Category Archives: Investment

gk The Outlook for Economic Policy. By David Laws, Adviser to GK_

The Outlook for Economic Policy. By David Laws, Adviser to GK.

For a politician who has presided over a likely quadrupling of Britain’s budget deficit in a period of just over 3 months, Chancellor Rishi Sunak looks a remarkably relaxed man. Like most Finance Ministers, he realises that the actions he has taken – spending more, taxing less, nationalising large parts of the UK’s private sector employment, and letting public borrowing skyrocket – have been far less politically and economically risky than doing nothing, in the face of an economic calamity.

You have to look back hundreds of years, to before reliable economic data was collected, to find a period where the UK economy has contracted so much and so swiftly. The Chancellor has another reason for being more relaxed than might be expected – record low interest rates mean that the government faces a zero or even negative cost of borrowing. That has removed the concerns about debt “sustainability” that usually arise when borrowing takes off – on this occasion, there is no immediate prospect of the UK or any other major economy facing spiralling debt service payments of the type that have hit countries such as Argentina, Greece or Italy in the past.

It would be wrong to suggest that economic policy choices to date have been “easy”, but in a sense they have been almost inevitable – as was the near nationalisation of most of the banking system back in 2007/2008, when the alternative was the complete collapse of the financial system.  From now on, some of the choices facing the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will become more difficult – not least as large parts of the “life support” offered to the economy since March are steadily withdrawn. Particularly notable, of course, is the phasing out of the “furlough” scheme over the next four months – no wonder Boris Johnson is keen to get the economy and society open again.

So, what should we expect on economic policy over the next few months? It is worth us focusing on growth, public spending, and deficit management. 

Firstly, growth. It’s clear that the government’s main focus now has to be on re-opening the economy (as far as the virus will allow) and preventing a large increase in unemployment and business failures, as the furlough scheme is withdrawn.

A set of new economic measures can be expected to be announced before the end of July – but the scale of any package remains unclear. Measures to boost infrastructure spending, ease planning restrictions, and help establish more science-based businesses outside London and the South-East would all be in line with previous government policies. There could also be additional help for small businesses and possibly an extension of the scheme to delay business VAT payments. The former Chancellor, Sajid Javid has advocated potentially more expensive moves to deliver a short term boost to the economy – including a cut in VAT and/or a cut to employer national insurance contributions. Both measures would be expensive, and it’s not clear that a cut in employer national insurance contributions would have a large employment impact. Whether the Chancellor is willing to further boost borrowing to pay for such tax cuts will depend partly on a political calculation and partly on the speed with which the economy appears to be recovering from its COVID-induced slumber.

Secondly, public spending. It’s clear that the government does not wish to risk a return to full blown austerity. The “easier” savings in public spending were made long ago, and in the short-term the economy could not bear additional deflationary measures. Instead, as well as extra infrastructure spending, the government is likely to want to spend money to protect health services and to avoid a big rise in youth unemployment. Extra support for technical and vocational training, and for apprenticeships, would have a strong policy rationale (following on from the government’s extra £1bn for schools). Meanwhile, difficult decisions will need to be made over public sector pay. If inflation remains highly subdued, the government could make a good case for a pay freeze next year, but this will be politically sensitive – not least for workers in the NHS and care homes.

Finally, the budget deficit. The Chancellor won’t worry too much about the short-term rise in the deficit, and will expect interest rates to remain low. He will treat the COVID shock as a one-off extreme incident, justifying a large rise in the national debt, which may have to be paid off over many decades. But the Treasury cannot afford to be as relaxed if the budget deficit remains high after the economy has recovered. With the prospect of a rapidly ageing population, and the associated rise in pension and health spending, the government would not want borrowing to get stuck at a heightened level. Nor will politicians want to take difficult decisions too close to the next General Election. So over the next 18 months, the Chancellor may need to consider a range of measures to gradually reduce the deficit, by raising tax revenues and controlling key areas of spending.

What type of tough medicine could be on the agenda? Well, the “triple lock” on the state pension (a Liberal Democrat policy which I recall negotiating with the Conservatives in 2010) might be watered down. Employee national insurance contributions might be extended to pensioners who are still in work. The Chancellor has already put down a marker about reviewing the tax status of the self-employed (a “courageous” policy for a Conservative Chancellor if there ever was one). Other possibilities include higher taxes on those who have come through the pandemic largely unscathed, including (broadly) those on higher incomes. We are likely to continue to see speculation about the future of pension tax reliefs, and more pressure for additional “green taxes”.

