Sadiq Khan says his ‘ultimate goal’ is to reverse Brexit

Sir Sadiq Khan has stepped up his calls to reverse Brexit, describing it as his “ultimate goal” for the UK to join the European Union.

In an interview with The Observer, the Labour Mayor said he wanted Sir Keir Starmer to show more ambition on rebuilding links with the EU, six years after the UK withdrew from the bloc.

And he said his aim of rejoining the EU will be achieved in his lifetime.

The comments come as Sir Keir attempts to ramp up his “reset” of EU relations, while insisting that the government’s “clear red lines in relation to the single market and the customs union” remain in place.

Last week, he said Labour was working to negotiate new arrangements with the EU, including on food and agriculture, and also indicated a desire for closer defence ties.

Days later, the European Commissioner for finance, Valdis Dombrovskis, told the BBC that Brussels was “ready to engage” if Sir Keir wished to explore the possibility of working together on a customs union.

In the interview published on Sunday, Sir Sadiq said: “My ultimate goal is for us to rejoin [the EU] and I think it will happen in my lifetime.”

He added: “I want us to be part of a customs union. I’m an advocate for us being part of a single market. I think we can negotiate more now, because of how geopolitics has changed, than we could in 2016 or 2019. Europe needs us and we need Europe.”

The former Tooting MP campaigned to remain in the EU during the 2016 referendum, and then called for a second referendum two years later on the basis of a “bad deal” being negotiated with the EU.

Two years ago, he declared it was “obvious that Brexit isn’t working”, while urgently calling for a closer relationship with the EU, after a Cambridge Econometrics study estimated Brexit had cost the UK £140bn.

Supporters of a custom union between the UK and the EU have said it would slash bureaucracy and costs related to trade with the EU.

However, critics have raised concerns that it would curtail the UK’s ability to strike bespoke global trade deals.

Labour’s election manifesto ruled out signing up to the existing EU customs union.

In December, cabinet minister Pat McFadden shut down deputy prime minister David Lammy after he suggested rejoining the customs union could increase growth and repeatedly refused to rule out reversing Brexit.

Mr McFadden said Sir Keirhas been “pretty clear” that the UK won’t be rejoining the customs union.

However, the issue if Brexit is set to become a key one in the next general election.

After Sir Keir outlined his plans to bring the UK into closer alignment with the EU, Labour believes it is the only political party with a position on Brexit that reflects the views of the general public.

‘I took a £20,000 pay cut to be happier’

Last year, Alice*, 35, was working as a lawyer for a high-profile firm, earning £160,000 a year. On paper, things looked great. She was winning cases that made newspaper front pages, and she could afford to treat herself to luxury holidays several times a year. But the truth was that her health was suffering.

“I was so stressed,” she explains. “I was working long hours, about 9am to 8pm, but the problem was the high-stakes nature of the job. There was so much pressure that it was having a really detrimental effect on my health.”

She had to see a doctor about stress-related heart palpitations, while her mental health also suffered. In her private life, she was struggling to conceive with her husband, and when fertility doctors kept warning her against stress, she realised something had to change.

“I thought, what’s the point of working this hard if I can’t enjoy my life in good health?” she says. “Doctors said don’t stress but how can you with 75 emails waiting for you after a one-hour appointment? I wasn’t sleeping enough or able to exercise. I knew something had to change.”

Alice decided to leave her prestigious firm and move instead to a smaller law firm, taking a £20,000 pay cut. “Now I work 9am to 6pm but I have a lot more time to think and breathe while I work. In my previous role, I had huge amounts of responsibility and no agency. Those two things combined caused me to feel undervalued and anxious. Here, I actually have more responsibility, but because I have the ability to make my own choices, I don’t feel so burnt out.”

Her stress levels have dramatically reduced, while her happiness has increased – making the £20,000 pay cut fully worth it. “It actually doesn’t make much difference to my everyday life. I was so time poor before I spent so much more money on conveniences like taxis and ordering food. But even if it was more noticeable, it would still be worth it to preserve my health.”

Alice is one of a growing number of millennials who are taking pay cuts for a better work-life balance. A recent study by the international schools group ACS found that one in 10 workers want to quit their jobs, while 54 per cent say that they are currently not working in their dream career.

Last year, a global study by the Oxford Longevity Project found half of Gen Z and millennials would take a pay cut if their employer made an effort to prioritise their wellbeing, compared to just a fifth of boomers. While a survey by LinkedIn found that younger workers were more open to pay cuts than older colleagues, especially if it offered them flexibility.

