Monthly Archives: October 2026

View from the US: Independent candidates reclaiming the center in U.S. politics

Erin Caddell of GK Strategy’s American partner Anchor Advisors examines whether a new cohort of independent congressional candidates can capitalise on voter dissatisfaction with the two main parties, and what their influence could mean for investors and businesses

Independent American political movements have a colorful history. In 1828, the Anti-Masonic Party was founded with the sole purpose of dismantling the American Freemason Society, a fraternal organization that counted several of the Founding Fathers among its members and was thought by some to have undue influence in the young nation. Though it disbanded in 1840 (while the Freemasons kept going), the Anti-Masonic Party was the first in the US to hold nominating conventions and publish a platform, setting a precedent followed to this day. Founded in 1879 by former Confederate general William Mahone, the Readjuster Party reacted to economic stress in post-Civil War Virginia by working to cancel around one-third of that state’s debt. In the 20th century, Activist Symon Gould ran for president in 1960 and 1964 exclusively to promote vegetarianism. And then there was the hippie-era Youth International Party, or “Yippies”, which used irony and theatrics – in 1968 the party nominated a pig for president – to underline a serious message: that both major parties had allowed the Vietnam War to become a disaster for America.

Wonderful anecdotes all. But their quirkiness also highlights the dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties and their predecessors over much of American history. The best showing for an independent came in 1912, when the newly formed Progressive Party finished second in the presidential election with 27% – its candidate was Teddy Roosevelt, who had previously served two terms as a Republican president.

Despite this checkered history, some argue a new moment has arrived for American independent candidates, driven by dissatisfaction among many voters toward the Republican and Democratic parties. Gallup reported in January 2026 that a record-high 45% of U.S. voters surveyed characterized themselves as independents over Republicans or Democrats (27% each); a majority of Millennials (born 1981-1996) and Generation Z (1997-2007) identified as independent in the survey.

Motivated by distaste with the status quo and hoping to capitalize on the demographic trends cited above, a small but ambitious cohort of independent candidates has emerged to run for federal and state office in November. Over the summer, Anchor Advisors was invited to participate in a gathering of nine such candidates, as well as independent donors and activists, hosted in West Virginia by political-action groups Americans Together and the Independent Leadership Council.

One candidate featured at the event was Rep. Kevin Kiley, 41, the only current Member of the U.S. House registered as an independent, representing a suburban district outside Sacramento. Running for his third U.S. House term, Kiley switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent in March 2026 following California’s decision to redraw its congressional map in an attempt to make it easier to elect Democrats (part of a national tit-for-tat gerrymandering among both Democrat- and Republican-leaning states this year). Even before leaving the GOP, Kiley demonstrated a heterodox political ideology. A longtime critic of Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, Kiley introduced a bill in Congress to block a proposed tax on wealthy individuals in California, while breaking with the Republican party on issues such as tariff and reductions in federal health insurance. Freed from the party label, Kiley has embraced his independent status even more, criticizing Trump’s recent decision to ban select media outlets from attending White House events, while urging Newsom to accept new Republican-supported federal funding to support school-choice programs, a frequent target of Democratic criticism. A September poll found Kiley tied in his re-election race at 37% with Democrat Richard Pan, with 26% undecided.

Another candidate who spoke at the West Virginia event is Seth Bodnar, 47, a first-time candidate running as an independent for U.S. Senate in Montana. Bodnar boasts a CV that politicians from any party would envy: an Army Green Beret with multiple overseas deployments, Rhodes Scholar, and president of the University of Montana for eight years. Bodnar’s platform represents a mix of conservative and progressive ideas (see below).

Select Platform Items of Seth Bodnar, Independent U.S. Senate Candidate – Montana

“End the costly and unauthorized war in Iran”

No further strikes or ground troop deployments without congressional authorization.

“Stop reckless tariffs driving up prices”

Support strategic tariffs used as leverage against countries cheating on trade, not

blanket tariffs on allies like Canada.

“Fight data centers and stand up to Big Tech”

Give local communities authority to block proposed data centers.

Bar utilities from raising bills for residential ratepayers due to data-center development.

