Author Archives: GK Strategy

Social media: how the government is trying to regulate an industry that moves faster than itself

The Online Safety Act 2023 was hailed by the then Conservative government as a world-leading piece of legislation that would protect children and adults online. The act places new responsibilities on technology and social media platforms to protect users from harmful content, particularly children, and grants Ofcom extensive enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for non-compliance. The legislation was designed to create a safer and more age-appropriate online environment without fundamentally restricting access to digital platforms.

Less than three years later, the Online Safety Act has proven to be already out of date, leading to new policies exploring an outright ban of social media sites for under 16s. The political debate has shifted from regulating content to regulating access itself.

Australia took the first leap, being the first major democracy to announce its own social media ban for under 16s in December 2025. Since then, the debate in Westminster has not dissipated. A UK-wide ban has been endorsed across the political spectrum, with proponents including over 60 Labour MPs, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The government has so far taken incremental steps to more stringently regulate access to sites ahead of potentially endorsing an outright social media ban. A crackdown on phones in schools was pursued in 2024, and the 2025 Violence Against Women and Girls strategy included measures to prevent school-aged boys developing harmful misogynistic attitudes – which the government believes has largely been driven by online content. In early June 2026, the Prime Minister also announced a new requirement for tech companies to devise technological solutions that can detect and block children seeing or sharing indecent images. This announcement followed only a few weeks after safeguarding minister Jess Phillips resigned from government, criticising the Prime Minister’s inaction and delay on this very matter.

No piecemeal policy interventions have yet delivered enough protections for parents, teachers and policymakers to feel that young people are safe online. This has paved the way for a government consultation in early 2026 testing the waters on age restrictions for social media. The consultation, which the government is due to provide a full response to this summer, proposed removing or limiting addictive features such as ‘infinite scrolling’ and introducing a minimum age for social media access.

For social media companies, technology platforms, advertisers and organisations that rely on digital engagement with younger audiences, the policy implications are significant. Potential further restrictions on access, platform functionality or age verification requirements would have commercial, operational and regulatory consequences across the digital ecosystem. Businesses should also expect growing scrutiny of recommendation algorithms and engagement-driven design features, as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguarding measures.

This is a political argument that is leading down one path – and that is on the side of restrictions on children’s access to social media.

The government’s hesitancy to invoke such an interventionist ban is likely to come under growing pressure from politicians from across the political spectrum who are eager to introduce greater protections for children online, including through new age restrictions. The government cannot afford to weather another scandal in this area. The direction of travel appears clear, but the details remain up for debate. Organisations with a stake in the outcome should ensure their voice is part of the conversation, helping to shape a regulatory framework that is both effective and proportionate, and that properly reflects the practical, commercial and technical implications of impending policy change.

Community pharmacy settlement brings stability, but long-term challenges remain

As a former Pharmacy Minister, I watch the annual community pharmacy contract negotiations with interest because I know how important they are. This year’s settlement is notable for one reason above many in that it was agreed! That may sound like a low bar, but in today’s NHS it is anything but.

At a time when ministers find themselves in dispute with almost every part of the health workforce, the fact that Government and Community Pharmacy England have reached an agreement matters.

Negotiation remains preferable to imposition. It provides stability, certainty and, perhaps most importantly, a platform for future reform. The settlement itself is better than many in the sector (including me) were expecting. Indeed, compared with the rest of primary care, community pharmacy has secured one of the stronger funding settlements available anywhere in the NHS.

Minister Stephen Kinnock deserve praise for recognising that pharmacies cannot carry on indefinitely with rising costs. The increase in funding, the uplift in retained medicines margin and the write-off of historic over-delivery all sit on the positive side of the ledger.

But we should be honest about what this settlement is – and what it is not.

It is not a recovery plan. The uncomfortable truth is that a decade long funding gap – which I absolutely take my share of responsibility for – has not been closed. The additional investment announced for 2026/27 is largely consumed by increased activity levels and of course inflation. This matters because while the settlement should help stabilise the sector, I suspect it will not halt pharmacy closures.

There is another challenge too. I have great respect for Community Pharmacy England but there will come a point where it must decide whether it believes a deal is acceptable or not.

