GK is delighted to present its ‘Westminster in 2025’ report which sets out the key policy shifts and political risks we are expecting to see over the coming 12 months.
The report can be accessed here: Westminster in 2025 – Policy Shifts and Political Risks
Around two million adults and children are currently stuck on NHS waiting lists seeking mental health support. NHS England estimates the cost of untreated mental health to the UK economy to be £117.9 billion every year, taking into account those who are unfit to work because of their condition. Previous administrations have attempted to address this issue, in particular former Prime Minister Theresa May’s commissioning of the Wessely Review, but seemingly little substantive progress has taken place.
In opposition, Labour’s journey to office set off to a questionable start on mental health. The Party’s dedicated shadow mental health minister Rosena Allin-Khan resigned in September 2023 citing Starmer’s decision to remove the mental health portfolio from the shadow cabinet.
Since then, the Party has made no secret of its intention to overhaul what has been described as a mental health system in crisis. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer vowed in his Party’s manifesto to reform and modernise the outdated Mental Health Act 1983, recruit 8,500 new mental health staff, and place mental health professionals in schools. Seven months on from Labour’s landslide general election victory, how can progress be described?
In the King’s Speech, the government brought forward the Mental Health Bill which seeks to address unnecessary detentions for people with a learning disability or autism and end the use of criminal justice cells to detain those who need care under the Mental Health Act. Ministers have said that the Bill, which is currently being scrutinised in the House of Lords, will ensure that all patients have a care and treatment plan tailored to their needs.
In addition, the autumn budget committed £26 million of investment in new mental health crisis centres to help ease pressure on A&E departments. This is due to the increase in patients presenting in hospitals because of a lack of accessible mental health services.
While these initial measures are targeted at the most severe and urgent cases of poor mental health, the government’s wider ambition for mental health looks to incorporate its overarching focus on health prevention. The government’s 10-year health plan, due to be published in spring 2025, will be underpinned by “treatment to prevention” as a core pillar. It is also likely to contain further details on how mental health prevention will be included within this shift towards preventative care.
There is evident cross-party support for improving mental health services, and parties of all colours recognise the devastating impact that maintaining the status quo will have, both on individuals and wider society.
The Liberal Democrat-chaired Health and Social Care Select Committee announced in December 2024 the launch of a new inquiry into community mental health services. This is likely to reveal further improvements required in the system which will help shape the government’s approach to reform.
It is vital that providers and businesses engage with the committee’s inquiry which will be vital in shaping the development of policy in this area. The government must get mental health care right if it hopes to see any pressure on the NHS reduced or make a dent in the ever-growing list of workers signed off due to long-term sickness.
GK Associate Josh Owolabi shares his thoughts on the impact of a second Trump presidency on the government’s policy agenda.
Messaging from the Starmer government since Trump’s election victory has focused on projecting calmness. The government believes that it has done its ‘homework’ on Trump and that both countries will prosper while Trump is in office. However, Trump’s unpredictability was a key characteristic of his first presidency. His penchant for breaking – or threatening to break – norms is well established and will induce anxiety within Downing Street. Trump does not do ‘orthodox’ and, in contrast to his first term, now has the full support of the Republican Party to make radical policy changes that could impact the UK economy and the Starmer government’s delivery of its policy agenda.
Trump’s view on the use of tariffs symbolises his unorthodox approach. He has proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China and up to 20% on goods imported from other countries as part of his ‘America First’ strategy. Economists and research institutes across the United States have criticised the plan, arguing that it is counterproductive as it would make goods more expensive for American consumers. This would also be problematic for the Starmer government as the US is the biggest market for high value goods from the UK, including pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, and medical products, and would likely impact pricing for goods in these industries.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has argued that the imposition of even a 10% tariff would be damaging for the UK, reducing GDP growth by 0.7% in 2025. Given the fiscal climate, the government can ill-afford a reduction in growth if it plans to deliver on its pledges to improve access to healthcare and education (including a major expansion of early years entitlement in 2025).
Although Trump’s ‘trade war’ rhetoric is focused on China and the EU which could mean avoiding the full 20% tariff on exported goods, the UK is unlikely to receive special treatment. While Trump spoke of a UK-US trade deal during his first term, which would likely remove any tariffs, it is unrealistic to expect progress on a deal any time soon. The US has demanded the lowering of regulatory standards on American agricultural imports, such as ‘chlorinated chicken’, which has been a red line for previous governments.
