Trying to grow our own Apples, Googles and Amazons

The LSE's new high growth segment.

With the launch of the London Stock Exchange’s High Growth Segment set for March, it appears that UK technology companies of all sizes will have a domestic listing to suit their needs. The High Growth Segment has been launched to appeal to technology and other growth companies that want to list in London but may not wish to apply for a Premium Listing (be it for eligibility or regulatory reasons) but would like an alternative to AIM, the London Stock Exchange’s junior market..

There is a popular belief that the UK capital markets are not supportive of technology companies and that there has been a flight of UK technology companies to list in the US. However, our analysis indicates that in fact no UK technology companies have listed in the US in the last three years; whereas during the same period more than 30 UK technology companies listed on AIM.

It appears, then, that smaller UK technology companies have already recognised the appeal of listing in London rather than in the US.

Smaller UK technology companies have, for some while, been choosing London rather than the US as their preferred listing destination and AIM can be seen to be doing its job as an incubator for UK companies. At the same time there has been a paucity of listings of larger companies both here and in the US. What is exciting about the launch of the High Growth Segment is that larger UK technology and other growth companies now have a real alternative to a Premium listing or joining AIM.

This can only be a good thing for London. Indeed, the London Stock Exchange has opened the High Growth Segment up to companies that are incorporated anywhere in the EEA, not just the UK. The expectation is, therefore, that European companies will also consider joining the High Growth Segment, further demonstrating London’s position as the leading European equity market.

What is key to this new initiative is that it provides another option to larger technology companies who wish to raise capital. UK technology companies have largely sought growth funding from the debt markets or from private equity. The High Growth Segment offers a real funding alternative.

The rest of this article can be read on economia.

John Hammond is an equity capital markets partner at Deloitte.

The right enviroment for a new Google? Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.