Claire’s Accessories goes under - blaming Rachel Reeves for the 1,300 jobs lost

Agree.
This is nothing to do with politics or policy but piss poor retail strategy!
You could tell from the ancient branding and product offering that its days were numbered.
They lost touch with their customers; who are preteens now shopping at Sephora and Pandora. Claire’s was stuck in the 90s with too much (crap) product, horrible shopping experience in tiny jam packed stores, with average price points. They should have slashed their product range with a decent core range and beauty, and adopted a more aspirational rebrand. They’ve been lazy and this is why they’ve gone bust.

Easier to blame the politician than the boardroom!

What two world wars, the Great Depression and 2008 couldn't do, Britain in 2026 is doing...

Denby Pottery (founded 1809). Production ceased after entering administration.
Russell & Bromley (founded 1879). 32 of 35 stores closing, brand sold to Next.

This year's wider casualty list:
Claire's. The Original Factory Shop. LK Bennett. Quiz. Westbridge Furniture. Petplanet. Gandys.

The wider picture...

Creditsafe data shows 3,041 UK businesses entered insolvency in March, a 30% jump in one month. The official England and Wales figure was 2,022, still up on February.

Administrations were 82% higher than a year ago.

Personal insolvencies surged 30% on the year. Debt Relief Orders hit a record high.

Britain is losing 3.4 pubs and restaurants every day.

Company registrations fell 8% in Q1. Closures are now outpacing start-ups.

This isn't a standard recession. Technically we aren't even in one. And a recession ends. This feels more like the slow unwinding of two centuries of British enterprise under the weight of energy costs, taxes, business rates, and a consumer base that has simply run out of money.

Income tax, not national insurance.

Workers pay income tax and NI, pensioners pay only income tax on what may be a similar or higher gross income.

My mother paid tax on her pensions.

I wouldn't underestimate the issues the NI hike has had on businesses. I work for a charity and this hike has impacted us massively. We have seen over half a million pound added to our expenses because of this alone! Whilst I'm not a particular fan of Claire's , I do feel for anyone who has had to face this increase

I probably should have added in there that I do have underlying health issues including severe asthma which has also flared up in the last few weeks too. I was very fortunate with a symptom free first trimester. I have more frequent consultant appointments as well than most already due to being on a new biologic injection too. So this already made me feel awful, and since I took the last one all the pregnancy symptoms have definitely flooded in and just feeling dreadful. So no it’s not just normal pregnancy symptoms that everyone has.

I already have seen a gp and have a fit note to recommend WFH, and my question was simply if it was reasonable to ask for office mornings, wfh afternoons. In absolutely no way do I intend to reduce my hours, I want to work around it as much as I can up until the last week. Equally hoping for the pregnancy glow everyone bangs on about to feel better. It’s just sometimes management can be tricky and I just feel guilty for not being in the office which increases anxiety.

to answer someone else’s question I am anaemic, was before pregnancy so iron levels are back on the low side again. Sickness is sporadic and mostly afternoon/evenings, hence wfh is easier, nausea is constant.

Nail on the head. At the very least the same taxes should be levied on ALL different kinds of income. But preferably, we'd get the same result, a lot simpler by just abolishing NIC and raising income tax rates to compensate. The different rates of "total taxes" on different categories of income causes all kinds of tax planning via manipulation, loopholes, etc. One classic case is IR35 which has taken a whopping 25 years to actually clamp down on people "pretending" to be self employed and trading via a limited company - all for the sake of avoiding having to pay NIC. 25 years during which time tens of billions of pounds of NIC has been "avoided" due to shoddy drafting of the law back in Gordon Brown's day alongside Brown scrapping the old "tax credit" on dividends which was wildly lauded as a good thing by politicians and the press who didn't have a clue what it really meant!!

Trouble is that taxation and regulation hasn't kept up with changing societal habits etc.

For example, on a "per square metre" basis, a High Street shop pays a lot more business rates than the same sized industrial unit/warehouse on an industrial estate selling the same stuff, i.e. via a trade counter or online. That's insane, and the idea that the High Street is more valuable, hence higher business rates simply hasn't moved with the times, even now that so many High Streets are plagued with charity shops, money laundering shops, beggars, etc and no longer command a higher value in real life.

Similarly, huge numbers of councils actively pursue an "anti-car" agenda via steep car park charges, one way systems, pedestrianisation, removal of on-street parking, etc thus making town centre retail a lot less attractive for drivers. Whereas out of town retail parks, supermarkets etc get planning permission based on free and easy parking. That's another nail in the coffin of town centre retail by a different governmental authority, i.e. local councils.

So what its hardly child abuse

The problem with the UK NI system, I can't speak to those elsewhere, is that it's only paid by people under pensionable age and with certain forms of income. Given our demographics, we simply cannot afford to be levelling taxes at income earned via labour that don't apply to other forms of income. It would be more sensible to roll it up with income tax. So I was disappointed when Labour chose to increase what is a tax in all but name, that an entire age cohort of people don't have to pay even when their incomes are higher than some others who have to pay it, and that's aimed disproportionately at middle income workers.

However, whether one agrees with me on this or not, the fact that I hold this view means my assessment of the CA claims can't be based on support for the NI increase.

Maybe. Although it’s a hard one as it’s tied to cheaper goods as you say and CoL politically. But it has been a driving force for consumers for some time.

How are people going to exist without National Insurance from their paypacket and that of their employers?

National insurance exists in all countries. And if it doesn't then the social security bill is astronomical.

Read my posts more carefully. As explained upthread, I don't even approve of the existence of NI let alone any increase in it. Whereas your position is well documented, as is the OPs.

My daughter shops for rubbish jewelery online now. Thats what killed the buisness. And Primark

claires accessories became shockingly over priced In recent years

ii can buy all the same tat in Primark for a fraction of the price

What does that mean in real economic terms regarding redundancy on a failing business since before the 2020s?

Hooray. They are MAGA loving and anti abortion so happy to watch the door bang them on the way out.

but with a globalised economy, people dont want to pay higher prices for items, so they then use amazon etc that only needs to ship them in from abroad, couple that with theres only so much profits to be made and basically the old capitalism model of people in factories or the mines etc no longer exists.
overall we need a new economic system

a total rite of passage for many girls

What a load of bollocks. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Not getting a job at all doesn’t help. If people read threads about how hard it is currently.

Being low paid does not help young people either, or anyone else employed in those jobs.

They shouldn't have to rely on benefit top up to make up a living wage

The problem is it’s often young people in those jobs and sitting at home without any work and youth unemployment going up isn’t good for them.

business models not being "suitable for modern society" aligns with theories that many industries (especially retail and hospitality) rely on "low-wage, low-skill" models that aren't resilient to rising costs of living. there's a long-standing debate over whether a business that cannot afford a living wage has a "right" to exist in a modern economy.

but thats the issue with modern business when they have to pay better wages etc the public dont want to pay the high prices, yet if they were the workers they would want to be paid a proper wage, which then means modern businesses or most of modern business models are not suitable for modern society

It was 2.8% AND the threshold was lowered so a portion of wages changed from 0% to 15%.