“Protect the Second Amendment”

Opposes a federal assault weapons ban or a universal background check mandate.

“End dark money in our elections”

Overturn Citizens United [US Supreme Court decision that liberalized election spending].

Increase transparency requirements for dark money spending in elections.

“Secure our border and enforce immigration laws”

Giving the northern border the same attention and resources as the southern border.

Source: Sethformontana.com 

What does this mean for U.S.-focused investors and corporates? The emergence of independent candidates in the current election cycle is a reminder that despite the powerful forces driving American politics to extremes on both the right and the left, centrism remains an important dynamic that will well shape policy and politics in the next Congress and beyond. At the West Virginia gathering, former U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a co-founder of Americans Together and co-host of the event in his native state, told the group that in a legislature narrowly divided among two parties, even a small number of independents can wield substantial power as both parties seek their votes. Manchin speaks from experience: the three-term moderate Democrat Senator became a key swing vote during Biden’s presidency. Manchin killed the Biden-backed Build Back Better proposal of green-energy and social-spending programs in 2021, then helped revive portions of the bill into what was signed into law as the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the biggest legislative achievement of Biden’s presidency.

Regardless of the outcome of next month’s elections, members of Congress will be under pressure to respond to voters’ concerns in 2027 and 2028. Top of the list will be “affordability”, a catch-all for the many ways in which stuff is costing more across the U.S. Here, the deal-making spirit of a small group of independents could help jump-start proposed bills that have gotten bogged down by partisanship. A short list of possible areas for agreement: Energy permitting reform to speed up and ease regulation on energy and other construction projects; a full reauthorization of the Farm Bill (which has been subject to short-term extensions for the last six years), providing policy certainty to an agricultural sector currently racked by rising input costs and tariff volatility; and governance of data-centers, which if Congress does not act will surely be subject to a patchwork of state and local rules as public outcry against data centers rises. Unbeholden to the legacies of the two parties, independent candidates are also more willing to discuss ways to reduce the federal deficit and debt, a source of potential near-term disruption in the form of spending cuts and/or tax increases, but a welcome development for any long-term investor or operator of U.S. assets.

Can a new crop of independent candidates shake up the two-party system? Or will they suffer the short-lived fates of American third-party political movements of the past? We’ll see starting in a couple of weeks.

Palantir, politics and the future of NHS data

Drawing on his experience as a health minister and chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, GK’s strategic advisor Steve Brine examines the debate over Palantir’s role in the NHS and argues that evidence of patient benefit, delivery risks and credible alternatives should guide ministers’ decisions. 

Senior Vice-President of Palantir UK Tom Watson is an old friend. We were in the Commons together for nine years and our paths crossed many times, not about health it must be said, but music, where we share a vision of creative sovereignty in the face of a powerful challenge from big tech.

Tom’s return to the political headlines was always likely to provoke a reaction but I was pleased to see him back; primarily because it means he once again had the all-clear in his battle with prostate cancer.

Back how? The former deputy leader of the Labour Party has joined American technology company Palantir as a senior vice-president. The appointment comes just as ministers approach a big decision about the company’s future role in the NHS.

Appearing recently on a BBC podcast, Tom warned against allowing what he called “mob rule” to determine government procurement decisions. His intervention was characteristically direct, but it raised a question that goes well beyond one company.

The bottom line is this: should our government allow political discomfort (justified or otherwise) with a supplier to override the practical interests of NHS patients?

At the heart of this debate is the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP), a programme designed to connect information held across different parts of the health service, helping clinicians and managers make decisions about patient care, waiting lists and capacity.

In November 2023, a consortium led by Palantir secured a seven-year contract to deliver the FDP. Ministers now face a decision over a contractual break point in the early part of 2027.

Two parliamentary committees have recommended that the government take the option to break the contract and seek an alternative supplier.

And so, the search begins for compelling evidence that the existing arrangement is failing, or that a demonstrably better alternative exists, because in my experience the NHS cannot afford another technological false start.

Some NHS users have indeed complained about the technology itself. A British Medical Journal (BMJ) investigation published in July this year reported that NHS leaders had privately described aspects of the FDP as clunky and offering a poor user experience.