Last year, and now this, we hear of an agreement reached quickly followed by explanations setting out why the agreement is not good enough. I understand why this occurs, but it is not a position that can be sustained indefinitely and many in the sector will feel that. Ministers won’t much care so long as it’s done and they will come to rely on that.

At some point, the sector, government and negotiators alike need true alignment on what success actually looks like. The government’s clear priority in this settlement is independent prescribing. As a manifesto commitment and a central part of the neighbourhood health agenda, it is easy to see why ministers are keen to deliver here.

The principle is absolutely right. For years I have argued that community pharmacy is one of the NHS’ most underused assets. Everyone should want pharmacists diagnosing, prescribing and managing more patients – ‘hospital to community’ as they say.

My concern is whether the funding stamped on this settlement will be enough to deliver independent prescribing at a meaningful scale. Training people is vital. Creating the capacity, infrastructure and incentives to make independent prescribing a systemic part of community pharmacy practice is another challenge.

My verdict? This is a better deal than many anticipated and best in class in primary care. It provides some level of stability and demonstrates that constructive negotiation is still possible with this government.

But stability is not transformation.

The question facing us all is whether the settlement represents the first step towards a realised clinical future for community pharmacy – or merely another year spent managing decline, albeit a little more slowly.

This article from Steve Brine also appears at the Chemist + Druggist online magazine.

View from the US: the Republican congressional agenda

Erin Caddell of GK Strategy’s American partner Anchor Advisors unpacks the Republican congressional agenda ahead of the midterm elections taking place in November

Over the decades, American conservative political thought has often manifested itself in treatises that have called for sweeping policy changes, often employed as rallying cries heading into elections. The Mandate for Leadership, published in 1979 by the right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation, laid the groundwork in part for Ronald Reagan’s presidency starting in 1981, detailing proposals for lowering regulations on industry, reining in the influence of the federal bureaucracy and cutting taxes to spur economic growth that continue in conservative orthodoxy to this day. The 1994 Contract with America served as the blueprint for then-U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich and his GOP colleagues to seize control of the House of Representatives later that year for the first time in 40 years, proposing a series of reforms to social programs, tax and spending cuts and changes in the workings of government itself. And Project 2025, chaired by Heritage with support from numerous U.S. conservative groups, provided a detailed plan for a conservative presidency, from domestic to trade to foreign policy, many elements of which have been enacted or attempted in Trump’s second presidential term.

With the U.S. midterm elections now less than six months away, what is the conservative manifesto of 2026? It is notable that across a number of conservative groups aligned with the Trump Administration and current GOP leadership in Congress – Heritage, America First Policy Institute, Conservative Partnership Institute, American Compass – there exists no recent document summarizing an overarching conservative policy vision. Yet with all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate up for election in November, it is valid to ask what more the GOP hopes to do should it defy history – as we have pointed out in prior editions of this column, the president’s party has lost House seats in 18 of 20 midterm elections held since 1946 – and maintain control of both houses of Congress for the final two years of Trump’s second term. Even if Republicans lose control of the House and/or the Senate, the policy proposals they put forth today will guide their actions as a minority party in Congress; the ways in which they support Trump’s executive actions in 2027 and 2028; and even, yes, how the party moves beyond the Trump presidential era with a new Republican candidate for president in November 2028.

To address this question, we focus on a January 2026 report, “Restoring America’s Golden Age”, released by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of 188 conservative House members (87% of the total 217 current House Republicans). The RSC report is structured as a high-level annual federal budget proposal. Continuing the spirit of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative early in Trump’s second term, the RSC identifies numerous federal programs for funding reduction or elimination it views as wasteful or unnecessarily driven by progressive ideology (see below).

