Category Archives: Business

View from the US: The Rise of American Progressives

Erin Caddell of GK Strategy’s American partner Anchor Advisors examines the ideological battle reshaping the Democratic Party and what it could mean for investors, corporates and the future direction of US policy

Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion, published in 1687, states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This centuries-old theorem may go some way toward explaining the ideological split currently occurring in the U.S. Democratic party – one that could carry significant importance for the congressional midterm elections in November 2026 and for U.S. policy for many years to come.

Republican President Donald Trump faces a difficult political backdrop approaching the midterms, often thought of as a referendum on the incumbent U.S. president’s first two years in office. Trump faces sagging approval ratings in his second term, with notable weakness on his handling of the economy due to rising inflation, as well as a Middle East war with no easy way out. As this column has noted before, Republicans are already defending one of the narrowest House majorities in American history (218-212, with four vacancies and one independent).

Given these dynamics, many Democratic leaders and pundits have suggested the party employ a midterm campaign version of Napoleon’s military adage to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake: focus voters’ attention on Trump policies that many voters view unfavorably rather than on promoting a robust alternative agenda. To these strategists, the poster child for the ideal Democratic candidate in 2026 is Roy Cooper, a two-time former governor of North Carolina running for U.S. Senate in that state with the simple slogan “Make Stuff Cost Less”. Cooper focuses fairly narrowly on criticizing Trump actions that he argues have resulted in “farmers… getting crushed by tariffs” and “families… seeing prices rise at grocery stores and restaurants.” In response, Cooper proposes a modest set of reforms such as tougher anti-trust enforcement and making data centers pay more for the power they draw from public utilities.

Cooper may well reach the Senate – he has run ahead of his Republican opponent in every poll published since the race began. But the middle-of-the-road approach of Cooper and other moderates is not capturing the hearts of Democratic voters writ large. The hard-edged governing style of Trump and his Republican congressional allies, in areas ranging from immigration enforcement to foreign policy to social spending, has, to use a scientific term, made Democrats mad as hell. And – returning to Newton’s Third Law – Democrats want their leaders to push back hard at Trump with policies equal and opposite to those promulgated by the GOP-led Administration and Congress.

Evidence of Democrat voters’ more confrontational impulse is ample in recent party primaries to select candidates to run in the November congressional elections. In June, two progressive U.S. House candidates running to represent district in New York City – Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier – ousted incumbents, while a third (Claire Valdez, a member of the state Assembly) defeated the Brooklyn borough president in a race for another U.S. House seat. All three candidates support increased government support for public housing, universal federal health insurance, abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, cutting defense spending, shifting energy production from fossil fuels to renewables to address climate change, and reducing American military involvement abroad, among other progressive policies. All are vocal in their criticism of Trump. It is not just in deep-blue New York where the left is gaining momentum: earlier this month, Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old Democratic U.S. House candidate in Colorado, backing an agenda similar to her New York counterparts, unseated U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, who had represented the district in D.C. for nearly 30 years. Progressive candidates have tallied recent election wins in states from Maryland to Oregon.

A number of the candidates cited above, and others squaring off against more-moderate Democrats, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a left-leaning political organization founded in 1982. DSA’s importance in the U.S. political ecosystem can be easily exaggerated by both critics and supporters – the organization reports about 120,000 members, compared to 45 million Democrats and 39 million Republicans. Yet the DSA has clearly touched a nerve within a Democratic party still trying to figure out how best to oppose Trump and his MAGA movement – and position itself for a post-Trump future. The party’s goal to create “a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society” (see below) echoes in the campaign speeches and placards of progressive candidates on the stump today. The most famous DSA member is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old political wunderkind who rode his own anti-Establishment, anti-incumbent wave to power in January, defeating Andrew Cuomo, former New York governor and scion of a well-known political family.

What is Democratic Socialism? “Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society… We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.” (Source: Democratic Socialist of America)

The recent success of DSA members and similarly inclined progressives has led to an equal and opposite (Newton again!) reaction from moderates who argue that moving too far to the left will cost Democrats in the midterm elections in November as well as the presidential election in 2028. In a July 20th note, Third Way, a center-left think tank, warned: “If [Democrats] follow the siren song of the left, they will steer their ships into the rocks. If they remain in the mainstream, they will have a fighting chance of winning not only the primary, but also most crucially, the general election.” Third Way and other naysayers of the progressive wave cite the example of Kamala Harris, who ran on a progressive agenda as the Democratic party’s presidential nominee in 2024 after then-President Joe Biden opted not to run for re-election. In the 2024 campaign, Harris proposed ambitious spending to combat climate change, an increase in the corporate tax rate and anti-price gouging laws for groceries, among other policies popular with many progressives. Trump, of course, comfortably defeated Harris in the presidential election (though the hurried mid-campaign handoff from Biden to Harris certainly didn’t help).

