Category Archives: Regulation

Social media: how the government is trying to regulate an industry that moves faster than itself

The Online Safety Act 2023 was hailed by the then Conservative government as a world-leading piece of legislation that would protect children and adults online. The act places new responsibilities on technology and social media platforms to protect users from harmful content, particularly children, and grants Ofcom extensive enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for non-compliance. The legislation was designed to create a safer and more age-appropriate online environment without fundamentally restricting access to digital platforms.

Less than three years later, the Online Safety Act has proven to be already out of date, leading to new policies exploring an outright ban of social media sites for under 16s. The political debate has shifted from regulating content to regulating access itself.

Australia took the first leap, being the first major democracy to announce its own social media ban for under 16s in December 2025. Since then, the debate in Westminster has not dissipated. A UK-wide ban has been endorsed across the political spectrum, with proponents including over 60 Labour MPs, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The government has so far taken incremental steps to more stringently regulate access to sites ahead of potentially endorsing an outright social media ban. A crackdown on phones in schools was pursued in 2024, and the 2025 Violence Against Women and Girls strategy included measures to prevent school-aged boys developing harmful misogynistic attitudes – which the government believes has largely been driven by online content. In early June 2026, the Prime Minister also announced a new requirement for tech companies to devise technological solutions that can detect and block children seeing or sharing indecent images. This announcement followed only a few weeks after safeguarding minister Jess Phillips resigned from government, criticising the Prime Minister’s inaction and delay on this very matter.

No piecemeal policy interventions have yet delivered enough protections for parents, teachers and policymakers to feel that young people are safe online. This has paved the way for a government consultation in early 2026 testing the waters on age restrictions for social media. The consultation, which the government is due to provide a full response to this summer, proposed removing or limiting addictive features such as ‘infinite scrolling’ and introducing a minimum age for social media access.

For social media companies, technology platforms, advertisers and organisations that rely on digital engagement with younger audiences, the policy implications are significant. Potential further restrictions on access, platform functionality or age verification requirements would have commercial, operational and regulatory consequences across the digital ecosystem. Businesses should also expect growing scrutiny of recommendation algorithms and engagement-driven design features, as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguarding measures.

This is a political argument that is leading down one path – and that is on the side of restrictions on children’s access to social media.

The government’s hesitancy to invoke such an interventionist ban is likely to come under growing pressure from politicians from across the political spectrum who are eager to introduce greater protections for children online, including through new age restrictions. The government cannot afford to weather another scandal in this area. The direction of travel appears clear, but the details remain up for debate. Organisations with a stake in the outcome should ensure their voice is part of the conversation, helping to shape a regulatory framework that is both effective and proportionate, and that properly reflects the practical, commercial and technical implications of impending policy change.

Growth vs Guardrails: Reeves and the FCA’s contrasting visions for consumer finance regulation

GK’s Joshua Owolabi assesses Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi’s differing perspectives on consumer finance regulation and the potential impact on the sector

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves insists that the government’s main objective is to facilitate economic growth and believes that the UK’s regulatory bodies should support this objective. In January 2025, the Chancellor wrote to several regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), directing them to ‘tear down regulatory barriers’ that hold back economic growth. This view is likely to have a significant impact on the regulation of consumer finance during the rest of this parliament (expected to end in 2029).

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the FCA and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority, have generally preferred to strengthen consumer finance rules to prevent the harm to consumers that occurred following the crisis (e.g. consumers being forced into high-interest loans without fully understanding the long-term impact on their finances). The pressure placed on the FCA could result in a reversal of long-term regulatory trends in the consumer finance sector, reducing compliance requirements on businesses across the sector.

Across several consumer finance sub-sectors, such as mortgages, motor finance, and personal loans, the FCA has spent the last decade implementing stricter measures to prevent the mis-selling of products and services, and to protect consumers from taking on excessive debt. These efforts culminated in the implementation of the Consumer Duty in July 2023. The Duty is a regulatory framework requiring firms to prioritise consumers’ needs. Firms must proactively identify the specific needs of each of their customers and prevent risks that could result in financial harm. This involves providing customers with clear financial advice on products like hire purchase agreements, which are common in the motor finance industry, so that they can make informed choices. It also involves making it as easy as possible for customers to switch or cancel products without incurring unnecessary debt.