Having served as a health minister, and subsequently chaired the Health and Social Care Select Committee, I know how often the ambitions of NHS reform collide with the practical realities of delivery. The entire NHS Ten Year Plan is a case in point!

For decades, the NHS has struggled with fragmented information systems, inconsistent data and organisations unable to communicate with one another.

The consequences are not abstract. They mean operating theatres sitting underused while patients wait for treatment, unnecessary delays in discharging people from hospital, and clinicians spending time navigating disconnected systems.

The FDP was conceived to address precisely these challenges. It is not, as some commentary might suggest, a vast new database into which everyone’s medical records are poured. Rather, it provides a means of connecting and analysing information across existing systems, subject to governance and access controls.

The NHS does not need LESS intelligent use of data. It needs considerably MORE.

Indeed, the government’s wider ambitions for a modernised health service, including that Ten Year Plan, depend on greater use of artificial intelligence and a more joined-up approach to care.

Walking away from an established programme without a credible replacement risks repeating one of the NHS’s most frustrating habits: announcing transformation, beginning implementation and then changing direction.

Supporters of the FDP point to encouraging improvements. NHS England has reported increased theatre utilisation, more patients receiving procedures, improvements in cancer pathways and reductions in delayed hospital discharges.

But there is a necessary qualification.

Recent scrutiny, including by the Financial Times, has questioned whether some of the headline improvements can be directly attributed to the FDP. Some trusts have stopped using certain tools on the platform, and NHS England has acknowledged that improvements observed after the platform’s introduction do not automatically establish cause and effect.

That criticism deserves serious attention. But there is an important distinction between questioning the measurement of benefits and concluding that the technology has no value.

It is also striking that, unlike some previous NHS technology programmes, the FDP has not generated an overwhelming public backlash from the clinicians and operational staff expected to use it. There are complaints about usability and uneven adoption, certainly, but these sit alongside positive accounts from NHS organisations reporting practical improvements.

That is not proof of success, but neither is it the picture of an obviously failing system.

Incomplete evaluation is an argument for stronger scrutiny, not necessarily for abandoning a programme midway through implementation.

 

The politics of Palantir

Of course, much of the opposition to Palantir has little to do with such cold-eyed scrutiny of NHS operational performance.

The company’s American ownership, its co-founder Peter Thiel, and its work with defence, intelligence and immigration agencies have made it a lightning rod for political controversy.

These are matters on which people can hold sincerely different views, but we should be careful not to confuse opposition to a company’s activities elsewhere with evidence that its NHS contract is inappropriate or unsafe.

Palantir is not the owner of NHS patient data. It acts as a data processor, with NHS organisations retaining responsibility as data controllers.

The NHS relies extensively on international technology companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device suppliers and other private-sector partners. Their expertise is essential.

Surely the relevant test should be whether a supplier meets the necessary standards of security, effectiveness, accountability and value for money, not whether its founders hold political views with which some Labour MPs happen to disagree?

There are legitimate questions about supplier dependence and public trust, but they deserve to be distinguished from objections rooted primarily in political hostility towards the company.

Tom Watson’s intervention is interesting because it highlights an uncomfortable reality for government. Public procurement must operate within the law, but it must also serve the public interest.

In a recent conversation, someone described the FDP to me as a form of technological infrastructure that another supplier could, in theory, provide.

That is true, but it risks understating the complexity of what has been built. Palantir does not simply provide the cloud infrastructure on which the platform runs; its technology helps integrate data and supports the applications and operational workflows built around it.

There may well be credible alternatives, including other major international technology companies. But replacing the supplier is not necessarily the same as switching electricity providers. The government would need to establish what could be transferred, what would need rebuilding, how long that would take and at what cost.

And if the objective is greater technological sovereignty, replacing one American supplier with another hardly settles the argument.

 

Ministerial judgement

The government faces a difficult decision but, in my experience, the variables shift considerably when you’re making a political one rather than an operational one.

Palantir should be held rigorously to its contractual obligations, and the evidence of benefit must be strengthened. But – and this is my key point – the burden of proof should also apply to those advocating termination.

What would replace the existing platform? How quickly could an alternative supplier be brought in, and at what cost? What risks would that impose on patients, and would it deliver better results?

