England's Economic Heartland’s Post

What a #budget. Were you on tenterhooks? There’s certainly no doubt that the Labour government is here to drive long-term economic growth on the foundation of fiscal stability. But what for infrastructure? Here’s 4 of my key takeaways; 📈🔑Great for local and regional empowerment to unlock #growth: key theme coming through on +£200m to Metro Mayors for local transport through integrated settlements for West Midlands and Manchester in 25/26 which will expand to 4 further MCAs from 26/27. It will be interesting to see how these drive regional growth particularly through the set-up and delivery of multi-model transport networks. 💷🏗️Strengthened desire to ‘crowd in’ private #investment both domestically and globally through strategic public investments: reinforced role and capital investment pot of the UK Infrastructure Bank, now the National Wealth Fund (NWF) to catalyse over £70bn in private investment alongside reforming and expanding the Office for Investment. It would be good to see how the NWF draws a wider remit to encourage broader infrastructure investment alongside decarbonization schemes – there’s a lot we can do to #decarbonise the delivery and operation of ‘traditional’ infrastructure such is being shown by Lower Thames Crossing. 📑 🔄Commitment to reforming the #planning system to accelerate and simplify decision making; this is particularly impactful for our nationally significant infrastructure projects which take years to move through planning along with a high cost burden of doing so. How quickly this is realised and implemented, alongside how it might impact upon existing schemes going through the development consent order process (hopefully releasing these earlier too) will be the test. 🚆🏘️Commitment to a number of transformational infrastructure schemes; Transpennine Route Upgrade, East West Rail, HS2 Euston driving a clear understanding of the linkages between key infrastructure transport schemes and subsequent housing investment to drive regeneration. All of these are going to require a #cohesive and #transformative 10 year Infrastructure Strategy which is linked in closely to the 2035 Industrial Strategy and backed by spending review that outlines a new blueprint for financing our major infrastructure schemes. It will be good to see the role that the new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority will play in unlocking and supporting the future. Watch this space!

It's #Budget2024 day! TL;DR, what stood out most to me? With my infrastructure/tech/data hat on, here are some highlights: 👉 Encouraging pension funds to invest in Canada 🏗 We have known for a long time that there is not enough conventional capital from government budgets to fill our infrastructure deficit (think deep hundreds of billions of $). This measure is a promising start to getting more creative capital back into our infrastructure needs. There was special call outs for housing, digital infra, physical infra, airports, and more. 👉 Artificial intelligence investment 💰 Budget 2024 offered a balanced approach, imo, on being bullish on AI with a re-announcement of their $2.4B investment announced earlier this week with particular emphasis on digital infra and compute (good, especially if you hear Sam Altman talk these days about securing the compute power supply chain) while investing in government capacity and legislation to keep Canadians safe (also good). All sounds good on paper but I'm keen to see how this plays out in practice. 👉 R&D and IP 📈 Thinking about Canada on the global stage, increasing our R&D and IP output will be critical to competitiveness and seed companies that will be part of the future economy. The cost of innovation as well as attracting and retaining innovation talent must be as low as possible. What was missing in the budget? It was cited that the federal government has invested $43.4B in infrastructure projects from 2015/16 to 2022/23 with another expected $57.3B between now and 2028/29. That's just over $100B. It's a lot of money but I don't think it can be understated how little that will actually move the dial when it comes to filling the infrastructure gap in Canada. A few days ago, AFN released a report that said $349.2B is needed to close the indigenous infrastructure gap by 2030 alone. If we don't act, the on-reserve infra gap will reach $500B by 2040. This plus addressing non-indigenous infrastructure gaps surpasses the ability of any one government to tackle. To properly contend with this overwhelmingly large problem, there needs to be more urgency to explore unconventional funding models for infrastructure and more explicit thinking of how technology and other accelerators can help us close this gap while saving money and resources. https://lnkd.in/gW2zz_qQ #infrastructuredeficit #aritificialintelligence #data #tech

