Blog

<h3>Reform’s Business Day: the economic philosophy is emerging. Business now needs the detail.</h3>Reform UK’s first dedicated Business Day presented an opportunity to answer a relatively simple question: beyond the political headlines, what would a Reform government actually mean for business in Britain?There are signs that an economic philosophy is beginning to emerge. But after a day dedicated to business, there remains more to understand about how that philosophy will translate into the practical, sector-specific policy detail that businesses need to plan, invest and grow.That distinction matters.Businesses do not make investment decisions on political philosophy alone. They make them on the basis of taxation, regulation, energy costs, access to capital and skills, infrastructure and, critically, confidence in the stability of the policy environment.<h3>A clearer macroeconomic direction </h3>Robert Jenrick’s conversation with Allister Heath provided perhaps the clearest indication of Reform’s macroeconomic thinking.The starting point is a smaller state and a belief that Britain cannot tax its way back to growth. Jenrick set out an ambition to reduce annual government spending substantially by the end of a first term, including through welfare reform.One of the more notable elements of the discussion, however, was the emphasis placed on financial markets.Any government proposing significant fiscal change has to do more than demonstrate political conviction. It has to convince the institutions financing UK government debt that its numbers are credible.Jenrick spoke about engaging directly with gilt investors in London and New York, listening to their concerns and seeking to build confidence in Reform’s fiscal approach before entering government.For business, this is significant. Market confidence is not peripheral to an economic programme. The cost of government borrowing feeds through into the wider economy and ultimately affects the conditions under which businesses themselves invest and raise capital.A broader supply-side argument was also evident: reduce regulation and state spending, reform institutions, attract private capital and enable greater investment in technology, infrastructure and domestic productive capacity.That is a recognisable economic proposition. The next stage is understanding how it translates into policy.<h3>Energy policy is industrial policy </h3>The discussion around Net Zero was particularly relevant from a business perspective because it went beyond the headline commitment to scrap existing Net Zero policies.The argument presented was essentially an industrial one.Renewable subsidies, grid-balancing costs, transmission investment and carbon pricing were identified as contributors to high electricity costs. Those costs, the argument goes, make British industry less competitive, encourage production to move overseas and leave the UK importing products and their embedded carbon that might otherwise have been manufactured domestically.Steel, cement, glass, aluminium, automotive manufacturing, ammonia and fertiliser were among the sectors used to illustrate the point.The proposed direction included stopping subsidies for additional wind and solar, reconsidering existing support arrangements, expanding firm generation from gas and nuclear, reducing elements of climate-related public expenditure and resisting closer alignment with EU energy and carbon-pricing mechanisms.Carbon capture was also discussed. The position outlined appeared to be less about prohibiting the technology itself and more about reconsidering the extent of public support for carbon capture, transport and storage infrastructure.Whatever view businesses take of those proposals, their potential significance should not be underestimated.Changes of this scale could alter the economics underpinning billions of pounds of existing and prospective investment.That creates a series of practical questions.How would existing energy contracts be treated? What would the transition from today’s highly regulated electricity market to a more market-led system look like? How quickly could additional gas generation realistically be delivered? What role would nuclear play given its considerably longer development cycle? What would happen to hard-to-abate industries if government support for carbon capture were withdrawn? And how would businesses that have already made long-term investment decisions under the existing Net Zero framework be treated?These are not arguments for or against Reform’s position. They are the questions that need answering if a political proposition is to become an investable economic policy.<h3>The relationship with Europe remains important </h3>The discussions also highlighted what could become a significant point of distinction between Reform and the other major parties: the future economic relationship between the UK and the EU.Speakers argued against closer alignment with the EU electricity market, the Emissions Trading System and elements of the wider European carbon regime.The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism was discussed particularly in relation to ammonia and fertiliser. The argument presented was that carbon costs imposed on imported industrial inputs could increase the cost of manufacturing goods domestically, while finished products manufactured elsewhere may not always face an equivalent burden.Behind this sits a broader industrial-policy question.If Britain closes domestic manufacturing capacity, reduces its territorial emissions and subsequently imports the same products from overseas, has it genuinely decarbonised its economy or simply relocated part of its carbon footprint?Whatever the answer, it is a question with significant consequences for industrial competitiveness and one that deserves serious consideration.<h3>The opportunity for deeper business engagement </h3>One of the most interesting aspects of the Business Day was what it suggested about the next stage of Reform’s engagement with business.As a first dedicated event, the day provided businesses with greater exposure to the party’s broader economic thinking. The fireside conversations offered useful indications of Reform’s direction of travel across the economy, energy and the role of the state.The opportunity now is to build on that with more detailed engagement around what those principles could mean for individual sectors and businesses in practice.Future events could benefit from more structured opportunities for discussion between policymakers and the businesses represented in the room, alongside greater scope for sector-specific conversations and facilitated engagement.That would allow the broad themes articulated from the stage to be explored in the context of real investment and operational decisions.A manufacturer can explain what a change in electricity pricing does to an investment case. An infrastructure investor can explain what reopening a long-term contract does to the cost of capital. A technology business can identify where planning, procurement or access to power is preventing investment. Employers can help distinguish between regulation that genuinely inhibits growth and regulation that serves a necessary purpose.Equally, policymakers have an opportunity to explain the trade-offs they are prepared to make and hear directly how different approaches might affect investment.Those conversations are an important part of turning broad economic principles into workable policy. As Reform develops its business proposition, creating more space for them would be valuable for both policymakers and the business community.<h3>From philosophy to implementation </h3>Reform’s broad economic proposition is becoming easier to identify: a smaller state, lower public spending, lower taxation when fiscal conditions permit, greater market discipline, cheaper energy, increased domestic production, reduced regulatory intervention and greater scepticism towards both the existing Net Zero framework and closer EU economic alignment.For businesses assessing the possibility of a future Reform government, however, identifying the philosophy is only the beginning.The questions that follow are much more practical.What does this mean for individual sectors? What changes first? What happens to existing investments and contracts? Which regulations disappear and which remain? What replaces the current energy framework? How will transition risk be managed? And how much confidence can investors have that the new rules will endure?Businesses need enough predictability to commit capital, employ people and make decisions whose returns may be measured over decades rather than electoral cycles.That is why the development of Reform’s business engagement will be important.The first dedicated Business Day was an important step in bringing business into the room. The opportunity now is to deepen that engagement and bring businesses further into the policy conversation.As Reform develops its economic platform, the next test will be how its emerging philosophy translates into detailed, practical policy and how that policy responds to the commercial realities facing the businesses expected to invest, employ and grow under it.