Rachel Reeves’ belief that financial services regulation should encourage innovation, competitiveness, and increased risk taking in lending and investment is at odds with recent FCA consumer protection measures. This has resulted in contrasting messages from Reeves and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi. While Rathi has said the FCA will support innovation and economic growth, he has voiced concerns that the push to prioritise growth will result in an increase in financial scandals. He has warned the government and parliamentarians that there may need to be an ‘enduring acceptance’ of these failures as regulations are relaxed. Rathi’s concern is not a surprise. Since his appointment as Chief Executive in 2020, he has consistently emphasised the importance of consumer protections and market stability. Under his leadership, the FCA has prioritised improving affordability checks so that firms are not just doing basic credit checks and consumers understand the true cost of products.

An area where major change is likely to occur, despite Rathi’s reluctance, is in the balance between regulation and access to credit. Reeves has argued that excessive regulation can make it harder for consumers to borrow money, slowing economic growth. As a result, the government announced in May 2026 that it would reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), which established standard procedures for credit and hire agreements and sets out consumers’ rights when dealing with businesses in those sectors. The government says that its reform of the CCA is focused on modernising consumer credit rules so that they better reflect the realities of today’s digital financial market. It has stated that its main objective is to improve the quality and clarity of information provided to consumers. The government argues that current disclosure requirements are outdated, overly complex, and often overwhelm borrowers with lengthy legal documents that are difficult to understand. The government has said that the CCA reforms will help consumers make better-informed financial decisions and reduce the risk of individuals taking on unsuitable or unaffordable credit.

The government is likely to say that the primary reason for reforming the CCA is its desire to protect consumers. However. the push for economic growth and deregulation in financial services is what is truly driving these reforms. In reality, the core goal of the reforms is to reduce the number of detailed regulatory requirements that are entrenched in legislation and to give the FCA more power to amend regulations quickly without the passing of new legislation. By giving the FCA greater responsibility for setting consumer credit rules, the government hopes to create a more agile regulatory system that can respond more quickly to innovations in financial products, such as fintech and embedded finance. This is likely to lower compliance costs for businesses in the consumer finance market and reduce the likelihood that they fall foul of rules relating to the way in which credit agreements are written or structured.

Ironically, the changes to the CCA, including the increased role of the FCA in modernising credit rules, will place greater power in the hands of Rathi to regulate consumer finance, despite the difference in views with the Chancellor. Rathi will now need to oversee the implementation of changes to the CCA, while also overseeing other consumer finance reforms that have already been announced. For example, the FCA has said that it will complete a review of the Consumer Duty before the end of 2026 to understand firms’ approaches to monitoring consumer outcomes and how well consumers understand risk. The FCA believes that some firms are struggling to provide clear evidence that they are improving outcomes for consumers or that their advice is specific to each individual customer’s needs. This means that there is a scenario where firms will have requirements relating to affordability checks reduced by the CCA reforms, only to see new requirements placed on them to collect data on consumer outcomes following the review of the Duty. The implementation of both these reforms is an unenviable task for Rathi, as he seeks to balance pressure from the Treasury to support economic growth with his own regulatory agenda. The FCA will need to engage with firms to ensure that they are fully aware of the expected changes to the regulatory framework and that firms are not confused by the mixed messaging from the Treasury and the regulator itself.

Treasury to Treatment: James Murray Appointed Health Secretary

As predicted, England has a new Health Secretary – James Murray.

Above all else, he deserves the goodwill that comes with inheriting one of the best jobs in government.

The Department of Health and Social Care is unlike any other brief. It combines immense public affection for the NHS with relentless operational pressure, difficult fiscal realities and an almost impossible expectation that Ministers can ‘fix’ deep-rooted problems decades in the making.

So my advice to James above all else would be this; you inherit a Ten Year Plan (and numerous other strategies) so don’t waste time and try the patience of the sector by re-writing them.

