Category Archives: Investment

Risk-based or sector led? How we can expect the government to regulate AI

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, has received significant backlash in recent weeks after its ability to create sexualised images of women and children generated widespread media headlines.  The scale of the public outcry has sharpened concerns about how quickly AI capabilities are outpacing existing safeguards. This has increased pressure on the government to more stringently regulate AI, which is reshaping industries at an unprecedented pace, bringing both opportunities and risks.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously suggested that the government would move away from the last Conservative administration’s ‘pro-innovation regulatory framework’ for AI, as set out in its white paper on AI published in 2023. Instead, Starmer has publicly emphasised the need for an overarching regulatory framework with additional protections in specific areas. He has also expressed concerns about the potential risks and impacts of AI, while acknowledging its transformative potential for society. In January 2025, the government published its AI Opportunities Action Plan, which set out its ambitions to use AI to ‘turbocharge’ economic growth and create AI growth zones to speed up planning processes for AI infrastructure.

The government’s approach to AI differs from the EU’s risk-based framework, which classifies AI systems into four categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Each category has a different set of regulations and requirements for organisations developing or using AI systems. UK-based organisations with operations in the EU or those deploying AI systems within the bloc are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the EU AI Act, requiring UK organisations to keep abreast of legislative changes and any potential future misalignments between the UK and EU in this area.

Although Starmer has pledged to turn the UK into an ‘AI superpower’, ministers have so far struggled to find the right balance between regulation and harnessing AI’s economic potential. At the end of 2024, the government proposed relaxing copyright laws to allow developers to train AI models on any material they can legally access. The plans received widespread criticism from creatives and high-profile musicians who would be required to opt-out of having their work used. Ministers have since acknowledged that the move was misguided and announced that the associated legislation would be delayed while they develop a more extensive policy framework.

It is likely that we will see new legislation announced in the form of an AI and Copyright Bill at the King’s speech, which is due to take place in May 2026. This presents an opportunity for businesses to engage with the government at a key stage of the policymaking process.

The legislation is likely to focus on safety, copyright protections, and transparency. The government has been clear that it does not want to introduce measures that could drive AI investment out of the UK. Appearing before the Digital and Communications Committee in January 2026, technology secretary Liz Kendall stated that many of the larger AI companies are opposed to ‘onerous burdens’, suggesting the government is likely to adopt a cautious approach in its efforts to more stringently regulate AI to avoid deterring potential investment in the UK.

This means we can expect the government to attempt to tread a line between the EU’s risk-based framework and the deregulatory approach taken in the US in order to strike the right balance between innovation and oversight. Despite both the EU and UK focussing on principles such as accountability and transparency, the diverging approaches observed so far in practice mean a consistent approach to the regulation of AI is unlikely, at least in the near term.

If you would like to discuss AI regulation in more detail, please reach out to Annabelle Black at annabelle@gkstrategy.com.

Beyond the battlefield: Britain’s drone strategy as a lever for economic growth

Lessons from the battlefields of Ukraine, combined with rapid technological innovation, have pushed drones firmly into the centre of UK defence policy. Yet, the implications of this shift extend far beyond military capability and the defence sector. By scaling domestic manufacturing and considering drone technology within wider growth strategies, there is potential to unlock growth across many sectors in the UK economy.

The pace of technological development seen in Ukraine has demonstrated how quickly drone capability can evolve when innovation is tested under real-world conditions. Low-cost drones, AI-driven autonomous systems, and advanced first-person view drones have challenged traditional defence strategies. For the UK, this has underscored the importance of building domestic drone capability to enhance national security.

To build these capabilities, the Ministry of Defence’s 2024 Defence Drone Strategy and 2025 Defence Industrial Strategy set out a vision that includes drones as a central component of military capability. This has been reinforced by the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, in which the government recognised that drones will be central to future conflicts and outlines its ambition to support innovation and growth in the drones sector.

