We’re just a few weeks from the government’s crucial first Budget on 30 October and it’s clear Chancellor Rachel Reeves intends to raise money.
There is a black hole in public finances, she says – based on her apparent discovery since arriving at No 11 Downing Street in July of an unbudgeted £22bn overspend in the current tax year.
Now, whether that really is a newly discovered black hole is a matter of dispute. Either way, given Ms Reeves has ruled out borrowing to fund day-to-day spending, she is still likely to need to raise taxes to pay for that spending.
So if you were in her position, how might you go about raising it? Let’s not pretend this is too precise a game – we’ll call the figure £20bn for simplicity’s sake.
This figure is somewhat arbitrary. In truth, the overspend this year is of little relevance when it comes to how much extra tax you need next year or in five years’ time. And one imagines the Budget will mostly find tax rises that bite in 2025-26 and beyond.
Advertisement
In any event, when the Budget comes, we will have an updated economics forecast, new projections for how government revenues and spending are looking, possibly a new fiscal target as well. So a lot will change by 30 October.
Nonetheless, if you were a chancellor with the task of finding £20bn in front of you, then you would probably like the option of being able to increase the rates of one of the big four taxes: income tax, VAT, National Insurance and corporation tax. Together, they represent two-thirds of the total cash that the government receives.
However, for better or worse, the chancellor ruled out such tax rises in the election campaign, and she has made it quite clear that she is not going to abandon her pledges. So for our purposes, such tax rises are clearly verboten.
That is a significant constraint. Remember that in its last year, the Conservative government cut taxes by £20bn by slashing the rate of National Insurance. One way of raising money would simply be to reverse that cut and take us back to where we were before last November.
So by ruling out a Tory National Insurance cut reversal, the chancellor has made our game of finding £20bn far more… taxing.
Advertisement
But once you’ve put all those tax rises to one side, there are still more potential routes to raising extra revenue that we can look at.
One is through capital gains tax, charged on profits made from the sale of an asset that has increased in value, such as second homes or shares not held in individual savings accounts (ISAs).
But when it comes to capital gains tax “I don’t think immediately it will raise a vast amount of money”, says Judith Freedman, emeritus professor of tax law and policy at the University of Oxford. “It might bring in a few billion, it’s not going to give you £20bn.”
Another route is through inheritance tax. But this “only kicks in when you are quite wealthy”, says Dan Neidle, founder of the think tank Tax Policy Associates.
Advertisement
Between them, capital gains tax and inheritance tax raise less than £25bn a year at the moment, so to get an extra £5bn would still require a sizable jump in those taxes.
However, there are also ways you could raise cash through higher National Insurance or income tax, without actually changing their headline rates.
When it comes to National Insurance and income tax, far bigger amounts are at stake if the chancellor is minded to look at the rules governing the tax treatment of pension contributions.
At the moment, for most people, if you put any earnings into a pension, you don’t pay income tax on those earnings. And if employers contribute to a pension on your behalf, they don’t pay employers’ National Insurance on that, as they would if they gave it to you as salary.
Advertisement
Between them, these perks cost the exchequer about £50bn a year. Most of that benefit goes to higher earners, who not only put more into their pension pots, but who often deduct income tax at a higher rate than the average worker.
It is an area ripe for reform. Indeed, the right-of-centre think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, proposed a radical reform of the system 12 years ago. A left-of-centre chancellor will be keen on the potential revenue to be found here.
Getty Images
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will announce her Budget on 30 October
Now it has to be said, when it comes to squeezing more tax out of a population, there are two broad approaches a chancellor can take. We might call them the expedient and the economic.
The expedient is to search for places where you can raise money with a minimum of squealing. On this approach, there doesn’t have to be much logic to any tax rise – it’s just about finding the money in hidden corners.
Advertisement
The economic approach is slightly different. It starts with the idea that there are more and less logical ways to tax people, and that the tax system should avoid picking on certain types of activity in arbitrary ways.
In this world, you usually want to avoid taxing some income or savings more than other income or savings, because that would likely be unfair and it would distort people’s decisions.
On this account, you need to have a vision for how all the pieces of the tax system interact. “Fiscal neutrality” is a phrase that has sometimes been used to describe a system that is designed to tax in as level a way as possible.
And although our tax system is manifestly full of anomalies and illogicalities, when it comes to pensions specifically, economists often share a broad vision of what a fiscally neutral tax system should try to do.