What does this mean for US-focused investors and corporates?

The moderate, middle-of-the-road approach of some Democratic candidates doesn’t seem to meet the political moment. Thus, we do think the progressive movement will move the Democratic Party to the ideological left in the years to come, even if “socialist” candidates remain a small portion of the electorate and the Congress. This could benefit sectors that have been out of favor thus far in Trump’s second term. For instance, health insurance companies that provide insurance under Medicaid and other healthcare programs for disadvantaged Americans could benefit from reversal of recent cuts to such programs under a Democrat-controlled Congress and/or White House. Similarly, apartment-focused real estate investment trusts (REITs) would benefit from expanded public spending on housing in a more progressive political climate. Child-care providers could see the same from federal programs to provide more support for working families. In sum, Democrats’ intense anger at Trump’s policies and persona are likely to be quelled only by a similarly forceful agenda on the other side of the spectrum – the equal and opposite reaction crystallized by Newton so long ago.

 

 

EU Youth Mobility Scheme: Brexit divisions and the Burnham factor

GK’s Brett Morton examines the ongoing negotiations with the EU on a youth mobility scheme and what it means for the future of the UK-EU relationship

A youth mobility agreement has become a central component of the Labour government’s drive to improve UK-EU relations. Although both sides broadly support the principle of making it easier for young people to live, work and study across borders, the parties remain divided over the terms. Points of contention over immigration caps and tuition fees risk preventing a wider package of UK-EU cooperation measures. Both sides had been keen to secure these at a second bilateral summit scheduled for 22 July in Brussels. The summit has now been delayed following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

The scheme under discussion would allow 18-30-year-olds from the UK and EU to spend a limited period living, studying and working in each other’s countries. In broad terms, it would resemble the agreement the UK already has with countries such as Australia and Canada. Under those arrangements, young people can come to Britain for up to three years, subject to visa rules and annual caps, and work, travel or study without employer sponsorship. The UK would like any deal with the EU to follow the same basic model: temporary, managed and clearly distinct from free movement.

That distinction matters because immigration remains one of the most politically charged legacies of Brexit. Opponents of the proposal, including Nigel Farage, argue that such a scheme would amount to freedom of movement under a different name. Ministers have been keen to stress that any agreement with the EU would be time-limited and capped. Reports suggest the Starmer government favoured a ceiling of 50,000 participants a year. The EU, by contrast, is believed to prefer a more flexible arrangement, with no fixed cap but a break mechanism that would allow either side to intervene if numbers became excessive. For the next Prime Minister, accepting a scheme without a visible numerical limit would be politically difficult, particularly given the public’s appetite to reduce net migration.

Since Brexit, labour shortages have become a persistent problem in sectors such as hospitality, agriculture and construction. At present, a young EU citizen who wants to work in the UK for a limited period usually needs sponsorship from a British employer. In practice, that system is often costly, bureaucratic and tied to salary thresholds that many small businesses cannot meet. In many cases, sponsorship requires employers to offer a salary of at least £41,700 a year, or the going rate for the role, which places it out of reach for much seasonal, temporary and lower-paid work. Supporters of a youth mobility scheme argue that without the need for sponsorship or salary thresholds, it could widen the pool of labour and make it easier to fill temporary or seasonal vacancies. Even so, its impact would be limited, as it may ease pressure in high-turnover sectors but would do far less to address longer-term shortages in fields that depend on permanent skilled workers, such as healthcare or technology.