In a recent article, Rachel Reeves proposed UK infrastructure cuts to tackle economic issues, but the impacts go far beyond just financials. Here are the key points you need to know: 1. **Economic Impact:** - **Job Losses:** Infrastructure projects provide numerous jobs. Cutting these could spike unemployment rates. - **Reduced GDP Growth:** Less investment leads to slower economic expansion. - **Reduced Competitiveness:** Poor infrastructure deters domestic and international business investments, making the UK less competitive globally. 2. **Social Impact:** - **Quality of Public Services:** Cuts could degrade essential services like transportation, education, and healthcare. - **Public Safety:** Poor maintenance can lead to hazardous conditions. - **Increase in Inequality:** Underfunded infrastructure disproportionately affects lower-income communities, exacerbating social inequality. 3. **Environmental Impact:** - **Delayed Green Projects:** Investment cuts delay renewable energy and green initiatives. - **Higher Long-Term Costs:** Inefficient infrastructure leads to higher future maintenance costs. - **Pollution:** Aging infrastructure increases pollution, worsening environmental degradation. 4. **Fiscal Responsibility:** - **Deferred Maintenance Costs:** Reducing budgets often leads to higher future repair costs. - **Economic Multipliers:** Infrastructure investment has a multiplier effect; reduced spending can stall growth and worsen fiscal health. - **Long-term Debt:** Proper investments can reduce long-term debt by boosting economic productivity. Cuts in infrastructure funding may seem like a quick fiscal fix, but the long-term economic, social, and environmental costs could be substantial. As business owners, it's critical to understand these broader implications. **Next Steps:** Thinking about maximizing your tax savings amid these challenging times? Reach out to Together CFO for personalized, expert advice. **[Set up a call](https://lnkd.in/gEhBUk3S) today!**

The government must do more to boost UK infrastructure The chancellor missed an opportunity for meaningful demand-side stimuli in the Budget. With an election looming, the government must be more ambitious if it is to win the confidence of business leaders, says KPMG’s Holly Davis MBA MRICS (#infrastructure advisory director) After a year of scraping along with almost zero #economic growth, the UK entered recession in the final quarter of 2023. However, the Fixed-Term #Parliament Act has decreed that a #generalelection must take place before the end of January 2025. This month’s Budget was therefore a potential The Conservative Party manifesto precursor rather than a specific stimulus to growth. The cut in national insurance may have been the headline-grabber but, now that the dust has settled, what will be the Budget’s impact on some of the UK’s key infrastructure issues? #Housing and generation rent The housebuilding market is still a tough one. The #government may ostensibly have a target of delivering 300,000 homes a year, but it only built around 235,000 per year between 2021 and 2023. In the #privatesector, nearly half of FTSE-listed housing sector firms issued profit warnings over 2023. The Budget announced nearly £430m for major new housebuilding developments in #Sheffield, #Liverpool, #Blackpool and #Barking, and a vision for 20,000 homes in Leeds, but the industry reacted with some scepticism as to whether these new houses will really get built. Jeremy Hunt made some tentative steps to unlock some of the root causes of the housebuilding challenges. He announced £3m for a skills and #education programme to encourage more people to become #localauthority #planners. A commitment was made to publishing the consultation on an accelerated planning service and a national #energy system operator will be established in 2024 to support the accelerated, coordinated delivery of power to new sites. #Transport The big recent announcement on transport priorities came in last October 2023’s #NetworkNorth strategy and there was little by way of addition in the Budget, except for the commitment to the next phase of East West Rail. This will ultimately connect #Oxford and #Cambridge and is now planned to reach Bedford by 2030. It was a pretty good day for Cambridge generally in the Budget; it got 14 specific mentions, emphasising its pivotal role in the government’s #tech and #lifesciences growth strategy, with a big private sector funding boost from AstraZeneca announced to accompany the government’s own investment. While the Budget reaffirmed the £8bn #commitment to fixing #potholes, it was silent on reducing driver reliance on #fossilfuels. The decision to delay the ban on new petrol and diesel cars by five years to 2035 was somewhat overshadowed when it was confirmed last autumn, as it formed part of the same announcement as the cancellation of #HS2’s northern leg.