These are precisely the questions ministers must ask, and I am confident they are.

The wider lesson is that governments must resist the temptation to confuse a politically attractive announcement with successful public policy. Here I am less confident.

My instinct is that ministers should not exercise the February 2027 break clause unless the evidence presents a compelling case for doing so.

Ultimately, patients waiting for operations, cancer diagnoses or a safe discharge from hospital will not judge ministers by the ideological purity of their decisions.

They will judge them by whether the NHS is ‘fixed’.

View on the Spring Statement - David Laws, GK Adviser

Budget preview: One week to go

In his first budget, to be delivered to the Commons next Wednesday, the Chancellor John Healey will repeat his defining messages: money and power moved out of Westminster and a budget built on fiscal discipline and stability. The detail of the Budget itself is widely expected to focus on families and business – building on the Burnham government’s early theme of ‘breathing space’ for those struggling.

With a week to go, and in striking contrast to the last two budgets delivered by Rachel Reeves, we have so far seen little of the usual speculation or Treasury leaks on policies expected to feature in the headline Statement. The government will want to position this as a ‘no drama’ budget, not least because large spending decisions on welfare, defence, and social care appear delayed until after the budget.

The fiscal inheritance remains rather similar to past budgets, but with higher public sector pay demands, and higher than expected inflation together with in-year spending pressures, departmental spending will need to be addressed with little ‘headroom’ for manoeuvre.

The prime minister has said that he wants to run the most ‘pro-growth and pro-business country in the world’ and the FT has reported that both PM and Chancellor have reassured business leaders there will be no significant tax increases, sticking to the Starmer government’s self-imposed fiscal rules. This therefore means the government is likely to seek short-term measures to alleviate cost of living pressures. Further measures expected in the budget include:

  • Financial and Professional Services: It is now understood that rises to Capital Gains Tax have been ruled out; a move clearly designed to signal that this government is neither anti-business nor anti-wealth. Instead. we expect the chancellor to look to the banking sector as his primary revenue raising source. Whilst this may be consistent with the government’s overall positioning as a government for ‘working people’, protestations from the financial services sector that the government is undermining its international competitiveness will inevitably follow.
  • Education and skills: Reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is a priority of this government. The budget is likely to feature further advance payments that pre-empt the recommendations of the Milburn Review, building on the Chancellor’s announcement of a £100 million expansion of apprenticeship brokerage services across mayoral strategic authorities. It will also offer an opportunity to put some funding behind Burnham’s commitment to expanding vocational and technical pathways in schools for students aged 14-16.
  • Health: The health sector will be keen to see further funding for integrated neighbourhood health services, building on plans to bring NHS, council and community services closer together. The budget could also clarify how devolution may give mayors and local leaders greater flexibility over health and social care priorities.
  • Energy: We expect an energy package for low-income households and a further freeze to Fuel Duty. The energy secretary has reportedly been tasked with finding more than £2bn of savings from the department’s budget, with reform of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme expected to contribute to those reductions. While the scheme is expected to remain in place, cuts to its £2.7bn five-year budget could reduce the level of support available for heat pump installations and slow the uptake of low-carbon heating technologies.

While Burnham remains personally popular in the polls, many think the budget will be the end of his honeymoon period. With the prospect of a Spring 2027 election, we should keep watch for policies that not only consolidate support from the so-called progressive left but also measures aimed at winning back Labour voters who have shifted support away from the party since 2024. With so many of the major reforms that Burnham has committed to – from the National Care Service to electoral reform – deferred until the next parliament, the public will become increasingly restless for progress and change as we hit the halfway point of this parliament. Questions are already being asked what the prime minister plans to do with the landslide majority he currently has in the House of Commons, which polls suggest would be significantly cut or even lost in a general election. The budget will be the government’s chance to set a clear course for the coming months and indeed years, and it will be important that the chancellor and prime minister seize it.

Conservative Party Conference: Can Kemi Badenoch’s ‘Right Way’ Win Back Britain?

This year’s conference season saw one of the clearest ideological divides in British politics for some time. The prime minister delivered a speech that many on the left had long wanted to hear, making the case for a more active and interventionist state. In Birmingham, Kemi Badenoch offered an equally unapologetic defence of Thatcherism.

