The words of Theresa May in her major campaign speech on 11 July. Before the end of the day she would be selected as leader of the Conservative party and prime minister-in-waiting, taking over the top job just two days later.
In the same address she promised to cut out the "political platitudes" about creating a stakeholder society, and to do "something radical". Her government would pursue an industrial strategy to defend British companies against overseas predators focused purely on stripping assets and cutting their own tax bills. On governance, it would include putting workers and even consumers on corporate boards and to beef up competition as previously described.
It is for other titles to characterise the political acuity of these statements in appealing to the centre ground. Perhaps we shouldn't take them too seriously: commentators quickly pointed out that some of the governance ideas were reheated policies from the 2010-15 coalition government. But for us, the question remains as to how private investors will be affected, if Ms May's words prove beyond mere rhetoric.
On the case of defending British interests and industry, the impact is too soon to call. Japanese conglomerate SoftBank's promises of investment, jobs and brand preservation seemed to grease the wheels of its takeover bid for chipmaker Arm (ARM), while Hinkley Point expansion has stumbled on apparent discomfort over foreign ownership and cost. But the question of competition is more intriguing, given final reforms have recently been unveiled for both energy companies and retail banks.
One would hope that one hand knows what the other hand has been feverishly typing and that the erstwhile home secretary and her speechwriters were aware that remedies were being cooked up to improve the lot of consumers in these two critically important areas. If we keep that assumption, perhaps regulators' hitherto soft touch could be expected to harden under the new administration. Because the tone from the Competition & Markets Authority's final reports on these markets suggest the onus is on the consumer, if given the right information, to improve competition through switching, rather than on the regulator to break up the high level of consolidation in supply.
In banking, the CMA found that breaking up the bigger lenders would be long, costly and disruptive exercises, and that the evidence is "neither strong nor conclusive" that consolidation is hurting consumers. But it is hard to share faith in the ability of smart banking apps or, for energy a 'database of the disengaged', to fundamentally change the balance of power.
Which means good times for private investors looking for high barriers to entry. Whether it is the market share of the major retail lenders or BT's 'vertical consolidation' in the telecoms market and its hold over Openreach, regulation can be just dandy. London Stock Exchange's tie-up with Deutsche Börse is yet another example of shareholder benefits flowing from scale, while clients will be forgiven for doubting assurances that some prices might fall.
But consolidation is not always good in the longer term, as The Economist has convincingly argued, if it is a drag on business investment and innovation. Just watch BT's haggling with the government and arguing with competitors over its spend on upgrading the nation's broadband network. If Ms May's government is tougher on competition, there may be long-term benefit as well as short-term shocks. But it is clear that much energy will be diverted towards the Brexit negotiations, and a forecast economic slowdown may deter policymakers from fundamental interventions in important sectors. For now, strong words may remain just that.