Advertisement
The basic principle is that people should pay tax once – not twice – on pensions.
So you either give tax relief upfront, on the money people put into their pension savings, then you tax the pension income people enjoy when they get old. Or you give no upfront relief at all and tax the income going into a pension fund, but you charge no tax on the pension when it comes out.
Judged against these principles of neutrality, our current system is a bit of a mess.
Many people get 40% income tax relief on what goes into a pension and pay 20% on what comes out. That’s not logical.
Advertisement
Also, employers’ National Insurance isn’t charged at either end; and you can get a tax-free lump sum when you take a pension, even though you had tax relief on the money you contributed to that.
You don’t need to understand all these details to see that a chancellor who wants extra tax revenue can look at pension contributions and will see an orchard full of ripe fruit for picking.
And what makes it very compelling is that the orchard looks bountiful whether you’re gazing at it through the glasses of expediency or through the lens of economic logic.
Sir Edward Troup, a tax lawyer who has worked in the Treasury, expects the chancellor to take action in this area in the Budget.
Advertisement
“The question is how far, how fast does she go?” he says.
“Does she really try and get some money in the next few years – which will be painful – or does she introduce some reforms that have got slow burn and build up tax receipts from people who are retiring over the next five, 10, 20, 30 years?”
I also wonder whether the Budget will try to tidy up the illogicalities of the system, or simply be about raising as much as possible?
It’s possible, of course, that there could be important tax changes other than those I’ve talked about. More than one of PM’s listeners wrote in to suggest a new tax on land values (an idea popular with the Greens and sometimes the Liberal Democrats). It may be a step too far for this Budget, even if it’s one that many economists find appealing.
Advertisement
An important thing to note is that a £20bn tax rise will be significant for the exchequer, but it’s by no means enormous in historic terms. It’s equivalent to about £6 a week, for every man, woman and child in the country or £25 each week for a family of four.
Another way of looking at it is that would keep NHS England going for about 40 days a year. Or putting it another way, £20bn is less than 1% of our annual national income. And it’s about 1.7% of total government spending. It’s not revolutionary, but nor is it nothing.
And we’ll have to wait until 30 October to see exactly which approach Rachel Reeves takes.
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
Simply sign up to the Central banks myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
Conflicts, climate change and trade tensions mean central banks will need to raise interest rates “more forcefully” during future bouts of inflation to prevent price pressures taking hold, a senior official at the Bank for International Settlements has said.
Andréa Maechler, deputy general manager at the Basel-based umbrella body for central banks, said monetary policymakers could no longer afford to “look through” short-term price spikes caused by disruption to the supply side of the economy — such as crop failures, blockages in ports, swings in commodity prices or shutdowns at oil refineries.
Advertisement
Such shocks could become “larger and more frequent” because of rising geopolitical risk, more widespread floods and droughts and a “bumpy transition” to greener technologies, she said.
“This may require adjustments to the conduct of monetary policy,” Maechler said. “At times, forceful monetary tightening will be needed to ensure that inflation expectations remain anchored.”
She said ageing populations and rising barriers to globalisation would make it harder for economies to adjust to this kind of disruption, as labour shortages became more widespread and there was less scope “for international trade to act as a shock absorber of domestic inflationary pressures”.
Maechler highlighted trends observed after the coronavirus pandemic, arguing that once inflation had begun to rise, a further shock to oil or food prices can have an “outsize influence” on people’s trust in the stability of money. That response can lead to sudden changes in behaviour of households and businesses that leads to inflation becoming entrenched.
Advertisement
“All this means that inflation could become more volatile, raising the risk that economies transition more easily from self-stabilising low-inflation regimes to self-reinforcing high-inflation regimes,” she said.
The BIS has long been a hawkish voice, warning central banks as early as 2010 of the dangers of adopting ultra-low interest rates for too long, a warning delivered shortly before the eurozone debt crisis forced the European Central Bank to cut rates further into negative territory for the best part of a decade.
But its views have gained currency over the past few years as central banks raised interest rates to their highest levels since the global financial crisis to tame inflation.
Prices surged in 2022 on the back of pent-up demand after Covid-19, global supply chain disruptions and higher energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Advertisement
Although the US Federal Reserve, ECB and Bank of England are increasingly confident inflation is subsiding, potentially enabling them to continue cutting rates in the coming months, policymakers have signalled they do not expect interest rates to return to pre-pandemic lows.
