Category Archives: Investment

Tariff climbdown offers Trump an off ramp, but uncertainty remains

History repeats itself. An adage the US President and his team of advisers would do well to heed.

In 2022 the radical tax cutting budget announced by Liz Truss’ government sent yields on UK gilts spiralling out of control, with the 10-year gilt yield increasing by the largest amount in a single day since the 1990s. The Bank of England had to intervene with emergency bond purchases to prevent a collapse in the pension fund market.

This market crisis ultimately had profound political consequences, with Kwasi Kwarteng being removed as Chancellor after just 38 days in office, and the end of Liz Truss’s premiership following soon after, making her the shortest-serving Prime Minister in UK history at only 49 days.

The episode highlighted how sensitive financial markets can be to fiscal policy decisions, particularly when they raise concerns about a country’s debt sustainability or when policy changes are announced without adequate preparation or buy-in from the market.

We can look further back to understand the might of the bond market. President Clinton’s economic adviser, James Carville, said: “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” This has arguably proved to be the case for President Trump – despite trillions being wiped off the stock market, it was rising yields on US Treasury bonds that forced him to blink.

The President claims that the decision to pause the new reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days was the result of 75 countries contacting the White House to express willingness to negotiate trade deals. This narrative creates a potential blueprint for a further watering down of tariffs once the pause ends. Trump has created some leeway to say that after successful negotiations countries will no longer be “ripping off” the United States and will point to his tariffs as a masterstroke in political and economic diplomacy. This exit strategy, however, may come too late to repair the damage done to the international economic and geopolitical order that Trump’s approach is likely to leave in its wake.

This short reprieve, as it may still turn out to be, is creating major issues for the global economy, with financial markets in a state of flux trying to pre-empt and then respond to Trump’s next move. The political and economic uncertainty of the next three months will be difficult to navigate, particularly for multinational businesses with complex supply chains.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has already acknowledged that fixating on whether the UK can negotiate the removal of its own 10% tariff is almost irrelevant, given the potentially more serious impacts the UK could face in the event of a global economic slowdown. A trade war between the two biggest global economies – the United States and China – would have far reaching implications that no country would be able to insulate itself from. The Bank of England has already warned that supply chain disruptions would be expected to weigh heavy on UK economic activity.

This all creates a big headache for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. Having had to make some politically unpopular decisions in recent week to restore the £9billion of fiscal headroom she identified in the autumn budget in October, she could once again find this headroom wiped out as UK growth is revised down. There is already speculation about HM Treasury’s potential response. Tax rises, more spending cuts, or additional borrowing are the options, and none of them are politically palatable.

The global economic challenges have already had an impact on the machinery of government. The Prime Minister has removed two key people from the Number 10 policy unit as part of efforts for the government to speed up economic growth and policy delivery. In the coming weeks it is likely the government will bring forward the publication of the government’s Industrial Strategy (originally scheduled for publication alongside the Spending Review in June) to demonstrate that the UK is open to business and ripe for international investment. The government has also shown a willingness to support industries that are exposed to tariffs. In anticipation of tariffs coming into effect, Starmer announced a watering down of regulations relating to electric vehicle sales targets to provide manufacturers with some breathing space. We are likely to see additional measures announced as the government continues its consultation with business on the impacts of higher tariffs, and what the UK’s response should be.

The government is facing a significant challenge to its central mission to grow the economy and raise living standards. A renewed emphasis to go further and faster in the delivery of its reform agenda, does, despite the doom and gloom, offer an opportunity for businesses. Policymakers are firmly in listening mode. Businesses that can offer solutions to the economic pressures the government is facing, as well as a commitment to investing in the UK, will find a welcoming ear.

The next few months will undoubtedly be challenging and uncertain. However, a renewed collaboration between the public and private sector to navigate these turbulent times has the potential to offer a pathway for the UK to position itself as a top destination for investment and business growth.

What does the future hold for crypto regulation?

Positioning the UK as a leader in the global market

UK policymakers and regulators have expressed their intention to encourage growth, innovation and competition in the digital assets industry. However, the government also wants to protect consumers and maintain market integrity. This is a balance that policymakers and regulators in other jurisdictions have found difficult to strike. The previous Conservative government wanted to make the UK a global hub for cryptoasset technology and investment – a goal shared by Keir Starmer.

Accelerating the timeline for reform

In 2018, HM Treasury (HMT) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began coordinating a phased regulatory approach, initially focusing on stablecoins before introducing new regulations for the wider cryptoassets industry.

Since the 2024 general election, the FCA’s approach has shifted slightly. The government has indicated its support for most of the reforms set out prior to the general election. However, Starmer is less focused on stablecoins than his predecessor and is likely to accelerate the timeline for the regulation of the wider cryptoasset industry, rather than adopt the phased approach.

