East Midlands Freeport’s Post

"...growing the economy through more distinct ‘magnets’ of strength is important because a sustainable economic future for Wales requires not only a base of skilled individuals, but opportunities and demand for those higher-level skills in the Welsh economy." In an essay piece recently, former Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones looks at the Global Centre Of Rail Excellence opportunity, seeing potential for the development to support long-term, innovation-led growth in South Wales. In the essay he highlighted the potential of GCRE as a unique piece of economic infrastructure - Europe's only purpose built site for rail infrastructure testing - creating new job opportunities and demand for talented engineers, technicians and researchers in Wales. He says GCRE is model that could have lessons for the wider UK economy. https://lnkd.in/eTvsWcsD #GCRE #GlobalCentreOfRailExcellence #Innovation

“Labour’s manifesto makes a strong statement for growth in the UK; a National Wealth Fund, planning reforms, a new industrial strategy with clean energy at its centre. This all sounds incredibly exciting and it is desperately needed. However, it’s less clear, at this stage, how all of this will actually be achieved, and what it might mean for the East of England.” As James Palmer Chair of the Eastern Powerhouse outlines: “The lack of recognition for the East in the manifestos from the two main parties shows more than ever why the East needs an Eastern Powerhouse to provide a voice for the region. We will continue to put the case for investment in our region with whoever forms the next government.” Read the Eastern Powerhouse’s full response: https://lnkd.in/exExpimN

Joint statement from the Chair of England's Economic Heartland, Cllr Liz Leffman and the Chair of the East West Main Line Partnership, Cllr Steven Broadbent on the NAO report. Due to the nature of its remit, the NAO report has a focus on the role of government and its agencies. It doesn’t capture the way businesses, universities, communities and local authorities in the region have – and continue to - champion the case for a railway between Oxford and Cambridge over several decades. We welcome the NAO’s conclusion that ‘improved communication and joint working between central government and local bodies are needed to overcome barriers to progress and achieve the goals of the project over the long term’. This is essential if East West Rail is to successfully balance two key priorities: unlocking locations for sustainable growth while ensuring our existing communities and businesses – who already contribute so much to the UK economy – continue to flourish. We also agree that any assessment of how trains are powered should take a long-term approach which considers alignment with the government’s decarbonisation plans. The NAO report serves to highlight the well-known complexities of capturing the wider benefits of transformative schemes such as East West Rail. However, speak to businesses big and small along the line – and the global companies thinking of investing here – and their message is quite simple: East West Rail just makes sense, get it built. If an appraisal process is unable to adequately capture the benefits of a project which links three of the UK’s most dynamic and fast growing cities, in a region world renowned for expertise in science and technology, where there is already-significant levels of housing growth, but where poor east-west connectivity is clearly limiting its economic potential – then perhaps it is the process, rather than the project, that the NAO needs to be investigating.

This is a super interesting way of starting at the upcoming debate on the next multiannual financial framework. While I think that the public goods selected are clearly not exclusive and some of the most essential ones have not been selected, namely those ensuring we primarily prevent climate change and biodiversity loss but also mitigate their impact as well as ensure public support also via strengthening European identity (think Erasmus for instance as a clear European public good).

Gabriel Felbermayr and I have a new paper on pan-European public goods prepared for the Economic Committee of the EU Parliament. It revolves around a simple idea – given new challenges, the EU needs a bigger budget to provide pan-European public goods in infrastructure, research & innovation and defence. Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit (EGOV) WIFO We start by discussing pan-European public goods. The EU needs to provide jointly more of these goods, which create true EU-wide value added. Currently, they are not a major part of the EU Budget. In fact, the budget itself is small – at around a mere 1.0% of ЕU GNI for 21-27 (and 1.7% with NextGenEU). Compared to national budgets and to the size of EU economy, this is minuscule. In most countries, government expenditure amounts to more than 40% of GDP. The small size was called a historic relic already in 2004 (Sapir Report). It means the EU currently can neither play a strong geopolitical role, nor properly serve a real macro stabilisation function (a problem!). We discuss rich literature on smoothing of shocks in monetary unions, showing the lacking EU shock absorption in comparison to the US, DE & CAN. NextGenEU addressed this problem, but only temporary. An expanded EU budget will assume the dual function of providing automatic stabilisation and finance public investments in pan-European public goods. To have a meaningful macro effect, the budget needs a certain minimum size. While impossible to propose an optimal level we discuss a maximum ceiling of 4% of EU GNI in the long-term – combination of the existing and well-established current EU budget of close to 1% of GNI and a top-up of up to 3% of GNI, similar to the max 3% Maastricht deficit. But what should this expanded EU budget finance? We discuss 3 areas: Firstly – infrastructure. We need to build EU wide infrastructure in the area of transport & energy. As forcefully argued by Enrico Letta , an EU high-speed railway network should be high on EU agenda for economic & climate reasons. Recent geopolitical shocks highlight the need for EU energy infrastructure, as grid and storage infrastructure become essential. To achieve better governance, we propose an European Infrastructure Agency, to coordinate, implement and publicly communicate on EU infrastructure plans. Next, we discuss defence & security as a priority on top of the EU agenda recently. If EU Member States agreed to collectively organise part of their national defence, efficiency gains and savings at the national level could be realised, Finally, more R&D and innovation spending is needed to close the innovation gap to the US. While the total R&D spending gap is driven mainly by US top high-tech firms, this will not change soon in EU favor. Moreover, currently 90% of R&D expenditure in the EU is national. We need more EU level spending, enhanced by better governance and an European DARPA. https://lnkd.in/daiXBfdA

