more cynical about Black Friday, they let rip this year, said the FT. According to data from credit card issuer Barclaycard Payments, there was record spending in the UK on the day itself – with transactions up by 2.4% on 2019 levels, and by 23% compared with pandemic-stricken 2020. “We should be set for one of the most successful Black Friday shopping sprees on record,” said Barclaycard boss Rob Cameron. Others noted that bricks-and-mortar shopping was beating the online variety for the first time in years.

“Christmas seems to have come early for retailers,” CBI economist Ben Jones told The Times. “Clothing and department stores in particular” have seen “a big upward swing”. Talk about a last hurrah, said DealBook in The New York Times. British retailers are now at the forefront of business groups warning that “Omicron could stifle Christmas sales” as new pandemic restrictions are introduced.

2. Bulb et al: broken glass

In the end, the Government had to stump up £1.7bn to keep Bulb Energy, and its 1.7 million customers, in “special administration” for six months, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. The obvious question is: what next? Ministers are hopeful of “a rapid auction”, and there are reports that Lazard has been hired to run it. But surely “any acquirer of 1.7 million accounts would want a cast-iron guarantee that it won’t lose money on the deal”. Temporary nationalisations are “easy to do; exits can be harder”.

The dominoes are still falling in the sector, said The Times. Two more energy suppliers – Entice and Orbit – collapsed last week, taking the total number of failures since August to 25. The ripples are spreading, said Aimee Donnellan on Reuters Breakingviews. The sometimes overlooked victims of Britain’s energy crunch are price comparison sites, such as GoCompare, CompareTheMarket and MoneySuperMarket, which boomed thanks to “the churn of customers” constantly switching suppliers. Now they face tougher times.

Why did Bulb flicker out?

3. Omicron: coining it

What’s in a name? Quite a lot if you own a “tiny cryptocurrency called Omicron”, whose price began rocketing over the weekend – even as the new Covid-19 variant tanked bitcoin and other crypto markets, said Billy Bambrough in Forbes.

The obscure token, named after the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet, began rising on Saturday after the World Health Organisation gave the new variant the same name, said Martin Young on CoinTelegraph. It rocketed from $65 on Saturday to reach an all-time high of $689 on Monday morning, marking a whopping 945% gain. And while the price of Omicron – a DeFi (or decentralised finance) token – subsequently fell, it was still trading at around $325 on Wednesday.

Scam or coincidence? The outfit behind Omicron is so obscure that it’s hard to tell, said Pascale Davies on Euronews. But there may be more to come. Next in the Greek alphabet is Pi – there’s already a cryptocurrency bearing the same name.

How Omicron and other Covid-19 variants were named

“Silicon Valley just got a little less weird,” said Io Dodds in The Independent. Jack Dorsey, the “raggedy- bearded, nose-ring-sporting” boss of Twitter has announced his resignation from the social network he co-founded 15 years ago.

This is actually the second time Dorsey, a former botanical illustrator, has quit – he was fired from his own company in 2008 for, among other things, “doing too much yoga” and attending fashion evening courses. “You can either be a dress-maker or the CEO of Twitter, but you can’t be both,” co-founder Evan Williams told him. When Dorsey returned in 2015, critics wondered whether he could simultaneously run Square, the payment provider he founded after his firing.

Dorsey’s “simultaneous leadership” of a $38bn social media company and a fintech now valued at $98bn “was always a stretch”, said Lex in the FT. Twitter needs “more than a part-time chief”. And Dorsey’s personal interest in crypto “suggests his mind may have been more focused on Square”.

Twitter’s “large cultural influence” has often overshadowed “its patchy financial performance”, said DealBook in The New York Times. In fact, the network has long “tested” the theory that founder-led companies perform best: it has lagged in terms of innovations, and appeared unable to clamp down on misinformation.

Even so, the new man in charge, Parag Agrawal, has “big shoes to fill”. And who knows if it’s really the end for Dorsey? “Don’t worry,” tweeted The Daily Show. “Like everyone else who quits Twitter he’ll be back in three weeks.”