The government is aware that other international hubs have also taken significant steps in regulating digital assets. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) became fully applicable in December 2024 and has introduced a comprehensive regulatory regime for the European bloc’s digital asset market. Given the EU continues to work on secondary legislation to supplement MiCA and also requires crypto firms to align with other EU rules on governance and data-sharing, the EU’s new regime is likely to significantly increase the regulatory burden on firms. The second Trump administration has already signalled that it will take a much more lenient approach in the US compared to the Biden administration. Trump has issued an executive order directing agencies within his administration to create a regulatory framework that supports the cryptoassets industry and limits unnecessary government intervention.

Firms operating across multiple jurisdictions need to be cognisant of how the UK’s approach differs with other cryptoasset hubs to ensure compliance. The government is likely to favour an approach that places the UK somewhere between the EU and the US. While the UK’s eventual cryptoassets regime is likely to provide stronger consumer protections than a Trump-inspired US regime, it is unlikely to be as prescriptive as the EU on the categorisation of cryptoassets, the scope of regulated activities, and disclosure obligations for cryptoasset issuers.

Implementing the new regulatory regime

In November 2024, the FCA published a “Crypto Roadmap” of key dates for the development and introduction of the UK’s cryptoasset regime. The roadmap sets out a series of consultations focused on different aspects of the future regulatory regime to be held over the course of 2025 and during the first quarter of 2026, with the final rules published in 2026. This includes the completion of a consultation on the proposed creation of an information sharing platform for industry stakeholders (to be approved by HMT) to prevent market abuse and boost compliance with future regulation. The FCA also plans to consult on a governance regime in autumn 2025 including further measures to ensure crypto firms adhere to the FCA’s Consumer Duty and its Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). This would likely require individuals in senior roles at firms be approved by the FCA or the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

The cryptoassets industry is likely to benefit from Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to urge regulators to accelerate efforts to support growth and innovation. As part of a wider deregulation push, Reeves tweaked the FCA’s secondary objective to make it clear that the regulator must do more to make the UK financial services markets more competitive than other countries. Although the FCA’s CEO Nikhil Rathi is concerned that deregulation could lead to ‘bad actors slipping through the net’, he has said that he is willing to consider the easing of some consumer protections to reduce the regulatory burden. This could be significant for the cryptoassets industry. Larger firms are currently better placed to comply with expected new regulatory measures, while smaller firms may not have the internal structures and resources to do so, potentially forcing them out of the market or creating opportunities for consolidation.

We’d be delighted to share our perspectives on what the government’s crypto and fintech reforms could mean for you and how you can engage with policy debates. Please contact joshua@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.

Does the latest financial settlement for local authorities shift the dial on council finances?

The government has now confirmed the local authority financial settlement for 2025-26. This is a crucial time of year for councils who rely on these funds to deliver statutory services including adult and children’s social care, and support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Independent providers of these services should pay close attention to the financial settlement as it provides a good indication of future cost pressures for councils at a time when demand for statutory services continues to rise.

The final settlement will provide £69.4 billion of core spending power to local authorities in England. This represents a rise of £4.4 billion compared to 2024-25, constituting a 6.8% cash terms increase (or 4.3% when adjusted for inflation). Of this £69 billion figure, 24% is non-ring-fenced settlement funding, 14% is grants for social care, 6% is other grants, and the remaining 55% is council tax. While the overall increase in spending power is broadly aligned with increases in recent years, in real terms it is approximately 9% below where it was in 2010-11. Since this date, councils have become increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to meet their statutory obligations.

The funding settlement does not appear to provide much relief to local authorities who continue to struggle under the pressure of growing demand for services. Chair of the Local Government Association, Cllr Louise Gittins, said the extra funds ‘will help meet some of the cost and demand pressures they face but still falls short of what is desperately needed’. She went on to say that that the funding landscape remains extremely challenging for councils of all types and many could be forced to make further cuts to non-statutory services.

However, the government hopes change is on the horizon with its proposed reforms to local authority funding. Ministers believe these reforms will provide more financial certainty to councils, which will in turn allow them to better manage their spending and reduce cost pressures. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently concluded a consultation on local authority funding reform and is in the process of analysing the responses it received. One of the primary proposals under consideration is to move to a multi-year settlement from 2026-27, which the government believes ‘will enable [councils] to better plan ahead and achieve better outcomes for local residents, as well as better value for money for taxpayers.’