Why Britain has stagnated: one of the most interesting essays read this year which points to our high energy costs, hugely expensive infrastructure, low investment levels and restrictive development controls. “Britain’s economy has stagnated for a fundamentally simple reason: because it has banned the investment in housing, transport and energy that it most vitally needs. Britain has denied its economy the foundations it needs to grow on” (UK Foundations). UK Foundations essay: https://ukfoundations.co/

Really important read to understand the careful thought behind revising a plan based on fiscal responsibility and not empty promises We are so used to the lies and deceit of the current government, be wary of reactive press who would have you believe the same of Labour. Trust, integrity, responsibility.

Congratulations! @Kier Starmer ! Politicians announce they're backing off their Green Economy investment the same day the data shows the world has cruised past the “1.5° Paris Promise” as politicians play popularity politics. The same day the data show the oceans have beaten their temperatures record every day since April! 👏 Day in day out we sit with UK businesses who are crying out for support to drive sustainable actions to reduce their costs, consumption and emissions and stay in business employing people delivering to their customers and growing our economy! Imagine if politicians supported them! But instead, we hear about support for big plans lining the pockets of global companies, while simple solutions, ie: incentives to businesses and landlords to cover every industrial roof with solar panels, generating 50% of UK daytime energy usage giving towns and people low cost electricity! Imagine engaging an army of millions in business driving their sustainability agendas to keeping jobs alive and thrive instead of watching them disappear. Or maybe Tax breaks for energy monitoring and efficiency for simple energy savings. 45% of Net Zero targets can be achieved just by using less! Why not support those who are passionate about growing the economy sustainably and are trying to make a difference on the ground. Just saying…. #SupportBusiness #leadership #ClimateEmergency #supportworkers #supportemployment

An abdication of political responsibility on the greatest crisis facing us, a financial conjuring trick to conceal a false economy George Osborne blamed the last Labour government for introducing destructive, unnecessary austerity. Tories said they 'had no choice'. Now, Starmer/ Reeves using same line blaming Tories for Labour destructive, unnecessary slashing of public green investment. It is simply misleading to say that Labour now 'has no choice'. If Labour wants to 'balance the books' it could use progressive wealth taxes. This decision subordinates preventing climate catastrophe to a daft fiscal prudence rule, to short term political expediency. It is an abdication of responsibility to future generations, an act of political cowardice. Far from being 'prudent', Labour's approach will end up costing us (and the climate) dear. We will need to rely more on very costly private finance to green the economy. The number of homes getting insulated will be reduced. Either way households will pay the price. This policy might keep costs off the state balance sheet. But, it transfers (higher) costs to ordinary people. A financial conjuring trick to conceal a deliberate false economy. #climatechange #climatecrisis #climatefinance

"Expanding manufacturing companies and new production mandates bring with them know-how and resources that augment the local ecosystem of firms" If the spin-off effects are significant, then long term investments like the ones made by Stellantis and Magna International in the City of Brampton will percolate. I can't help but think of the land and how the derivatives could play out, but it needs time and will not happen over night. Through expansions, rehabilitation or through outright redevelopment, older industrial lands have the potential to house emerging technologies and manufacturing processes. Adapting existing underutilized employment lands to new uses could restore not only the buildings and their physical environment but also the jobs. We are seeing evidence of this in Brampton and making it easier to reinvest. In Brampton, although greenfield industrial development continues, the pattern of investing in employment lands is shifting, given the City's low vacancy rates, locational attributes and substantial labour force. #manufacturing, #redevelopment, #industrial, #InvestBrampton, #CityofBrampton, #BramptonEconomicDevelopment, #businessdevelopment #EconomicDevelopment #econdev #AdvancedManufacturing #InvestInBrampton #BramptonInvestmentAttraction Amanda Leard, Andrea Williams, Denise McClure, Clare Barnett, Devin Ramphal P.Eng., MBA (Mister Innovation), Martin Bohl