Select programs targeted for reduced or zero funding by the Republican Study Committee

Program Agency
National Institute of Food and Agriculture Agriculture
Office of the Under Secretary of Farm Production and Conservation Agriculture
Climate Hubs Agriculture
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology Commerce
National Science Foundation NM
Environmental and Natural Resources Division Justice
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NM
Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Energy
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) Energy
State and Community Energy Programs Energy
Federal Insurance Office Treasury
Entrepreneurial Development Program Small Business
EPA Research and Development Environment
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Grants Environment

Source: Republican Study Committee, Restoring America’s Golden Age, 07.01.2026

 

We detail two of the policy themes outlined in the report we view as especially relevant for US-focused investor and corporate clients of Anchor and GK: tax and defense policy:

1. Tax – don’t get too comfortable. The RSC report makes clear that Republicans continue to view the tax system as an activist policy tool even following last year’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which expanded and made permanent a number of the corporate and individual tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first year as president. The report speaks glowingly of Trump’s decision on his first day in office in his second term to withdraw from a deal negotiated by the international Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) during the Biden Administration to impose a global minimum tax rate and other restrictions on multi-national corporations. RSC members and other critics argued the OECD deal was unfair to U.S.-based international corporations. In response, RSC member Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways & Means Committee, introduced a bill in 2025 to impose retaliatory taxes on U.S.-active companies and investors whose countries levy selective taxes on U.S. firms, targeting in particular the digital services taxes (DSTs) that have been imposed on multinational tech firms by the UK and some EU Member states. Nicknamed the “revenge tax” or the Section 899 tax for the new title of the U.S. code it would have created, global investors breathed a sigh of relief when the provision was removed from the OBBB following opposition from a number of foreign entities active in U.S. markets. However, the RSC whitepaper is one reminder that the protectionist Republican sentiment that led the Section 899 bill to be proposed is still very much alive within the conservative Republican caucus, and could return under a future GOP-controlled Congress or White House.  The RSC budget also supports other tax policies that reflect the populist, anti-corporate sentiment prevalent in today’s GOP, including ending the tax-exempt status of bonds sold to finance professional sports stadiums.

2. Defense – Hawks unbowed. Even before the start of the U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran in late February, a number of Republicans had joined Democrats in criticizing President Trump’s January 2026 proposal to increase U.S. defense spending in the coming fiscal year to US$1.5 trillion, some 44% higher than current levels. The RSC proposal is a good reminder that while some in the GOP argued Trump’s number was too high, support for the U.S. defense sector runs deep among conservative Republicans. The RSC whitepaper is supportive of numerous new defense spending initiatives, from expanded missile production to accelerated shipbuilding, enhanced cyber-security defenses to increased support for domestic rare-earths production to reduce dependence on China as a source of critical minerals needed for military equipment. Interestingly, the RSC report endorses “sustained American support for our NATO allies,” including funding for “frontline NATO states through defense cooperation and deterrent capabilities – one area of potential daylight between the House GOP conservatives and their president.  But “Restoring America’s Golden Age” highlights that support for the U.S. military – and higher defense spending – remains a core tenet of both the Trump Administration and congressional conservatives (the RSC has released several statements supporting Trump’s Iran strategy since the war’s start). Should Republicans maintain control of Congress into 2027, Trump and his allies would likely take another run at securing a big jump in defense spending during his last two years as president, regardless of the Iran conflict’s outcome.

Growth vs Guardrails: Reeves and the FCA’s contrasting visions for consumer finance regulation

GK’s Joshua Owolabi assesses Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi’s differing perspectives on consumer finance regulation and the potential impact on the sector

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves insists that the government’s main objective is to facilitate economic growth and believes that the UK’s regulatory bodies should support this objective. In January 2025, the Chancellor wrote to several regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), directing them to ‘tear down regulatory barriers’ that hold back economic growth. This view is likely to have a significant impact on the regulation of consumer finance during the rest of this parliament (expected to end in 2029).

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the FCA and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority, have generally preferred to strengthen consumer finance rules to prevent the harm to consumers that occurred following the crisis (e.g. consumers being forced into high-interest loans without fully understanding the long-term impact on their finances). The pressure placed on the FCA could result in a reversal of long-term regulatory trends in the consumer finance sector, reducing compliance requirements on businesses across the sector.

Across several consumer finance sub-sectors, such as mortgages, motor finance, and personal loans, the FCA has spent the last decade implementing stricter measures to prevent the mis-selling of products and services, and to protect consumers from taking on excessive debt. These efforts culminated in the implementation of the Consumer Duty in July 2023. The Duty is a regulatory framework requiring firms to prioritise consumers’ needs. Firms must proactively identify the specific needs of each of their customers and prevent risks that could result in financial harm. This involves providing customers with clear financial advice on products like hire purchase agreements, which are common in the motor finance industry, so that they can make informed choices. It also involves making it as easy as possible for customers to switch or cancel products without incurring unnecessary debt.