For defence contractors, the implications are immediate. The government’s desire to deliver progress at pace on these strategies means that businesses that can demonstrate resilient and tested technologies are positioned to win contracts. However, the effects of this industrial strategy will be felt far beyond defence, with these moves creating large spillover effects to the civilian drone market.  Defence procurement can help firms scale production, de-risk investment, and move more quickly into civilian markets. In addition, many of the technologies that are useful as defence capabilities will assist in commercial settings. For instance, advanced first-person view drones will allow drones to be used more easily for law enforcement and infrastructure inspection. Counter-drone technologies also have clear commercial value, Systems developed to detect and neutralise hostile drones can be deployed to protect airports, prisons, critical national infrastructure, and other sensitive sites.

Together, these applications illustrate how defence-led innovation can unlock the sector’s wider economic potential – estimated by government-commissioned analysis to reach up to £103 billion by 2050, as we highlighted in our recent article. This demonstrates the scale of the commercial opportunities now emerging for businesses and investors, as technologies initially developed for defence are increasingly able to scale into regulated civilian markets, supported by a growing ambition within government to be a world-leader in drone technology.

However, despite this opportunity, risks remain. Defence procurement is politically sensitive and shifts in budget priorities over the course of a parliament could constrain investment. This means that businesses must continue to engage with government to reduce regulatory barriers to create a favourable regulatory environment. Businesses who engage with the government’s existing work on regulatory innovation and help government understand where other challenges exist will reap the benefits of the UK’s focus on the drones sector.

If you’d like to discuss the drones sector and related policy in more detail, please reach out to Jacob on Jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com

Cleared for take-off? The policies shaping the UK drone industry

The government has set itself the ambitious goal for becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7. This lofty ambition sits at the heart of the government’s agenda and is central to its industrial strategy – a 10-year plan to increase business investment in the industries of the future. The drones sector has been identified as a frontier industry, with the government clearing a flightpath for the UK to be a world leader in drone innovation and technologies.

Driving this move is the extraordinary economic potential of drones. A recent PwC report states that the sector could contribute £45 billion to the UK economy and support 650,000 jobs by 2030. Further analysis undertaken by Frazer-Nash consultancy for the government suggests that with public support and a shared strategy and ambition between government and industry, the sector could have contributed £103 billion by 2050. Together, these findings demonstrate how collaboration between government and industry can lead to a thriving drones sector which can drive growth and innovation across the UK.

Regulatory challenges

For this growth to be unlocked, the government must work to address regulatory challenges that constrain innovation. Across government, companies face a range of overlapping rules that can slow commercial deployment and limit investment. One of the largest constraints on the sector is the requirement to keep the drone within the line of sight of the operator. Additional health and safety regulations enforced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) also prohibit drones being flown within a 50m radius of people. This constrains the range of operations drones can perform, limiting their use in many areas such as delivery, infrastructure inspection, and large-scale surveying, particularly in urban areas.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also limits the growth of drones operating in the agricultural sector, with the HSE requiring companies to get approval for almost all aerial spraying. The HSE states that there is a 52-week processing time for drone applications, which will inevitably undermine the innovation and adoption of drones in the agricultural sector.

All these affected areas are where drone technology offers incredible commercial potential, so overcoming these regulatory barriers will be key for businesses looking to unlock growth in the drones sector.

These challenges are not insurmountable and government and industry collaboration is already underway to tackle them. The Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) is leading a series of pro-innovation reforms for the drones sector, including the introduction of a single, standard risk assessment process to cut approval times for complex drone operations. They are also working on expanding the CAA’s atypical air environment policy, which enables the use of drones Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS), with the ROI providing £8.9 million in funding for innovative projects that will test the effects of new BVLOS standards. The ROI has also worked with the HSE to make it legal for drones to spray slug pellets, which is a major step forward for agricultural drones businesses.