In short, while the Chancellor cannot afford to rush into a second round of austerity, nor can he and the Treasury forever ignore the medium and long term impacts of COVID. Our current enforced lockdown will be paid for by future generations, but within a year or so the present generation will likely also be asked to make its contribution.

Assessing bolt-on risks and opportunities in a time of huge political and economic uncertainty

Assessing bolt-on risks and opportunities in a time of huge political and economic uncertainty

It’s an uncomfortable truth, but the impact of COVID means that many companies now seem attractive and viable investment opportunities.

Many of the investors we speak to expect to see more appealing valuations and more assets becoming available, as owner managers and parent companies work to de-risk, improve their balance sheets, or keep their businesses going. Bolt-on opportunities over the next 3-6 months seem particularly appealing, while the main market recovers.

But this will be against a backdrop of considerable political uncertainty – in terms of how the lockdown will be eased and what measures governments will take to boost their economics and improve their fiscal situation.

This period will be even more uncertain than the terrain GK navigated for clients after the global financial crisis. The investors that got a measure of these risks early on were able to able to benefit from investment opportunities that others avoided.

 Policy changes are likely be extensive as we emerge from lockdown and over the longer term. New taxes and reduced public funding in many areas (as resources get reallocated to heath & social care) could harm the prospects for many businesses.

And it is still uncertain how and when many sections of the economy will get back to something resembling pre-COVID trading levels, given that it could be a long time before UK social distancing measures are significantly reduced (to the 1-1.5m levels that most countries use) for offices, bars and restaurants and leisure facilities.

Some policy changes could affect some sectors or business models more than others. For many FS or subscription-based businesses, for example, COVID-driven payment holidays might be extended. And gig economy based businesses could face new regulations in the light of widespread dissatisfaction with how companies and governments have treated gig economy workers.

So how can investors assess these risks and opportunities for potential bolt-ons? We have already written in detail about how businesses and investors can prepare to emerge from lockdown, but assessing the political risks and opportunities relating to bolt-on deals presents different challenges.

The bolt-ons that many investors find attractive are in niche, specialist areas, so they are more exposed to changes in regulation or taxation or public procurement than bigger businesses that can flex around more diverse offers.

This makes it all the more important to focus on the material risks and opportunities, clearly articulating what specific political risks could mean for each individual business.

We recommend that investors or companies assessing bolt-on opportunities undertake political due diligence focused on identifying any red flags and the scope to mitigate them. More comprehensive risk and opportunity assessments can be undertaken post-deal.

The same applies to ESG: time and other resource factors might limit the scope for comprehensive ESG DD, but this is no excuse for neglecting ESG – especially at a time when public and private buyers have heightened COVID-related concerns about key ESG issues like workplace and product health & safety and companies’ treatment of their workforces and vulnerable consumers.

We expect a lot more bolt-on activity in 2020 and can help investors and companies identify and mitigate the key risks early on.

For more information, please contact


gk Building an effective trade organisation

Building an effective trade organisation

Achieving desirable policy change is one of the main rationales for trade organisations, especially in regulated and politically-sensitive sectors, as most businesses and third sector organisations are often unable to achieve significant change on their own.

How can a trade body be truly effective in achieving such change? And how can they engage their members best to achieve such change?

We have set out a number of problems that trade bodies can face in this regard and how they can overcome them.

Getting the basics right first

For new membership bodies, putting the foundations in place for a group to be established is the most important first step. For existing organisations, making sure there is a clear articulation of the purpose of a group and that it is run on a sound, sustainable basis is key to maintaining growth and attracting new members.

Defining the overarching purpose of the group is vital. There is a diverse range of membership bodies, each with their own raison d’etre and serving the particular needs of their members. Bodies might be set up to campaign on a single issue or formed in response to a policy development – to repeal a specific aspect of legislation, or to raise or lower a particular tax, to name some examples. They might be formed as a splinter group from an existing trade body, if they are dissatisfied with its direction or feel that there are separate issues that need to be addressed in a different forum. Whichever category they fall into, all successful trade bodies will have a clearly-defined purpose.