The Conservative leader’s speech gave a sense that the party is finally off life support and up for the fight, with a renewed appeal to the shires through promises of tax cuts that will undoubtedly energise the Tory core vote. At the same time, Badenoch sought to challenge Reform UK on questions of values and integrity. Clearly adored by her party members, she remains behind in the polls and continues to fight for attention from the country.

More significant than any individual announcement was the moral case set out in The Right Way, Badenoch’s conference policy document, and echoed throughout her speech. Almost every policy proposal was rooted in a belief in personal responsibility and the value of individual endeavour. Badenoch argued that individual effort is not only the source of economic prosperity but also of human fulfilment and opportunity. In that sense, her speech was about more than policy. It was a battle of ideas, with Badenoch presenting conservatism as a competing vision ‘for the soul of the country’.

The headline-grabbing policy announcement was Badenoch’s pledge to abolish inheritance tax on family homes and raise the amount an individual can pass on tax-free to £500,000. Under the proposals, a couple would be able to leave their main residence to direct descendants free from inheritance tax, alongside a further £1 million of assets to other beneficiaries. Long criticised by many on the right as Britain’s least fair tax, inheritance tax is often portrayed as a form of double taxation, applying to assets accumulated from income that has already been taxed.

Badenoch also identified the eventual abolition of inheritance tax as a long-term ambition. Critics argue, however, that the benefits would be concentrated among the wealthiest and not ‘ordinary’ families. The Institute for Fiscal studies estimated that the wealthiest 1% of estates, worth £2.1 million or more, would receive around half of the gains from full abolition. Some also worry that the proposal could encourage older homeowners to remain in larger properties, limiting the availability of family-sized homes.

The Leader of the Opposition also argued that too many people are being written off by a welfare system that discourages work. Her reforms would remove access to out-of-work benefits immediately after school or university, introduce ‘back to work’ cards for long-term claimants, and require those able to work to engage with employment programmes. Badenoch aims to couple these welfare reforms with plans to halve the jobs tax for under-25s and repeal Labour’s Employment Rights Act.

Badenoch said that cutting the welfare bill would help fund higher defence spending, something that was notably absent from Burnham’s conference speech. Central to this was a £10 billion commitment to build ‘Britannia Shield’, an integrated UK air and missile defence network. The proposal would initially focus on protecting critical national infrastructure and military bases before being expanded to cover the UK mainland and British territories overseas. However, with the programme expected to be delivered over ten years, it represents a long-term ambition rather than a rapid build-out.

The proposal is more ambitious than the government’s current plans, having previously identified missile defence as a priority while allocating less than £800 million to the capability over four years. This comes despite a recent commons Defence Committee report warning that the UK has ‘next to nothing’ in place when it comes to missile defence, particularly against the growing threat posed by drones.

Despite the non-nonsense tone of Badenoch’s speech and the long list of policy commitments unveiled at conference, all of it ultimately depends on the Conservatives returning to power. With Badenoch ruling out an electoral pact with Reform UK and the party still polling below its performance at the 2024 general election, the central question remains whether voters are willing to give the Conservatives another hearing after fourteen years in government.

Steve Brine, GK’s Strategic Adviser and former health minister said: ‘What struck me was the attempt to give the Conservatives a clearer organising argument: that Britain’s problems stem from weak growth and an overextended state, and that the answer is greater economic freedom, lower taxes and firmer choices about public spending. The speech also sought to present Kemi as someone prepared to make the case for a distinct Conservative identity and one that her party feels wholly comfortable with. In that, the two main parties are in lock-step. The test will be whether that argument can be turned into a credible and coherent programme for government.’

Robert Halfon, GK’s Strategic Adviser and former education minister said: ‘Kemi Badenoch leaves conference with her leadership secure and her party more united than it has been for years. The direction is clear: firmly Conservative, and clearly distinct from Reform. Skills are part of that offer. Badenoch put apprenticeships in her leader’s speech, and the plan to move money from poor-value degrees into apprenticeships gives the Education team a concrete policy to drive forward. Employers will now want to see it costed and funded.’