Focus on operationalising them and give your civil servants (as well as Jim Mackie who I suspect will be feeling deflated right now) a very clear steer from day one on your top three policy areas. Not the infamous three ‘shifts’ – they’re the means to the end – but the areas they know you personally will never drift from.

James takes office with a formidable in-tray. NHS waiting lists still high and a media (as well as a sector) that is sceptical recent falls weren’t more about politics than clinical reality.

Access to primary care continues to define the ‘retail offer’ in health, while care reform of course remains the great unresolved question of British domestic policy.

Not to mention a Ten Year Workforce Plan that remains illusive, medicine shortages (which I predict will grow as an issue in 2026) and rising demand because we are living longer, but often not healthier, lives.

And hanging over all of this is perhaps the biggest challenge of all; how we finally move from a sickness service to a genuine health service.

That is why the NHS Modernisation Bill he inherits matters. Much of the early discussion around it has understandably focused on the proposed Single Patient Record — a potentially transformative attempt to join up fragmented patient information across the NHS.

Done properly, this could save lives, reduce duplication, improve productivity and finally give clinicians the information they need at the point of care. Done badly, it risks becoming another expensive digital programme which loses public trust before it delivers meaningful change. The new Secretary of State will need Number 10 (whoever occupies it) to back him fully when the going gets tough.

But the Bill goes wider than that. It is likely to include measures aimed at modernising NHS structures, expanding the use of technology and AI, improving data sharing, reforming procurement and accelerating innovation adoption. And that’s before Labour MPs, increasingly keen to reject incrementalism, get their hands on amendments come the Bill Committee stage.

The challenge, of course, is delivery. Every Health Secretary arrives in office promising reform. Most discover the system is better at absorbing change than enabling it.

The NHS is enormous, complex and deeply institutionalised. Structural reform alone rarely changes outcomes unless accompanied by cultural change, workforce support and political honesty about priorities.

And that brings me to Wes Streeting. I know how hard it is to leave that Department so it can’t have been easy.

Politics is often too tribal to acknowledge effort when people leave office or move on from major briefs. But it is right to recognise the energy, seriousness and determination Wes brought to the health debate.

Whatever one’s politics, he helped force difficult conversations into the open — about productivity, reform, prevention and the need for the NHS to modernise if it is to remain sustainable.

Wes deserves credit for that as well as the HIV Plan, the Men’s Health Strategy and some lesser noticed progress around things like the Rare Diseases Plan or England (finally) testing newborns for Spinal Muscular Atrophy as a result of his work with Jessy from Little Mix.

The new Health Secretary will quickly discover there are a thousand competing voices telling him what matters most.

My hope is that, amid the noise, he keeps sight of a simple truth: the future sustainability of the NHS will depend not only on how we treat illness, but on how seriously we take the business of creating a healthier society in every sense of the word. We should all wish him nothing but success.

Steve Brine, consultant, podcaster, trustee, former MP for Winchester & Chair of the Health Select Committee

Prevention is the new cure podcast – all things health and politics

Will the Chancellor’s ‘securonomics’ strategy drive growth in a new age of instability?

Throughout her time as Chancellor, Rachel Reeves has insisted that the government’s main objective is to facilitate economic growth. During her Mais Lecture on 17 March 2026, Reeves set out a vision for long-term economic growth, using the speech as an opportunity to highlight the ways in which the government will overcome challenges such as fiscal constraints, low productivity, and global instability.

Reeves reaffirmed her belief in ‘securonomics’, an economic strategy where the government helps individuals and businesses gain economic security by investing strategically in sectors like technology, financial services, science and infrastructure. Reeves emphasised that the government needed to play a more active role in guiding investment given the impact of the middle east conflict on the global economy. She stated that market disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine-Russia war, and the US-Israel war with Iran meant that ‘globalisation, as we once knew it, is dead’. As a result, the government would need to find balance between building resilient public services and facilitating private sector growth, as well as a balance between importing goods and products from other countries and bolstering domestic supply chains.