Overall, the recent confirmation of the local authority funding settlement points to more of the same for councils up and down the country – mounting cost pressures will leave council leaders scrambling to meet rising demand for services. For providers of local authority funded services, this demonstrates the ongoing importance of communicating to commissioners their high-quality, value for money offering which will reduce the burden on council resources. It will also be vital for businesses to monitor the government’s response to the consultation on local authority funding as this will allow them to best anticipate and respond to possible future changes to commissioning practices following the policy’s implementation.

To discuss the local authority funding landscape in more detail, please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com).

The Office for Students: A higher education aid or hindrance?

Late last year, Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson announced increases to university tuition fees starting in September 2025. However, this did little to quell concerns of financial sustainability in the higher education sector that has been the talk of university towns. The suspension of the Office for Students’ (OfS) ability to accept new registration applications and issue degree awarding powers has not helped to alleviate doubts over the stability and growth of the sector. These temporary changes to the OfS’ remit will though allow ministers to focus on a wider package of reforms to the body. These are set out in the OfS’ draft strategy for 2025 to 2030, which is currently out for consultation.

The draft strategy builds on priorities set out by Sir David Behan in his independent review, ‘Fit for the Future: Independent Review of the Office for Students’, which was published in July 2024. His main takeaways include a lack of engagement with students, overstretched powers, and its need to help develop financial sustainability in higher education.

Central to the OfS’ draft strategy is one of the government’s five main missions: ‘breaking down barriers to opportunity’. Equality of opportunity is an underlying theme of the strategy, and it claims to place the experience of students at the centre of higher education. There are three pillars which aim to achieve greater levels of student satisfaction: regulating higher education courses; expanding the OfS’ attention to areas that impact students’ engagement with higher education; and increasing the resilience and quality of higher education.

Although student experiences are important, there is an understanding from the OfS and stakeholders that students can’t experience all aspects of university life if their university is nearing financial collapse or bankruptcy. Financial resilience of the higher education sector is the lynch pin of high-quality provision and breaking down barriers. This is even more pertinent with the rising cost of living and students’ expectations that the fees they pay should provide them with quality experiences beyond the lecture theatre.

Despite previous uncertainty surrounding the OfS’ role in the future of higher education, the pause in its powers and the body’s focus on the consultation will allow for a reset moment.

For higher education providers, the consultation is a chance to make the case to government and the OfS about the quality of its courses and the importance of higher education to the UK’s growth ambitions. The development of a stable economic base and demonstrating how the sector can meet students’ expectations will be key for encouraging investment opportunities into the sector. Stakeholders should engage with the draft strategy to help create a clearer future for the higher education sector and increase dialogue between the OfS and providers.

What does the Renters’ Rights Bill mean for the future of rented housing?

GK Associate Director, Will Blackman, explores what the government’s new Renters’ Rights Bill means for the future of rented housing in England.

The government’s Renters’ Rights Bill completed its passage in the House of Commons this week and is expected to receive Royal Assent in the coming months following the completion of its Lords’ stages. What does this significant piece of legislation mean for the private rented sector and the housing market as a whole?

The origins of this bill go back several years. The Theresa May government in 2019 first consulted on reforms to rebalance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, which included the ability of landlords to issue Section 21 notices, or so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions. This change continues to sit at the heart of the bill and is intended to give greater stability and security of tenure to tenants. It also provides landlords with reformed and expanded grounds for seeking possession of their properties under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This includes cases where the landlord wishes to sell or to move into the property themselves. Other measures include stricter requirements around rent increases, the creation of a new ombudsman, new requirements on landlords to remedy mould and damp problems and a new right for tenants to request a pet.

The last Conservative government introduced its own version of this legislation – the Renters’ Reform Bill – however this fell away following the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the General Election. The Labour government’s version of the bill – now the Renters’ Rights Bill – includes some significant differences to its predecessor, almost all to the benefit of tenants rather than landlords. For example, tenants must now be in three months of rent arrears before landlords can seek possession, rather than the two months proposed by the Conservatives; the grace period after which landlords can seek possession in order to sell the property has also been doubled from six to twelve months and the notice period extended from two to four months. Moreover, the current version of the bill gives tenants new rights to terminate a tenancy from day one with two months’ notice – something previously not allowed under the last bill until at least four months after a tenancy started. This would have effectively created a minimum six-month term.

These reforms are the most significant changes to the regulation of the private rented sector for over 35 years. The residential landlord sector has been careful not to be seen opposing the legislation outright given the unhelpful optics around this. However, many individual landlords are concerned that the balance has tipped too far away from them, potentially leaving many unable to take back possession of their properties in reasonable circumstances. Court backlogs have provided an additional layer of concern, with delays in processing evictions claims already persisting in many parts of England, with many landlords calling for significant improvements in order to allay their concerns.