SPLASHING out on a coffee pick-me-up doesn’t need to cost as much as you think it does.
Dee Bespalova, named the best Starbucks barista in the UK, has shared her top tips on how to save money – including the secret to free refills.
1
Dee Bespalova won Starbucks UK’s 2024 Barista Championships
Star barista Dee was awarded after taking on her fellow Starbucks coffee connoisseurs from up and down the country.
Advertisement
She has now shared her top tips for saving money at Starbucks – and who better to get the inside information from?
Buying coffee on the go can be shockingly expensive when added up over time.
According to Wholesale Coffee Co, Brits spend on average £5.50 per week on coffee, which is £286 a year.
And on average, people who buy a Starbucks three times a week spending approximately £54 a month, which is a whopping £648 annually.
Advertisement
At The Sun, we always recommend you make coffee from home to save money.
For example, with Tesco Clubcard prices you can buy 6 sachets of Costa Barista Creations in any flavour for £1.75 – that’s 30p a coffee.
Meanwhile, a Starbucks can typically set you back around £4.50 for one drink, or up to £6.55 for special recipes.
Starbucks prices change based on availability, and between locations.
Advertisement
New Starbucks CEO takes over coffee chain struggling to keep customers – as fans gripe that prices are ‘absurd’
However, we also know that, sometimes, a DIY coffee from home isn’t quite as exciting as a Starbucks on the go.
And with experts like Dee making the coffee, sometimes it’s okay to spend a little extra on a hot drink you know you’ll love.
For this reason, we put together Dee’s top tips for enjoying a Starbucks the savvy way – so you don’t have to miss out on that coffee catch up with friends.
By combining all of these tips across the year, a person who drinks three coffees a week and spends £648 annually will save £343.20.
Advertisement
The amount you save will vary depending on how much you typically spend of course.
GET FREE REFILLS – £271.20
One of the most exciting tips Dee whispered to The Sun was that filter coffee-drinkers are actually able to get refills for free.
She said: “Whilst lattes and flat whites are many people’s favourites, if your usual order is a black coffee, or a coffee with just a splash of milk, consider asking whether your local store offers filter coffee, which you can swap out for your americano and enjoy a free refill.”
A filter coffee at Starbucks is easy on the wallet too, starting at just £1.95.
Advertisement
If you were to buy two americanos (£3.80 each), this would cost you £7.60.
If you did this once a week for a year, you would rack up a spending of £364.80.
Instead, you could save a total of £5.65 a visit by ordering a filter coffee and getting a free refill instead.
If you did this once a week for a year instead, you’d spend £93.60 a year – saving £271.20 across the year just by swapping for filter coffee.
Advertisement
Dee recommends going up and asking your barista if it offers filter coffees, as they are not in all stores and might not always be on the menu at the tills where you’ll usually find the latest additions and seasonal drinks on show.
You’ll need to purchase the first drink to have in to then qualify for a free tall refill.
SWAP SYRUPS – £72
When you fancy your coffee with a little twist, a syrup will usually do the trick – but if you are looking to save, there is a cheaper option.
You can swap out the dairy milk for an alternative to bring a different flavour to your drink.
Advertisement
According to Dee, dairy alternatives at Starbucks are offered at no extra charge.
Customers can request oat, soy, almond or coconut milk.
“But if you’re a bit stuck for where to start, choose a drink with a dairy alternative as standard”, she told The Sun.
“For example, the Iced Brown Sugar Oat Shaken Espresso is designed to work best with the delicious roast nutty flavours of oat dairy alternative.”
Advertisement
Starbucks is one of very few chains which offers completely free milk alternatives.
In Costa for instance, soya is the only non-dairy milk you can buy free of charge. For oat or coconut, the customer must spend 45p.
5 things you didn’t know about Starbucks
The name was inspired by a book
Advertisement
Co-founders Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin, and Zev Siegl opened the first Starbucks in Seattle on March 30, 1971. The name was inspired by author Herman Melville’s famous novel, Moby-Dick – Starbuck was the name of the first mate on the ship, the Pequod.
It has its own coffee farm
Purchased in 2013, Hacienda Alsacia is a 240-hectare coffee farm located in Costa Rica. Customers can’t visit, but they can take a virtual tour.
