Category Archives: Government

Barriers to the Reform-quake

GK’s James Allan assesses some of the barriers of populism in British politics and explains why the political hype about Reform UK might be overstated

‘Campaigning is different than governing’ – so said President Obama to reporters on Air Force One in a targeted message to Republicans looking to gridlock his legislative agenda on Capitol Hill. The same goes for any political organisation that looks to exploit grievances and stir up public anger to secure votes and electoral support. It was a dynamic at play in the 2016 Brexit referendum and Reform UK is reviving the grievance playbook in the lead up to the next election.

How the Labour government, and the Conservative Party in opposition, respond and deal with the challenge posed by Reform UK is undoubtedly shaping the course of this parliament. The government published its immigration white paper only moments after the local election result and the so-called ‘Reform-quake’ that saw 677 Reform councillors elected. As noted in last month’s newsletter, the government’s political objectives were clear: to appear tough on immigration, shatter the public perception of Labour being pro-asylum and pro-migration, and outflank Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage.

With all the subsequent political and media crystal ball gazing about the future of Reform UK, it is unsurprising that investors and businesses are curious. Importantly, the next election is likely to take place in the second half of 2028 or at some point in 2029. It is too early to predict the outcome meaning current polling warrants cautious interpretation. Amid the uncertainty, it is worth stepping back to consider why the political hype about Reform UK may be premature.

Four reasons why the Reform panic is overblown

1. The UK is bucking the global populist trend

The year 2024 was mega for elections across the globe. It was a year that largely saw incumbents punished for achieving marginal levels of economic growth, governing during a global health pandemic, and a cost-of-living crisis. This created opportunities for the ring-wing populist parties that sought to challenge to status quo, capitalise on grievances and promise radical change without providing credible plans for doing so. However, unlike most swings experienced in other western developed democracies, the UK swung to the left. The election of a Labour government brought an end to 14 years of Conservative governments.

The UK’s anti-incumbent sentiment at the election meant that one in four Conservative voters in 2019 went to Reform UK and one in five went to the Labour Party. This indicates a more fragmented split in the national vote and the UK’s first past the post electoral system means that Labour’s majority should be understood as broad but thin. It reflects a characteristic of our electoral and constitutional DNA that makes it harder for third, fourth and fifth political parties to perform well and win seats at general elections, including a right-wing populist challenger party. The bar is therefore high for Reform UK. It would need to overcome this fragmentation and more comprehensively supplant the Conservative Party to succeed.

2. No party has ever lost a 174-seat majority in modern British political history

Starmer’s majority is the third largest landslide win since the turn of the 20th century. From 1945 onwards, history would suggest that majorities such as this typically endure at least one more election before the colour of government changes. Labour’s majority of 145 in 1945 survived one other election before being unseated and its majority of 179 seats in 1997 endured for two more elections. The Conservative majority of 144 in 1983 also endured for two more elections and was whittled down to a majority of 21 before the party was catapulted out of power.

Historical precedents should be taken with a pinch of salt. The third-party challenger in all these elections were typically the Liberal Democrats (or its predecessors). A more fragmented electorate and Reform UK could challenge this historical precedent but even its predecessor UKIP never won any seats in the House of Commons at its peak in 2015 despite holding a number of seats in the European Parliament elected under a proportional representative system. This further underscores the difficulty these challenger parties face.

3. Grievance politics only gets you so far

Reform UK’s playbook of grievances is blunt and polarising: immigration and borders; issues of national identity and community cohesion; taking on establishment orthodoxy and perceived elite indifference; and underscoring the cost of net zero policies. Playing on grievances can mobilise discontent, and without credible solutions, Reform UK will struggle to translate its momentum into enduring political support.

The coming years will be a test of Reform UK’s operational effectiveness, party discipline and credibility in local government. Its success at the May local elections is significant. It won 677 council seats out of roughly 1,600, took control of ten local authorities and successfully elected two mayors. But beyond the grievances espoused by its candidates, Reform UK’s credibility is now at stake and already showing early signs of dysfunction. For instance, Reform UK-controlled Kent County Council recently suspended a councillor and nine of the 22 council meetings have been cancelled within the first nine weeks of them gaining control. These are meetings where important decisions, such as budget allocations and service provisions were expected to be made.