A major obstacle to a youth mobility agreement is tuition fees. The EU wants students to study in the UK and EU countries on the same basis as domestic students, meaning EU students at UK universities would pay home fees rather than higher international rates. With 24 institutions reportedly at risk of insolvency within the next year, according to the Education Select Committee, international student fees have become a vital source of income. The Russel Group, an association of 24 prestigious universities in the UK, has warned that granting EU students home fee status could cost the sector around £580 million, reducing universities’ ability to invest in programmes such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

The youth mobility debate must also be understood in its wider political context. Starmer had originally hoped that a UK-EU reset would help revive his premiership by showing that closer cooperation with Europe could deliver practical benefits, from smoother trade to lower costs for consumers. With his resignation, that personal political purpose has fallen away. Future negotiations are no longer about rescuing his administration, but about shaping the direction of the next Prime Minister’s agenda.

With an Andy Burnham coronation now increasingly likely ahead of 22 July, the EU has postponed the summit. A youth mobility scheme could offer Burnham an opportunity to pursue economic and social reforms in response to what he has described as the ‘damage’ caused by Brexit. However, Burnham is also likely to be cautious about making significant concessions to Brussels, particularly on a cap, as he seeks to appeal to Reform UK voters and avoid reopening divisions from the Brexit referendum ahead of a potential 2029 general election. The future of any youth mobility scheme with the EU will therefore depend on Burnham’s political calculus.

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.

Will the Chancellor’s ‘securonomics’ strategy drive growth in a new age of instability?

Throughout her time as Chancellor, Rachel Reeves has insisted that the government’s main objective is to facilitate economic growth. During her Mais Lecture on 17 March 2026, Reeves set out a vision for long-term economic growth, using the speech as an opportunity to highlight the ways in which the government will overcome challenges such as fiscal constraints, low productivity, and global instability.

Reeves reaffirmed her belief in ‘securonomics’, an economic strategy where the government helps individuals and businesses gain economic security by investing strategically in sectors like technology, financial services, science and infrastructure. Reeves emphasised that the government needed to play a more active role in guiding investment given the impact of the middle east conflict on the global economy. She stated that market disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine-Russia war, and the US-Israel war with Iran meant that ‘globalisation, as we once knew it, is dead’. As a result, the government would need to find balance between building resilient public services and facilitating private sector growth, as well as a balance between importing goods and products from other countries and bolstering domestic supply chains.

A central theme of the lecture was the ‘big choices’ the government is making to shape the UK economy over the next decade. The Chancellor placed significant emphasis on securing closer ties with the EU, arguing that it was essential for future growth. She stated that a closer alignment could reduce trade barriers. Reeves acknowledged that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy, a shift from previous years where she had shied away from being overtly critical of Brexit. Reeves stopped short of expressing support for rejoining the EU, instead stating that the UK could find greater alignment with Brussels on policy, while still operating outside the EU’s formal structures. If the government is successful in forming a closer relationship with the EU, she remarked, it could ease the administrative and customs costs for businesses importing from and exporting to the European Union.

While business owners will be pleased to see the Chancellor discussing reducing trade barriers with the EU, Reeves’ attempt to set out a vision for regulatory alignment with the EU may be more concerning for businesses. Reeves said that the government would be prepared to align with EU regulation where it is in the ‘national interest’ to do so, and would maintain regulatory autonomy in sectors with strategic importance for the UK. However, this ignores the post-Brexit reality – the UK and the EU are growing apart on their regulatory goals.

Recent UK governments have increasingly highlighted their ability to implement more flexible approaches to regulation than the EU as a selling point to attract global business. Reeves herself wrote to 17 regulatory bodies in January 2025 urging them to ‘tear down regulatory barriers’ and focus on opportunities to facilitate economic growth. For example, Reeves has implored the Financial Conduct Authority to reduce ‘anti-risk’ regulations and improve competitiveness in financial services sub-sectors, including consumer finance. This is a significant contrast from the EU’s approach, which is more precautionary and is unlikely to result in the reduction of detailed consumer protection rules. If the government does pursue regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services, it would need to consider the impact on regulations, such as affordability assessments and disclosure requirements. Altering these regulations could increase compliance costs for businesses and would likely upset management teams that have spent the last five years adapting to the UK’s Consumer Duty.

The Chancellor also argued that technological advancement is critical to boosting productivity, creating jobs, and positioning the UK as a global leader in emerging industries. As part of this plan, Reeves said the government will support regional growth through fiscal devolution that will empower local leaders, and will also create sector hubs in different cities. This includes establishing Leeds’ Northern Square Mile as a destination for global financial services. To support regional growth the government will create new city-level investment funds and allow regions to retain more of the tax revenues they generate, with the aim of stimulating local investment and reducing reliance on central government.

