Under his chairmanship, the CMA was seen as an effective regulator on these terms. As such, it won the ire of the tech giants and big corporations – plus the cottage industry of financiers, consultants and lobbyists operating in the highly lucrative mergers and acquisitions (M&A) space.
At an event hosted by the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, an industry lobbying group with strong ties with Starmer’s Labour, Rachel Reeves discussed what she termed a “massive step change” in the CMA since Bokkerink’s removal. “Previously,” the chancellor said, “businesses, all the time – especially in tech – had been raising concerns about the CMA. That has changed a lot.”
“That shows you what a catastrophe the government has been on this,” Tim Cowen, one of Europe’s leading competition lawyers, told openDemocracy. “As a Labour government, you should be getting complaints from the tech companies. What's good for innovation, and what's good for growth and jobs? It’s not Big Tech.”
Cowen added: “A Labour Party that actually cares about growth, jobs and employment shouldn’t be on the side of a monopolist, because if you monopolise the market, you limit outputs, raise prices, employ as few people as possible and increase profits for shareholders. This is not a beneficial thing to be doing. It's socially detrimental.”
Consumers feel this market dominance in their pockets. Cowen estimates that the average UK household spends an additional £1,200 on goods and services each year as a result of Facebook and Google dominating online advertising, based on an updated analysis of a 2020 study by the CMA. “The price for advertising everything has been increased by monopoly rents,” Cowen explains, “and those costs are then passed on to the consumer.”
The real decision-maker in No 10
Since Labour took office, organisations championing consumer rights, such as Which? and Citizens’ Advice, have had significantly less access to the CMA than advocates for Big Tech, finance and business. In a move characteristic of this government, corporate lobbyists have been invited to help set the CMA’s new direction through what ministers term a “listening exercise”.
In particular, senior CMA officials have prioritised sitting down with US tech firms and their industry lobbying groups, with transparency records showing they met with these companies and their representatives more than any others. Microsoft lobbyists enjoyed the most access, meeting officials on four occasions, while Amazon secured three meetings. Apple, Google, Meta and Spotify all met with officials, too.
The City of London has also had significant access. At the end of last year, the London Stock Exchange Group and the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association co-hosted a roundtable for the CMA with major investment firms such as Permira and Brookfield.
Despite these meetings, businesses increasingly believe that trying to convince the regulator to approve an acquisition or merger is less important, given the government is so publicly desperate to attract investment. As The Times’ well-connected business columnist, David Wighton, wrote in August: “Corporate advisers say companies with a competition issue are now more focused on lobbying ministers and officials than arguing the technical merits of their case.”
A CMA spokesperson told openDemocracy: “Our mandate is to promote competition and protect consumers. This includes regularly meeting consumer groups as part of our work. We are committed to using our new powers to ensure consumers are treated fairly and businesses comply with the law.
“We have a track record of delivering for consumers and addressing issues that matter to them. This includes investigations into the vet sector, road fuel, infant formula and Ticketmaster.“
Among businesses and lobbyists, one person is seen as particularly crucial to ensuring deals are approved: Varun Chandra, Starmer’s business adviser.
While Chandra’s name comes up a lot in conversations with MPs, lobbyists and experts in the competition space, few are willing to discuss his influence on the record. One senior tech lobbyist who wished to remain anonymous recently told openDemocracy: “From a business point of view, [he is] the most important person in government apart from Rachel Reeves.”
Chandra’s sway has also been well documented, including by the likes of Times columnist David Wighton and Sky News’ Mark Kleinman, both well-connected in City circles. Wighton quoted a former CMA official who said the key to a deal being passed “is seen as getting the ear of Varun Chandra”, whom he also credited as being “behind the sacking of Bokkerink”. Kleinman, meanwhile, described the government’s deregulatory push as his “brainchild”.
Chandra started his career in M&A before helping former PM Tony Blair to establish consulting businesses after he left office. Most recently, he led a highly exclusive corporate intelligence firm, Hakluyt & Company, which, among other things, helps clients navigate mergers and acquisitions that may be subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Two sources familiar with its work say that, under Chandra’s leadership, Hakluyt was involved in the Microsoft/Activision merger. While the firm does not comment on clients, it is understood that it often appoints individuals from companies it has worked for to its international advisory board, which Microsoft board member Sandra Peterson joined in April 2024.
As one of the very few No 10 advisers to have survived Starmer’s Downing Street operation since the election, Chandra is understood to now be taking on an even more influential role. Back in August, the prime minister reportedly singled him out for praise in a private speech to his staff, and promised him more resources to carry out his work.
Rising bills and soaring profits
Some sources inside the CMA told openDemocracy that morale is low, while others stress that ultimately, the regulator has a duty to fulfil its brief in the way that it is instructed to by the elected government of the day.
And the CMA clearly hasn’t taken its foot off the gas entirely; it recently designated Apple and Google with ‘strategic market status’. In theory, this designation leaves the door open for the watchdog to impose conditions and restrictions on the tech firms’ activities “to ensure that mobile platforms are open to effective competition”. But this move will be meaningless, warned another competition lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous due to fears their impartiality could be called into question in future court cases, unless the CMA actually uses the powers available to it.
Meanwhile, in the past month alone, the CMA has waved through a request from water companies to increase bills in England by an extra 3% over the next five years – on top of the average 36% increase that had already been approved – despite decades of private mismanagement and soaring profits by the firms. It also proposed an intervention in the veterinary industry that is widely seen as a boost for big corporations, many of which are backed by private equity, over independent practices.
And if you are in the UK and happen to use Vodafone or Three as your mobile or broadband provider, their extended internet outage earlier this month may have led you to consider switching to another company. But you’d have significantly less choice than in recent years, as the CMA approved a merger of two former rivals in December 2024, under Labour’s watch.
The merger, which the European Commission’s former chief competition economist suggested could lead prices to increase by up to 50%, was seen as a bellwether case. It was ultimately held up by the government as a signal to the market that regulators will not stand in its way and that investment, no matter the cost to consumers, is its priority.
“It’s the big corporates that stand to win from all this,” said the competition lawyer.
The CMA approved the Three/Vodafone merger with only behavioural remedies – essentially failing to address the fundamental risk to competition of a merger – after the firms offered to commit to a set amount of investment in the near future if it was approved. This alone signals a change within the regulatory framework, the lawyer said. “In the past, the CMA would never have accepted that,” they explained. “The previous view would have been: ‘We don’t believe promises, we look at incentives and go on that basis.’”
The Vodafone/Three agreement is not a one-off; experts told openDemocracy that the regulator has consistently been less active in policing such deals over the past year. While the financial impacts will take time to filter through, they will undoubtedly be felt by customers sooner or later.
And ministers may yet go further still.
“I think the next phase of it will be seeing to what extent [the government] completely defangs the regulatory regime,” the lawyer warned.