Different apron colours
Advertisement
Did you ever notice some of the Starbucks staff wearing different colour aprons? Green, Black, Red and there’s also a few special editions.
Before there were Sharpie pens
Starbucks is known for writing your name on your drink cup, but before this idea came to fruition, the position of a cup on the bar would tell the barista how to make the beverage. Upside down for decaf!
Millions of fans, millions of drinks
Advertisement
US Starbucks stores will sell around 5 million drinks daily in 2024, and the top-selling of which is currently Caramel Macchiato.
A shot of syrup at Starbucks typically costs 50p, so you can save £1.50 a week based on having three drinks a week on average – that’s £6 a month, and £72 a year.
Of course, keep in mind that out calculations are based three coffees a week – the amount you save will vary based on how much you usually spend on coffee.
GET FREEBIES WITH STARBUCKS REWARDS – £72
Regular Starbucks customers can download the Starbucks app and collect points, which can be used to gain free rewards.
Advertisement
Dee said: “It pays to be loyal and Starbucks Rewards is quick and easy to use.”
Customers can collect three stars for every £1 spent, and when you reach 150 stars, you’ll get a free drink of any size.
If customers reach 450 stars, they will be rewarded with Gold status.
This means extra shots of espresso, selected syrups and whipped cream are all on the house.
Advertisement
Each of these extras usually cost 50p, meaning you could save £s off a single purchase.
If you cashed in on these extras three times a week, you’d save £1.50 – that’s £6 a month, and £72 a year.
To begin collecting rewards, download the Starbucks app and sign up with your email address.
However, keep in mind that with all schemes such as these, the goal of the company is to get you spending more money.
Advertisement
If you become a rewards member, be sure to use it as a perk, and not an excuse to buy more coffees when you’re out of the house – otherwise you will lose money rather than saving it.
Also remember that having apps and email notifications from businesses like Starbucks may subconsciously encourage you to spend more money, so be mindful of marketing influences.
In moderation, rewards are much more enjoyable.
To find the nearest Starbucks near you, visit their website.
Advertisement
Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
LVMH will become a top sponsor of car racing franchise Formula One as the leading luxury group pushes further into the world of sport.
The agreement will start in 2025 and run for a decade, LVMH said on Wednesday. The deal is worth just under €100mn per year, according to two people with knowledge of the arrangement.
Advertisement
It will involve several of Bernard Arnault’s luxury empire’s top brands including Louis Vuitton, the world’s biggest luxury brand by sales, drinks division Moët Hennessy and watchmaker Tag Heuer.
The deal was led by Frédéric Arnault, the second youngest of the billionaire patriarch’s five children, who was promoted to head LVMH’s watchmaking division at the start of the year.
He was previously chief executive of Tag Heuer and is a graduate of France’s top engineering school Ecole Polytechnique, like his father.
“The opportunity to scale our commercial arrangements is emblematic of the vision we have for Formula 1 as the business continues to grow . . . We look forward to working with Bernard and Frédéric Arnault in the years to come,” said Greg Maffei, president and chief executive of Formula 1 owner Liberty Media.
Advertisement
Luxury groups have increasingly targeted sports to grow their audience and popularity. While luxury has long been associated with elite sports like show jumping and tennis, links with more mainstream sports like basketball and football are becoming more frequent.
The French group’s deeper foray into the world of racing follows its high profile sponsorship of the Paris Olympics, where bars flowed with Moët Hennessy drinks and athletes were awarded medals made by LVMH-owned jeweller Chaumet.
However, a several minutes long sequence in the opening ceremony centred around monogrammed Louis Vuitton trunks raised some eyebrows as sponsors pushed into previously ad-free spaces in the global sporting event.
Earlier this year LVMH launched a new Louis Vuitton ad campaign featuring tennis stars Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal hiking in the Italian Dolomites. It was a new iteration of a 2022 campaign featuring footballers Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi playing chess.
Formula One, meanwhile, has been on a years-long push into new markets and new audiences. Since US-based Liberty Media acquired it for $8bn in 2017, the racing calendar has expanded to flashy locales in Miami and Las Vegas, and Netflix docu-series Drive to Survive has helped boost viewership.
The share of female F1 fans has risen to 40 per cent, from 32 per cent in 2018, helping to attract women-focused sponsors. Earlier this year, Charlotte Tilbury cosmetics debuted the first sport sponsorship of its own with the F1 Academy.
