Tycoon Mike Ashley savages PM’s ‘bo***cks’ cost of living plan in letter over business rates and £40m shoplifting crisis

BILLIONAIRE retail tycoon Mike Ashley has blasted the PM’s cost-of-living plan as “bo***cks” in a scathing letter to Downing Street. The Frasers Group founder has torn into the PM’s “Quick Fixes” initiative, accusing him of chasing headlines instead of tackling the real issues crushing British businesses. Mr Burnham unveiled his cost of living package on August 9, promising new rules to make it easier for shoppers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and crack down on misleading discounts. The plan also included a nationwide “listening tour” to help shape a 10-year strategy, following earlier pledges to cut VAT on electricity bills and cap bus fares. Sign up for the Money newsletter Thank you! Two days later, on August 11, the PM unveiled a fresh crackdown giving councils new powers to block vape shops and betting shops opening on the high street, along with tougher closure powers for stores linked to illegal tobacco sales or organised crime. But Mr Ashley says the announcement ignores the crippling business rates and soaring staff costs that are really driving shops to the wall. Business rates are a local tax paid on commercial buildings and land used for business purposes. In a letter to Downing Street today, he quoted former Marks & Spencer and Asda chair Lord Stuart Rose, who branded the plan “hot air” and “a lot of bo***cks about nothing”. Mr Ashley added simply: “I agree with him.” The tycoon’s fury comes just weeks after Mr Burnham announced a 20% cut to business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues, due to kick in from April 2027. Most read in Money The move is expected to save the average venue around £1,100 a year and will apply to almost 32,000 businesses, but shops, warehouses and retailers were left out entirely. Mr Ashley blasted the idea of “hiking business rates on retailer owned or third-party warehouses whilst reducing rates for pubs and clubs,” calling it “simply delusional.” Frasers Group recently swooped to rescue collapsing luxury chain Harvey Nichols from administration, saving more than 1,000 jobs and bringing the historic store back into British hands. He challenged the PM directly, asking: “How are you going to help with turning Harvey Nichols around?” The letter also reveals the staggering scale of shoplifting hitting Britain’s high streets, with Mr Ashley estimating Frasers alone is losing £40million a year in stolen stock. He said the crisis was “getting much worse” and was putting staff safety at risk, urging ministers to bring in tougher measures to protect shopkeepers. Elsewhere in the letter, Mr Ashley took aim at the PM’s pledge to end “rip off Britain,” insisting recommended retail prices, or RRPs, are being wrongly demonised. He argued genuine price fixing by big brands, not discount pricing, was the real reason shoppers were paying over the odds, pointing to England football shirts selling for an identical £134.99 during the World Cup. He revealed sales of replica kits have collapsed by around 90% over the past decade, blaming what he called a “stranglehold” by brand owners over stock and pricing. Mr Ashley said watchdogs had been “toothless” in tackling the issue since he first blew the whistle to regulators back in 2000. He ended his letter by calling for an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister to thrash out solutions “as a matter of urgency.” Downing Street has been contacted for comment. Mike Ashley's letter in full Dear Prime Minister RE: ‘Quick Fixes’ / Cost of Living Initiative I refer to your disappointing press releases published on August 9 and August 11, which have been widely reported. The first press release was clearly intended to feed off the cost-of-living concerns in this country, as reflected in your opinion piece in the Guardian on August 9. Tragically the cost of living has been going up, because of the state of this country’s economy and the impact of inflation, in particular. These have not been assisted by recent government policies and are not going to be helped by your recent populist proposals. Rather than address the real underlying issues of how the country’s financial affairs are managed, and supporting growth and entrepreneurialism in business, it is easier for you to pick topics which provide good media soundbites and the old salve of yet more regulation – which is not what the country needs to become competitive. The comments of Lord Stuart Rose are telling in this respect. He is reported to have said that the plans are “hot air” and “a lot of bollocks about nothing”. I agree with him. It is the disastrous business rates position (which I have raised many times over the years) and the dramatically increasing cost of employing people that are really causing business to struggle. Ironically, this only leads to a further loss of jobs which is the opposite of what was intended. The British Retail Consortium has been vocal on this too. Shortsighted or populist reactions to underlying business challenges are not the answer. You have the chance to make a difference or get it horribly wrong. These aspects of the hostile business climate can’t be allowed to continue or the high streets will be further devastated. In recent weeks Frasers bought the iconic Harvey Nichols from the administrators to save yet another great British retailer from financial oblivion, bringing it back into British ownership again. My challenge to you is – how are you going to help with turning Harvey Nichols around? This is a certainly a time for pragmatism and brave solutions but applying that