Reform’s Business Day: the economic philosophy is emerging

Public debate about the next European war still tends to assume a familiar picture: missiles, drones and massed armour. Recent sabotage against Germany’s electricity grid is a useful reminder that the contest may not look like that at all. German authorities have investigated two incidents within twenty-four hours: devices containing conductive material placed on high-voltage lines in Brandenburg, and an attack on a substation near Bergheim. The electricity supply largely held, although plants were taken offline as a precaution. Taken alone, neither incident is strategically significant. Taken together with the wider pattern of activity across Europe: sabotage of substations and cables, cyber operations against energy systems, probing of undersea infrastructure and deniable maritime interference, they are harder to dismiss. The technology changes. The method does not. An adversary attacks centres of gravity: the nodes on which daily life, industry and military mobilisation depend. It does so at several points, across several countries, and at a level calibrated to remain below the threshold likely to provoke a conventional response. That is increasingly what the art of war looks like. Much of the defence debate remains elsewhere. Commentators call for more tanks, more surface-to-air systems and the rapid delivery of programmes such as Ajax. These capabilities matter in a high-intensity conflict. They are considerably less useful against an adversary quietly degrading electricity grids, interconnectors, communications and, ultimately, public confidence. The mismatch is not simply one of equipment. It is one of attention. Britain illustrates the problem. Defence spending is rising in cash terms and the Government has set a path towards 2.7 per cent of GDP by 2027–28. Three per cent has been pushed into a later parliament, while NATO’s 3.5 per cent target sits in 2035. The criticism of that trajectory is straightforward. It is incremental and conditional at precisely the moment when the security environment is becoming neither. Meanwhile, the day-to-day resource budgets that pay for training, exercises and readiness remain under pressure. Reservist training has been among the early casualties. That matters more than the accounting suggests. Part-time forces are precisely the pool on which the state would expect to draw for resilience, infrastructure protection and surge capacity during a prolonged grey-zone campaign. Saving money by reducing the time in which they practise those tasks is a peculiar economy. Ajax illustrates a related tension. Britain plainly needs credible reconnaissance and armoured capabilities for a high-intensity conflict, and bringing the programme into effective service matters. But the attention devoted to major platforms can obscure a less visible requirement: ensuring that the infrastructure on which those forces depend remains functioning in the first place. The point is not that Ajax, or armour more broadly, is irrelevant. It is that military capability begins well before a vehicle reaches the battlefield. Electricity, communications, transport networks and the civilian systems supporting mobilisation are themselves part of the defence architecture. This is not an argument for abandoning conventional platforms. A European war could still require armour, artillery, air defence and mass. It is an argument against confusing those things with national resilience. That requires hardened electricity grids, protected undersea cables, rapid repair capacity, cyber defence extending well beyond the Ministry of Defence, and a reserve that is trained rather than merely counted. Potential adversaries have already adapted their approach. The more uncomfortable question is whether Britain’s defence debate and the budget intended to underwrite it has adapted with them.

