The £100m commitment will be financed by clamping down on businesses such as vape shops

Andy Burnham has announced a 20 per cent reduction to business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues. The £100m commitment will be financed by clamping down on businesses, such as vape shops and tax-avoidant online retailers, which “do not make a positive contribution to local communities,” the government said.

The measure forms part of Burnham’s promise to provide Brits with “breathing space” on the cost of living, though this marks the first policy specifically targeted at businesses.

Pubs and hospitality establishments have been lobbying for a reduction to business rates after their tax bills were pushed skyward by Rachel Reeves’ Autumn Budget last year.

The Prime Minister said this policy demonstrates that his government will “back the businesses that people want to see in their communities” rather than standing idly by while “cherished venues have disappeared from our local high streets”, as reported by City AM.

The reduction to business rates for pubs had been a central promise during Burnham’s campaign throughout the Makerfield by-election.

During the campaign pledge, Burnham had criticised Keir Starmer for “undervaluing” pubs. Labour had “got this wrong in government,” he said.

Chancellor John Healey said: “Pubs, clubs and live music venues are at the heart of communities across the UK.

“They bring people together, support local jobs and help keep high streets and town centres busy – which is why we will back them all the way.”

The pledge was warmly received by the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) during the Makerfield campaign. Its chief executive, Emma McClarkin, said pubs “continue to pay a disproportionately higher rate which grinds down their ability to keep the doors open”.

“A further 20 per cent would be a real boost for the local, and raising the threshold so many smaller pubs get taken out of paying rates would make a real difference to high streets and livelihoods,” she had said.

Pressure on the government to overhaul the business rates system has extended well beyond the hospitality sector, with high street retailers arguing the tax puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to their online counterparts.

A coalition of retail trade bodies has urged Burnham to slash business rates for all high street businesses by 37 per cent, by introducing a two per cent levy on online sales.

Earlier in the week, the Prime Minister announced measures to reduce VAT on household electricity bills and introduce a £2 bus fare cap, though both policies faced scrutiny over how they would be financed.

Young boys and men appear to be over-represented in the stats. Of the casualties, 302 – the most of any age and sex category – were males aged 10-19.

Six deaths were recorded in 2024, unchanged from the previous year. Five of these were riders and one a pedestrian.

Although the numbers aren’t conclusive, it is thought more accidents are happening on privately owned e-scooters. Winchcomb says police statistics “aren’t reflective of the number of injuries”.

Nonetheless, campaigners believe there is enough evidence to show that regulation is urgently needed.

Carly Calland’s 14-year-old son Jacob died in March 2025 of a catastrophic head injury. He was a passenger on an e-scooter that was involved with a collision with a car.

If privately owned e-scooters are legalised for public use, Carly believes, there should be mandatory helmets, a ban on carrying passengers and penalties for parents that allow children to ride illegally.

“If Jacob was wearing a helmet that day, he would still be here,” Carly, from Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester, says.

Carly is not against e-scooters. They “are really good for people to get to work, and they are eco-friendly”, she tells me, but “they just need to be used in the correct way.”

What happens if the current situation goes on? Her answer is emphatic: “More deaths.”

This article was written by

Follow

Samsung Electronics has reshaped its premium smartphone strategy this year, pushing the “Ultra” branding to the top of both its foldable and traditional slab-style phone lines for the first time, a shift that has left shoppers weighing two very different devices with nearly identical internal hardware.

The comparison centers on the Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra, which succeeds last year’s Z Fold7 as Samsung’s flagship foldable, and the Galaxy S26 Ultra, the company’s traditional bar-style flagship. According to technology outlet Engadget, the two devices share the same processor, the same RAM and storage configurations, and the same battery capacity, yet deliver dramatically different real-world experiences depending on their form factor.

A reshuffled foldable lineup

This year’s release marks the first time Samsung has applied the “Ultra” designation to a foldable device. Alongside the Z Fold8 Ultra, Samsung introduced a new mid-tier model, the standard Galaxy Z Fold8, positioned with a shorter, wider “passport-style” design that sits below the Ultra in specifications while still offering more functionality than the company’s clamshell-style Z Flip8. That restructuring has clarified the roles within Samsung’s foldable range, splitting it into distinct Ultra, standard Fold and Flip tiers for the first time.

Reporting on the change, Engadget described the shift as revealing more than Samsung may have intended, noting that the differences between the Z Fold8 Ultra and S26 Ultra are “both vast and — paradoxically — surface-deep,” given how similar the two phones are under the hood.

Nearly identical core specifications

Both devices run on Qualcomm’s latest Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 processor and ship with matching memory configurations: 12GB of RAM paired with either 256GB or 512GB of storage, or 16GB of RAM on the top-tier 1TB storage option. Both phones also carry a 5,000mAh battery. That overlap in core hardware has led analysts to conclude that competition in the premium smartphone segment is shifting away from raw performance specifications and toward differences in form factor and user experience instead.

Where the two phones diverge

The most significant differences between the devices lie in their displays and physical designs. The Galaxy S26 Ultra retains a traditional smartphone shape and introduces a new Privacy Display feature, described as the first hardware-level implementation of its kind in a smartphone, capable of narrowing the screen’s visibility from off-center angles without relying on an added polarizing film layer. The Z Fold8 Ultra, by contrast, emphasizes its large foldable interior screen, offering a combined smartphone-and-tablet experience when opened.