A central theme of the lecture was the ‘big choices’ the government is making to shape the UK economy over the next decade. The Chancellor placed significant emphasis on securing closer ties with the EU, arguing that it was essential for future growth. She stated that a closer alignment could reduce trade barriers. Reeves acknowledged that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy, a shift from previous years where she had shied away from being overtly critical of Brexit. Reeves stopped short of expressing support for rejoining the EU, instead stating that the UK could find greater alignment with Brussels on policy, while still operating outside the EU’s formal structures. If the government is successful in forming a closer relationship with the EU, she remarked, it could ease the administrative and customs costs for businesses importing from and exporting to the European Union.

While business owners will be pleased to see the Chancellor discussing reducing trade barriers with the EU, Reeves’ attempt to set out a vision for regulatory alignment with the EU may be more concerning for businesses. Reeves said that the government would be prepared to align with EU regulation where it is in the ‘national interest’ to do so, and would maintain regulatory autonomy in sectors with strategic importance for the UK. However, this ignores the post-Brexit reality – the UK and the EU are growing apart on their regulatory goals.

Recent UK governments have increasingly highlighted their ability to implement more flexible approaches to regulation than the EU as a selling point to attract global business. Reeves herself wrote to 17 regulatory bodies in January 2025 urging them to ‘tear down regulatory barriers’ and focus on opportunities to facilitate economic growth. For example, Reeves has implored the Financial Conduct Authority to reduce ‘anti-risk’ regulations and improve competitiveness in financial services sub-sectors, including consumer finance. This is a significant contrast from the EU’s approach, which is more precautionary and is unlikely to result in the reduction of detailed consumer protection rules. If the government does pursue regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services, it would need to consider the impact on regulations, such as affordability assessments and disclosure requirements. Altering these regulations could increase compliance costs for businesses and would likely upset management teams that have spent the last five years adapting to the UK’s Consumer Duty.

The Chancellor also argued that technological advancement is critical to boosting productivity, creating jobs, and positioning the UK as a global leader in emerging industries. As part of this plan, Reeves said the government will support regional growth through fiscal devolution that will empower local leaders, and will also create sector hubs in different cities. This includes establishing Leeds’ Northern Square Mile as a destination for global financial services. To support regional growth the government will create new city-level investment funds and allow regions to retain more of the tax revenues they generate, with the aim of stimulating local investment and reducing reliance on central government.

Reeves commitment to supporting technological innovation in financial services, as well as facilitating growth across the country is likely to provide opportunities to businesses in emerging financial services sub-sectors that harness AI and machine learning. Tech-focused sub-sectors, such as embedded finance, could benefit from these plans, including businesses providing payments and money transfers services, peer-to-peer lending services, and insurtech services. Investors focused on these sectors should monitor the government’s progress in establishing finance or technology sector hubs in various cities across the UK, as well as any funding announcements relating to these sectors.

The Mais Lecture reinforced a consistent economic strategy centred on stability, investment, and reform. While the lecture did not introduce any new policies, it did clarify the government’s long-term economic goals and Reeves’ commitment to ‘securonomics’. However, Reeves will need to use the coming months to share further details on the extent to which she wants key sectors within the government’s industrial strategy, such as the financial services and technology sectors, to be aligned with the EU on regulation. The Chancellor is ‘optimistic’ about the government’s ability to drive investment and growth but will need support from the business community to do so. Investors and businesses should consider potential scenarios where they can support the government to ensure that policy, funding and regulation is geared towards creating the best possible environment for growth in the UK.

If you would like to discuss the Chancellor’s growth strategy and its impact on businesses in more detail, please get in touch with joshua@gkstrategy.com.

GK & Anchor Policy Spotlight: Emerging Regulatory Markets

The next decade and beyond will be defined by global challenges ranging from climate change and food security to geopolitical instability and competition for resources. Governments around the world will be forced to address these at pace, but many of the solutions will depend on technological advances and scientific discoveries that are only just emerging.

