Biggest lottery prize in UK rolls over yet again after no EuroMillions winner
The biggest lottery prize the UK has seen could still be won after Friday's EuroMillions draw had no winners.
Tuesday's jackpot will be an estimated £208 million and would be the largest prize awarded in the UK, National Lottery operator Allwyn said.
The total prize money has now been capped, meaning prize pots in the next winning tier will be boosted.
Andy Carter, senior winners' adviser at Allwyn, said: 'Tuesday will see the incredible £208 million EuroMillions jackpot still up for grabs.
'A win of this magnitude would create the biggest National Lottery winner this country has ever seen.
'Get your tickets early to ensure you're in with a chance of a massive life-changing win.'
He added: 'The EuroMillions jackpot is now capped, so any money that would have gone into increasing the jackpot now boosts prizes in the next winning prize tier, meaning that we're seeing multiple UK players banking huge prizes for matching just the five main numbers and one Lucky Star.'
In Friday's draw, five UK players became millionaires after matching five main numbers and one Lucky Star, winning £3.61 million each.
The main EuroMillions winning numbers were 02, 28, 40, 43, 45 and the lucky stars were 03 and 07.
It also saw 13 UK millionaires made through a special EuroMillions UK Millionaire Maker event.
'Contrary to superstition, Friday the 13th has proven the luckiest date in the calendar for these lucky UK players,' Mr Carter said.
'All UK EuroMillions players should check their tickets and contact us if they believe they are one of tonight's lucky winners.'
No players won the £1 million HotPicks jackpot – which uses the same numbers as the EuroMillions draw.
No players won the £500,000 Thunderball jackpot either.
The five Thunderball numbers were 01, 02, 24, 33, 39 and the Thunderball number was 13.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer's challenge in dealing with the G6 plus 1
Sir Keir Starmer has proved himself to be a rather more adept negotiator on the world stage than his detractors would suggest. The timing was partly fortuitous, but it remains the case that he concluded three advantageous trade deals last month, with India, the United States and the European Union. He will need those diplomatic skills this weekend at the G7 summit in Canada. The geopolitical order has been shaken by Israel's attack on Iran, and there is an urgent need for the leaders of the world's rich democracies to show unity and resolve in response. Solidarity and resolution are hardly the qualities associated with Donald Trump, however, and even before the bombs fell on Tehran there were serious differences between the US president and his fellow leaders. Never before in the history of the G7, which goes back to the oil crisis of 1973, has one of its members sought to annex another, for example, as Mr Trump has offered to do with Canada. While most leaders of G7 nations seem to share a broadly similar outlook, there is one who does not. It is almost as if it is a summit of the Group of 6 plus 1. So far, it has to be said that Sir Keir has managed to deal with the unpredictable ego of the US president more adroitly than most. For all that some Britons might find it emotionally satisfying for their prime minister to tell Mr Trump to his face what they think of him, there can be no doubt that it is in our national interest for Sir Keir to lay on the compliments with a trowel. That is the approach that secured agreement in principle to exempt the United Kingdom from at least some of Mr Trump's tariffs. If Sir Keir has to continue that approach in order to get those exemptions locked down, then so be it. The prime minister will also need to work hard to try to keep the US president from straying too far from the G7 consensus on support for Ukraine – Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has invited Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to join the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. Mr Trump will find it harder to try to bully Mr Zelensky in a setting in which the US president is so obviously outnumbered. There is the linked subject of Nato's future, and the forthcoming discussions about Nato's European members raising their defence spending to take up more of the burden of supporting Ukraine from the US. Then Sir Keir will also want to lobby Mr Trump to keep the Aukus submarine agreement between the US, the UK and Australia, about which some members of the US administration have been sceptical. Finally, there is the Middle East, where a gap has opened up between the US and UK responses to Israel's attempts to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. The Israeli strikes were a rebuff to Mr Trump, who seems to have imagined that his diplomacy aimed at restraining the Iranian nuclear programme was making progress. Yet the US president – despite Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, initially standing back from the onslaught – quickly declared his support for the 'excellent' attacks. The British government's response has been – rightly – more circumspect, and the leaders of the other G7 countries have likewise also called for restraint and de-escalation. On his arrival at the resort in the Canadian Rockies, Sir Keir will be walking a tightrope. Let us hope that he is as successful as he has been up to now.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Will Israel-Iran conflict spark fresh inflation crisis? Rachel Reeves admits spiking energy prices and threats to trade routes are 'cause for concern' - with fears public finances are too bad to respond
Fears are mounting about the economic impact of the Iran-Israel conflict today as energy prices rise and trade routes face disruption. Rachel Reeves admitted a 10 per cent spike in oil and gas costs and threats by Tehran to close the Straits of Hormuz were 'cause for concern'. In TV interviews this morning, the Chancellor stressed energy costs were still lower than 'a few months ago' - but said the potential fallout for UK plc was partly driving the UK's calls for de-escalation. Ms Reeves dodged questions on whether her already-delicate spending plans would be smashed by the crisis, insisting Britain has a 'strong economy'. The comments came as former BP boss Lord Browne warned oil prices would 'go up a long way' if Iran shut the Straits of Hormuz. Deutsche Bank has suggested that such action could see Brent crude hit $125 a barrel - compared to around $74 now. Former Chancellor Lord Hammond told Sky News that the government was not in a good position to respond to serious disruption because Ms Reeves had not rebuilt the Treasury's reserve. Ms Reeves told Sky News: 'We've already seen in the last few days, for example, oil and gas prices begin to go up'. 