Rachel Reeves’ belief that financial services regulation should encourage innovation, competitiveness, and increased risk taking in lending and investment is at odds with recent FCA consumer protection measures. This has resulted in contrasting messages from Reeves and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi. While Rathi has said the FCA will support innovation and economic growth, he has voiced concerns that the push to prioritise growth will result in an increase in financial scandals. He has warned the government and parliamentarians that there may need to be an ‘enduring acceptance’ of these failures as regulations are relaxed. Rathi’s concern is not a surprise. Since his appointment as Chief Executive in 2020, he has consistently emphasised the importance of consumer protections and market stability. Under his leadership, the FCA has prioritised improving affordability checks so that firms are not just doing basic credit checks and consumers understand the true cost of products.

An area where major change is likely to occur, despite Rathi’s reluctance, is in the balance between regulation and access to credit. Reeves has argued that excessive regulation can make it harder for consumers to borrow money, slowing economic growth. As a result, the government announced in May 2026 that it would reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), which established standard procedures for credit and hire agreements and sets out consumers’ rights when dealing with businesses in those sectors. The government says that its reform of the CCA is focused on modernising consumer credit rules so that they better reflect the realities of today’s digital financial market. It has stated that its main objective is to improve the quality and clarity of information provided to consumers. The government argues that current disclosure requirements are outdated, overly complex, and often overwhelm borrowers with lengthy legal documents that are difficult to understand. The government has said that the CCA reforms will help consumers make better-informed financial decisions and reduce the risk of individuals taking on unsuitable or unaffordable credit.

The government is likely to say that the primary reason for reforming the CCA is its desire to protect consumers. However. the push for economic growth and deregulation in financial services is what is truly driving these reforms. In reality, the core goal of the reforms is to reduce the number of detailed regulatory requirements that are entrenched in legislation and to give the FCA more power to amend regulations quickly without the passing of new legislation. By giving the FCA greater responsibility for setting consumer credit rules, the government hopes to create a more agile regulatory system that can respond more quickly to innovations in financial products, such as fintech and embedded finance. This is likely to lower compliance costs for businesses in the consumer finance market and reduce the likelihood that they fall foul of rules relating to the way in which credit agreements are written or structured.

Ironically, the changes to the CCA, including the increased role of the FCA in modernising credit rules, will place greater power in the hands of Rathi to regulate consumer finance, despite the difference in views with the Chancellor. Rathi will now need to oversee the implementation of changes to the CCA, while also overseeing other consumer finance reforms that have already been announced. For example, the FCA has said that it will complete a review of the Consumer Duty before the end of 2026 to understand firms’ approaches to monitoring consumer outcomes and how well consumers understand risk. The FCA believes that some firms are struggling to provide clear evidence that they are improving outcomes for consumers or that their advice is specific to each individual customer’s needs. This means that there is a scenario where firms will have requirements relating to affordability checks reduced by the CCA reforms, only to see new requirements placed on them to collect data on consumer outcomes following the review of the Duty. The implementation of both these reforms is an unenviable task for Rathi, as he seeks to balance pressure from the Treasury to support economic growth with his own regulatory agenda. The FCA will need to engage with firms to ensure that they are fully aware of the expected changes to the regulatory framework and that firms are not confused by the mixed messaging from the Treasury and the regulator itself.

Burnham’s Gamble: The Contest That Could Decide Britain’s Next Prime Minister

Andy Burnham’s intention to make a return to parliament has been clear for a number of years, despite assurances – until recently – that he was focused on his role as mayor of Greater Manchester. Following disastrous local election results for Labour and subsequent calls from Labour MPs for Keir Starmer to resign, Burnham’s opportunity has finally arrived. Josh Simons MP resigned earlier this month to allow Burnham to stand for election in the constituency of Makerfield. Unlike the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year — where Burnham sought to run but was blocked by the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee — the NEC has allowed Burnham to stand, and the Prime Minister has made no apparent attempt to prevent it. This shift reflects the severe weakening of Starmer’s authority amongst the Parliamentary Labour Party, with almost 100 Labour MPs calling for his resignation in the aftermath of the local elections.

