Parties agree action on climate change and imported oil is needed, but cuts to transport could leave the policy in disarray, writes Eamonn Dwyer.

With all three main parties promising to cut the deficit in the next few years, there remain huge questions over where the axe will fall in spending cuts.

While parties have pledged to preserve ‘frontline services’, the Institute of Fiscal Studies’ recent report emphasises that none of them are being candid about the cuts in public spending needed to meet their targets.

Cuts are coming. But where?

As the IFS notes, “the largest departmental budgets that the Labour Party has not pledged to protect are all defence, higher education, transport and housing.”

Labour is not alone; there are no major transport spending commitments in the Liberal Democrats’ budget and the Tories' spending projects are all uncosted aspirations. In a recent gaffe, Tory shadow London minister Justine Greening admitted the party might scrap Crossrail despite it being a manifesto pledge.

Transport is low-priority for most parties, usually limited to less than a page in their manifestos. Frontline services would appear to include ambulances and police cars, but not the roads they use.

Long road to ruin

According to the Financial Times analysis, the government will be forced to slash the road maintenance budget by 50 per cent at a time when Britain’s roads are in massive disrepair.

Road maintenance might seem like a motorists’ issue, but it is cyclists who are often the worst affected. Lightweight ‘city’ bicycles typically have no suspension, and potholes threaten serious injury to cyclists. While most parties encourage an increase in cycling as a way of alleviating congestion and pollution, this policy depends on improving conditions for cyclists on the road.

Cuts are double-sided; not only will existing road and transport maintenance be reduced, but major infrastructure investment will not take place either. While Thatcher proclaimed that nothing must stop the march of Britain’s ‘great car economy’, the reality of climate change and finite fossil fuels means Britain must make massive investment in public transport if we are going to meet our 80 per cent carbon emission reductions target.

Britain lags far behind Europe in rail travel. The high-speed rail network announced by the government is supported by the Conservatives, but it is entirely possible that the project could be scrapped by a Tory administration seeking to dramatically reduce the public sector.

Without high-speed rail between Britain’s major cities, it would be difficult to end Britain’s addition to cheap domestic and European flights, a major contributor to carbon emissions.

The Samosa spoke to Andrew Davis, chairman of the Environmental Transport Agency, which lobbies for more sustainable transport policies. He has been reading the five main party manifestos (including the Greens and UKIP, whom he quips “don’t mention cycling or buses”.)

“Transport is always down the list of pledges,” said Davis. “The Liberal Democrats have some of the best ideas, but I would suspect that is because they didn’t seriously expect to be in government until the first debate.”

He also liked some of the Tories’ ideas (“not point by point, but in general”) and Labour’s, but questioned “why they didn’t get the chance to implement them in thirteen years?”

The cost of cutting carbon

One major change to infrastructure Britain will need is decarbonising the motor industry. The best bet looks to be electrification; hydrogen vehicles are increasingly viewed in environmental circles as a non-starter, and biofuels simply cannot fill the gap.

Electrification presents major infrastructure challenges. There will need to be a big increase in Britain’s power generation as we enter an age of declining fossil fuels; charge points will need to be created nationwide, and batteries present a range of problems that will inhibit the vehicles’ practicality.

Of the party manifestos The Samosa read, only the Tories and UKIP mention the electrification of cars. The Tories promise to create unspecified ‘incentives’ for private companies to introduce a network of charge points; UKIP simply note they would ‘support’ electrification.

Even the Green Party has a gap in their policies on the issue. The Samosa asked the Greens whether they though the electrification of cars would happen through the free market or required government intervention; we did not receive a response.

For a party that lists Peak Oil in its manifesto as a threat to the economy, it is unusual their policies are not more fossil fuel resilient. They support a doubling of the public bus fleet, but presumably this means yet more public transport dependant upon oil.

Davis suggests one reason why parties may be unwilling to address car electrification; fuel excise duty is a massive cash cow for the treasury.

“One of the problems for the Government is that if cars become decarbonised, tax revenue is going to decline. For years the government has been taking far more out in transport taxes than it has been putting in. We were warning them in 2000, before the fuel strikes, that this couldn’t continue. Either ring-fence the money for transport, or come up with a better justification for why fuel excise is so high.”

To ‘decarbonise’ Britain’s transport fleet, Davis believes new taxes need to be brought into play. “Road use charging would be a good way of funding transport, so long as people knew it was ring-fenced. The parties are putting off an evil.”

A question of politics

It has been a massively contentious issue for the government. Former deputy prime minister John Prescott pressed for it in his ten year transport plan, but was unable to get the plan off the ground with an executive that desperately feared alienating motorists.

The fears are well founded; over a million votes were registered on the Petition Number 10 website to attack plans in 2007 to introduce road charging. For a Lib Dem-Labour coalition, road charging could be a novel way of raising tax revenue – although whether it would be ring-fenced for transport is debatable.

It is important to look behind the reasons for these cuts. Slashing the deficit is considered vital to attract investors to Britain. But what effect will a poor quality, fossil fuel-dependent transport sector have on bringing businesses to the UK?

It goes to the heart of the mainstream narrative of deficit reduction, which is portrayed as vital to British national interests but is dramatically skewed towards public spending cuts over tax rises. Even Kenneth Clarke, when serving as chancellor under John Major, opted for more tax rises than spending cuts than any of the mainstream parties are suggesting.

In my next article for The Samosa, I’ll be looking at the real politics behind the public spending purge.

eamonn.dwyer83@gmail.com
http://www.twitter.com/eamonndwyer