The War Before the War

As Parliament rises for its summer recess, Westminster closes the latest chapter of one of the most ambitious legislative programmes in recent years. Since the Cabinet reshuffle in September 2025, MPs and peers have overseen a series of reforms that have reshaped employment law, housing, planning, policing, constitutional reform and Britain's long-term economic strategy. While political attention is increasingly turning towards the prospect of a new Prime Minister and Cabinet, the legislative record left behind offers an indication of the direction the UK is taking in an increasingly volatile world.This parliamentary session has unfolded against an exceptionally challenging international backdrop. Russia's continued invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally altered Europe's security priorities, conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global trade routes, while growing strategic competition between the United States and China has reinforced the importance of economic resilience, energy security and defence capability. Combined with slower domestic growth, high public borrowing, persistent pressures on the NHS and ongoing concerns over housing affordability, Parliament's agenda has reflected a government attempting to balance long-term structural reform with immediate economic realities.<figure id="figure-3ohhq3nhvcmrj8oaq4"data-full-width><img id="3ohhq3nhvcmrj8oaq4" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1eiVhq2cHmLC76MwzW3btzVulB4CFsfb0kArLn3BUWLSAXbjcTT7JkGxhjFC1UaA.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure>Perhaps the most significant development has been the renewed emphasis on economic growth. Planning and infrastructure reforms have sought to remove long-standing barriers to investment by accelerating planning decisions, streamlining major infrastructure projects and supporting ambitious housing targets. For decades, businesses have argued that slow planning processes and regulatory delays have constrained productivity and discouraged investment. Parliament's response has been to place planning reform at the centre of the UK's growth strategy, recognising that improving infrastructure, energy connectivity and housing supply are essential to restoring competitiveness.Employment law has also undergone its most substantial transformation in a generation. The Employment Rights Act expanded workplace protections through day-one employment rights, strengthened sick pay provisions, greater safeguards for workers on insecure contracts and enhanced family leave. Supporters argue the reforms create a fairer labour market and improve productivity by encouraging stable employment. Critics, however, warn that additional employment costs could place greater pressure on small and medium-sized businesses already facing rising wages, borrowing costs and inflationary pressures.Housing has remained another defining priority. The Renters' Rights Act introduced sweeping reforms to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21 "no-fault" evictions and stronger protections for tenants. While widely welcomed by housing campaigners, the legislation has also prompted debate over its long-term impact on investment within the rental market and the availability of privately rented homes. Ultimately, Parliament has attempted to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants while addressing wider concerns over housing security.Alongside domestic reform, Parliament has increasingly focused on Britain's place in an uncertain international order. Defence and national security have moved firmly to the centre of political debate. The Strategic Defence Review and the accompanying Defence Investment Plan signalled a recognition that Britain's security can no longer be viewed separately from its economic resilience. Increased investment in defence manufacturing, advanced technologies, cyber capability and industrial capacity reflects not only the lessons of Ukraine but also a broader shift across NATO towards rebuilding military readiness after decades of constrained defence spending. In this context, defence policy has become as much an economic strategy as a security strategy, creating opportunities for British manufacturing, engineering and technology sectors.Parliament has also advanced reforms in policing, sentencing and border security. New legislation has strengthened powers to tackle organised crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, while further measures have sought to modernise the criminal justice system and improve support for victims. Immigration continues to dominate political debate, with Parliament introducing stronger enforcement powers aimed at disrupting organised people-smuggling networks and strengthening border security. Whether these reforms translate into measurable reductions in irregular migration remains a question for the next Parliament.Constitutional reform has quietly continued in parallel. Greater powers have been devolved to regional authorities, reinforcing the Government's ambition to decentralise decision-making and stimulate regional growth. At Westminster, reforms to the House of Lords, including the removal of the remaining hereditary peers, represent another step in the gradual modernisation of Britain's constitutional arrangements.For business, Parliament's record presents a mixed but broadly strategic picture. Planning reform, infrastructure investment, defence spending and greater policy certainty have all been welcomed by investors seeking a clearer long-term direction for the British economy. Increased defence procurement, support for advanced manufacturing, greater regional devolution and reforms supporting digital innovation all have the potential to strengthen the UK's competitiveness over the coming decade. The renewed emphasis on industrial policy also signals a shift away from short-term economic management towards longer-term investment in national capability.However, these opportunities have been accompanied by increased obligations. The expansion of employment rights, additional regulatory requirements and continued uncertainty over taxation have added new pressures for employers, particularly smaller businesses. Combined with high financing costs, ongoing labour shortages and a fragile global trading environment, many firms continue to operate in difficult conditions despite Parliament's efforts to stimulate investment and growth.As this parliamentary period draws to a close, attention is increasingly shifting from legislation to delivery. Much of the Government's legislative programme has now been enacted, leaving its successor whether under new leadership or a reshaped Cabinet to demonstrate that these reforms can translate into measurable improvements in productivity, living standards and public services. In many respects, Parliament has completed the easier task of passing legislation. The greater challenge now lies in implementation.History is unlikely to judge this Parliament by the number of Bills that received Royal Assent. Instead, it will be judged by whether the reforms enacted during this period succeed in strengthening Britain's economy, improving public services and enhancing national resilience in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape. As Westminster enters recess, the legislative groundwork has largely been laid. The next phase will determine whether those foundations are capable of delivering the growth, security and stability that both businesses and the public increasingly expect.