to the underlying issues – not jumping on “everyday fixes” or band wagons that only address part of the problem. Your comments about looking again at business rates in the next budget are of course welcomed but frankly a case of too little, too late. If your answer is to tax larger retailers even more, through hiking business rates on retailer owned or third-party warehouses whilst reducing rates for pubs and clubs, then that is simply delusional. The question of how to handle vape/betting shops or subscription pricing are not topics on which I am well qualified to comment. But I think I am well placed to express a view on your further observations on retail store theft and reference pricing. The concern about store theft is real and urgent – it is getting much worse and harms business directly as well as sometimes endangering staff. We estimate that Frasers is losing approximately £40million per annum in the direct loss of stock alone. Any measures to improve our ability to protect ourselves from theft would be hugely welcomed. You have made a big issue of your desire to change “rip off Britain” but for some reason linked this in part to the use of recommended retail prices or RRP’s. It seems that certain organisations are currently driving an agenda to rule out the use of RRP’s as if they are a bad thing that harm consumers – which is wrong. RRP’s are issued by the industry including major brands such as Nike/Adidas/Puma reputable companies recommending at what price their products should be sold. RRP has been a standard basis of pricing in a number of industries including the sporting goods industry, for as long as anyone can remember. Discounting by reference to an RRP does not mean that it is an “invented discount” or “phoney bargain” so that it should be added to a list of automatically banned practices. It is all very odd when the regulators have recognised the use of RRP for decades (even recognising its use and that the public understands it, in official guidance) but out of the blue complaining now. The driving down of prices through discounting is what helps the consumer by giving them better value and helps with their cost of living. Driving down prices through discounting against an RRP can’t be what you really mean when you talk about “rip off Britain”. Regulators should be looking more closely at price fixing, which is at times supported by the use of RRP’s and sophisticated supply agreements which seek to control supplies, rather than worrying about discounting from RRP’s which lowers prices. There isn’t a fair supply of product across certain markets, for example, because chosen retailers are getting more product than others because they don’t discount against an RRP. If a brand owner will only give limited supplies to retailers, or limit supplies to certain channels if retailers don’t sell at their RRP – then the effect on the consumer is that they have to pay more, which really does contribute to “rip off” Britain. This is not a problem with RRP’s themselves. So, in that context if you genuinely care about consumers cost of living it is very odd that price fixing in the sporting goods and other markets, where consumers will actually be paying too much because retailers can’t discount as they want, is not being addressed. No protection has been given to retailers who are prepared to discount against them not getting supplied as a consequence of that discounting. A notable example would be the pricing of replica football kits a market I have operated in for over forty years. In the recent World Cup period the prices of the official England shirts were uncannily uniform at £134.99 across the board. Clearly £134.99 is a huge amount of money for the average shopper in the street to pay, in relation to a product that they may regard as an essential supporter’s purchase. It is clearly disproportionate to the true cost of production and normal levels of profit. Plainly that maintenance of the price is achieved through pressure on retailers and clever distribution policies to limit stock to those who play ball which renders that market less competitive. A uniform and high pricing for a product across the UK should be something the competition authorities get seriously interested in but nothing ever seems to happen. Ten years ago we were selling approximately 10 times as many shirts as we do today. This is because of the stranglehold on distribution and price points commanded by brand owners in the market. Don’t you think that is strange? It would be a much better use of resources to address how the prices for these types of products are being maintained at this high level, in order to drive the principle of great value pricing of products for consumers. The reality is that competition authorities have been ineffective at managing this, since I whistle blew to what was then the OFT in 2000 over the controlling of prices for replica football kits. As recently as 2024 Frasers had a well-publicised litigation with Newcastle United over limitations in the supply of replica kits, but the CMA did nothing. Fines issued by the CMA have been disproportionately low and toothless and so the behaviours don’t stop. This is just one example of many and this should be the focus of government in relation to the protection of consumers looking at legal changes to prevent brands limiting distribution in order to support price fixing. We look forward to contributing to the Consultation that your release says will be launched this autumn. I would also be very keen in the interim to discuss these topics with you at any time and location that suits you, as a matter of urgency. Yours sincerely MIKE ASHLEY Comment now