Camera hardware also separates the two devices. The S26 Ultra includes a wider f/1.4 main aperture, which Samsung says allows the sensor to capture 47% more light than the Z Fold8 Ultra’s f/1.7 aperture, along with an exclusive 50-megapixel, 5x periscope telephoto lens not available on the foldable. Both phones share a 200-megapixel main sensor and a 50-megapixel ultrawide camera, but the S26 Ultra’s additional zoom lens and stronger front-facing camera have made it the preferred option among reviewers focused primarily on photography.

Charging speed favors the slab phone as well. The S26 Ultra supports 60W wired charging, compared with 45W on the Z Fold8 Ultra, giving the traditional flagship an edge in minimizing downtime between charges.

A meaningful price gap

The price difference between the two devices is substantial. The Galaxy S26 Ultra starts at $1,299.99, while the Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra starts at approximately $1,999, a gap of roughly $700. According to one detailed comparison, that premium buys a second 6.5-inch cover display capable of functioning as a standalone phone, an 8-inch interior tablet-style display, hands-free video call functionality through a half-fold “Flex Mode,” support for three simultaneous apps in split-screen view, and access to Samsung DeX on the larger interior screen rather than the more cramped 6.9-inch portrait display used for DeX on the S26 Ultra.

Physical dimensions and durability trade-offs

Hands-on comparisons have highlighted meaningful physical differences among Samsung’s three new devices. The Z Fold8 Ultra measures 158.4mm tall when unfolded, matching the exact height of the Galaxy S26+, while its narrower 72.8mm body and 8.9mm thickness make it the sleeker of Samsung’s two foldable options compared with the wider, shorter standard Z Fold8, which measures 81.9mm wide and 9.7mm thick. The Z Fold8 Ultra weighs 215g, just a gram heavier than the S26 Ultra, while the standard Z Fold8 weighs 201g.

Despite steady industry-wide improvements to basic foldable durability features such as water and dust resistance, engineering trade-offs in weight, thickness and long-term durability remain an inherent part of the foldable form factor, according to Engadget’s analysis, distinguishing both Fold models from the more conventional build of the S26 Ultra.

Different phones for different priorities

Engadget summarized the comparison by describing the Galaxy S26 Ultra as “a more balanced device for most users,” while characterizing the Z Fold8 Ultra as “a specialised product that offers the experience of putting a tablet screen in your pocket.” That framing reflects a broader theme running through most detailed comparisons of the two devices: rather than one model clearly outperforming the other, each is built around a different set of priorities, camera performance, charging speed and one-handed convenience on the S26 Ultra, versus multitasking, screen real estate and tablet-like functionality on the Z Fold8 Ultra.

What it means for Samsung’s strategy

The overlapping specifications combined with sharply different display technologies and use cases suggest a broader shift in how Samsung is positioning its flagship lineup. Rather than competing primarily on raw performance, where the S26 Ultra and Z Fold8 Ultra are now functionally equivalent, Samsung appears to be betting that consumers will increasingly choose between devices based on form factor and specialized features, whether that means a privacy-focused display and best-in-class camera system, or a foldable screen capable of replacing both a phone and a tablet in a single device.

With both phones now available, the decision for shoppers weighing Samsung’s two top-tier devices increasingly comes down to a straightforward question: whether they value the flexibility of a folding tablet-sized screen enough to pay a roughly $700 premium and accept a heavier, thicker device, or whether they’d rather have Samsung’s most refined and camera-capable slab phone at a lower price point.

Google parent Alphabet saw its business continue to grow in recent months, yet growing spending on artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure put its leftover cash into negative territory.

The company’s free cash flow, the cash it maintained after paying for operations and investments, came in at negative $5.9bn (£4.3bn) for the first time in at least a decade, according to its past financial records.

Alphabet’s spending on AI is now expected to hit as much as $205bn this year, an increase from $190bn, as major tech companies race to build around a new wave of the technology.

Meanwhile, Alphabet’s combined quarterly revenue hit $119.8bn, up 23% compared with the same time last year.

But the company’s stock fell 4% in after hours trading.

Anat Ashkanazi, Google’s chief financial officer, noted on a call with financial analysts that the company had shown negative free cash flow due to growing capital expenditures, essentially all of which was related to AI spending.

She said the company spent $45bn in the second quarter, with 60% of the cost going towards servers and the remaining 40% going towards data centres.

Alphabet’s capital spending was $36bn in the first quarter of this year.

Ashkanazi said on the call that when it comes to AI, “the demand still outpaces that investment”.

“As long as we see these attractive opportunities to invest, we will continue to invest.”

Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, said that the technological shift to AI tools and capabilities still “feels like early innings in a shift across multiple areas” and that the company’s plans around generating financial returns on its spending were “disciplined”.

“What I see with what you can do with frontier capabilities, there is still a lot of work left to do to translate that into experiences for our users. So that looks like extraordinary opportunities with extraordinary returns.”

Tesla, the electric vehicle company controlled by Elon Musk, also reported negative free cash flow on Wednesday of $1.1bn for the second quarter due to its own increasing investment costs.

It was the company’s first negative showing of leftover cash in two years, according to its financial records.

Vaibhav Taneja, Tesla’s chief financial officer, said during a call with analysts that the company will spend as much as $25bn this year, more than double its capital spending in 2025.

He added that Tesla was in “a big investment cycle” and that its spending would probably increase further over the next three years.

Tesla’s stock also dropped by 4% in after hours trading.