Parliament's Final Legislative Push: A Year of Reform in an Uncertain World

The publication of the UK's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) marks one of the most significant strategic shifts in British defence policy for decades.While headlines have understandably focused on the £298 billion investment package, the document represents something much bigger than increased defence spending. It provides industry with a clear statement of intent on how the UK intends to build military capability, strengthen sovereign resilience and position defence as a long-term driver of economic growth.For businesses operating across defence, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, cyber, AI and dual-use technologies, the message is equally clear: government is no longer simply buying capability it is reshaping an entire defence ecosystem.At Larkspur International, we see the Defence Investment Plan as a roadmap not only for the Armed Forces, but for the companies, investors and international partners that will help deliver it.<h3>Defence as Industrial Strategy </h3>Perhaps the most striking feature of the Plan is the extent to which defence has become economic policy.Alongside commitments to modernise military capability, the Government is positioning defence investment as a catalyst for productivity, regional development and high-value employment. The ambition to create almost 60,000 additional jobs, establish five Defence Technical Excellence Colleges, expand SME participation and introduce Defence Growth Deals demonstrates that industrial capacity is now considered a strategic capability in its own right.This reflects an important shift in government thinking.The question is no longer simply "What equipment should Defence buy?"It is increasingly "How can defence investment strengthen the UK's industrial base while improving national security?"For companies able to demonstrate UK capability, resilient supply chains and long-term investment, this represents a significant opportunity.<h3>Technology Is Becoming the Centre of Gravity </h3>The Defence Investment Plan also confirms that future capability will increasingly be software-defined.Over £5 billion has been allocated to autonomous and uncrewed systems, complemented by major investment in AI, the Digital Targeting Web, cyber, space and advanced sensing. The Plan repeatedly references lessons learned from Ukraine, highlighting the growing importance of affordable mass, rapid innovation and digitally integrated forces over traditional platform-centric thinking.This creates opportunities well beyond the traditional defence primes.Software companies, AI developers, robotics specialists, data analytics firms, autonomy providers, cyber businesses and dual-use technology companies all have clearer routes into defence procurement than they have previously enjoyed.Equally important is the recognition that innovation must happen faster.Programmes such as UK Defence Innovation, Taskforce RAID and the establishment of the Defence Uncrewed Systems Centre demonstrate an appetite for more agile capability development and greater collaboration with non-traditional suppliers.<h3>Procurement Is Changing </h3>One of the less publicised but potentially most consequential aspects of the Defence Investment Plan is procurement reform.The creation of the National Armaments Director Group, Defence Investment Unit and Defence Investors' Advisory Group signals a shift towards portfolio management, stronger financial governance and increased private capital participation.For industry, this means opportunity extends beyond contract awards.Businesses should expect:<ul><li>greater emphasis on scalability and production capacity</li><li>increased scrutiny around affordability and delivery</li><li>stronger expectations around UK content and sovereign capability</li><li>growing demand for consortium-based delivery</li><li>new opportunities for investors supporting defence innovation. </li></ul>Companies that understand how government intends to procure, not simply what it intends to buy will likely enjoy a competitive advantage.<h3>SMEs Could Be Among the Biggest Winners </h3>Historically, many smaller businesses have struggled to access defence markets.The Defence Investment Plan acknowledges this directly.Commitments to increase MOD spending with SMEs by 50% by 2028, alongside the establishment of the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, indicate a genuine attempt to broaden participation across the supply chain.For innovative SMEs, particularly those operating in AI, autonomy, cyber security, advanced manufacturing and sensing technologies, barriers to entry may become significantly lower over the coming years.Success, however, will depend on readiness.Companies will need robust governance, security accreditation, scalable manufacturing capability and the ability to work collaboratively across larger industrial ecosystems.<h3>International Collaboration Remains Central </h3>Although the Plan places considerable emphasis on "Backing British", it is equally clear that international partnerships remain fundamental.From GCAP with Italy and Japan to AUKUS, the Norway frigate programme, Germany's precision strike collaboration and closer integration across NATO, the UK continues to position itself as both a sovereign capability provider and an international defence partner.For overseas organisations looking to enter the UK defence market, this creates opportunities to establish partnerships with British industry, invest locally and participate in programmes aligned with UK strategic priorities.<h3>Delivery Will Determine Success </h3>While the strategic direction is compelling, execution remains the greatest challenge.The Ministry of Defence openly acknowledges that 47 of its 49 major programmes were delayed or over budget, prompting a significant overhaul of governance, financial management and programme oversight.Reforming acquisition processes, expanding industrial capacity, growing the skilled workforce and accelerating innovation simultaneously will require sustained collaboration between government and industry.The ambition is clear.Whether the delivery mechanisms prove equally effective will define the success of this strategy.<h3>Looking Ahead </h3>The Defence Investment Plan represents more than an increase in defence expenditure. It is a long-term statement about how the UK intends to compete economically, strengthen national resilience and build sovereign capability through innovation, investment and industrial partnership.For businesses across defence and adjacent sectors, the opportunity is substantial but it will favour those who engage early, understand evolving government priorities and position themselves within the UK's changing defence ecosystem.At Larkspur International, we help organisations navigate the intersection of government, industry and international opportunity. As implementation of the Defence Investment Plan gathers pace, understanding where policy meets commercial opportunity will become increasingly important.