Local government plays a vital role in the operational delivery of frontline local public services that most of the electorate use and engage with. From adult social care and children’s services, to bin collection and public protection, a lot is at stake for Reform controlled local authorities. Political leaders in Westminster will be watching closely to exploit any opportunity to batter Reform’s credibility. Added to this is immense pressure on local government finances, meaning that any misstep will be amplified. Reform UK not only has to prove it can win votes but also that it can govern responsibly under intense scrutiny and fiscal constraint.

4. Expect mid-term blues

It is reasonable for voters to flirt with protest parties between general elections and Reform UK is likely to maintain its momentum in local elections over the course of this parliament. Local elections offer a safe outlet for public frustration, but general elections are different. Not only will voters who are less politically engaged (or enraged) turn out to vote in a general election, but the national conversation will shift from registering voter discontent to who can govern the country effectively. It was a dynamic in 2024 and a key part of Starmer’s pitch to voters, citing his record of restoring Labour’s credibility from the Corbyn era of Labour leadership and criticising the Conservative’s mismanagement of the economy.

While Reform UK may have reshaped the political conversation, structural barriers and historical precedents mean that translating this discontent into enduring electoral support that can survive the test of a general election will be a significant challenge for the populist right-wing party.

Push to raise foreign taxes on US assets a risk for foreign investors

By Lizzie Wills, Senior Partner & Head of Private Equity

A bill making its way through the US Congress could present meaningful new taxes on US holdings of investors domiciled in the UK, as well as several EU member countries – another in a series of new risks to emerge from the newly fraught relationship between America and its historic allies. While passage of the bill is not guaranteed, potentially impacted parties should begin to think now about how to react to potential changes.

The effort in the US Congress to impose new taxes on many foreign investments in the US is part of a broader tax and spending package that recently passed the US House of Representatives and is currently being debated in the Senate. The bill would be passed under a legislative vehicle known as reconciliation, which allows a bill to pass under restricted circumstances with simple majorities of both the House and Senate, circumventing the usual requirement to secure 60 Senate votes.

The foreign investment tax package is known as Section 899 for the new section of the US tax code required to implement it. Section 899 would impose incremental taxes above current rates on the value of income or sale proceeds of many US holdings (US Treasury securities would be exempt) held by institutional investors, individuals and governments domiciled in countries that have imposed what the bill characterises as “discriminatory” taxes on the US. The discriminatory threshold would automatically include countries that have levied Digital Service Taxes (DSTs) on US-based technology firms – which includes the UK, France and Spain – as well as taxes imposed under the Undertaxed Profits Rule, a standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to attempt to impose minimum tax rates on multinationals.

Since the House version of the reconciliation bill passed on 22 May 22, critics have dubbed Section 899 the “revenge tax”, predicting that if passed the provisions would hurt US asset prices, cause interest rates to rise and the US dollar to tank considering the US$30 trillion in US assets held by foreigners. The Tax Foundation, a US think tank, estimates the new taxes would impact some 80% of the foreign direct investments into the US. Yet US policymakers appear to be largely unmoved thus far by the opposition. The Senate Finance Committee has released draft language pegging the incremental taxes at 15% (5% per year for each of three years) starting in 2027, watering down the House version but keeping it largely intact. The notion of raising taxes on foreign investors is completely consistent with the “America First” mindset of the Trump administration and Republican congressional leaders. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a non-partisan body that estimates the fiscal impact of proposed legislation, has forecast that the House version of Section 899 would raise US$116 billion over the 10-year budget forecast window, important considering the CBO’s forecast that the bill would add trillions to the already yawning US budget deficit. The Senate’s version of the bill would raise less, given the 15% maximum (versus 20% in the House bill) but would still be expected to generate meaningful revenue.

The broader reconciliation bill has drawn opposition from multiple factions of the Republican party. However, the bulk of the criticism has focused more on the bill’s proposed cuts to the Medicaid health-insurance programme (for moderates) and the projected further widening of the federal budget deficit (for conservatives). By comparison, criticism of Section 899 has been muted. And even if the current version of the bill is scaled back, the temptation for a party that controls the White House, Senate and House to pass a bill through reconciliation is huge – the vehicle was used to pass the tax-reform bill in Trump’s first term, in 2017, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) under President Joe Biden in 2021.