Public concerns

Drones businesses also face challenges of public perception. The research done by Frazer-Nash consultancy estimated that without public support, the size of the sector will be £65 billion by 2050. That represents a £38 billion reduction in the sector compared to the scenario with public support. Given the incredible economic value that lies in public support, addressing public concerns, such as the use of drones for criminal activities, are of great importance to the sector and government to ensure businesses reach their full potential.

The government is already thinking about innovative solutions to the public perception challenge. In November 2025, the government launched a technology challenge which will encourage industry to develop innovative systems capable of detecting drones designed by criminals to evade current detection methods. If successful, this challenge will help the government intercept drugs being delivered by drones into prisons.

The government’s willingness to cut red tape and find innovative solutions to the challenges facing the sector creates opportunity for the sector. However, it remains essential for companies to engage with the government, both to push further on reducing overly prohibitive regulation and to address public concerns surrounding drone safety. By doing so, businesses can play a central role in shaping a regulatory landscape that supports innovation, builds public trust, and cements the UK’s position as a global leader in drone technology.

If you’d like to discuss drones and the wider political landscape in more detail, please reach out to Jacob on Jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com

 

 

 

 

 

Tiny Humans, Big Lessons: Early years under Labour a year on

GK’s Thea Southwell Reeves examines how Labour has placed early years at the heart of its social mobility agenda by focusing on high-quality, education-led provision.

 

Early years is a priority for government and has been since it first entered office last year. High quality early years education is a cornerstone of the equal opportunities ‘mission’ to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. Bridget Phillipson had championed early years long before the election and the appointment of the first ever early years minister was an indication of the priority it would have in the new Department for Education (DfE).

Although several of Labour’s early years policies have continued the work of previous governments, this government’s key ideological shift is away from seeing childcare as simply an economic issue to a focus on the provision of high-quality early education as a driver of social mobility. Addressing regional gaps in childcare provision known as ‘childcare deserts’ is fundamental to this, as is increasing the focus on quality to close the growing disadvantage gap in school readiness.

During its first year, the government’s priority has been implementing the final stages of the funding entitlements roll outs, which were completed this month. Now, eligible working parents of children aged 9 months to 5 years are entitled to 30 hours of funding per week. Overall, the expansion of funding has driven demand for spaces. The government had set a target of creating 85,000 new early years childcare places by September 2025 to support the roll out of funding expansions. It is not yet clear whether this target has been met, butInitial analysis suggests that most of this additional capacity has been concentrated in areas where provision already exists rather than creating new capacity in childcare deserts.

The government’s schools-based nurseries programme is designed to focus new provision in disadvantaged areas with 189 of the 300 government-funded new or expanded in-school settings opening this month. About 10% of school-based nursery provision is delivered by a PVI partnership. The second phase of funding is now open for applications and is prioritising high quality bids from schools in the most disadvantaged communities.

What’s next for early years?

The funding rates to deliver the government-funded childcare have always been contentious, with the industry maintaining that the funding simply does not reflect the true cost of provision. This has led many providers to use additional charges to ‘top up’ their income but the government has pushed back on this, revising the guidance around chargeable extras earlier this year. In its new strategy for the sector, published in July, the DfE announced a full review of early years funding, including the merits of national funding formulae. It will consult on proposals by summer 2026 and businesses should be monitoring and contributing to this process. The strategy also includes plans to increase the funding available to providers to support children with SEND and improve the way funding is allocated as part of the government’s wider reforms to the SEND system. More detail will be set out on this in the schools white paper this autumn.

The early years strategy, for the first time, raises DfE concerns about a rise in large providers backed by private equity. These providers, according to DfE, ‘are less likely to operate in deprived areas…and over time this can result in price rises and disruption to services.’ At the heart of this is a concern about market exits that could destabilise regional childcare provision. Policymakers will continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the early years market and may take further steps to increase market transparency if appropriate. This could include measures like those being taken in adult or children’s social care, such as a financial oversight mechanism. For businesses and investors, monitoring the development of this policy thinking and engaging with the policymaking process is vital to minimising any risk associated with such policy change, as well as realising commercial opportunities.