When will UK government(s) realise that improved productivity and growth is not achieved by merely wishing it? It needs investment in all forms of infrastructure, continuously, consistently and based on a reliable (repeat, reliable), long term (repeat, long term) plan. Infrastructure is all about planning and building today to reap the benefits tomorrow - long term, long term, long term. The trouble is 'long term' neither fits within the 5-year election cycles nor the political classes' insatiable appetite for quick wins. Yesterday, UK National Infrastructure Commission published their 2024 infrastructure Progress Review. A great example of exasperation, calmly stated - or perhaps no so calmly stated. Let me quote a few statements, demonstrating the gist of the message: "...The government should accelerate planning and delivery to catch up and ensure the country’s infrastructure is fit for purpose" "...Government needs to provide policy stability, making faster decisions and committing to them for the long term" "...UK faces an infrastructure gap between the assets we have today and the assets we will need to secure the future we want" "...Delivering low carbon and resilient infrastructure will require a significant increase in overall investment" "...but it has not gone far or fast enough" "...These last-minute policy changes add uncertainty" "...more ambition and faster deployment is required" "...delays to key policies" "...Asset maintenance issues" ...and it goes on with repeated references to the need for investment over a sustained period; a long term plan; Investment for the future; long term, long term, long term. Well over 100 mentions of long term - as though it is screaming "its the long term, stupid - don't you get it?" I could have been accused of reporting these snippets out of context, but not when the document clearly chronicles real and tangible failures to deliver, embedding uncertainty and instability in infrastructure development. Let's, for a moment, forget about the lack of public sector investment. With a record like ours, how can we expect the private sector [the part of it which has a choice] to commit to investing in infrastructure in the UK. Why would they? Would you invest your pension in an uncertain and temperamental sector? The future of our infrastructure and therefore our productivity is a real concern, whilst political powers continue to paint the deck chairs with increasingly shinier shades of gloss. For years, we screamed for a non-partisan long-term focused body with oversight on planning and delivering projects that extend beyond one government's term - a no brainer, we said - and it is. When the NIC was set up, everyone was excited. But, what if the non-partisan long-term focused body is ignored by all parties? - didn't think of that! So, where now? How do we get governments to listen? Answers on a [virtual] postcard please! #infrastructure #transportplanning

If mega-road projects were already disconnected from reality before, why is the current New Zealand government proposing to spend over $20bn on more-RoNS (their flagship transport boondoggle)? Let's dismiss with the idea that transport minister Simeon Brown has any interest in evidence, logic or even functional transport planning: New Zealand is currently being signed up for a generational spending-spree that ticks none of these boxes. So why do it? And how is it that Simeon and his cabinet buddies from New Zealand National Party, New Zealand First and Act are seemingly getting away with it? Because New Zealand invested heavily in car-dominant infrastructure for the last 70 years (backed by near-continuous marketing campaigns from auto manufacturers), and because local urban planning policy settings encouraged sprawling development over walkable communities, New Zealand is now one of the most car-dependant nations on earth. This means that the majority of voters—and certainly those likely to vote for the political right, like rural or older voters—use a car as their main mode of transport, and currently have few competitive alternatives. Most people aren't transport experts. They're unlikely to be aware of the comparative costs and impacts of different transport investment. They're going to have a very difficult time imagining a different transport system and how their lives might look if it was put in place. It's also extremely easy to 'other' transport users who don't behave like the target voter: Cyclists, or people in cities versus people in rural settings, or school kids versus drivers when it comes to the 'economic benefits' of increased speeds. Creating a tribal divide is a classic populist technique that gets self-interested voters on-side—provided whomever is being punched-down upon is either a small enough minority that their votes don't matter (bicycle advocates and rail enthusiasts), or they were unlikely to vote for the candidate in question anyway (academics and environmentalists). It may seem cynical, but a politician's job isn't to solve our infrastructure problems or fight against climate change. In a representative democracy, a politicians job, first and foremost, is to appeal to the greatest number of voters. In Aotearoa New Zealand, most voters drive. Of course, we do need to solve our infrastructure issues and fight against climate change, if we want to give our children a future worth living for. Acknowledging and understanding that politicians are extremely unlikely to solve those problems is a critical step in recognising how we get on with tackling them.