Sample countries that have imposed Digital Service Taxes (DSTs) on US Firms

Austria Denmark Belgium
Canada Hungary Turkey
France Italy Peru
India Poland Colombia
UK Spain Kenya

Source: Tax Foundation

What can non-US investors with US holdings do in response? Both the Senate and House versions of the bill specify that the new taxes will only be imposed on entities with greater than 50% equity ownership outside the US. Jointly held funds with divided US/non US ownership could shift majority control back to the US partner. Other strategies will surely emerge to adapt to the new rules should they come to pass. But investors would do well to start thinking about them sooner rather than later.

If you’re interested in discussing this in more detail please be in touch with Lizzie Wills on lizzie.wills@gkstrategy.com.

Key Takeaways from the Spending Review: A future that is less generous than the past

GK had the pleasure of hosting former Treasury and education minister David Laws and the Financial Times’ Economics Commentator Chris Giles in our latest webinar on Thursday (12th June) to discuss the winners and losers from the government’s spending review, and what it means for business.

The spending review is a significant moment in the political calendar. The settlements it confirms set departmental day-to-day budgets for the next three years (2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29) and capital expenditure for the next four (until 2029-30). It is also the moment when No.10 and the Treasury must publicly commit the funds to support their political objectives – in essence, we get to see where spending is going to be prioritised and where it is not.

In the webinar, David and Chris detailed what the spending review means for overall public spending, where the government could come undone, and the possibility of future tax rises. You can read a summary of their key takeaways below:

The spending review is not about making new money available or introducing new taxes.

Spending reviews are all about the allocation of a pre-determined spending envelope which, in this instance, the Chancellor set out in the October budget last year. It does not introduce any new taxes or make new money available. Instead, it confirms what areas of public spending the government wants to prioritise, and which departments will have to be squeezed.

The departmental settlements do not represent a return to the austerity years.

While the overall spending envelope is tight – especially given growing pressure on public spending across health, pensions and defence – day-to-day spending is still rising by 1.2% per year in real terms (i.e. accounting for inflation) over the spending review period. This means it is broadly in line with the departmental spending settlements put forward by various governments since 2019.

A lot of the spending assumptions depend on public sector productivity improving, which is no guarantee.

Public sector productivity has declined since the Covid-19 pandemic and in 2024 it fell by 0.3%. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has historically assumed quite generous improvements in public sector productivity each year which is a key component of its overall economic growth metric.

If the OBR significantly revises down its assumptions about improvements in productivity, this could seriously impact the funds it is projecting the government will have to work with over the spending review period. This increases the likelihood of the government having to do introduce large tax rises at the autumn budget.

Defence will continue to put pressure on the government’s overall spending envelope.

Since the end of the Second World War, successive governments have used cuts to defence as a means of boosting other areas of public spending, most notably health. Persistent global instability and geopolitical uncertainty means that higher levels of defence spending are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. No.10 and the Treasury will have to contend with this new spending pressure as demographic challenges continue to pile up and economic growth remains sluggish.

The NHS is the big winner from the spending review, albeit with a smaller settlement than it has historically received.

Health secretary Wes Streeting will undoubtedly be the happiest around the Cabinet table following the confirmation of the Department of Health and Social Care’s settlement, with spending on the NHS set to grow by 3% per year in real terms. However, this is below historic average rises of approximately 4-5%. With a growing elderly population and people living with complex conditions for longer, the funding put forward in the spending review settlement is unlikely to significantly move the dial on the performance of the NHS.

Small tax rises are likely at the autumn budget to meet the Chancellor’s fiscal rules.

The government has committed to meet day-to-day expenditure through its own revenues by 2029-30. This means its current budget will have to be in balance or surplus by the end of the decade, and any money the government does borrow will be to invest. If the OBR projects that the government is not on course to meet this fiscal rule (or any of its others), then Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be forced to come back for a second round of tax rises or decide to break a fiscal rule. Either look fairly unpalatable to the government given where they currently are in the opinion polls.

A cabinet reshuffle should be expected in the second half of 2026 as the government begins to ramp up to the next general election.