'Over the course of this week, oil and gas prices, oil prices have gone up by just over 10 per cent, they're still down compared to a few months ago but of course we're keeping an eye on that,' she said. 'And at the same time, as you say trade routes are very important through the Middle East and we've seen disruption there in the past, partly because of the Houthi attacks for example. 'And so that is a cause for concern.' Pressed how bad the situation could be, she said: 'It is very early days and things are moving quickly. But when we urge for de-escalation in the region that is in part because of the lives at risk… but also because what happens in the Middle East affects us here at home. 'It's why in the Spending Review this week we invested heavily in our defence to keep our country safe.' Ms Reeves confirmed the UK is deploying military assets to the region to 'protect ourselves' and 'potentially to support our allies'. She noted that in the past Britain has 'helped protect Israel' from 'incoming strikes'. 'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' Lord Hammond told Sky News: 'What she should have been doing of course a long time ago is rebuilding our reserve. But she hasn't done that… 'If there's an economic shock we will be in a much more difficult position in responding to it.' He added: 'It's only if the situation becomes long term sustained that I think there is a risk we could see serious economic disruption.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British firms are being stifled by excessive regulation and bureaucracy
The all-party House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee which I chair has just completed a year-long inquiry into how effective the regulators are at fulfilling their duties to boost competitiveness and growth. It's a sad tale of a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion, of disproportionately high costs of compliance, and of a complex regulatory landscape driven by expansion and overlap in the regulators' remits and by the volume and scope of regulatory activity. There is no doubt that operational inefficiencies and suffocating bureaucracy are damaging growth and place the UK at a competitive international disadvantage. Despite the regulators' growth mandate, the firms which gave evidence to the year-long inquiry say the system is slow and inflexible. Firms complain of being buried under regulatory paperwork and of facing a never-ending barrage of information requests from both the FCA and PRA. The CEO of Nationwide told the inquiry she received 4,519 pieces of direct correspondence in 12 months. Santander responded to more than 300 regulatory requests and managed 400 regular regulatory reports equating to over 2,500 submissions a year. One firm told us it employed 78 compliance officers for its UK operations compared with a total of 73 to cover the other 40 countries it operated in. We were dismayed by the evidence we received which highlighted long-standing issues that limit investment and the ability of financial firms to grow, innovate and compete. The lack of proportionality in the regulators' approach was evident in the FCA's failure to distinguish between wholesale and retail markets and the PRAs approach to capital requirements. The vagueness surrounding the Consumer Duty and the Financial Ombudsman's evolution into a quasi-regulator has created uncertainty and a worrying perception of a regulatory penalty for investment in UK businesses. It is essential for the FCA and FOS to be aligned on redress and interpretation. The FCA and the PRA alone employ around 6,500 staff at a cost of £1.1 billion. This results in an ever-rolling stream of consultation documents, regulatory changes and compliance advice which firms are expected to follow, communicated sometimes informally through speeches by senior regulators and letters to CEOs. My committee receives notice of these every week and it is frankly overwhelming. The regulators lack clear focus and appear to be still haunted by the 2008 financial crisis. This leads to excessive caution, sluggish approvals, high compliance costs and endless red tape. There is an urgent need for the FCA and PRA senior leadership to drive cultural change. This change should emphasise a more tailored and proportional approach to the risks posed by regulated firms, a culture of continual operational improvement and innovation, and a more transparent and trusting relationship with the businesses they regulate. An approach is needed which embraces technology and streamlines compliance for fintech and AI-driven firms. The skills and quality of staff are vitally important and that means addressing remuneration. A revolving door sees regulators losing some of their most talented people, recruited to advise the companies they once regulated at substantially higher salaries. We were surprised by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from the industry in public and the views expressed to us privately. We were obliged to take evidence in private in order to get many firms to share their concerns. At one meeting I attended, a CEO read out his brief from his compliance department which said that if Lord Forsyth invited him to give evidence to his committee under no circumstances should he agree to do so. This is not a healthy situation and there needs to be a much more open and trusting relationship between the regulators and the firms they regulate. In a competitive market, speed matters. Yet firms say UK regulators are lagging behind international rivals when it comes to authorising new products, people and operations. While official stats suggest improvements, they take too long and many say those numbers are misleading: they exclude the time regulators 'stop the clock' to request more data. If launching a new fintech product takes six months longer in London than in Singapore, investors and innovators will simply go elsewhere. We heard many positive reports of the success of the concierge approach of the Singapore regulator, which involved helping firms to grow and comply with regulatory provisions. Our regulators have much to learn from this approach. The Chancellor has placed a great deal of faith in the regulators stimulating economic growth. Our report makes one thing clear: the regulators can't do this alone. The Government must step up. That means clearer economic goals, better use of statutory guidance and more robust performance tracking. Right now, metrics are focused on operational inputs, not outcomes. Without stronger leadership from HM Treasury and without aligning regulators, industry and Parliament, the growth and competitiveness objectives will be little more than political window dressing.