Reeves commitment to supporting technological innovation in financial services, as well as facilitating growth across the country is likely to provide opportunities to businesses in emerging financial services sub-sectors that harness AI and machine learning. Tech-focused sub-sectors, such as embedded finance, could benefit from these plans, including businesses providing payments and money transfers services, peer-to-peer lending services, and insurtech services. Investors focused on these sectors should monitor the government’s progress in establishing finance or technology sector hubs in various cities across the UK, as well as any funding announcements relating to these sectors.

The Mais Lecture reinforced a consistent economic strategy centred on stability, investment, and reform. While the lecture did not introduce any new policies, it did clarify the government’s long-term economic goals and Reeves’ commitment to ‘securonomics’. However, Reeves will need to use the coming months to share further details on the extent to which she wants key sectors within the government’s industrial strategy, such as the financial services and technology sectors, to be aligned with the EU on regulation. The Chancellor is ‘optimistic’ about the government’s ability to drive investment and growth but will need support from the business community to do so. Investors and businesses should consider potential scenarios where they can support the government to ensure that policy, funding and regulation is geared towards creating the best possible environment for growth in the UK.

If you would like to discuss the Chancellor’s growth strategy and its impact on businesses in more detail, please get in touch with joshua@gkstrategy.com.

What impact will data centres have on the UK’s ability to meet its net zero ambitions?

Data centres have been subject to significant scrutiny in recent years, particularly in relation to their impact on the government’s net zero agenda. In correspondence sent to the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee on 20 February 2026, the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband admitted that energy future demand from data centres, and its interaction with the UK’s net zero ambitions, remains ‘inherently uncertain’.

The government has designated data centres as ‘critical national infrastructure’ given they support nearly all economic activities as well as the day-to-day running of public services. Forecasts undertaken by trade association TechUK suggest that data centres have the potential to contribute an additional £44 billion to the UK economy by 2035, highlighting their strategic importance to the government’s economic growth agenda. The government recognises the important role data centres will play in our economy, evidenced through its commitment to deliver nearly 100 new centres over the next five years. Nonetheless, this has led to environmental groups seeking clarity from the government on how it will deliver this ambition while meeting its environmental obligations.

Under plans to expand the number of data centres, policy challenges have been raised by the wider energy sector and industry bodies, particularly around their use of energy and water. In March 2022, the National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) estimated that data centres consume around 2.5% of the UK’s electricity. It is likely that data centres’ electricity consumption will increase significantly over the coming years. Forecasts published by Oxford Economics in December 2025 estimate that data centres’ demand will represent 30.4% of UK’s commercial electricity consumption by 2030.

Alongside rising demand for electricity to power data centres, there is widespread debate about their impact on the water sector. In a report published by the government’s Digital Sustainability Alliance’s (GDSA) in September 2025, global water usage is predicted to increase from 1.1bn cubic metres to 6.6bn cubic metres by 2027. There is limited data available on how much water data centres use given there is currently no obligation for centres to report their water consumption. It is unsurprising therefore, that there are a range of opinions around this issue. While trade associations like TechUK challenge the notion that data centres are ‘inherently water intensive’, non-profit organisations such as Global Action Plan, have criticised the sector’s lack of transparency.

Despite the uncertainty of the sector’s capacity to support the government’s net zero ambitions, there is appetite, particularly from parliamentarians, to better understand the environmental impact of data centres. Last month, the Environmental Audit Committee launched its own inquiry into the risks and opportunities of data centres in the UK, with the committee inviting submissions from interested parties until 6 April 2026. Parliamentarians have also launched a new All-Party Parliamentary Group  to examine the impact of data centres on economic growth and the UK’s net zero ambitions.

As an essential infrastructure for digital storage and the wider economy, there is potential for data centres to help facilitate rapid economic growth for the UK. While data centres are starting to come under scrutiny from parliamentarians regarding their impact on the environment, there is scope for the sector to engage with government which will be very much in listening mode. The government acknowledges the value of data centres but in order for businesses operating in this sector to succeed, the sector will need to challenge the notion that it will constrain the government’s environmental agenda.

If you would like to discuss the impact of data centres and the government’s net zero agenda in more detail, please reach out to Noureen Ahmed at Noureen@gkstrategy.com.