2026 is projected to a big election year in the UK. Elections are due to take place for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, along with a series of newly created unitary authorities. Should the results prove poor for Labour, as current polling indicates they will, then Prime Minister Keir Starmer is likely to reshuffle his cabinet to get his top team in place as the No.10 machine starts to think about the next general election in 2029.

To go boldly: UK Strategic Defence Review 2025

The UK Government has now published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR). Speaking at a BAE Systems shipyard on the Clyde, the Prime Minister said the UK military is moving to ‘war-fighting readiness’ and, in step with the wider growth agenda, Sir Keir emphasised a role for the whole country in this new defence enterprise.

This review differs significantly from previous strategic defence (and security) reviews, and its output will be followed closely by allied capitals. It has the potential to be a transformational blueprint, with offensive cyber, technology and autonomy at its centre, to face the ‘new era of threat’.

The SDR was led by the respected former Labour Secretary of State for Defence and past NATO chief Lord Robertson, with an extended external team including Dr Fiona Hill and General Sir Richard Barrons. Commissioned soon after Labour returned to government in July last year, it is the UK’s first externally led defence review. Its aim is to make a forward-looking assessment of the UK’s strategic defence interests and outline the corresponding military requirements. This is no easy ask in such a fast-changing world, which is in part why we also see the early confirmation of big-ticket commitments, including new hunter-killer submarines, a £15 billion nuclear warhead programme to equip the bomber boats, and new long-range weapons.

In the strategic context, the review is clear that both Russia and China are big state threats. It also highlights the growing role the digital world will play in the global defence and security landscape, and the review is the first of its type to put a significant focus on cyber capabilities.

The balance here is between resource and the review’s four lenses: NATO-first; global responsibilities; homeland defence; and hybrid grey-zone activity such as cyber-attacks. Artificial intelligence and drones are transforming modern warfare, so the government has committed to set up a new cyber command with a £1 billion package of investment. There is also good news for MBDA and BAE who will be in line for the new ‘defence factories’ as the UK gets serious about munition supplies, with a £1.5 billion commitment to establish at least six munitions’ facilities.

The Ministry of Defence is still experiencing challenges to frontline budgets and decisions in the government’s upcoming spending review, due to be announced on Wednesday 11 June, will demonstrate No.10 and No.11’s seriousness about putting the SDR’s findings into action.

Friends and adversaries alike will keep a close eye on whether this latest SDR will deliver for UK defence. In the near term, all of us involved in defence and security await the publication of the government’s industrial strategy, expected alongside next week’s spending review, and the many opportunities it will bring to engage with government in the weeks and months ahead.

Roundtable discussion: A collaborative and child-centred approach to children’s social care

In April 2025, Christie & Co, Compass Carter Osborne, and GK Strategy hosted a female-led roundtable discussion on the challenges in the children’s social care sector across England and Wales. Here are the key takeaways.

For a roundtable event held in April 2025, hosts Hannah Haines (Head of Healthcare Consultancy, Christie & Co), Michâela Deasy (Head of External Communications, Compass Carter Osborne) and Lizzie Wills (Senior Partner & Head of Private Equity, GK Strategy) were joined by some of the biggest female names in the UK children’s social care sector.

The roundtable brought together operators, lawyers, investors, and sector experts, all of whom share a passion for quality healthcare and for driving an increased awareness of the challenges faced by operators across the country.

Below are some of the key highlights from the discussion.

THE INTRODUCTION OF PROFIT-CAPPING IN CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE SECTOR

Overview

Ahead of last year’s election, Labour pledged to reform the children’s social care system to improve the outcomes of looked-after children and those in care, and to address the funding crisis in the system following years of local authority funding pressures.

As part of the King’s Speech in July 2024, the government announced its plans to introduce the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which formed part of its legislative programme of over 40 new bills. One of the most controversial elements of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was announced the following November; the ability of the government to intervene directly in the market to introduce a profit cap on providers.

Concerns about excess profit-making in the children’s social care sector are not new, and the sector has historically done a good job at engaging with the government about why the fees charged by the independent and private sectors are typically higher than those provided by local authorities. This includes the complexity of the placements provided, with the private and independent sector providing a higher proportion of placements for children with highly complex needs, often where they need additional therapeutic support, or one-to-one care. The private sector also takes a higher number of children who have already experienced several placement breakdowns in local authority provision. The ability of the sector to be able to make a level of profit allows it to reinvest in meeting quality standards, hiring and training staff, and delivering new settings, often at the request of local authorities who are struggling with high levels of demand.