The UK Defence Investment Plan 2026: More Than a Spending Review. A Blueprint for Defence Growth

AI Is Changing Government. But Process Still Comes First. There has been no shortage of discussion about AI over the past year. From copilots and chatbots to autonomous agents, the conversation has largely centred on what the technology can do.But after spending time at Pega-Cognizant last week with technologists, public sector leaders and practitioners, one message stood out above all others.The biggest challenge facing government isn't AI.It's how government works.The discussions covered everything from agentic AI to automation, but they repeatedly returned to a familiar theme: technology is rarely the hardest part of transformation. The real challenges lie in processes, governance, organisational culture and accountability.One demonstration illustrated this well.Today, redesigning a government service can take 18 to 36 months before organisations even agree on what should be built. Policy teams, operational leaders, technology specialists and delivery partners all bring different priorities, often spending weeks or even months aligning around a shared understanding of the problem before development begins.AI has the potential to change that.By rapidly generating visual representations of services, workflows and dependencies, organisations can explore ideas, challenge assumptions and build consensus much earlier in the design process. Instead of waiting months for documentation and process maps, stakeholders can begin reviewing and refining them within days.The important point, however, isn't that AI is designing government.It isn't.People still define the policy intent, business rules, governance and desired outcomes. AI simply helps organisations understand complex processes more quickly, making it easier to improve services before significant time and money are invested in implementation.That's a much more useful conversation than simply asking, "Where can we use AI?"Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking questions raised during the event was:"If it's too good to be true, what's the catch?"It's a question worth asking.Every technological advance comes with trade-offs. Faster design still requires robust governance. Automation still requires oversight. New capabilities still demand investment in integration, security, skills and organisational change.Technology can make transformation easier.It cannot do the transformation itself.Another observation that resonated was that AI is no longer something organisations are planning for, it's already becoming part of everyday work. The question is shifting from whether organisations should adopt AI to whether they are adopting it thoughtfully. That distinction matters.Too often, organisations ask how AI can improve their services before asking whether those services are designed effectively in the first place. AI doesn't fix broken processes. It exposes them.If a process is overly complex, poorly understood or burdened by years of accumulated workarounds, introducing AI won't solve those underlying issues. It may simply enable the organisation to execute an inefficient process more quickly.One analogy shared during the discussions captured this perfectly.If you buy a new electric corkscrew but your partner the intended user was not involved in the decision and has never used one before, will they use it if the old corkscrew is still in the drawer, or will they default to what they already know?Digital transformation isn't just about introducing new technology. It's about understanding why existing processes evolved, redesigning them around today's needs and giving people the confidence to work differently. Otherwise, organisations risk layering new technology over old ways of working.That challenge is particularly relevant in government. Public services cannot simply optimise for speed. They must also maintain trust, transparency and accountability.The discussion around AI as a "co-worker" rather than a replacement for people reflected this balance well. Used appropriately, AI can reduce repetitive tasks, help navigate complexity and allow employees to focus on work that requires judgement, experience and human interaction. But it also raises one of the defining questions for public services over the next decade.If AI increasingly supports decision-making, who remains accountable?For government, accountability cannot simply become "the computer's decision." If an AI recommends an outcome that a civil servant cannot fully explain, who is responsible for approving it?The phrase "human in the loop" has become increasingly common, but it also deserves greater scrutiny. Is it enough for someone to approve an AI-generated recommendation, or does meaningful accountability require understanding why that recommendation was made?These questions are unlikely to slow AI adoption, but they should shape how it is implemented.One government representative spoke about the importance of "security by design" embedding security into technology from the outset rather than treating it as an afterthought. The same principle applies more broadly. Governance, explainability and accountability need to be designed into AI-enabled services from the beginning, not added later.That, ultimately, was the most important takeaway from the event.AI is undoubtedly changing government, but technology alone will not deliver better public services.Successful transformation will continue to depend on understanding processes, designing services around citizens and building organisations that are ready to change alongside the technology they adopt.AI will continue to evolve at remarkable speed.Good judgement, accountability and public trust will remain human responsibilities.And those are the foundations on which successful government transformation will continue to depend.