All five Arnault children have operational roles within family-controlled LVMH. All except the youngest, Jean, have seats on the group’s board. Frédéric and Alexandre, an executive at jeweller Tiffany, joined their siblings on the board earlier this year.
Fashion is in a state of flux. That was clear at the spring/summer 2025 shows in Paris, where brands attempted to chart a path forward, having felt the sting of China’s economic slowdown and a prolonged downturn in luxury spending globally. Some have also had to contend with transitions in creative direction amid evolving consumer preferences, resulting in less convincing collections.
For Chanel, the lack of a designer is still a missing piece of the puzzle. But not for long, according to president of fashion Bruno Pavlovsky, who says an appointment will be made by the end of the month. That’s good news for the world’s second-largest personal luxury brand, which has been without an artistic director since June, when Virginie Viard stepped down, capping a career of almost three decades at the house. (Viard became creative director at Chanel in 2019 following the death of Karl Lagerfeld.)
One ill-fitting appointment could divert Chanel off its double-digit growth path (it reached $19.7bn in 2023). Pavlovsky (and global chief executive Leena Nair) is moving cautiously. “You have some designers who are very talented, but when they join a brand, you see [them] and forget the brand. We are not looking for this kind of designer, but one who is ready to support the brand, to help it develop and modernise. It’s important that this person is not doing that for just two or three years. [We want to] build the next 10 years together.”
Chanel returned to the Grand Palais with a collection of sheer capes, sequinned denim and tweed sets . . .
Chanel recently purchased a property on the prestigious Avenue Montaigne for an undisclosed sum, following similar real estate purchases in Paris and other cities the previous year. And this week, it returned to the Grand Palais — the site where Lagerfeld staged his most memorable shows — after a four-year break for renovations, to present its collection of sheer capes, shirts and dresses with billowing sleeves, sequinned denim and updated tweed sets.
Pavlovsky effused over the stature of the Beaux-Arts building, which hosted the Olympics and the recent Francophonie Summit that is attended by global heads of states and governments. Having an association with the storied venue cements Chanel’s authority and emphasises its links to culture, creation and craft, he believes. “To illustrate this, we need to have some strong visible locations.” But for all its fancy facade, the missing touch of a creative director was palpable, and the location outshone the clothes.
Advertisement
Japanese designers continue to fly the flag for originality and disrupt the status quo. They’ll do as they please, and it works
The same could be said of Coperni, which seems to be competing to outdo itself each season. After viral shows that have included robot dogs and Bella Hadid being spray-painted live in a dress, designers Sébastien Meyer and Arnaud Vaillant stepped it up once more, stealing the week’s closing spot (normally belonging to Louis Vuitton) with an off-schedule show at Disneyland and a finale by Kylie Jenner, wearing a dark strapless gown. I spotted updates to Coperni’s top-selling Swipe bag, but the dimly lit street lamps made it harder to see some of the looks. Not that editors and influencers, many of whom had a blast going on rollercoaster rides that ran past midnight, seemed to mind.
It made me question the purpose of a runway show, which for some brands has become less about the clothes and more about the entertainment factor. Both can coexist. At the Louis Vuitton show, Cate Blanchett, Lisa and Zendaya watched models walk on elevated trunks. Staged at the brand’s usual location, the Louvre, designer Nicolas Ghesquière continued to experiment with flouncy silhouettes that lent a lighter touch to his typical architectural shapes: see the jackets with rounded shoulders and peplum hems. Less convincing were the one-leg skirt-trouser hybrid (a style that also appeared on the runways at Coperni and Bottega Veneta in Milan). All in all, it was a cohesive show that offered desirable new styles.
At Louis Vuitton, Nicolas Ghesquière continued to experiment with flouncy silhouettes . . .
More than four decades since Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto and Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garçons spearheaded a historical revolution in Paris fashion, the Japanese designers — and the generation that followed, including Junya Watanabe, Sacai and Jun Takahashi’s Undercover — continue to fly the flag for originality and disrupt the status quo. They’ll do as they please, and it works. Takahashi, for example, vetoed a runway in favour of a more intimate gathering at Dover Street Market Paris, where he offered a Japanese breakfast to enjoy alongside belted modular clothes. Meanwhile, Kawakubo leaned even further into sculptural looks that reminded me of strawberry meringues and were not in any sense wearable, but the theatricality of her shows actually sells products in stores.