Deciding on the right structures to have in place – membership criteria, governance, financial management, clarifying the legal status of the body – as well as the foundational purpose of the group is essential to being able to move forward as a representative body that has genuine buy-in and a collaborative approach from its members, and continues to grow in its membership.

Providing tangible benefits for members

Simply put, membership bodies will only grow if they are able to show how businesses can materially benefit from joining. This can manifest in different ways. It could be to do with provision of high-quality external services and products to members, such as training and development, internal advice on policy change and regulatory requirements, or even access to particular financial benefits such as insurance.

However, the most fundamental benefit for businesses subscribing to a membership body, especially in a regulated or politically-sensitive industry, should be gaining a level of representation and influence that they could not achieve on their own. Whether with central government, local authorities, key statutory regulators or independent decision-makers in their own markets, membership need to be able to show how they are able to communicate the views and priorities of their members on the relevant issues in their industry to key decision-makers and stakeholders.

Developing a clear strategy

This is arguably the most important aspect of a successful membership body, but can also often be the most challenging to get right. Attracting a growing and diverse membership is a real strength for organisations seeking to represent a whole industry, but naturally presents obstacles to reaching clear agreement over strategy. Managing internal politics is often one of the trickiest parts of running a trade organisation, and can be their undoing if not handled in the right way.

No membership body can achieve unanimity on its policy positions given members’ different interests and priorities, but as long as disagreement is managed effectively – ensuring that all voices are heard and respected, and clear baselines agreed – then there should be few barriers to communicating a message and carrying forward priorities that at least a majority of the membership can support. Bodies should not try to be all things to all people – individual members should be free to communicate their own priorities individually, as long as it is not opposing or undermining the core purpose of the group – but seek to listen to all views and reach a fair conclusion that does not materially disadvantage any member.

That members are heard during this process is vital, as for many this will be one of the key benefits of subscribing to the body – that they have a seat at the table and a real say in what the organisation is proposing for the whole industry. This is so often a difficult balancing act with many different interests and priorities within the group, but successful bodies prove that it is possible to achieve. Membership bodies need to have a good understanding of their members and the dynamics between them, so that any potential disagreements can be pre-empted and quickly addressed, and good communication between the body and its members is essential.

A good starting point for uniting or galvanising members may be to commission a piece of external market research to be published by the group, which not only acts as a helpful piece of marketing and publicity for the body, but also provides an objective analysis of a particular question or set of issues around which a common view and potential solutions can form among members. If a group is struggling to decide on coherent messaging or specific points to communicate to policy-makers, a research report could prove a useful hook for external engagement and help to garner consensus among members.

Demonstrating progress and credibility

Developing and maintaining momentum is key for an effective membership body, not only for it to achieve its goals as an organisation but also to prove to its members that it is providing them with the value for money and the level of representation and influence they want from the group.

Effective management of internal communications is essential to demonstrating credibility, ensuring that all members receive clear communication, and have equal opportunity to feed into the development of the body’s priorities. Consulting members regularly is vital, as is keeping them ahead of the curve on the actions the body is taking a result and how members’ views are informing its approach.

Thinking creatively about external engagement, communications and campaigning is also vital to making and sustaining progress. Holding events with interesting themes can attract publicity; they also help to demonstrate credibility if they include speakers who are influential and well-respected within the sector, as well as relevant decision-makers who can engage directly with the issues raised by members. A strategic approach to interaction with key decision-makers – whether Ministers, officials, local MPs, regulators, councillors or others – is important and will have been informed by the group’s original purpose and strategy. Making effective use of publicity material, social media and other campaigning tools and techniques

How GK can help

GK has more than a decade of experience in creating, developing and supporting membership bodies across a range of sectors. Our consultants have worked alongside groups of businesses in some of the most significant and challenging sectors in the UK, helping trade associations and their members to have their voices heard by senior decision-makers in Westminster, Whitehall and local government.

Whether providing secretariat support, advising on policy and communications strategies or simply adding extra capacity to public and corporate affairs teams that find themselves under pressure, GK’s expertise has helped membership bodies to achieve their goals. GK’s in-house research team has also worked with membership bodies, and produces a risk matrix and policy stability index that can help bodies and their members to understand and negotiate the implications of policy and regulatory change.