AI Is Changing Government. But Process Still Comes First.

As a Millennial, I sometimes wonder whether my generation has ever experienced a period of genuine economic stability. We grew up during the rise of the internet and were told it would change everything. It did. We entered adulthood around the financial crisis. We built careers through austerity. We lived through Brexit, a global pandemic, inflation shocks, a cost-of-living crisis and one of the least affordable housing markets in modern British history.Just as one disruption seemed to settle, another emerged. Now we are being told that artificial intelligence is coming for our jobs. If that sounds familiar, it is because it is.Every generation believes the technology of its time will destroy jobs and every generation has been wrong.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The Luddites feared mechanisation.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Workers feared electricity.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Factories feared automation.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Office workers feared computers.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Retailers feared the internet.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Taxi drivers feared smartphones.· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Now we fear artificial intelligence.The technology changes, nevertheless human behaviour does not. For more than 250 years, every industrial revolution has followed the same pattern. First comes excitement. Then comes fear. Then comes resistance. Politicians call for caution. Workers worry about their livelihoods. Businesses complain about disruption. Newspapers predict catastrophe. And then the countries that embrace the technology become richer than those that do not.Britain stands at exactly that moment once again. The debate dominating headlines today asks whether AI will take our jobs. It is the wrong question. The real question is whether Britain intends to build the future or buy it from countries that do. Because history has shown repeatedly that technological revolutions do not wait for society to become comfortable with them. They happen anyway. The winners are the countries that adapt. The losers are the countries that hesitate.<h3>The Real Threat Is Not AI. It Is Standing Still</h3>According to the World Economic Forum, technological change is expected to disrupt around 22% of existing jobs by 2030. Approximately 92 million roles may disappear, but around 170 million new jobs are expected to be created, resulting in a net gain of 78 million jobs worldwide. The headline should not be the jobs that disappear. The headline should be the jobs that emerge.Every industrial revolution destroys some forms of work. None has ever destroyed work itself.The first Industrial Revolution reduced the need for agricultural labour but created entirely new industries in manufacturing, engineering and logistics. The second transformed production through electricity and mass manufacturing. The third introduced computers, software and the internet. Each wave made some jobs obsolete. Each wave created jobs nobody had previously imagined. Few people in 1980 would have predicted careers in cybersecurity, app development, cloud computing, digital marketing or data science. Today those industries employ millions. Artificial intelligence is unlikely to be any different.Britain has spent almost two decades battling what economists call the productivity puzzle. Since the financial crisis of 2008, productivity growth has lagged behind historic trends and many of our international competitors. Productivity ultimately drives wage growth, living standards and long-term prosperity. If Britain wants higher wages and stronger economic growth, improving productivity is not optional. It is essential. Artificial intelligence may be one of the few technologies capable of moving the dial at the scale required.<h3>Britain Has Seen This Before</h3>When the internet emerged in the 1990s, many feared it would destroy traditional businesses. In some cases, it did. Travel agencies shrank. Classified newspapers collapsed. Video rental stores disappeared. Yet the internet also created e-commerce, cloud computing, digital advertising, cybersecurity, online education, software-as-a-service and countless industries worth trillions of pounds. The internet did not eliminate work. It redistributed value. Artificial intelligence is likely to do exactly the same. The businesses and countries that learn to use it effectively will become more productive. Those that refuse will become less competitive. History has never been kind to economies that choose stagnation over innovation.<h3>The Countries Moving First Are Already Pulling Ahead</h3>This is why the debate cannot simply focus on jobs. It must focus on national competitiveness.Countries such as Denmark have become global leaders in digital government, technology adoption and workforce development. Their focus is not on protecting every existing job from technological change. It is on ensuring workers, businesses and public services are prepared to benefit from it.The lesson is not unique to artificial intelligence. It has been true for every major technological shift in history. Countries that adapt grow. Countries that hesitate fall behind.The uncomfortable truth is that the rest of the world is not waiting for Britain to decide whether it feels comfortable with AI. The technology is moving forward regardless. The only question is whether we move with it.