If you’d like to discuss early years policy in more detail please reach out to Thea on thea@gkstrategy.com

Anchors aweigh: A way for private investors to play potential Fannie, Freddie IPOs

By Erin Caddell, Anchor Advisors in partnership with GK Strategy

President Donald Trump’s second White House term has sparked discussion that his Administration might return the two U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) to full public ownership after more than 16 years under federal control following their bailouts in the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. In May, Trump said his Administration is giving “serious consideration” to conducting IPOs for the GSEs. And in late July Bloomberg reported that the Administration was holding meetings with bankers interested in underwriting the IPOs.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s vital place in the US mortgage system make them compelling assets for investors to look at should the IPOs move forward. Critical to the nation’s economy, the complexities of these entities and the market they serve present challenges necessitating a multi-year transition period to full private ownership. As Fannie and Freddie have swept billions of dollars in profit back to the government in the post-conservatorship era, both companies would need to build up their capital to stand as independent companies. The GSEs’ equity combined represent only 2% of their total assets, far less than traditional banks or mortgage finance firms.

This is where anchor investors could play a role. Anchor investors (we promise we do not like this idea just because we also have Anchor in our name) take meaningful equity stakes in companies preparing to go public, agreeing to hold the positions for a given period post-IPO as a sign of confidence for other investors and to lessen the fundraising need for the company. For instance, in the 2022 IPO of Life Insurance Corp. (LIC), India’s largest insurer, anchor investors including Norges Bank (Norway’s sovereign wealth fund) and the Government of Singapore (GIC) investment fund purchased about 25% of the issue in advance of the IPO. Sometimes anchor investors receive a discount on their shares in exchange for taking down large chunks of the IPO and agreeing to hold their shares though a post-IPO lockup period.

One can imagine the appeal to the government of anchor investors in the GSE IPO process, particularly for the Trump Administration, focused as it is on boosting investment in the US. For that matter, any future presidential administration will be attracted to the idea of contributing hundreds of billions to federal coffers in an attempt to offset multi-trillion-dollar federal budget deficits. Anchor investors could allow the government to generate income from early sales early, as the GSE transition plan and public offerings would likely take several years. A combination of domestic and foreign sovereign wealth funds would be most desirable: the domestic players to emphasize the US’ ability to invest in itself; the global investors to highlight the international attraction to the US capital markets. Expressing interest in the GSE privatizations now would give anchor investors a shot of having a seat at the table if the deals come together.

For investors, a day-one commitment to the GSE IPOs would provide a unique opportunity to invest in scale players in the $14 trillion US mortgage market – about 70% of which is supported in some way by Fannie or Freddie. The GSEs operate as critical components of the US mortgage industry infrastructure, setting standards and ensuring liquidity for residential and multi-family mortgage markets. Such “utility” functions have been rewarded with handsome valuation multiples and stock performance across financial services, energy, technology and other sectors, including those whose protective moats are protected by government regulation. Indeed, in the years leading up to the Global Financial Crisis, Fannie and Freddie performed well in the equity markets, though critics argued their accomplishments were driven by overly aggressive balance-sheet practices and lobbying activities.

Risks abound when investing in entities with multi-trillion-dollar balance sheets, as the wipeout of billions of dollars in the GSE’s market caps demonstrated in 2008. Numerous issues must be worked out to return the GSEs to private hands, most notably the current federal backstop on Fannie and Freddie’s combined $7 trillion-plus in debt, the lion’s share of which is backed by the mortgages the two entities guarantee. Even a modest increase in borrowing rates on such a large debt load could result in a big hit to the GSE’s earnings post-IPO, necessitating a long period in which the federal backstop is withdrawn over time.

But these are risks that large, sophisticated investors are well-equipped to navigate. A once-in-a- chance to invest in unique, highly profitable and protected franchises critical to the US economy, and to build goodwill with a President attracted to out-of-the-box deals, make the GSE privatizations an opportunity worth considering.