Today's budget has cemented the importance of infrastructure investment as the catalyst for economic growth across the UK. I'm encouraged by the commitment to a long-term programme of infrastructure renewal which will underpin the economic and social opportunities that will define communities for generations to come - it's clear the UK needs greater connectivity from improved transport links; more affordable, high quality homes; and thriving communities and cities. I was also pleased to see confirmation of funding for key projects including the Transpennine Route Upgrade, tunnelling between Old Oak Common and Euston for HS2, East West Rail and Sizewell C – all of which will secure jobs and investment, giving confidence to the sector. And I'm sure the whole industry welcomed the Chancellor reaffirming the government's commitment to reform the planning system to support - rather than stifle - the delivery of critical national infrastrucutre. The government has set a clear direction of travel, and I now look forward to seeing a 10-year infrastructure plan and a modern industrial strategy that provide further certainty and stability. #Budget #Infrastructure #Growth #Investment

🚆 There is a lot of controversy and differences of opinion over Victoria's Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) Project. 🤝 In contrast, Sydney's Metro projects have tended to have much greater support. Why is that, and what can we learn for future rail projects? Here are three reasons why I think the SRL is suffering: ❌ The SRL was created by politicians drawing lines on maps as part of an election campaign. There was very little work done in advance and certainly no business case. This got the project off to a bad start. ❌ Little consensus exists on the rail projects that should be built in Melbourne. For example, many people would prefer to prioritise the rail line to the airport. ❌ There are significant doubts about Victoria's ability to fund the project or the impact of funding the project on other priorities. 🧑🏫 What can we learn from the SRL controversy? I would argue that many of the problems stem from the original sin of politicians drawing lines on maps before getting expert advice. Let me know what you think in the comments below. Marion Terrill Dr Chris Hale David Hayward Graham Currie FTSE https://lnkd.in/g6PGiFZ9

Need to know what the Government are saying about Devolution? Then look no further, my colleague James Wood had done the reading for you with the key details and links below. 📃 💡

🚨 The wait is over! The Government's much-anticipated Devolution White Paper is OUT! 🚨 The Deputy Prime Minister has today unveiled a series of proposals as part of the Government's "longstanding commitment to devolution." The Government aims to use greater devolution to achieve several of its key missions, including growing the economy and delivering 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. For those involved in planning, some of the headline proposals from the White Paper include: - Strategic Authorities: "Universal coverage" in England of "Strategic Authorities", which will include existing Mayoral and Non-Mayoral/Combined County Authorities and newly designated Strategic Authorities (yes - it's confusing!). The Government will have powers to implement these new authorities where existing local authorities cannot agree on power-sharing arrangements. - Local Government: Reorganisation is coming for two-tier areas and unitary councils where there is "evidence of failure or where their size or boundaries may be hindering their ability to deliver sustainable and high-quality public services." - Devolution: The Government will publish guidance on the powers each type of local authority will have, moving away from the current patchwork of arrangements that has stemmed from the deal-based approach. - Funding: Integrated Funding Settlements for the more well-established Combined Authorities (e.g. Greater Manchester, Liverpool, North East, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire) to enable more flexibility in how Whitehall funding is spent locally. - Spatial Development Strategies: SDS to be developed in all areas in England to promote local economic growth and help deliver the Government's target of 1.5 million homes. SDSs will be adopted with majority support, removing the veto powers that have hampered the development of Joint Plans in the past. - Call-In Powers: Combined Authority Mayors to get 'call-in' powers to review major applications, similar to those enjoyed by the Mayor of London. - Infrastructure Levy: Developers to be required to pay a new 'Mayoral Levy' to help fund critical local infrastructure. - Transport: Combined Authority Mayors to get more powers over transport, including taking buses back into public control and greater powers over rail and road networks. Wondering what devolution could mean for your region? Get in touch to arrange a chat with our Head of Devolution Ben Bradley You can read the White Paper in full here: https://lnkd.in/eS8guWCs