“This does seem unusual in a cost-of-living crisis,” says career coach Jenny Holliday. “But it’s showing a return to the values of a role, and the feelings around our work life rather than just the ‘take home’. There was a time when climbing the career ladder was the only focus when you’d secured your first job. More money, more status, a new title… we were conditioned to want to ‘work our way to the top’. But the top can be lonely – and all the money in the world won’t help you feel happy if you don’t love the work you do.”

Jasmine* discovered this a few years ago when, aged 39, she was travelling the world for her career in event planning, working 15-hour days on events with million-pound budgets, sometimes earning up to £10,000 a month, and an average of £80,000 a year. She started asking herself questions like “surely there is more to working life than this” and “what do I really want to get from the 50-plus years that I will need to work”?

“I hope that doesn’t make me seem ungrateful. I guess I just felt that I had a bit of calling – as cliched as this sounds,” she says. “The money was, of course, great, but it wasn’t fulfilling or exciting any more. The volunteering I had done and was doing at the time was giving me a buzz that no £10k plus invoice I submitted at the end of a month could.”

She decided to leave her work in events, taking her skills to work at a homeless charity, where her take-home pay was £1,698 a month, and around £27,000 a year. “It turns out I was good at it,” she says. “But more than that, I was making a tangible difference to people’s lives by supporting them through complicated housing applications. I felt hugely rewarded in my work for the first time, I think – and the reward was in no way financial, it was more than that. It was helping people. It was using my skills and my privilege to help people who need it.”

For Hattie Lamb, 34, the motivation to take a pay cut was less about purpose – something she already had working as a manager in a charity shop – and more about protecting her mental health. She used to work five days a week in her job, taking home around £2,500 a month, until she had a mental health breakdown a few years ago.

“I had to take eight months off work,” she explains. “From that moment, I knew what happens when your mental health goes so far to rock bottom that you can’t function. It put everything in perspective for me. There’s nothing that’s worth more than mental stability.”

When she was ready to go back to work, she decided to work only four days a week, even though it would decrease her income by over £600 a month, and over £7,000 a year. “I’d use that day to do things that were good for my mental health like doing a gardening diploma and chi gong. I earned enough to pay my rent and bills, which was all that mattered.”

She’s now on maternity leave and plans to return to a four-day week later in the year. “Ambition stopped mattering to me, which might not necessarily be a good thing, but it was the right thing for me at the time,” she says, looking back on her mental health struggles. “And it hasn’t come back really. I want to achieve things and I have ambition, but it’s not in a ‘I want to be the best’ or ‘I want to earn the most money’ kind of way.”

She’s not alone. Meera*, 32, took a pay cut back in 2021, when she was working as a clinical pharmacist and earning £39,000 a year. She moved to a role that paid £5,000 less, but found herself working fewer hours and enjoying her work more – a decision she doesn’t regret.

Meera now earns £56,000, having worked her way up – but is about to hand in her notice to take another pay cut, this time for £2,000.

She’s aware that the pay cut – along with added costs for commuting – will mean she’ll need to think twice about spending. “I’ll be more mindful of holidays and going out to eat less, as well as gym memberships,” she says. “But I’m moving because I’ll hopefully be happier, less stressed, without pressure, even though the hours are the same. I hope I’ll have better work-life balance with more stability without travelling overnight for work.”

Jenny Holliday says this attitude is common amongst millennials and younger generations. “When it comes to work-life balance, I think millennials are much more budget-conscious,” she explains. “They are keen to save money, they’re thrifters and money savers, and with that comes the realisation that you don’t need a huge salary to be happy. Jobs can be fewer hours, less pay, but still have good benefits, too.”

Jasmine now earns up to £50,000 a year – still £30,000 less than she was on five years ago – but she doesn’t regret her decision to take a pay cut. “It was the best decision I ever made and I have never looked back, not for one moment. Not even when my landlord whacked the rent up on my London flat and I had to move out because I could no longer afford it.”

*Names have been changed

Epstein survivors demand release of remaining files in Super Bowl ad

A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors appeared in a commercial run during the Super Bowl on Sunday in which they called on the Department of Justice to release the government’s remaining files on the pedophile.

The eight women are shown in the clip with their mouths covered over by smears of black marker pen, pointedly mimicking the redactions made to the published files by DOJ lawyers.