<h3>Britain's Hidden Weakness</h3>The challenge is not simply adopting AI. It is creating an environment where AI can actually work.Today, a significant proportion of government technology infrastructure relies on legacy systems. Many departments continue to operate on platforms that are expensive to maintain, difficult to integrate and increasingly vulnerable to security risks.We cannot expect Britain to lead the next industrial revolution while parts of the state are still operating on infrastructure built for the last one. Modernising government systems is not simply a public-sector challenge. It is an economic competitiveness challenge. Investors look for countries capable of adopting innovation quickly, securely and at scale.If Britain wants to attract the industries of the future, we must ensure the foundations are fit for purpose.<h3>The Jobs AI Creates Are Not The Ones Most People Expect</h3>One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding artificial intelligence is that it is primarily a software story. It is an infrastructure story. When most people hear the phrase "AI jobs", they picture software developers sitting behind laptops writing code. The reality is far more interesting. Artificial intelligence cannot exist without physical infrastructure. Every AI model requires computing power. Computing power requires data centres.Data centres require land, planning permission, steel, concrete, cooling systems, water management, power generation, electricity transmission, physical security, maintenance and specialist materials. Suddenly the conversation is no longer about Silicon Valley. It is about engineers, electricians, construction workers, environmental specialists, planners, project managers and manufacturers.Consider something as mundane as paint. Most people would never associate paint with artificial intelligence. Yet specialist coatings are increasingly being developed for data centres and advanced industrial facilities because traditional products often cannot meet the cooling, durability and environmental requirements of modern infrastructure. A company that once served conventional commercial construction can suddenly find itself supplying one of the fastest-growing technology markets in the world. That creates jobs in research and development, manufacturing, compliance, testing, sales and installation.AI did not destroy those jobs. It created the market for them. The same pattern can be seen across the economy.Britain's future AI infrastructure will require new substations, upgraded electricity networks, battery storage, cooling systems and renewable energy generation at a scale not seen for decades. Every data centre needs reliable electricity twenty-four hours a day. That means demand for energy engineers, grid specialists, renewable developers, battery experts and transmission infrastructure.The irony is that some of the jobs most likely to be created by AI will be in sectors often considered "old economy". The future of artificial intelligence may depend just as much on electricians and civil engineers as software developers.<h3>Every Conversation About AI Eventually Becomes A Conversation About Energy</h3>Artificial intelligence does not run on optimism, strategy papers or political speeches. It runs on electricity with very major AI model requires enormous computing power. Every data centre requires secure, reliable and affordable energy. The countries that succeed in the AI era will not simply be those with the best algorithms.They will be those with the infrastructure to support them. Britain is one of the world's leading offshore wind markets. It has the coastline, the engineering capability, the renewable energy expertise. Having the opportunity to build a new industrial ecosystem around energy, data centres, storage and digital infrastructure. The next industrial revolution may depend as much on substations and transmission networks as it does on software.That is why is not a technology story but an industrial strategy story.<h3>Traditional Industries Are Already Reinventing Themselves</h3>This transformation is not theoretical as it is already happening.Rolls-Royce no longer simply sells engines. Through predictive maintenance and digital twin technology, it increasingly sells reliability, monitoring and analytics. The result is demand for software engineers, data scientists, cybersecurity professionals and systems analysts alongside traditional engineering roles.AstraZeneca uses AI to accelerate drug discovery and clinical research, creating demand for computational biologists, AI specialists and advanced analytics professionals.John Deere transformed agricultural machinery into precision farming platforms that use machine learning, sensors and real-time analytics to improve crop yields and reduce waste.These companies did not stop doing what made them successful. They evolved. The same will happen across thousands of British businesses. The winners of the AI era are unlikely to be businesses that abandon their expertise. They will be businesses that combine decades of industry knowledge with new technological capability.