This is a hugely consequential by-election that is highly likely to determine the future of this Labour government. If Burnham wins, he is widely expected to challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party and his position as prime minister. If he loses, questions around Starmer’s leadership are likely to persist, though the path forward becomes far less clear. Other prominent figures, such as former health secretary, Wes Streeting, or former deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, are likely to emerge as challengers, but in that scenario Starmer could remain in office for longer despite his weakened position.

The main challenger to Labour in Makerfield is Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Reform UK’s candidate Robert Kenyon is a local plumber who contested the constituency for Reform UK at the 2024 general election. The contrast between the two candidates is stark: Andy Burnham has spent almost his entire working life in frontline politics and is widely seen as having leadership ambitions, while Kenyon is positioning himself as a local, political outsider. While Reform UK may have hoped that Kenyon’s local profile would resonate with voters, particularly when contrasted with Burnham’s national political ambitions, it is Burnham’s strong personal popularity as mayor of Greater Manchester that is likely to bolster his performance. If Labour had selected any other candidate, Reform UK would almost certainly win this by-election as Makerfield is the 29th most easily winnable seat for Reform UK, based on the swing required from the 2024 general election for the party to win the seat.

With Burnham in the running, the result is expected to be extremely close between Labour and Reform UK. The first constituency poll shows Burnham leading Reform by just three percentage points, underlining how competitive the race is going to be. The outcome may ultimately depend on where smaller-party voters choose to lend their support, if they choose to do so at all. Labour will hope to attract tactical backing from voters who would otherwise support the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, while Reform UK will seek to consolidate support on the right from voters considering Restore Britain. The growing momentum behind Restore Britain’s campaign also threatens to split the right wing vote if would be Reform UK voters switch their vote to Restore Britain, which could deny Reform UK a victory. Restore Britain was established as a right-wing challenge to Reform UK by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who left the party following a dispute with Nigel Farage over policy. Currently, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are collectively polling at 7%. The same figure as Restore Britain. This means even relatively small shifts through tactical voting could determine the outcome of the by-election contest.

Another factor that may shift the result is the media scrutiny surrounding Kenyon’s social media posts and the numerous Reform UK councillors that have stood down since the local elections on 7 May. If these issues resonate with voters, it could become a significant issue in the campaign and may bolster Labour’s chances in this highly competitive election.

The key issues on which the by-election is being fought have also presented risks for Burnham’s campaign. Burnham has already started to change tack on several policy issues in a bid to make himself more attractive to voters in the Makerfield constituency. For example, in an attempt to neutralise Reform UK’s attacks on his previous position that the UK should rejoin the EU, Burnham has stated that he will not reopen the Brexit debate. He has also agreed to maintain the government’s existing fiscal rules, despite having previously questioned them. . For businesses and investors, this points towards the possibility that a Burnham government may pursue a policy agenda that is broadly similar to the current government than Burnham would like to explicitly admit. These U-turns in fundamental policy areas may risk Burnham appearing the same as Starmer: a politician that changes their stance at the first sign of opposition. If Reform UK can capitalise on this, it may undermine Burnham’s attempt to present himself as a fundamentally different kind of Labour leader and weaken the electoral advantage that currently makes him such a significant political threat to both Starmer and Farage.

If Burnham achieves victory in a seat that would almost certainly be won by Reform UK against any other Labour candidate, it will be politically significant beyond the by-election itself. A win would allow Burnham to argue that he has the electoral appeal needed to reverse Reform UK’s lead in the national opinion polls and could persuade Labour MPs that he can address many of the government’s political and electoral problems. If Burnham wins, this makes it likely that he would be able to gain nominations from the 81 MPs required to trigger a leadership challenge, with many Labour MPs potentially concluding that he is the person who is most capable of stopping Reform UK from winning the next general election. With polling of Labour members showing that Burnham would beat any other contender for leader, this may mean that success in the by-election paves a path for Burnham to be the next Prime Minister. If Burnham fails to be elected, however, those same polls show that Starmer would beat a number of other candidates in a head-to-head election for the Labour leadership, including Wes Streeting.

