In politics, it’s not enough to have the right diagnosis – you need think strategically. By failing to consider the people affected by its proposed welfare reforms, the Government has boxed itself into yet another reset. I have no truck with the argument that Keir Starmer was ‘distracted’ – the Prime Minister would do well to remember he is after all First Lord of the Treasury, and being Prime Minister is all about seeing the big picture. But if Keir Starmer wants some inspiration about how to fix this, he ought to look back to around 20 years ago.
Whenever Gordon Brown was thinking about significant policy changes, he thought about them in terms of ink. In part, this was a counterbalance to officials and political apparatchiks presenting policy in PowerPoint, graphs and spreadsheets. He saw these approaches as fatal to understanding and effectively testing policy. He preferred an essay or speech as a far more effective way of testing the policy proposition.
Brown would bring his inner team in and write a speech – he was cognisant that if he did implement the policy, it could end up being an op-ed or a set piece political moment. Thinking in ink allowed him to diagnose problems, analyse solutions that have been tried and failed and then to provide an explanation for failure. The upside was that he could think through the case with rigorous analysis of what might work, how it would be delivered and how it would be consistent with their stated values – now ‘missions’.
Of course he made mistakes, but this element of thinking in ink is critical. It really interrogates policy from all angles by considering a range of stakeholders affected and evaluating the balance of rights and responsibilities between citizen and state – our social contract.
There is no doubt the social contract is fraying in the UK and in western democracies generally – populists are having a field day and are finding it easier to connect with the public.
Younger generations’ economic prospects are declining compared to their predecessors, and social mobility is through the floor as inherited wealth rises. Income is critically important, but wealth is now central to economic inequalities and the very existence of the legitimacy of the social contract. Intergenerational inequality is the structural issue underpinning social cohesion.
However, there is a glimmer of light for all generations of voters. In Westminster and business circles, there is enthusiasm around the Government’s flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and rightfully so. It is an important gateway piece of legislation that if enacted can be a catalyst for increased investment rates that get projects off the ground and improve people’s lives.
Whether it was thought through on ink or not I can’t say, but there was wide consultation on it. While it is a good piece of legislation, The Labour Infrastructure Forum’s latest report – ‘Going Further and Faster’ – outlines seven workable tweaks to the Bill that we think could vastly improve it as it makes its way through parliament.
Firstly, there are a few simple tweaks to the habitats regulations that would significantly reduce delays without compromising ecological standards. Current processes unnecessarily burden developers with repetitive assessments, deterring rather than facilitating responsible development. mplementing clear baseline thresholds, providing guaranteed post-consent clarity and making government guidance binding for regulators are three practical solutions. These changes would ensure environmental oversight is proportionate and focused on genuine ecological risks.
Secondly, tackling the adverse incentives inherent in the Aarhus Convention is critical. Rightfully intended to democratise environmental justice, in some cases the convention is now open to abuse by ‘well-meaning’ lawyers who have constructed their own ‘no win no fee’ business model. The net effect of these vexatious litigations is hindering essential infrastructure. Introducing means-testing, raising caps for repeat litigants or aligning cost caps with the true economic impacts of project delays would restore balance.
Thirdly, regulatory simplification alone will not suffice. Strategic national projects, such as gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants and major rail upgrades, cannot depend solely on private finance. Increased government capital expenditure is indispensable to meet Britain’s ambitious infrastructure goals.
Fourthly, as suggested by Catherine Howard, addressing politically-motivated planning refusals by granting the Secretary of State stronger ‘call-in’ powers could be transformative. Currently, planning authorities can refer a decision to the Secretary of State where they are minded to approve, this could be changed so they have to refer to a decision they are minded to refuse for a specified category of applications.
Fifth, we recommend imposing a statutory duty on public bodies to identify and work towards the disposal of underutilised land assets so they can be developed or disposed of, increasing land available for development and raising revenue at the same time.
Sixth, as recommended elsewhere by Robbie Owen, confirmatory votes in Parliament could be used to increase democratic legitimacy of critical infrastructure decisions and make it more difficult for them to be challenged through the courts.
Finally, empowering and adequately resourcing the Planning Inspectorate is fundamental. Years of chronic underinvestment and a risk-averse culture have created a bottleneck. An inspectorate capable of confidently driving infrastructure delivery forward is essential to the government’s political vision.
The debate around ‘growth’ is characterised by Nimby vs Yimby – it’s antagonistic and rooted in outdated ways of doing politics. The baby boomers in the shires are now grandparents and broadly, they deeply care about intergenerational wealth, so there is a pressing need to reshape the conversation and build a progressive coalition around them. They generally don’t make the connection that when they challenge development they pull the ladder up on the generation behind them.
Growth in its current political framing is such a nebulous term to most people. At his University of Kansas speech in 1968, RFK said you can’t judge a country by its growth in GDP alone as it: ‘counts air pollution… locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them… it measures neither our wit nor our courage but measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.’
At its core, we at the Labour Infrastructure Forum want to develop policy solutions that provide people and communities with the tools to go on and make the most of their futures. We can learn much from Brown on policy development and from RFK on storytelling. I can see no path to success for any government unless they find policies that strengthen the social contract, spread the wealth, provide hope and rediscover the art of storytelling to a disillusioned public.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