Catering to the client by giving them what they want, but also presenting new ideas for how to dress, is a balancing act that several designers are still navigating. It’s something that Nadège Vanhée does well; the Hermès designer stuck to a predictable but luxurious beige and leather offering from what I could see (journalists were sat in flat rows and I was at the far back, while clients attending with unique, limited-edition Hermès bag styles enjoyed a clearer view of the show, thanks to their raked seating — let’s not kid ourselves, we know who the priority is here).
Victoria Beckham staged her show at a spectacular château, which was suitable for the filming of her upcoming Netflix show, but the clothes veered arty and experimental, with wet looks and slit trousers, that didn’t feel aligned with the brand. Seán McGirr appears to be figuring out what the Alexander McQueen customer wants. For his sophomore collection, he took a gentler and sophisticated approach that appeared to correspond better commercially, but one hopes he is given the freedom to evolve in a way that doesn’t lose the grit and essence of the brand’s founder. Stella McCartney needs to rethink her offering at a time when younger generations are consuming differently and renting or buying second-hand, for example, instead of expensive and new (it takes more than an assertive slogan).
Carven continues to be in safe hands with Louise Trotter, now into her third season as creative director and settling into her studio above the store (parent company Icicle bought the entire building, a place where founder Marie-Louise Carven used to work). We’ve seen the messy collars and shirts jutting out of jackets before at Miu Miu, but it still felt fresh. New this time were sporty track pieces, cut-out body suits with knee-length skirts, and knits wrapped around the waist over camisoles. Also appealing is Gabriela Hearst, who is back from showing in New York and whose passion for materials innovation is like few others (what appeared to be a gold-coloured dress was in fact made of 96 per cent copper and 4 per cent silk).
. . . and Duran Lantink continued to work with deadstock fabrics
The designers that really hit the mark in Paris, however, were not those with the biggest budgets, but the independent names with an individual point of view and excellent craftsmanship to match. Who would have thought that Duran Lantink, known for creating garments from deadstock, would be one of the hottest tickets of the season? This time he demonstrated even greater finesse: there were not only conceptual looks but some great trousers. Niccolò Pasqualetti, Hodakova, Rokh and Torishéju also impressed with their individual takes, proving that on a big playing field, small businesses worth their salt can still shine through.
THE BEST pizzas in Britain have been revealed, but does your hometown favourite make the cut?
Pizza is undoubtedly a much loved food among Brits, with a variety of toppings plus vegetarian and vegan options to choose from.
2
The 16 UK finalists have been unveiled
2
Advertisement
Now, we know exactly where to go to find the perfect slice.
Following the 2024 National Pizza Awards, the 16 UK finalists have been unveiled.
The list includes both high street chains and indie joints.
On November 12 at London’s Big Penny Social, the finalists will fight for the title of Pizza Chef of the Year in a live cooking challenge.
Advertisement
It’ll be a technical task where the finalists must create “the ultimate pizza”, as reported by Time Out.
Assessed by a panel of beady-eyed expert judges.
This year will also see the introduction of The Alternative Slice Award.
Whoever puts together the most delectable dish using free-from products will claim this title.
Advertisement
Earlier this year, the pizzeria in London was crowned as the best in Europe a the World 50 Top Pizza Awards.
Napili on the Road, owned by Michele Pascarella, scooped up the award dubbed the Michelin Awards of pizzerias.
London restaurant Napoli on the Road wins best pizza in Europe award
The selection process for the Top 50 awards is “very mysterious” and includes anonymous restaurant visits by pizza critics.
Not only is Napoli on the Road Europe’s best pizzeria, but Michele was also named the world’s best pizza chef at the awards in 2023.
Advertisement
Born in Caserta near Naples, Michele started making pizzas when he was just 11 years old.
After moving to the UK aged 19, he set up Napoli on the Road, which as its name suggests, started out life as a food truck selling slices at food markets and festivals.
Since then he has settled in his spot in Chiswick, where his talents have now earned him global recognition.
With several awards now under his belt, it’s safe to say that Michele knows exactly how Brits should be eating pizza too, and as it turns out some of us might be doing that wrong.
Advertisement
He told the Daily Mail: “‘I think there are few mistakes about eating pizza, for example, overloading with too many toppings, making it difficult to enjoy the base, using a knife and fork instead of eating it with their hands, not pairing it with a suitable beverage – missing out on a complete dining experience, and adding chilli oil everywhere.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login