The collapse of Bulb energy – the UK’s seventh-biggest energy supplier – has plunged the industry into uncharted waters, said Rachel Millard in The Daily Telegraph. Because rivals have baulked at absorbing Bulb’s 1.7 million customers, the company has “effectively been nationalised” after running out of money owing to soaring wholesale energy costs. Bulb is “by far the largest” of the 20 energy suppliers that have collapsed since the onset of “a global gas supply crunch” in September, and its failure will add to demands for reform of the market and a price cap on bills. Meanwhile, “taxpayers face a bill of potentially hundreds of millions of pounds” to keep Bulb operating – until it is restructured or sold, or its customers are transferred to other suppliers.

When Boris Johnson visited Bulb’s London HQ in July, he was full of praise for a “wonderful company” that offered customers 100% renewable energy. “Seems incredible to me,” he remarked. And so it has proved, said Nathalie Thomas and Jim Pickard in the FT. Bulb blames its demise on the price cap, which was introduced in 2019 by Theresa May’s government after years of pressure over “rip-off” energy bills, and is reviewed just twice a year. Others in the industry point to “a spectacular failure of regulation” that encouraged a race to the bottom on prices as new entrants vied to gain market share. “Many gambled that wholesale energy prices would not rise and had inadequate hedging strategies”, while a “light touch” regulatory regime failed to assess whether their financial model could withstand price shocks. So the “blame game” runs on, said Emily Gosden in The Times. No one disputes that the industry has faced an unprecedented shock – Bulb claims the cap allowed it to charge only 70p per therm, while wholesale gas prices have rocketed to as much as £4 a therm. But the debacle probably has its roots in “a potent cocktail” of “flawed government policies, ill-advised business practices” and “lax regulation”.

You can’t blame customers for swallowing Bulb’s hype, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. It promised to challenge “the sleepy established order” with its “heady mix” of “proprietary technology that could reduce bills and save the planet too”. But financial backers of the self-proclaimed “fastest-growing company in Europe” – including DST Global and JamJar Investments – must be kicking themselves too. A “shiny app” and good IT “doesn’t enable any company, however brilliant its idea or well-meaning its intentions, to defy the basic laws of economics”. It’s a painful lesson that “a generation of tech hopefuls” may be forced to learn in the coming months as the economic cycle turns.

1. Amazon/Visa/Mastercard: payment politics

Amazon’s move to ban UK-issued Visa credit cards from January is an “odd” and “unfortunate” decision, remarked Visa boss Al Kelly. Top marks for diplomacy, said Louise Beaumont on City AM, but there’s no mistaking the threat to his company. Amazon claims that Visa (which plans to hike fees from 0.3% to 1.5% on UK card purchases in the EU) “charges too much”. It’s an old bugbear, but until recently even a retail behemoth like Amazon wouldn’t have risked picking a fight with Visa.

The emergence of “open banking” – enabling third-party providers to move cash directly from bank accounts to merchants – has changed all that. The retailer is now betting that “access to Amazon trumps loyalty to Visa”.

“The good times are coming to an end for one of business’s most enduring duopolies” – Visa and Mastercard, said Lex in the Financial Times. The emergence of fintechs such as Klarna and Pockit has seen to that. Well, maybe, said Michiel Willems on City AM. Mastercard, which has also announced increases to UK/EU interchange rates, appears mysteriously exempt from Amazon’s ban. Or is it mysterious? Amazon’s “merciless move to block Visa”, which will inconvenience millions of Brits, is likely to lead to rapid uptake of its own credit cards – “which are issued by Mastercard”.

2. Afiniti: the PM and the princess

David Cameron’s post-political career has been “tarnished” by his role as an adviser to the collapsed bank Greensill, said Rupert Neate in The Guardian. Recent events at Afiniti – the Bermuda-based software firm for which he served as “advisory chair” – do not improve matters.

Cameron resigned last week after a former employee, Tatiana Spottiswoode, accused the firm’s multimillionaire founder, Zia Chishti, of sexual assault in a US Congress hearing. Chishti, who denies the allegation, has also resigned, said the Mail Online. This week the position of Princess Beatrice, who served as “vice-president of strategy and partnerships” and is on maternity leave, was still unclear.

Spottiswoode’s claims are very serious: she alleges that Chishti, a serial entrepreneur who founded the call-centre specialist in Washington in 2005, “groomed” her, “then pressured her into sex and assaulted her, leaving her with cuts and bruises and symptoms of concussion”.