The Government has been clear that it does not intend to introduce a profit cap immediately and will only do so if its broader package of measures is unsuccessful in tackling what it sees as ‘unacceptable profiteering’ and rebalancing the market. There will also be a detailed public consultation before anything is implemented, including discussions specifically with local authorities and providers.

If the profit cap is implemented in the future, providers will be required to submit an annual financial return to the government to enable their profit levels to be assessed. Again, details are limited in terms of what information will be included in these returns. Details will also be subject to consultation with final plans set out at a later date. Should enforcement action need to be taken against a provider, this will be in the form of fines, the maximum amounts of which are expected to be set out in the subsequent secondary legislation.

Views from around the room: What will profit capping mean for the sector?

The Government might say it’s not against profit making, just against ‘profiteering,’ and that the steps it is taking are necessary to address the latter. The consensus is that the government’s approach to having a profit cap as a backstop in the new legislation will be a useful tactic to encourage providers to reinvest their profits into delivering better outcomes for children and young people, despite the potential for causing short term uncertainty.

It might be comforting for providers to know that, if the Government does implement a profit cap, it is expected to take several years to go from ambition to delivery, given the complexities involved. Significant parts of the mechanism will need to be set out in secondary legislation, and many of the details that are yet to be ironed out will be controversial, including how profit will be determined for the cap, and if it will be per placement, per business or per setting (or indeed based on some other metric).

Banks are watching the sector closely, but invested funds (especially impact funds) have a continued interest. Investors that are likely to do well are those that are reinvesting profits back into the UK healthcare infrastructure. However, smaller organisations may struggle to scale due to dampened investor interest, raising questions about how they can demonstrate ROI to investors and build an investment case.

In its 2022 report on children’s social care in the UK, the CMA acknowledged that comparing costs in the sector was complicated by differences in the needs of children placed in different settings and variations in how costs are calculated and reported. Rather than focusing on profit, which loses sight of the child, participants at the roundtable agreed it should be based on the outcomes and progression of the child. It should be a partnership, with everyone working together.

This was echoed around the room, alongside the challenges in measuring outcomes using such methods as the BERRY approach which matches needs against costs. Every looked-after child undergoes reviews to ensure outcomes are measured. A universal framework for evaluating providers based on outcomes rather than profit was seen as a potential solution that government should consider. The sector is well placed to advise the government on how approaches to date have worked, and how they could be refined in future.

We have already seen changes in Wales through its Eliminate Agenda, whereby it became the first nation in the UK to legislate to prevent profit-making by private companies in relation to children’s residential and foster care services by 2030. The Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025 received Royal Assent in March 2025 and mandates that children’s residential and foster care services be provided exclusively by local authorities, charities, or not-for-profit organisations.

Wales can serve as a case study for England. The sector in Wales is very prescriptive about what can and can’t be done by providers. The Welsh Government is now considering the role cooperatives could play in the delivery of services and they’ve pushed back the final stage in the roll-out of the plan by three years (to 2030) A lot of what is happening is political and their agenda is quite clear, so England would be wise to keep a watchful eye on what is happening over the border.

What action should be taken?

  • The consensus around the table was that we need to evidence the positive outcomes the private and independent sector is delivering for children and young people, to counter negative perceptions around profit-making. There was agreement that the sector has historically not been sufficiently vocal in making this case, and demonstrating the excellent outcomes it supports across a group of vulnerable individuals and their families.
  • The focus should be on positive outcomes for children, not profits – so providers, parents, the government, and the media all need to work together to lift up the sector and highlight the amazing work that it does for each child, keeping in mind that the outcomes for each will be different.
  • There is a continuing lack of constructive dialogue between some Local Authorities and operators throughout the health and social care space. The sector must focus on demonstrating positive outcomes and maintaining strong relationships with local authorities to navigate the ongoing political changes.
  • Any new policy must be outcomes-focused, fit for purpose, workable in practice and designed and implemented after full consultation with the sector.

INVESTMENT IN THE SECTOR AND ONGOING COMMUNICATION ISSUES IMPACTING PROGRESSION

Views from around the room: What could the children’s services sector be doing to improve communications between the Government and operators?