“After years of being kept apart, we’re standing together,” they say, holding up photographs of their younger selves dating from the period in which they were sexually abused by the billionaire. “Because we all deserve the truth.”

“Stand with us,” the video from the anti-slavery organization World Without Exploitation concludes: “Tell Attorney General Pam Bondi it’s time for the truth.”

The decision to run the 40-second segment in the middle of the most-watched U.S. TV event of the year, the NFL championship game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots, was made to ensure maximum exposure.

The near-unanimous passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November set in motion a 30-day deadline for the complete release of the DOJ’s files on Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York City jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial.

But the department published only a small portion of the files on December 19, followed by a second, slightly larger tranche on December 23, and then, five weeks later, a much bigger release, consisting of 3 million pages of documents, including 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a White House press briefing in support of the January 30 release that the approximately 3.5 million files published was all the DOJ could safely make available from the more than 6 million in its possession without compromising the victims of Epstein’s crimes.

He denied that the department was withholding the remainder in order to protect rich and powerful associates of Epstein and insisted the redactions had been made to safeguard the survivors and to avoid compromising active investigations.

Members of Congress will be able to peruse the withheld files by visiting a private room within the DOJ and accessing a secure terminal as of Monday, according to a letter obtained by NBC News.

While President Donald Trump has insisted it is now time to “move on” from the furore over Epstein, the latest release has inspired fresh outrage, particularly over Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson’s ties to the disgraced financier.

Among those supporting the survivors’ call for further disclosures in response to the commercial was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“The most important ad you will see on Super Bowl Sunday,” he wrote on X (Twitter) in a comment accompanying the clip.

“You don’t ‘move on’ from the largest sex trafficking ring in the world. You expose it. #StandWithSurvivors.”

Who will fight to save the West if our leaders face no consequences for their actions?

It may appear to be a metaphorical leap to equate the alleged actions of Peter Mandelson with many of Britain’s water companies poisoning rivers with excrement. But it isn’t. They are both on the edge of treason in an age when impunity is the nation’s greatest vulnerability.

Liberal democracies, like the UK, have become complacent in defending the norms that underpin what separates them from what’s emerging in America and already has a grip on Russia. Among liberals and progressives, a contempt for patriotism helps our enemies and threatens us.

Patriotism has been largely hijacked by populist right-wing movements who have harnessed xenophobia and racism, rampant inequality, and social media into a jingoistic cocktail that suits our enemies – it doesn’t help motivate the West to defend itself.

It has turned Reform leader Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, the disgraced former leader of France’s National Front, Hungary’s Victor Orban, and anyone arguing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was Nato’s fault, into useful idiots in the service of the Kremlin.

Faith in Britain’s rulers, and rules, was fatally undermined by Tony Blair and a servile civil service, all of whom conspired to lie Britain into a war in Iraq.

Since then, we’ve seen bankers survive the 2008 economic crash they created, crappy British officers who got soldiers stuck in Helmand, Boris Johnson’s Covid cronies, and all manner of white-collar charlatans thrive and prosper.

Swerving prosecution is one thing. But how come these baddies are not being shunned – or better still, tarred and feathered?

Britain’s water company bosses would be in the nick if their motives for poisoning the nation’s water sources were political. But they’re multimillionaires who, no doubt, enjoy a vivid social life they in no way deserve.

Blair continues to swank around the world at the head of his institute for global change while his chief propagandist, Alastair Campbell, who spun Britain to war, enjoys a third chapter in his life as a much-loved podcast superstar.

The impunity of leaders of all kinds in the UK and their abject lack of shame has hopelessly demotivated a nation in peril.

Mandelson’s alleged leaks of confidential cabinet-level information to a known paedophile, who ran a known network of fellow perverts and who has a record of malpractice and corruption as long as his adult life, should not be seen as merely alleged insider dealing, stupidity, or sad.

At a time when the United Kingdom and her allies are already engaged in a hybrid war with Russia – one that began when Mandelson was emailing weapons-grade gossip and memos to Jeffrey Epstein – such behaviour should be seen for what it is: unpatriotic and treasonable.

But in Britain, the liberal left can’t be seen carrying a union flag or wearing the St George’s Cross for fear of being associated with the vulgar stupidity of the right.

Nor would your average left-winger say they’d fight for their country.

According to a poll by Electoral Calculus last October, 33 per cent of Labour Party voters said they would be unlikely to fight for their country, while 20 per cent said they would never take up arms.