Download Building an effective trade organisation here. To find out more about how GK can work with your trade organisation, please get in touch

gk - How is the policy and regulatory environment for rail changing_

How is the policy and regulatory environment for rail changing?

With the resolution – for now – of the ongoing debate over the High Speed 2 rail line, as well as debates over public ownership of passenger services, what should businesses with an interest in the rail sector be bearing in mind from a policy and regulatory perspective?


 Rail policy is one of the most important aspects of infrastructure spending by the UK Government and often the front line of greater ideological debates over public and private ownership of essential services. A priority for parties across the House of Commons, it is viewed as both an essential contributor to economic growth and a magnet for media scrutiny when failures arise. Its wide public reach offers significant political influence to stakeholders across the sector, including Train Operating Companies (TOCs), SMEs and larger companies in the multi-product supply chains of UK and overseas rail networks, as well as retailers and caterers operating at railway stations and their own supply chains.

 Over recent years, much of the political attention has naturally been on the approach of both the Government and the Labour Party to passenger services and the role of private companies in operating these, particularly in the context of problems faced by Southern Rail and Govia Thameslink, and the transfers of Northern and East Coast Main Line services to the Government’s Operator of Last Resort. The Government commissioned the Williams Rail Review in 2018 to examine the current franchising model, and Labour’s policy of ‘re-nationalisation’ – waiting for existing franchises to expire and bringing them in-house – has been one of the flagship policies of its last three general election manifestos.

 Outside of the high-profile issues in relation to passenger service franchising and public ownership, as well as the ongoing debate over HS2 and other large projects like Crossrail, there are a number of policy priorities for the Government in terms of expansion of rail capacity, as well as ongoing projects to maintain and improve existing rail infrastructure across the country led by Network Rail. The decision to proceed with HS2 can be taken as an indication of Ministers’ commitment to additional capacity in the rail network, while Network Rail is engaging in an ambitious programme focused on maintenance and renewals.

 Network Rail sets out its priority workstreams according to five-year ‘control periods’. The last control period (CP5) concentrated on electrification (such as the Gospel Oak – Barking line in London and the Transpennine line between Manchester and Leeds), renovation of large stations (including London Bridge) and improving speed and capacity across a range of lines. A number of these projects have been significantly delayed and have come in over budget, creating some pressure on the Government and Network Rail to review how future investment programmes are decided. Control period 6 (CP6) began in April 2019 and will end in March 2024. There is a new programme of work focused on maintenance and renewals, and Network Rail is also aiming to complete outstanding projects from CP5 as part of CP6.

Current issues

Much of the Government’s time on rail policy will inevitably be spent on franchised passenger services as the Williams Review draws to a close and it continues to be a topic of political contention. Beyond this, the timely and cost-effective completion of CP6 projects will be a key issue given the overspend and delays to projects from CP5. The scale of what Network Rail is seeking to achieve in CP6 as it seeks also to complete outstanding elements from CP5 means that there should be ongoing opportunities for contractors to Network Rail, though suppliers should be aware of the continued pressure for the Government to change how rail investment decisions are made. The political priority attached to HS2 as a major national infrastructure should also provide opportunities, despite likely political and media scrutiny of spending and procurement decisions as the cost of the project continues to be debated.

Points to consider
  • Progress of CP6 and flow of funding – where are the opportunities for suppliers and contractors, and which are the priority projects for Network Rail and the Government? What are the prospects for further delays to existing and new projects under CP6 and how is the Government trying to prevent more overspend?
  • The Williams Rail Review – final recommendations for reforming the franchising system for passenger services and potential consequences for other parts of the sector
  • Overall approach to public procurement – in a post-Carillion environment, how does the Government think about outsourcing elements of significant infrastructure and construction projects to the private sector, and how might the regulatory framework for awarding Network Rail contracts change in this context?
  • Brexit and workforce – how will the new immigration system affect recruitment of skilled and unskilled workers, and domestic changes to employment status and IR35 affect engagement with the contractor workforce?

 For more information on how GK can help you navigate policy and regulatory change in this market, please contact