The landscape of children’s services is marked by a myriad of challenges and opportunities, particularly in the context of collaboration, funding, and policy implementation. Despite numerous operators striving to collaborate and communicate effectively, the sector is often met with negativity, largely due to underfunded government spending across all areas.

A significant issue is the lack of focus on the child. There is insufficient engagement from government with the private sector, and the narrative needs to shift to place the child at the centre of all decisions. When the child’s needs are prioritised, quality naturally follows. However, there is an imbalance as each child and business is different, and policies are often rushed through without adequate consultation with operators.

An immediate concern is the sustainability of providers amidst declining fostering rates and increasing care needs. Many smaller businesses are at risk of not surviving due to these pressures. Perceptions that mainstream education settings continue to struggle to support those with lower-end spectrum needs is driving an increasing number of parents who feel they are left with no other option but to seek Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and external support, resulting in an increasing demand for specialist support on the lower end of the scale. The government’s current policy agenda around mainstreaming and inclusivity for children with less complex SEND is an attempt to address the ‘drift’ towards specialist schools.

It was also highlighted that, amidst funding challenges, local authorities are focusing on immediate budgets rather than long-term savings and the positive impact on the child that could be achieved through early intervention. The debate around profiteering stresses that higher margins do not necessarily equate to higher quality, nor do lower margins imply lower quality. The goal should be to support the child’s needs, improve outcomes, and subsequently lower the costs of provision. However, the primary challenge remains budgetary and funding constraints faced by local authorities.

Bespoke solutions, such as tuition hubs for children close to re-entering mainstream education are essential. These hubs can provide tailored support to ensure a smooth transition back into the school environment.

What action should be taken?

  • The sector must focus on child-centric approaches, effective collaboration, and innovative solutions to navigate the current challenges. By prioritising the child’s needs and demonstrating positive outcomes, the sector can build a stronger case for adequate funding and support. As a provider, if you can demonstrate where money is being reinvested to drive up quality and outcomes, that’s a useful and constructive addition.

LEADERSHIP AND AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN HEALTHCARE BUSINESSES

As demand for high-quality, specialist care continues to grow, how can management navigate the complex environment, mitigate risk, secure investment, and ensure sustainability and innovation within the sector?

Investors in this space are showing a notable shift in appetite. While continuing to focus on identifying future leaders from within the sector – whether for CEO, CFO, or CPO roles – they are increasingly looking beyond traditional industry boundaries to source talent. This reflects a growing recognition of the need for financial and operational strategies to evolve with rising demands, including revenue diversification.

Take the Chief People Officer (CPO) role, for example. The CPO’s mandate is to foster a culture that attracts and retains a diverse team – one that is calm, focused, driven, and open to embracing technology, with a strong understanding of risk and quality outcomes.

Similarly, today’s CEO must be multifaceted, a strategic leader with deep experience in execution, a keen understanding of risk, and a strong focus on quality. They must leverage technology that delivers real value, foster a purpose-driven culture, understand competitors and market dynamics, and prioritise meaningful metrics and KPIs. Above all, they must lead with empathy and drive a people-first agenda.

Views from around the room: What does strong leadership look like to you?

  • Not losing sight of why you’re there creates a robust culture
  • Trust. Being able to challenge one another at every level is healthy and creates a stronger business
  • Need a passion for the sector itself and an understanding of what internal and external drivers
  • Someone who has risen through the ranks, who is an inspiration to others and brings about a strong, positive culture
  • While knowledge of the sector is beneficial, it’s not necessarily the case that the best talent is a sector specialist. Sometimes it’s about looking more broadly at the talent out there that could be great at driving leadership
  • Someone with an inherent entrepreneurial quality who can find a solution to a challenging landscape without diluting what the business is set to achieve
  • A leader who takes real-life stories back to the boardroom, reminding the corporate team that it’s not just about the numbers, it’s about bringing the personal element back

To find out more about the changing landscape of the children’s social care sector, or to join the team’s next roundtable event, contact:

Lizzie Wills: lizzie.wills@gkstrategy.com

Hannah Haines: hannah.haines@christie.com

Michâela Deasy: michaela@compasscarterosborne.com