An earlier Ipsos poll found that 48 per cent of the UK population said that under no circumstances would they take up arms to defend the UK.

Lib Dems were the least patriotic by this metric, with 48 per cent; Labour came in at 47 per cent. For all the tub-thumping imperial nostalgia that so marks their campaigning, the Tories (41 per cent) and Reform (40 per cent) showed near equal reluctance to put their hearts where their mouths are.

Britain has been enfeebled by years of top-level abuse that has gone unpunished. No wonder young people don’t feel their country is worth fighting for.

They may, for example, have noticed that although the 2016 Brexit referendum was most certainly the target of pro-Brexit Kremlin propaganda and influence operations, a parliamentary report into the subject was held back from publication from March 2019 to July 2020. Its investigations precluded any look at whether Russia’s efforts to influence a pro-Brexit vote had been successful.

When the results of the report were finally released, they were only seen by British voters after they could have reflected their views in the December 2019 general election.

So we should not be surprised that young people feel disenfranchised. The people we’re likely to have to send to war don’t feel that they are part of a country worth defending.

A year ago, YouGov found that 41 per cent of 18- to 27-year-olds would not fight for Britain under any circumstances.

But 47 per cent said that the UK remained a tolerant country. It is that tradition – along with the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, and vigorous democracy – that is worth defending, and that will need defending.

To galvanise a nation towards being able to defend the freedoms it takes for granted, its population needs to see that its leaders cannot act with impunity. When crooks and cranks are exposed, they must be jailed or sent to social Siberia.

Mandelson may get his comeuppance, but that would just be a start.

How can a one-star hygiene rated restaurant have a Michelin star?

Trying to predict Michelin stars has always been a fool’s errand, and not just because taste is subjective. Michelin is a famously opaque, fickle awards body, prone to abrupt changes of heart, long-held grudges and sudden bursts of enthusiasm that often seem to owe as much to politics and personality as to what’s actually on the plate.

Stars are supposedly awarded to restaurants, not chefs, but history suggests otherwise. When head chefs move on, stars wobble, if not disappear entirely. Restaurants that feel “due” can wait years; others arrive fully formed and are rewarded immediately. Bad behaviour, rumour and reputation matter too, even if Michelin would never admit it.

Like the Oscars, it has its favourites, its blind spots and its long-running snubs. Leonardo DiCaprio went home empty-handed for years; plenty of British restaurants know the feeling.

That’s what makes this year’s Michelin Guide Great Britain & Ireland ceremony, taking place in Dublin on Monday 9 February, feel particularly charged. Not because the cooking has suddenly changed, but because the context has. Fine dining is no longer riding a wave of cultural optimism. Cost-of-living pressures, punitive tax burdens on hospitality and a waning appetite for ultra-expensive tasting menus have forced even the most ambitious kitchens to rethink their models.

The question hanging over Michelin this year is whether the guide is capable of adapting too, or whether it will continue rewarding excellence as if the world outside the dining room hasn’t shifted.

No restaurant embodies that tension more sharply than Ynyshir. Until recently, Gareth Ward’s remote Welsh restaurant was widely regarded as a strong contender for a third Michelin star. The cooking remains some of the most distinctive and technically audacious in Britain. But earlier this year, Ynyshir received the lowest possible food hygiene rating following an inspection by local authorities, a result that landed awkwardly in the middle of Michelin prediction season.

For clarity, a one-star hygiene rating does not automatically imply unsafe food. Inspectors did not cite a specific incident of food poisoning, instead raising concerns around systems and documentation. Ward responded robustly, saying the restaurant operates at an elite level, with extensive testing and controls, and arguing that some of its practices were misunderstood during the inspection. He said changes were made immediately and that a re-inspection is under way.

Still, the optics are uncomfortable. Michelin may not assess hygiene directly, but it does recommend where people should travel, stay and spend serious money. Can it credibly encourage diners to book a £500-per-person-plus destination tasting menu at a restaurant officially deemed to “require major improvement” in food safety?

Whether Michelin chooses to look the other way and simply pause Ynyshir’s momentum, or, more dramatically, scrutinise its existing stars is ultimately less revealing about the restaurant than it is about the guide. How Michelin responds will tell us a great deal about how much public trust still figures into its decision-making.