Afiniti, whose clients include Sky and the AA, is one of a growing number of “racy firms” who have “stuffed advisory boards with the great and good”, said Jamie Nimmo in The Sunday Times. That practice is now under growing scrutiny. Cameron remains advisory chair of the US biotech Illumina, which won a £123m UK Government contract in 2019. He was cleared last month of “unregistered” lobbying activity on its behalf.

3. LV=: mutual mess

It is now almost a year since the mutual insurer and pensions group LV= (formerly Liverpool Victoria) announced a £530m takeover by the US private equity group Bain, said James Sillars on Sky News. Opposition to the move has been building for months – fuelled by attempts by rival mutual Royal London to gatecrash proceedings. But matters are reaching a climax. Ahead of a “knife-edge vote”, LV=’s board has upped efforts to persuade its members of the merits of the buyout, which, according to CEO Mark Hartigan, is “the only deal that keeps us going”.

Still, the terms are hardly enticing. LV=’s 1.2 million members will receive “a cash payment of just £100 each if the deal goes through”. The 297,000 members owning “with profits” policies (who legally own the group) will get “an extra £52 worth of enhancements” to their future payouts. Royal London is still lurking on the sidelines. Even at this late stage, it would be wise to invite it “to make a politically palatable counter-offer”, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. “At the very least, the would-be white knight would be forced to clarify its intentions.”

4. Unilever: reading the tea leaves

In a deal that has been stewing for two years, Unilever has finally sold its tea division – ending a relationship with top brands such as PG Tips and Lipton that dates back decades, said Hannah Boland in The Daily Telegraph. The 34-brand-strong division, called Ekaterra, has been bought by the European buyout group CVC Capital Partners for €4.5bn. The sale is a reflection of changing tastes, as consumers opt for coffee, kombucha or high-end teas.

As Unilever’s finance boss, Graeme Pitkethly, once observed: those who “drink five or six cups of builders’ tea a day [are] unfortunately dying at a faster rate than Generation Z and millennials are consuming it”. This hasn’t been an easy sale, said the FT. Two of the three final bidders reportedly “baulked” after getting “ESG jitters” over “concerns about working practices” in Unilever’s Kenyan tea plantations.

“Vaarwell Shell”, or should that be “welcome home to a dear old friend”? News that the oil giant is leaving The Hague – and axing the “Royal Dutch” part of its name – to become 100% British has “gone down like a plate of mouldy pannenkoeken in the Netherlands”, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. The decision to unify the company’s domicile in London means severing ties dating back to the formation of Royal Dutch Petroleum in the late 1800s. The Dutch government declared itself “unpleasantly surprised”. In the City, by contrast, it was “trebles all round”. Shell’s move to follow fellow big Anglo-Dutchers RELX (formerly Reed Elsevier) and Unilever back to Blighty is a huge post-Brexit vote of confidence.

The Dutch government, which is reportedly scrambling to reverse the decision, “has only itself to blame”, said Ian King on Sky News. Part of the impetus was a punishing Dutch tax on dividends. Beyond that, it’s just good housekeeping. Since 2005, the combined company (formed from an original 1907 merger) has been hampered by a complex structure of “A” shares in London and “B” shares in the Netherlands, with each taxed differently. For investors, simplification looks like “a right royal result”. It might also placate a troublesome US activist, Dan Loeb of Third Point, who has been gunning for a full break- up of the company.

After “seven fat years at the helm”, this could be a “last hurrah” for CEO Ben van Beurden, said Alex Brummer in the Daily Mail. That might be just as well.” He, after all, was the boss who “doubled down on oil and gas” by acquiring BG Group for £51bn in 2016. Shell’s most pressing “strategic priority” now is devising “a carbon-neutral strategy which investors can believe in”.

“Half-term holidays are back and so – briefly – are airline profits,” said Lex in the FT. Ryanair, which was “burning through €200m a week” at the height of the pandemic, notched up a respectable €225m profit in the last quarter. The Irish budget airline warned that the winter ahead was likely to prove “challenging”. And not just financially. The board is bracing for conflict over plans to delist Ryanair from the London Stock Exchange – a move described by CEO Michael O’Leary as an “inevitability”. If it does happen, it will spell “another blow” to the “dwindling” London market.