Some industry leaders such as Propertymark and the National Residential Landlords Association have warned that the proposed provisions could lead to landlords withdrawing from the sector, in turn limiting supply and driving up rents. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government’s own impact assessment does not predict an exodus of landlords from the sector. Indeed, landlords have been subject to a raft of regulatory and tax changes since 2015, but these have not resulted in significant divestment from the private rental market, which many had predicted at the time.

However these changes play out in the long term, individual and institutional investors in the private rented sector will need to grasp this new regulatory landscape quickly, especially given its wide-ranging impacts for the sector and the prospect of significant disruption to their portfolio. It is the case that home ownership remains unaffordable for many and this is unlikely to change in the near term. However, as the government looks to tip the balance in favour of tenants, it is vital that investors engage with the new regulatory landscape to ensure they are well prepared and can take steps to insulate themselves from any emerging risks.

To discuss the government’s housing policy reforms in more detail, please contact Will Blackman at will@gkstrategy.com

New Government, Same Challenges: Why the early years sector needs to engage with Labour

GK Adviser Noureen Ahmed considers Labour’s approach to the early years sector and why it is so important for providers to engage with the government.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined his ‘Plan for Change’ in which he set out the six metrics he would like to hit by the next election. This was an important moment for Starmer to demonstrate to voters that his government means business after a turbulent five months in office. Starmer’s education metric, to ensure 75 per cent of five-year-olds are school-ready, falls under the government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. This is one of five missions Starmer set out prior to the election in which he promised to bolster opportunity for all through improvements to the education system.

Early years education has long been a priority for Labour, with Starmer’s education team having been incredibly vocal about the sector in opposition. Even though much of the initial focus has been on delivering the previous government’s early years reforms, notably the rollout of the extended childcare entitlement, the new government is clearly preparing the sector ahead of launching its own early years agenda, as laid out in Labour’s general election manifesto.

Whilst the spotlight on the sector has been welcomed, some immediate concerns have been expressed by sector leaders, including: whether the government’s schedule to roll out the final stage of its extended childcare entitlement to up to 30 hours go ahead as planned in September 2025, and if the government can deliver its additional pledges for the early years sector successfully over the course of this parliament.

The recruitment and retention crisis facing the early years sector is the biggest barrier impacting the delivery of the extended childcare entitlement. Difficulties attracting people to work in the early years sector, coupled with an exodus of staff, means it is unsurprising early years professionals are sceptical about whether the final rollout will go ahead as planned. The Department for Education’s (DfE’s) recent announcement that it will provide £75 million in grant funding to help childcare providers deliver the staff and places needed next year is positive and suggests that the government is determined to launch the final stage on time, despite these challenges.

There was also some welcome news at the October budget with the government announcing £15 million in investment to begin the delivery of 3,000 school-based nurseries by the end of this parliament. Schools currently have the opportunity to bid for up to £150,000 to either expand existing nurseries or open a new one, with the government hoping to open around 300 new or expanded nurseries by September 2025.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has reiterated government’s appetite to deliver more school-based nursery provision. Making use of unused classrooms in primary schools looks like a sensible policy approach. However, the government could find it difficult to meet the commitment’s short- and long-term targets. Getting enough schools on board with the scheme could prove difficult. Even though there may be capacity to utilise the free classroom spaces available, the infrastructure (both physical and logistical) needed to create and maintain nursery provision is very different to those needed for primary school pupils.

The Labour government is also realistic about the need for a model which includes both state-delivered provision via in-school nurseries and maintained nurseries and provision by the private voluntary and independent (PVI) sector in order to meet capacity demands. In regard to the latter, the government understands the importance of the PVI sector in delivering high-quality early years education and so will be keen to work with the sector to deliver much of its proposed in-school nursery provision.

Moreover, Ofsted has said it will work to support the government’s plans by making it easier for high-quality providers to set up and expand nurseries. The watchdog’s plan to streamline the registration process for providers as well review how it inspects and regulates multiple providers is laudable because it allows the sector the chance to continue meeting the demand for early years settings.

The government has made a big play that in total will see investment increase by over 30% compared to last year, all whilst happening amidst a bleak fiscal outlook. This political priority as the education secretary has acknowledged must be accompanied by reform to deliver a sustainable early education system. This will mean high quality providers demonstrating value for money and their ability to scale up provision. Those providers with a proven track record and an ambition for growth will find a receptive ear within DfE and No 10. With the next phase of rollout in 2025 and the comprehensive spending review in the spring setting out the funding for the remainder of this parliament, providers have no time to waste. They should prioritise engaging with government to position themselves as a partner in the next phase of reform, and to demonstrate the role they play in ensuring a successful delivery.