Then there’s Gordon Ramsay, or rather, the sheer number of Gordon Ramsay-backed restaurants now circling Michelin attention. At one end sits his flagship, Restaurant Gordon Ramsay, Britain’s second-longest-standing three-star restaurant, now operating under new head chef Kim Ratcharoen following the departure of Matt Abé. Transitions like this are rarely neutral moments, particularly at the very top of the guide, where continuity is prized almost as highly as brilliance. Here lies an opportunity, should Michelin choose to take it, to broaden the picture: women still make up just around 8 per cent of starred chefs in the UK, a statistic that has shifted painfully slowly despite years of conversation about change.

Abé’s own new opening, Bonheur, arrives weighted with symbolism. It has taken over the former Le Gavroche site, a restaurant that famously became the first in the UK to achieve three Michelin stars in 1982, held them for more than a decade, and maintained two until its closure in January 2024. Bonheur’s unapologetically classical ambitions feel like a deliberate nod to that lineage, and a test of whether Michelin still has the same appetite for the ultra-formal, old-school fine dining it once championed.

Elsewhere, there’s the quietly excellent and arguably under-recognised 1890 by Gordon Ramsay, overseen by chef James Sharp and awarded its first star in 2024. There’s High by Gordon Ramsay, his high-altitude City project that opened in February 2025 with former Evelyn’s Table head chef James Goodyear. It forms part of Ramsay’s £20m takeover of the top floors of 22 Bishopsgate, an ambitious deal that has not, so far, been without its financial challenges.

Individually, these restaurants make a strong case for Michelin recognition. Collectively, they raise a more awkward question: does Ramsay’s name – literally above every door – and institutional backing count as a blessing or a curse? Michelin has always insisted it resists celebrity, yet Ramsay has been steadily rebuilding his Michelin footprint in recent years. Whether inspectors reward that momentum or quietly hold back to avoid accusations of favouritism will be fascinating to watch.

Elsewhere in the capital, there are restaurants that appear to be actively courting Michelin recognition, and others that seem to attract it regardless. Ikoyi feels like one of the clearest cases for promotion this year, its cooking now more assured and internationally relevant than ever. The Cocochine has become a near-universal critics’ favourite, while underdog Planque has gathered serious momentum after five years of quiet consistency.

Restaurants such as Angelo Sato’s Humble Chicken and Tom Sellers’ Restaurant Story are clearly pushing – refining their offering and signalling ambition – something Michelin usually responds to, even if it pretends it doesn’t. Row on 5, too, is widely regarded as having long performed at two-star level. Its chef, Jason Atherton, came under industry fire last year after saying he had never personally witnessed sexism in professional kitchens, making the question this year less about the food than whether Michelin makes decisions in a vacuum.

But this year’s story cannot be told through London alone.

Beyond the capital, the momentum is increasingly hard for Michelin to ignore. In Manchester, Skof, run by Simon Rogan alumnus Tom Barnes, is operating with the kind of quiet precision Michelin tends to reward when it wants to signal seriousness beyond the M25.

Liverpool, too, is edging back into the conversation: 8 by Andy Sheridan has made a persuasive case that tasting-menu dining outside the capital can still feel relevant and well supported. Further east, JÖRO, in Sheffield, has become something of a test case for Michelin’s regional credibility: long praised, frequently predicted, still waiting.

In North Yorkshire, Hansom represents a different kind of challenge to Michelin orthodoxy. Ruth Hansom’s cooking is confident, personal and increasingly polished, yet it tends to be spoken about as deserving rather than inevitable – praise that carries weight, but not always momentum, in Michelin terms. If the guide really means what it claims about regional excellence and openness, Hansom is exactly the sort of restaurant that tests that claim.

Then there are the destinations: restaurants that ask diners to travel, commit and spend. Vraic, run by Ynyshir alumnus Nathan Davies, but without the same baggage, theatre or overwhelmingly loud disco soundtrack, has emerged as one of the Channel Islands’ strongest contenders. In Scotland, Inver by Pam Brunton and Rob Latimer, already holding a Michelin green star, embodies the values-led fine dining Michelin increasingly champions: seasonal, restrained, rooted in place.

Even relocations complicate the picture. One-starred Osip remains a restaurant Michelin clearly admires, but history suggests moves often pause momentum rather than accelerate it. Inspectors like continuity; disruption, however elegant, tends to trigger reassessment rather than reward.

Taken together, this year’s guide feels less like a referendum on cooking – which remains strong, inventive and resilient across the country – than on what Michelin wants its stars to mean now.