<h3>AI Is Becoming A Sovereignty Issue</h3>For years Britain has talked about energy security. Artificial intelligence introduces a new concept: computational security. Every advanced economy will increasingly depend on access to computing power. Governments, hospitals, financial institutions and Defence systems will depend on it.The question is whether that capability exists within our borders. The conversation has already moved beyond chatbots. It is now about national competitiveness. Modern defence is increasingly defined by information superiority. The ability to identify threats faster, analyse intelligence faster and respond faster.Whether detecting hostile cyber activity, monitoring satellite imagery or countering autonomous drone systems, artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of the modern defence toolkit.Every one of those capabilities creates demand for highly skilled jobs- Software engineers, Satellite specialists, Cybersecurity experts, Data scientists, &nbsp;Intelligence analysts, Systems operators.The countries building these capabilities are not losing jobs. They are creating entirely new categories of work. Britain faces a choice, to become producers of these technologies or become customers of them.History suggests the former is usually the more prosperous option.<h3>Britain Has Something Most Countries Do Not</h3>For all the pessimism that surrounds Britain's economy, we often overlook a simple fact.Very few countries are as well positioned to benefit from artificial intelligence as the United Kingdom. As home to world-leading universities, globally respected legal institutions, one of the world's most influential financial centres, advanced defence capabilities, a strong research base and growing renewable energy capacity. More importantly, it possess something that every industrial revolution has required: the ability to connect ideas, capital and talent.Britain has spent centuries acting as a bridge between innovation and commercialisation. Artificial intelligence will need more than algorithms. It will need financing- Infrastructure, Governance, Energy, Security, Trust.These are all areas where Britain already has deep expertise. The AI revolution will not be won by technology alone. It will be won by the countries capable of building entire ecosystems around it. Britain has done that before. There is no reason it cannot do so again.<h3>The Question We Should Really Be Asking</h3>As a Millennial, I understand why people are nervous. My generation has spent most of its adult life adapting to change we did not choose- Financial crises, Political upheaval, Pandemic, Inflation, Housing crisis, now Artificial Intelligence.But perhaps that is exactly why we should recognise this moment for what it is. Not the end of opportunity but the beginning of another transformation.The greatest threat to your job is not AI. It is somebody else using AI. The greatest threat to a British accountant is not artificial intelligence, it is a competitor producing better work in half the time because they embraced tools we chose to fear. The greatest threat to a British engineer is not automation, it is a rival business designing faster, building faster and innovating faster because they adopted technologies we delayed.Competition has never been between humans and machines. It has always been between humans using better tools and humans using worse ones.That is the debate Britain should be having. Not whether AI can be stopped, it simply cannot. Not whether technological change can be paused, it never has been. But whether Britain intends to lead the next industrial revolution or watch it happen from the sidelines. Because Britain will not get to decide whether artificial intelligence exists. The only decision available is whether we build it, regulate it, invest in it and benefit from it or whether we buy the products, services and expertise from countries that did.That is the real choice not AI versus jobs, not technology versus people. But leadership versus dependency. Every industrial revolution creates winners and losers. However, history is remarkably consistent on one point. The countries that become poorer are rarely those that adopt transformative technologies too quickly. More often, they are the countries that adopt them too slowly.AI is not the threat. Economic decline is.And unlike artificial intelligence, that is something Britain can still choose to avoid. The next industrial revolution has already begun.The question is whether Britain intends to help shape it or simply live with the decisions made by those who do.

The Greatest Threat to Your Job Isn't AI. It's Someone Else Using It.

Larkspur International

Where Government Meets Business Growth
Larkspur International operates at the intersection of business and government where decisions are shaped, risks emerge, and opportunities are realised.

Larkspur International is a business consultancy with a growth mindset working alongside clients to navigate government systems, eliminate barriers, and deliver measurable commercial outcomes.

INSIGHTS

Reform’s Business Day: the economic philosophy is emerging

The War Before the War

Parliament's Final Legislative Push: A Year of Reform in ...

The UK Defence Investment Plan 2026: More Than a Spending...

AI Is Changing Government. But Process Still Comes First.

The Greatest Threat to Your Job Isn't AI. It's Someone El...