O’Leary’s “disdain” for “the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy” is well known, said Ben Marlow in The Daily Telegraph. And it’s “clearly not in the company’s interest to cut itself off from the biggest pool of capital in Europe”. But Ryanair, which is also listed in Dublin and New York, argues it has little choice. The move has been on the cards since Brexit – “because EU rules demand that European airlines must be majority-owned and controlled by nationals of the bloc” (or a handful of EFTA countries, including Switzerland). Consequently, trading volumes in the City have fallen dramatically.

“If it’s okay for Swiss investors to own a slice...there is no logic in denying UK investors,” agreed Nils Pratley in The Guardian. This is primarily “a political failure” on the part of the UK and EU to tie up “a Brexit loose- end that should have been settled in about five minutes of negotiation”. As an airline, Ryanair is clearly a special case, said Reuters. Yet the general direction of travel isn’t encouraging for London, whose blue-chip index has substantially underperformed the European Stoxx index this year. Ryanair’s “high-profile de-listing” may not be the last.

1. BP/Shell: Cop outs?

The middle of the Cop26 climate conference was not an ideal moment to boast that the oil business can be “spectacularly lucrative”, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. Delivering the oil major’s quarterly results following the recent global surge in power prices, BP’s Irish boss Bernard Looney cheerfully described it as “a cash machine”. “

The oil majors risk being seen as the new tobacco,” said Alex Brummer in the Daily Mail. Still, BP is in a better place than its Anglo-Dutch rival Shell, which is “under fire” – both legally and financially. Last week, the giant Dutch pension fund ABP dumped billions of euros in shares as it divested itself of fossil fuel holdings.

Now a US activist hedge fund, Daniel Loeb’s Third Point, is gunning for break-up. Loeb wants to divide Shell into a legacy oil, refining and chemicals company; and a separate gas and renewables business – surely an exercise in “using climate change as an excuse to try and extort short-term value”. The crucial difference between oil and tobacco producers is that, without oil, the world economy “would come to a shuddering halt”, endangering billions of people. But there’s a moral imperative for Big Oil to use its big coffers “to speed up the path to net zero”. If Shell continues foot-dragging, it risks becoming a “pariah” stock.

Explained: the ‘net zero-aligned financial centre’

2. EY: nice work...

We live in uncertain times. Fantastic news if you’re a Big Four accountant, said Farah Ghouri on City AM. Partners at EY (formerly Ernst & Young) have pocketed record sums this year – taking nearly £750,000 in profits each, following a big revenue jump. Chair Hywel Ball attributed the jump to “high levels of demand... as companies adapted to the realities of Covid”, prompting a flurry of M&A activity. Looking ahead, he thinks there’s further hay to be made from “ESG reporting” and “strategy and technology consulting”.

Compared with some of its peers, EY’s payday is modest, said Michael O’Dwyer in the FT. Deloitte has handed partners more than £1m on average; partners at PwC got £868,000. Still, it makes a change from all the bad headlines. EY’s international reputation was “tarnished” by the implosion of its German client, Wirecard, and it is under investigation by the UK regulator over its audits of three collapsed companies: NMC Health, Thomas Cook and London Capital & Finance. The company has pledged to invest about $2bn globally to improve the quality of its audits.

3. Microsoft: king of the world

Bill Gates’ baby “didn’t get a look-in” when Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google “were lumped together in an acronym to describe the highest-flying tech firms”, said Jennifer Saba on Reuters Breakingviews. Who’s laughing now? The software giant, now run by Satya Nadella, has trounced the “Faangs” to become the world’s most valuable company – toppling Apple. The latter has been dogged by supply chain issues affecting sales of iPhones. By contrast, Microsoft has been “firing on all cylinders”.

“Shortages are everywhere. But luckily for Microsoft, not in the internet cloud,” said Alistair Osborne in The Times. There’s not much in it: Microsoft’s giant $2.459trn value is just a nudge ahead of Apple’s $2.456trn, but both are comfortably ahead of the “sub two trillion” third and fourth rankers, Alphabet and Amazon. Having just broken the $1trn barrier, Tesla’s restless boss, Elon Musk, now has something new “to shoot for”.

Tesla joins the $1trn club