Curiosity has always been in GK’s DNA and over the last year we have dedicated considerable time to understanding and engaging with the emerging industrial sectors of the future. Ranging from technological developments in already highly regulated sectors to the sectors that are just emerging as future economic powerhouses, GK has put them under the microscope to unpick the political, policy and regulatory opportunities and challenges on the horizon.

This report is an introduction of that thinking to you. We know our investment community is keen to understand the risks and opportunities in these spaces to stay ahead of competitors in origination strategies, and most importantly, to invest for the future. With the decades of combined experience that informs our counsel, we pride ourselves on seeing the things that others don’t. Our team of consultants in the UK, Europe and the US is uniquely positioned to give a truly global perspective on understanding and growing the future sectors of the global economy.

Understanding the government’s growth story

The government is facing a low-growth challenge that is constraining its ambition and capacity to improve living standards in the UK. GDP per capita, the average level of economic output per person and a metric key to understanding changes in living standards, has plateaued since the Covid-19 pandemic. Poor levels of economic growth have plagued the UK since the 2008 financial crash. GDP per capita rose by 0.9% year-on-year in Q3 2025, weaker than the 2010s average of 1.3% and a significant shortfall of the pre-financial crash average of 2.5% (1993-2008). High levels of immigration in recent years have also disguised the economy’s malaise and masks an underlying weakness in the UK’s per-capita economic performance. Weak growth directly limits the amount of revenue that can be collected through taxation to meet rising demand for public services and fund the government’s programme of reforms.

Improving the UK’s economic growth trajectory has emerged as a key objective of policymaking. It is vital that ministers create the regulatory and economic environment to stimulate growth in the economy that bridges the gap between policy ambition and fiscal sustainability. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called on regulatory bodies to rebalance their statutory duties and reduce the regulatory burden on business to stimulate competition and growth. This includes, for example, the Competition and Markets Authority’s reforms to the merger remedies guidance. At the same time, Reeves has increased public spending by almost £70 billion a year and tweaked her fiscal rules to offset capital expenditure to further increase spending. These decisions have help fund policies such as the energy secretary Ed Miliband’s £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to kick-start the domestic retrofit and energy upgrade sector over the next five years.

Mixed and unspoken signals

Despite some positive moves in the right direction, the absence of a clear, coherent political narrative from the centre of government has left investors and businesses grappling with mixed and often conflicting signals from different parts of the government machine. While Ed Miliband passionately talks about the Warm Homes Plan creating thousands of jobs, the cost of employment has significantly increased with changes to employer National Insurance Contributions and the introduction of the Employment Rights Act which is estimated to cost businesses £1 billion a year.

The cumulative impact of policy decisions has meant inflation in the economy has remained stubbornly high. The UK was an outlier amongst G7 economies in reducing levels of inflation in 2025. Numerous flagship government policies have also directly increased the cost of doing business in the UK which has translated into higher prices for consumers, reinforcing inflationary pressures. This is despite treasury ministers inheriting the sharpest fall in the headline rate of inflation from the previous Conservative government. Inflation was 2.8% in June 2024 (the Conservatives’ last month in office) and now stands at 3.4%, having peaked at 4.2% in July 2025.

The unspoken message to investors and businesses is thus: bear the brunt of higher business costs now before any economic gains begin to materialise from wider de-regulatory reforms, such as changes to streamline the planning system being introduced through the government’s Planning and Infrastructure Act. It is a sizeable political and economic wager and 2026 will be critical in determining whether this strategy begins to pay off. Ministers will be keeping a close eye over the coming year for early signs of economic improvements.

The strategy’s political risk is timing. The economic dividend of the government’s supply-slide reforms, such as overhauling the planning system or the new growth imperative on regulatory bodies, risks arriving too late in the parliamentary term for the government to get any meaningful credit. If the economy is not firing on all cylinders or living standards do not meaningfully improve for voters, the state of the economy will be a key battleground issue at the next election.

For businesses, 2026 will be a critical year for engaging with government as ministers will be eager to expediate regulatory barriers that are currently holding back growth plans and economic activity. For investors, understanding where ministers are politically committed and where a possible course correction is most likely to take place will be critical to navigating the rest of the parliamentary term.