The Starmer government is unlikely to budge on this issue given that the public does not support the lowering of food standards to secure a trade deal. Stephen Moore, a former economic adviser to Trump, has said that the UK must embrace the US economic model and move away from Europe’s “socialist” system, if it wants to agree a trade deal with the US. The Prime Minister has categorically rejected this view. During a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, he argued that his government does not need to choose between the US or the EU. Instead, Keir Starmer plans to forge closer economic ties with both. However, implementing this strategy will be incredibly difficult if Trump picks a fight with the EU and demands that trade with China is reduced.
Trump’s isolationist instincts will also cause concern. The government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP to support the Ukrainian war effort will therefore come under heavy scrutiny. Trump has long expressed frustration with the US’ allies for allowing their defence spending to fall after the Cold War ended, feeling that the US has been left to pick up the bill. Will the new Trump administration be satisfied that the UK is committed to reducing the overreliance on the United States? If not, the Starmer government may need to prioritise defence spending which would limit the government’s room to manoeuvre as it has just raised taxes by £40bn and still remains only just within its fiscal rules. Increased defence spending will make it harder for the government to spend more elsewhere, and get ailing public services back ‘on track’ or make investments that help it to grow the economy.
GK Senior Adviser James Allan visited the farmers protest in Westminster and assesses the likelihood of a government u-turn and its agriculture policy plans.
On 19 November, farmers were out in force and took to the streets of Westminster for a heartfelt protest for a sector that feeds the nation. At the autumn budget, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves introduced a cap of £1m for assets eligible for Agriculture Property Relief and Business Property Relief. Estimated to raise £0.5bn a year by 2029/30 for spending on public services, the measure has been dubbed a ‘family farm tax’ for farmers that “don’t do it for the money because there is none”.
The extent to which the Chancellor’s action equates to a “death knell” for the family run farm is somewhat contested. While the Country Land and Business Association estimates 70,000 farms will be impacted by the change, various policy wonks and tax specialists argue that this does not consider other reliefs and is based on the quantity of farms, rather than ownership structures. Disputed figures aside, it risks fueling a shift public opinion against the government and one of the shortest-lived honeymoon periods for a new Prime Minster. A survey carried out by JL Partners found that 53% of respondents felt the autumn budget was unsuccessful, so the farming community are not alone.
Is this Reeves’ Cornish pasty tax moment?
When then-Conservative Chancellor George Osborne introduced a 20% tax on hot foods to end VAT anomalies in 2012, few anticipated the political drama of “pastygate” which ensued. The Conservative government was criticised for being out of touch, with some commentators even alleging class war. Then Prime Minister David Cameron was caught out for saying he’d eaten a pasty in Leeds Railway Station when the West Cornwall Pasty Company duly noted that the pasty outlet had closed two years previous. The controversy detracted from Osborne’s budget and ultimately led to a government u-turn and a negative with 49% of people describing the government’s handling of pastygate as a “shambles”. In a similar vein, the political fallout from this protest will be difficult for the Labour government to manage. Whatever Reeves’ next move, pastygate demonstrates that u-turns are not unprecedented when public opinion moves against a pinch point policy issue.
Beyond the political drama
Politics aside, the protests cut to the core of several interrelating policy issues, chief among them food security. Should farmers up the stakes and choose to strike, the government has already confirmed contingency plans to mitigate against likely food shortages. Any disruption to already fragile “just in time” food supply chains, which are a hallmark of the British supermarket industry, would have an immediate knock-on effect for the consumer, and in turn, the voter. This year of global elections has demonstrated that voters do not reward incumbents when food prices rise.
Yet given the 60/40 split of domestic and imported food produce respectively, the issue of food security is both desperately domestic and international. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only led to record levels of food inflation, hitting low-income households the hardest, but also a decline in business investment in the UK food and drink sector. Then there’s the issue of climate change. While India and Pakistan account for roughly 46% of UK rice imports, the government acknowledges that India is increasingly a climate vulnerable country. In short, a greater dependence on food imports arising from a possible collapse of domestic farming exposes the UK to yet more unpredictable geo-political and climate risks.
