Should infrastructure decision making be changed?

[Damien]

I'm a firm believer that major policy and strategy affecting our nation's critical infrastructure should have cross party consensus and should be taken out of the vagaries of changes of governments or prime minister.

We have seen time and again that Governments frequently put off difficult decisions and kicks the can down the road as they do not want to make unpopular decisions. It's much easier to simply leave the mess for someone else. No government wants to spend billions on necessary infrastructure which they do not get the benefit from and indeed another party can reap the reward of. Indeed some of those badly needed decisions can be very unpopular with the electorate and aren't made for that very reason. Even worse billions are wasted doing and undoing previous government policy. How many times do we hear things like a 3rd runway at Heathrow has to be built because we are running out of time or we need nuclear power stations to prevent not having enough supply or indeed things like the railway network is at breaking point. We also see projects like the Northern Powerhouse get scaled back or potentially cancelled completely depending on who is in charge. Why is everything always at breaking point before something is done?

I'm thinking key infrastructure like electricity generation, telecommunications, transportation etc, the big decision that require decades to plan and implement, should be made on a cross party basis. Lets get rid of the short term decisions and properly invest for the future regardless of government. Key projects would be built quicker and it would allow proper investment and planning in the nations infrastructure. It would also allow the UK to be at the forefront of infrastructure improvements rather than constantly reacting in a piecemeal fashion after everyone else or before it is too late.  Lets just remove key infrastructure from the vagaries of government and have proper cross party consensus and planning in these areas. Indeed we saw with the Olympics that cross party co-operation was considered essential to the successful hosting of the games.

There are probably loads of reasons why this is a bad idea but I certainly see far more positives than negatives.

[Bedford Roughyed]

It definitely needs to be long term planning and vision.  Which doesn't seem to be currently compatible with 5 year governments and a desire not to actually spend money or upset certain constituencies.  

Heathrow for example should of been decided years ago (either way).  Instead they had review after review with no desire to upset the airport or the locals, so kept putting it off.  Took 12 years to approve it, and now have to fight the court cases.  

Nuclear has been kicked down the road numerous times.

 

[GeordieSaint]

I like the OP; all for it. Short-termism is rife in this country and it tends not to benefit the people who elect our politicians, who are too tribal and rarely break the whip. Anything that breaks the 2-party strangehold on the UK is a good thing IMO.

[JohnM]

Ti's not in my view a simple matter of politics. There are international obligations and stuff. Civil sevants.too have a hand in things, as do the consultancies. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Ti's not in my view a simple matter of politics. There are international obligations and stuff. Civil sevants.too have a hand in things, as do the consultancies. 

Absolutely agree - but politicians lead the way and make the decisions. They need to lead...

[Bedford Roughyed]

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Ti's not in my view a simple matter of politics. There are international obligations and stuff. Civil sevants.too have a hand in things, as do the consultancies. 

True, but thing Heathrow again, it took them going on 12 years to decide whether or not to go for it.  Thats before the whole planning permission and objections part.  That can't help matters in the slightest.  

[ckn]

The results of a political infrastructure decision: HS2 should become Mid-Speed to keep it on track

[Damien]

On 1/13/2019 at 11:54 AM, Bedford Roughyed said:

It definitely needs to be long term planning and vision.  Which doesn't seem to be currently compatible with 5 year governments and a desire not to actually spend money or upset certain constituencies.  

Heathrow for example should of been decided years ago (either way).  Instead they had review after review with no desire to upset the airport or the locals, so kept putting it off.  Took 12 years to approve it, and now have to fight the court cases.  

Nuclear has been kicked down the road numerous times.

 

Yes totally and that's why I don't see how the current system is really compatible with proper long term infrastructure planning.

[JohnM]

On 1/13/2019 at 3:59 PM, GeordieSaint said:

Absolutely agree - but politicians lead the way and make the decisions. They need to lead...

Yes, indeed. This is how it works: a govt, any govt, comes up with an infrastructure project. The opposition, any opposition, then supports it, only  opposing the size, scope, location, timing and cost, such opposition supported by those government MPs whose constituences might be affected.

Then  the usual ragbag of envirionmentalists, Greens, FoE etc pile in and oppose it, too. 

 

[Saint Toppy]

Its actually industry themselves that lobbie the government (regardless of who's in power) for these infrastructure projects based on their knowledge of whats actually happening in the country and what they feel the country actually needs. Speaking as someone who works for one of the countries largest Civil Engineering firms who deliver a large number of these infrastructure projects, I can't tell you just how frustrated the industry as a whole are at the political interference in the whole process. Once the infrastructure commission has fully scrutined the proposals the govermnemet should then get its say on whether to fund it or not and set their budget. From here on in politics should be taken out of the equation, only returning to parliament if there's a change in funding requirements.

Political interference is currently huge through their various departments (eg. DFT). This has resulted in the delivery of projects being mired in an endless stream of tickbox paperwork and assessments. On average we've estimated that within major highways projects savings upward of 30% of design costs could be made by only having to comply with legal requirements and not have to complete all the 'internal' paperwork from the government departments.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

On average we've estimated that within major highways projects savings upward of 30% of design costs could be made by only having to comply with legal requirements and not have to complete all the 'internal' paperwork from the government departments.

That's a really interesting observation. Depressing but interesting.

[Bedford Roughyed]

To quote Jean-Claude Juncker -

We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.

[Damien]

19 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

To quote Jean-Claude Juncker -

We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.

Hence why I said it should be taken out of the vagaries of changes of governments or Prime Minister. 

[Futtocks]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:20 AM, Saint Toppy said:

Once the infrastructure commission has fully scrutined the proposals the govermnemet should then get its say on whether to fund it or not and set their budget. From here on in politics should be taken out of the equation, only returning to parliament if there's a change in funding requirements.

I see the flaw - the use of the word "if" in the last sentence of this paragraph.

And we haven't even got to the subject of deadlines <ahem>CrossRail</ahem>.