I would like to see more women included among the winners. Not as a corrective gesture, but because there is no shortage of female chefs doing work that is distinctive and star-worthy, and because the guide still struggles to reflect that reality. And I would like to see Michelin acknowledge, even implicitly, the pressures facing both restaurants and diners: the tax burden, the cost of living, the recalibration of what fine dining looks like in 2026.

Michelin hasn’t forgotten how to award stars – it’s forgotten who they’re for. The guide’s original purpose was simple: tell people where it was worth eating. Somewhere along the way, that clarity has been replaced by a system that often feels designed for chefs first, critics second and diners last.

Nordic flavours: Discover culture and cuisine on an enriching cruise

Norway’s food is more than just something to eat; it tells the story of a coastline shaped by freezing seas and centuries of being resourceful. It’s rooted in preservation, seasonality and local pride, and is a cuisine best understood not by crossing the country, but by tracing its edges, sailing from port to port.

With more than 130 years of experience along Norway’s rugged coast, Nordic cruise operator Hurtigruten knows these waters better than anyone, as well as the culture, community and cuisine you’ll find en route. On board, food is not an added extra, but an integral part of the journey itself, and as the ship sails north, so do the menus, reflecting the regions, communities and producers met along the way.

On a Hurtigruten voyage, ingredients are sourced directly from the coastline, picked up as ships travel between ports, with around 70 local farms, fisheries, bakeries, and producers in its network, and a focus on small-scale, homegrown suppliers.

Menus are chock-full of melt-in-your-mouth cod from Vesterålen, award-winning goat’s cheese from family-run Aalan Farm in Lofoten, and craft beer brewed in Bergen. Dining rooms are designed with floor-to-ceiling windows, so as fjords glide past outside, you’re eating dishes made from the very waters and landscapes you’re sailing through.

Each Hurtigruten ship has a main restaurant, a bistro-style eatery and a fine dining option, all guided by the line’s food philosophy, Norway’s Coastal Kitchen, with super seasonal menus grounded in local traditions.

On The Coastal Express, Torget is the heart of onboard dining, with mornings beginning with freshly baked bread, saxlmon and porridge, and evenings with three-course dinners with just-caught fish, Norwegian meats and plant-based dishes, best finished with traditional desserts and local berries.

For something more casual, Brygga reflects the bustle of Norway’s working wharves, serving hearty favourites such as soups, salads and the much-loved Norwegian shrimp sandwich, piled high with prawns, eggs, dill mayonnaise and lemon.

The ship’s à la carte restaurant, Kysten, offers a more refined take on Norwegian cuisine, with fresh seafood, wild herbs and carefully sourced meats, paired with thoughtfully selected wines, including Hurtigruten’s own sparkling wine, Havets Bobler.

Aged deep beneath the Norwegian Sea rather than in a cellar, Havets Bobler matures more than 30 metres below the surface, gently rocked by ocean currents in cold, dark waters. The result is a wine with fine bubbles, a subtle mineral finish, and a process rooted in the Norwegian sea.

On premium Signature Voyages such as the North Cape Line and The Svalbard Line, dining becomes an even deeper exploration of Norway’s culinary scene. These all-inclusive journeys feature three unique restaurants, each reflecting Norway’s past, present and future.

In the main restaurant, Flora, menus are inspired by Norway’s edible landscape, packed with herbs, berries, mushrooms and vegetables, and shaped by the seasons and the ports visited each day. Breakfast and lunch are served buffet-style, while evenings bring a changing à la carte menu, meaning no two dinners are ever the same.

Brasserie Árran celebrates tradition with hearty Norwegian classics such as Sámi reindeer stew, smoked reindeer with lingonberry, and pickled herring on rye. At the top end, fine-dining restaurant Røst draws inspiration from the ancient fish banks of the Lofoten Islands with tasting menus that might feature stockfish, salmon or reindeer, alongside more unexpected ingredients such as seaweed, kelp, sea urchin and Arctic pearls.

Across all venues, traditional preservation methods are at the forefront, with drying, fermenting and salting taking centre stage, honoured by chefs, sommeliers and mixologists who reinterpret age-old techniques especially for Hurtigruten voyages.

For the ultimate foodie adventure, Hurtigruten’s Culinary Voyage sails from Bergen to Tromsø over seven delicious days, mixing life on board with experiences on land, plus a chance to meet the people bringing Norway’s food scene to life. One day you might be tucking into a seaweed-themed 20-course dinner at a gourmet farm, the next enjoying tastings at the world’s northernmost distillery and brewery.