The British farming sector does not operate in isolation; it is critical to the UK’s broader rural economy, supporting industries such as agricultural machinery, agri-tech and innovation, and food processing. More than this, farmers are custodians of the UK countryside, contributing to environmental goals of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and sustainable land management and forestry. Though contentious, the Chancellor’s action prompts a broader conversation about agricultural reforms which align with national priorities and ensures the voice of the farming community is heard. The government has yet to set out substantive details but spoke of a new deal for farmers during the election campaign. Now in government, Defra Secretary Steve Reed has signalled a focus on trade deals undercutting low welfare and low standards; maximising public sector purchasing power to back British produce; and a land-use framework to balance nature recovery and long-term food security.
Whether Reeves doubles down or pivots on the Agriculture Property Relief depends on the government’s willingness to expend political capital to defend its decision. Labour’s instinct will be to fight on but the party finds itself on new ground. Its broad but narrow majority is part contingent on non-traditional Labour voters, many of them in rural areas. The MPs in these constituencies will have their eyes on a 2029 general election. Maintaining the rural vote and positioning Labour as the party of both rural and urban communities will be a challenge for the government. How Starmer and Reeves handle the ‘family farm tax’ could well define this iteration of the Labour Party. For investors and businesses alike, keeping abreast of these political battlegrounds, and preparing for the associated commercial risks and opportunities, will be important in making the case to a government that might well bend to a shift in public opinion.
The Chancellor’s first Mansion House Speech, has made it clear that pensions reform is the first item on the Treasury’s agenda for financial services policy and regulation. Following an autumn budget that caused some business leaders to question the government’s pro-growth agenda, Rachel Reeves’ speech emphasised the important role that pensions reform will play in delivering long-term economic growth.
As expected, Reeves reiterated her intent to pool Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) assets into a handful of megafunds. This proposal has been set out in the Pension Investment Review: interim report. The report, published by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, sets out the initial findings for ‘phase one’ of the government’s review. A consultation on this measure has also been launched alongside the report, offering stakeholders the opportunity to share views on new requirements for pooling and the governance of funds.
The government has also launched a separate consultation on a proposal to set a minimum size limit on Defined Contribution (DC) scheme default funds in the private sector. The government believes that this measure will encourage consolidation and allow savers to be moved more easily from underperforming pension schemes to schemes that deliver higher returns.
The government’s vision for the pooling of schemes has been welcomed by industry trade bodies, given the returns it could generate for savers and the scope it could create for pension funds to invest in longer-term assets. It is no secret that the Chancellor is keen for the UK to mirror the Australian system, where there is greater investment in infrastructure assets.
However, the government will still need to assuage stakeholder concerns about these proposals, given the disruption it could bring to the pensions market. The government will need to balance its own policy goals with market realities. If the government requires a significant portion of pension funds to be invested in the UK, how will industry stakeholders be impacted, given some will view the maximising of returns as their primary objective, rather than investment in British assets?
The government will also need to address concerns around the timeline for implementation. Given the pensions review is still in progress, there remains an opportunity for stakeholders to engage with the government to ensure that proposed policy changes support economic growth, and that the implementation process provides the industry with sufficient time to adjust to the new regime.
The government has announced that the final report of its pensions review will be published in Spring 2025 and that the Pensions Schemes Bill will also be introduced to Parliament shortly afterwards. By this stage, the government will need to have set out a roadmap for its reforms. It will also need to address how, if at all, to mandate the consolidation of the LGPS, and funds in the DC market, and whether new rules will be introduced to regulate pension scheme selection advice and investment consultancy.
These questions highlight the complexity of the task that the Chancellor faces. Despite these challenges, pensions reform remains at the heart of the government’s most important mission – delivering economic growth. The Chancellor’s speech and the newly launched consultations set out further details on the government’s vision for reform. The industry will now have the chance to scrutinise those plans and share its view on how to minimise implementation risks and maximise opportunities for growth.
GK Strategy is a political and regulatory consultancy firm supporting management teams and investors to understand and navigate complex policy changes.
We’d be delighted to share our perspectives on what the government’s pensions 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.