The importance of this by-election cannot be overstated. It creates the conditions for Burnham to become Prime Minister, but also for Starmer to remain in position, having seen off other potential challengers.   It is vital for businesses and investors to begin thinking now about how a future Burnham-led government may affect them and to consider how existing policy agendas could continue to be developed by a weakened Starmer administration.

If you would like to talk more about the outcome of the by-election or the potential of a Burnham-led government, please email jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com.

Treasury to Treatment: James Murray Appointed Health Secretary

As predicted, England has a new Health Secretary – James Murray.

Above all else, he deserves the goodwill that comes with inheriting one of the best jobs in government.

The Department of Health and Social Care is unlike any other brief. It combines immense public affection for the NHS with relentless operational pressure, difficult fiscal realities and an almost impossible expectation that Ministers can ‘fix’ deep-rooted problems decades in the making.

So my advice to James above all else would be this; you inherit a Ten Year Plan (and numerous other strategies) so don’t waste time and try the patience of the sector by re-writing them.

Focus on operationalising them and give your civil servants (as well as Jim Mackie who I suspect will be feeling deflated right now) a very clear steer from day one on your top three policy areas. Not the infamous three ‘shifts’ – they’re the means to the end – but the areas they know you personally will never drift from.

James takes office with a formidable in-tray. NHS waiting lists still high and a media (as well as a sector) that is sceptical recent falls weren’t more about politics than clinical reality.

Access to primary care continues to define the ‘retail offer’ in health, while care reform of course remains the great unresolved question of British domestic policy.

Not to mention a Ten Year Workforce Plan that remains illusive, medicine shortages (which I predict will grow as an issue in 2026) and rising demand because we are living longer, but often not healthier, lives.

And hanging over all of this is perhaps the biggest challenge of all; how we finally move from a sickness service to a genuine health service.

That is why the NHS Modernisation Bill he inherits matters. Much of the early discussion around it has understandably focused on the proposed Single Patient Record — a potentially transformative attempt to join up fragmented patient information across the NHS.

Done properly, this could save lives, reduce duplication, improve productivity and finally give clinicians the information they need at the point of care. Done badly, it risks becoming another expensive digital programme which loses public trust before it delivers meaningful change. The new Secretary of State will need Number 10 (whoever occupies it) to back him fully when the going gets tough.

But the Bill goes wider than that. It is likely to include measures aimed at modernising NHS structures, expanding the use of technology and AI, improving data sharing, reforming procurement and accelerating innovation adoption. And that’s before Labour MPs, increasingly keen to reject incrementalism, get their hands on amendments come the Bill Committee stage.

The challenge, of course, is delivery. Every Health Secretary arrives in office promising reform. Most discover the system is better at absorbing change than enabling it.

The NHS is enormous, complex and deeply institutionalised. Structural reform alone rarely changes outcomes unless accompanied by cultural change, workforce support and political honesty about priorities.

And that brings me to Wes Streeting. I know how hard it is to leave that Department so it can’t have been easy.

Politics is often too tribal to acknowledge effort when people leave office or move on from major briefs. But it is right to recognise the energy, seriousness and determination Wes brought to the health debate.

Whatever one’s politics, he helped force difficult conversations into the open — about productivity, reform, prevention and the need for the NHS to modernise if it is to remain sustainable.

Wes deserves credit for that as well as the HIV Plan, the Men’s Health Strategy and some lesser noticed progress around things like the Rare Diseases Plan or England (finally) testing newborns for Spinal Muscular Atrophy as a result of his work with Jessy from Little Mix.

The new Health Secretary will quickly discover there are a thousand competing voices telling him what matters most.

My hope is that, amid the noise, he keeps sight of a simple truth: the future sustainability of the NHS will depend not only on how we treat illness, but on how seriously we take the business of creating a healthier society in every sense of the word. We should all wish him nothing but success.

Steve Brine, consultant, podcaster, trustee, former MP for Winchester & Chair of the Health Select Committee

Prevention is the new cure podcast – all things health and politics