CCR2 Risk, data, and GDPR
Long-term economic plan. It sounds good does it not? If you think it is familiar, that is likely to be because it used to be the slogan of the Conservative Party. Before the 2015 election, it was repeated over and over again by Conservative politicians and, according to the opinion polls, as many as 60% of the public thought that the Conservatives’ priority was the economy. There was certainty. The Conservatives were given the benefit of the doubt and David Cameron won the election. Forward just two years and the slogan had
become strong and stable. Unfortunately for Theresa May, the public were not so convinced and she lost her majority in parliament. Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn and a newly enthused Labour Party membership, took a message of hope and of change to the country, which also spoke of taking a long-term view. National infrastructure is vital for the
long-term success of our country. That is why investment for the long term in transport, energy, communications networks, and water are so important. It also explains why investor returns, that are long-term, help ensure that improvements are made in the quality of our nationally important infrastructure, while short-term returns are likely to see more money returned to investors at the expense of the quality of
In short, we have to look at the right balance between investor returns and the needs of the public, remembering too the wages of those doing such a good job looking after us in the NHS, in schools, in police, fire and local government
the infrastructure those investments should be supporting. At our conference, shadow chancellor
John McDonnell started to paint a picture of what a long-term approach might look like under a Labour government. Now, our long-term approach is about investment in the future of the country. In place of short- term, high returns, we are offering a long term patient approach to capital. Because the extortionate rates of interest that are still being delivered from some public-sector projects simply cannot be sustained. They take valuable funds away from public services and they deny patients, school children and householders, care, education and safety. In short, we have to look at the right balance
between investor returns and the needs of the public, remembering too the wages of those doing such a good job looking after us in the NHS, in schools, in police, fire and local government. That is why Mr McDonnell was right to
announce natural monopoly public services like rail, water and energy really should be returning any surplus for reinvestment in those services rather than going to shareholders or to directors in the form of excessive bonuses. The public, including many people in business, can see the numbers simply do not add up in privatised services, which are of strategic national importance. And for anyone who doubts that statement, just look at the experience of East Coast Trains, which failed as a private franchise and was brought back in house. East Coast trains delivered high levels of service and returned £200m a year to the exchequer when run as a publicly owned franchise. One argument used against nationalisation is that it removes incentives including because publicly owned services can be allowed to make a loss. East Coast Trains made a loss in the private sector. The government had to keep the trains running and save the service. If a vital service is losing money it still has to be kept running at additional cost to the public finances whether it is publicly or privately owned.
28
www.CCRMagazine.co.uk
November 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52