Can you win an election debating transport policy?
As a political battleground, the UK’s transport sector is becoming increasingly high profile. The industry is undergoing huge change, with large scale investment in the railways and roads planned or taking place and a decision on airport expansion on the horizon in 2015. Alongside ongoing rhetoric on the de-privatisation of former public assets and utilities, it’s likely that transport will be the focus of many a political skirmish in the run up to May. In this context, transport sector organisations in the UK are being closely scrutinised. So, what does this mean for transport companies and the travelling public?
From the Beeching closures in the 60’s to high speed rail to airport expansion to toll roads, Britain’s transport infrastructure has long been both a high profile and controversial subject, and for decades, Britain’s transport policy has been a contentious issue. Indeed, back in the early 1980’s, ’Yes, Minister’ was lampooning the concept of an ‘integrated transport policy’ due to chronic underinvestment. In the episode ‘Bed of Nails’, the role of ‘Transport Supremo’ (or, as Sir Humphrey put it, ‘Transport Muggins’) was seen as political suicide due to the apparent impossibility of the job. The premise was that an integrated transport policy would be popular with the public, but impossible to deliver on due to the unions, transport lobbies and the civil service.
Though exaggerated for comic effect, this storyline wasn’t too far from reality at the time, and indeed it would be familiar for anyone working in infrastructure and transport sector today. Over the past thirty years it seems that little has changed, with infrastructure planning spanning decades and decisions routinely pushed back election after election.
Infrastructure projects today are being put under the spotlight thanks to record passenger numbers and widely recognised capacity problems. Large scale projects attempting to address the nation’s transport needs - both planned and in progress – are effectively facing the familiar issues of underinvestment, conflicting priorities, budget constraints and party politics. Compounding these age-old problems many transport commentators, and indeed some MPs, lament the state of Britain’s transport network compared to the infrastructure in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere, particularly in terms of the lack of long-term investment or competitiveness, and the impact of legacy issues in the UK such as the Victorian Rail infrastructure.
The main parties are evidently seeking to take advantage of this issue for political point-scoring – and the transport sector could face a considerable shake-up following the election. 2015 had just begun and David Cameron was compelled to defend the rationale behind fare increases and the need for investment in the rail network. Ed Miliband has indicated that a Labour Government would allow the public sector (such as the public outfit running the East Coast rail franchise, soon to be replaced by Virgin, Directly Operated Railways) to bid for rail franchises. Caroline Lucas’ private member’s bill to bring rail completely back into public ownership has also further ignited the debate. It’s clear that there is an appetite for change, but it is unclear what form this will take.
Ipsos’s research among MPs back in 2014 shows that regardless of which party (or coalition) gets into power, the transport sector is likely to receive support from Government – which comes with high expectations. Over half (56%) of the MPs we spoke to last summer indicated that transport would be a sector that is in most need of support during the course of the next Parliament – with no divide along party lines.
Although the contribution transport infrastructure makes to Britain’s competitiveness and the economy makes a compelling argument for change, public opinion still presents barriers to implementing infrastructure improvements. Local communities are unlikely to be enthused by the prospect of long-term disruption due to engineering works or compulsory purchase orders to make room for a new rail link or runway. Though it might be argued that this is nothing new, nimbyism in the era of social media perhaps makes this more of a hurdle than it ever has been. Furthermore, as one example, fare increases for train travel have been unsurprisingly far from popular. This means that although many MPs intend to give the sector a boost, how they do this is unlikely to please everyone.
Transport infrastructure projects are often magnets for controversy. They tend to be hugely expensive initiatives that can be highly disruptive for local communities, business and industry. The taxpayer often foots the bill for these projects, whether in full or as part of public private partnerships (in their own right the source of much contention). As such, every penny spent is closely scrutinised for its value. On top of this, some projects are regarded as too little too late. In much of our research among opinion formers, there is a sense that successive governments have invested too little in Britain’s transport infrastructure and the nation is now on the back foot, facing the prospect of a way to find capital to fund large scale projects that are often too large to be viable investments for the private sector.
For decades, Britain’s policy makers have often shied away from making decisions to invest in disruptive national infrastructure for both political and economic reasons. Although many promises are going to be made during the election campaign, it’s hard to see how many of these will be followed through. Once in Government, politicians will be faced with the prospect of making (to steal a another phrase from Yes, Minister) politically ‘courageous’ decisions on whether to rubber stamp infrastructure projects that probably won’t be realised within their parliamentary career – and therefore with little political capital to be gained post-election. Furthermore, with high profile and expensive projects already underway, it is easy to see how some prospective candidates and MPs foresee difficulties in justifying yet more public spending on infrastructure.
With vocal pressure groups making the case both for and against various infrastructure projects, politicians will always come under fire, whichever decision they make. However, as seen with some projects now nearing completion, as well as the long-delayed decisions on additional capacity at London airports, the perennial delays in getting transport policy through parliament means that when projects finish, they are already out of date.
Politicians today are therefore in a somewhat tricky position. Our past research shows that many MPs recognise that Britain’s transport infrastructure is in dire need of improvement and investment and transport policy needs to address this issue now – however unpopular it may be. The trick is to pull off a policy announcement that will win votes ahead of the election, but be both politically feasible and practically deliverable once in Government.
Ipsos’s MPs' survey runs twice annually, interviewing a representative sample of c.100 MPs from the UK House of Commons. Interviews are conducted face-to-face.