Hurtigruten’s connection to the coast goes beyond sourcing, with a sustainable approach that minimises waste. Leftover food from ships sailing The Coastal Express is composted in Stamsund in the Lofoten Islands, using a specially designed reactor. Within 24 hours, it becomes fertiliser for the nearby Myklevik farm, where herbs and vegetables are grown, some of which even return to the ships.

This quiet farm-to-fleet-to-farm cycle reflects Hurtigruten’s commitment to reducing food waste through reducing, reusing and recycling, helping care for both the coastline and the communities it serves.

Food is only part of the adventure on a Hurtigruten voyage, and alongside dining, the onboard Expedition Team brings Norwegian culture to life through lectures, talks, and foodie experiences that explore the country’s past, traditions, and way of life.

On land, excursions might include sampling local beers at Macks Ølbryggeri in Tromsø, heading out with fishermen in Kirkenes to haul up king crab from icy waters, or visiting a family-run dairy farm in Lofoten. In Lofoten, the Stockfish Museum explains how cod has been dried in the Arctic air for centuries, and in Bergen, the Hanseatic Museum shows how closely food and trade were woven into life along the historic wharf.

But head even further north, and you can meet indigenous Sámi families to learn about their long-standing tradition of reindeer herding, gaining a deeper insight into the incredible Sámi way of life.

A voyage of discovery

With a Hurtigruten cruise you can experience Norway in its most authentic way, gliding slowly along the coast, and immersing yourself in each fascinating destination – travelling the way it’s always been done. For more travel information and inspiration and to plan your trip, visit Hurtigruten. Save up to 30 per cent on a Hurtigruten cruise for departures until March 2027, when you book by 28th February.

Mia Drennan: ‘I started my business after being passed up for promotion – now it’s worth £1bn’

When the financial crash hit in 2008, Mia Drennan wasn’t scared – she saw an opportunity to build something new. Up until the market collapse, big companies had been handed loans and had the terms negotiated and upheld by banks. As trust in these institutions faltered, Drennan dreamed up GLAS (Global Loan Agency Services), an impartial, reliable, white-glove debt administration service that could handle the middleman tasks and paperwork for large debts.

She and her business partner took a leap in 2011 and invested £6,000 into the idea – 15 years later, GLAS has 14 offices across the UK, US, EU, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai and is valued at a minimum of £1bn, with Drennan’s share worth roughly £230m. Drennan is EY’s 2025 Entrepreneur of the Year and will compete for the global title this year.

I wanted to be a fighter pilot, but in the Eighties, women weren’t allowed to fly. So, I studied art and design at school, didn’t get a degree, and quickly realised I wouldn’t get a job. I handed out my CV in the City and started office temping. Eventually, I landed a job at KPMG, which was a real turning point for me. Soon, I was running a team of auditors in the capital markets team. After that, I got a job at the law firm Simmons& Simmons, where I learnt about debt repackaging. I was recruited by Citibank in the late 1990s and, at the beginning of 2000, the Bank of New York [Mellon] asked me to set up their structured finance business in Europe, which I turned into a multi-million dollar revenue line in five years.

My first business venture launched because I had the hump. In 2005, I was passed over for a promotion I was promised at the Bank of New York. I thought, ‘If you don’t want me, somebody else will, and I started looking for another job. A very niche US law firm was looking to open an office in London and asked me to help them. I said yes and set up a little office for them called Square Mile Connections. That business is still going today. After several months, the team that hired me left, but I’d been asked by the trustee market to help them find people for various positions. So, I pivoted and became a headhunter. But after the financial crash, I wanted to get back into transactional work.

We started GLAS with £6k and I put my half on a credit card. I didn’t have any savings because we’d just been through the crash – everyone was mortgaged up to their eyeballs. But I knew I didn’t want to work for anyone else ever again and there were lots of broken loans from companies that had borrowed loads of money during the crash and needed to be restructured. My partner, Brian Carne, was a magic circle law firm partner looking for a new job. He’d come to me because of the headhunting business, but I convinced him to help me with the GLAS instead. Thank you to the Bank of New York for giving me that opportunity.

It took 400 meetings in four months for us to land our first deal. I had a little bit of income, because I was still the owner of Square Mile. So, I was able to support my building of the new business. We started to get some green shoots, but nobody wanted to be the first to give us a deal. It finally came around June 2012, when two prominent law firms needed someone to sort a particular German transaction; they could only think of GLAS. That was the first one and they’re still a client today. Once we had one deal, we were mandated on deal after deal.

One particularly risky moment from the early days was when somebody from a very large American bank said they were going to send a man round from their agency team to check out our systems, processes and procedures. We didn’t have all of them in place yet because we were busy doing the marketing. Me and my business partner looked at each other and sprinted back to the office and started getting to work. Really, it was a good thing because we spent the time getting properly set up. The man from the agency never did turn up – but they did us a favour by threatening to.

I was on holiday in Portugal when GLAS made its first £1m in 2014. I couldn’t believe it. It was great validation. We celebrated every deal by ringing a bell in the office – but it was ringing so often it started annoying the people doing the work! We’re going to get a gong for big milestones instead.

It’s important to decide early whether your business is for lifestyle or legacy. A lifestyle business is absolutely fine if you can pay yourself a good income and have a nice living and a balanced life. But if you want to turn your business into a legacy company and eventually exit and turn it into a listed company, then you’ve got to have a very different mindset. So, answer that question before you start.

Only 144 women have built businesses over £50m. Fewer have ever built businesses over £100m and even fewer than that over a billion. Women are often not given the finance they need to start a business. Even just trying to get a £20,000 overdraft was really hard when starting my first venture. But women starting out now should know that there are a lot more organisations out there to help. There’s the Invest in Women taskforce, there’s The SuperScalers – and there’s more education available, too. If female founders want to scale a business, they can and they should.

It’s important to give your idea a chance. Just try and make it happen and see where it takes you. The worst-case scenario is that you fail – lots of people do. But remember, in America, if you’ve had five or six startups, that’s actually a good thing, because it’s experience. If you’ve got vision, it doesn’t have to be an original idea, It just needs to be better than whatever else exists out there.

Lucy Goff is a champion of FFinc Forward Faster Accelerator 100 – a UK-based business accelerator programme designed to help female-founded companies scale their growth faster, which was launched in September 2025. For more information, go to https://ffinc.co/

Trump ‘very proud’ of the economy despite cost of living concerns

President Donald Trump has said he is “very proud” of the U.S. economy, despite a new study finding that 90 percent of American citizens believe the country is currently suffering a cost of living crisis.

Trump, who has previously blamed his predecessor Joe Biden for the “bad parts” of the economy, appeared to finally take ownership in an interview with NBC News that aired during Super Bowl LX Sunday.

“At what point are we in the Trump economy?” journalist Tom Llamas asked the president.

“I’d say we’re there now,” he replied. “I’m very proud of it.”

Trump went on to claim that opposition Democrats have been forced to abandon their winning “affordability” rhetoric given the success of his administration and claim boldly that the coming year is “even gonna be better” thanks to his controversial reciprocal tariffs policy.

“You know, we have hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our country. Actually trillions – $18 trillion is being invested in our country as we speak,” he told Llamas.

“And there are factories and plants and thousands of businesses being built all over the country.”

But, on Friday, a nationwide survey from Talker Research for Current.com found that nine U.S. citizens in 10 believed the country was caught up in an inflation crisis, with eight in 10 saying they felt the cost of consumer goods had actually become more expensive since Trump took office in January 2025, not less.

The same study revealed that 52 percent of respondents were failing to pay their monthly bills on time and as many again struggling to afford basic necessities.

Another 38 percent said they had been forced to move because they could no longer afford to live in their previous location, while 64 percent said they had given up on the possibility of ever being able to live in their dream location because of the financial constraints they face.

The president’s confidence in his economic record was also called into question by another survey last week from NPR/Marist/PBS News, which found that 59 percent of U.S. adults disapproved of his stewardship, compared to just 36 percent in favor.

Trump also cited data in his NBC interview that was not supported by his administration’s own figures, claiming that the U.S.’s GDP had grown by 5.6 percent on his watch, whereas the Department of Labor records the economy’s annualized growth rate at 4.4 percent for the third quarter of 2025.

The department has not released fourth quarter data as a result of last fall’s government shutdown impeding its record-keeping.

A White House official told NBC Trump was alluding to a projection put out by the Atlanta Federal Reserve, which was still only 5.4 percent and higher than most other estimates.

The U.S. economy has not experienced quarterly growth of more than 5 percent at any point since 2021, when the country was rebounding from the impact of Covid-19 lockdowns.

Pressed by Llamas on whether the factory openings he promised would happen before Trump leaves office in January 2029, the president answered: “Oh, yeah. They’ll be opening up over the next year, year and a half, yeah.”