General Discussion

Below is my blog from the latest Bulletin. Please feel free to comment, whatever your political colour!

Regime change. Though there’s presumably much water to flow under many bridges until the next general election a potential change of government is a topic I’m hearing discussed increasingly. At various committees and chatting on the phone with individual members over the last few weeks this has been the one big issue.

The departure of Ken Livingstone, London’s former mayor, from his post as ultimate head of TfL was a big wake up call to everyone that governments and policies don’t last forever. It has already impacted on planners, on passenger transport professionals, and on logistics professionals working in London.

As the scrapping of the ‘gas guzzler’ C charge planned for later this year shows, different people and different parties can set a very different agenda very quickly. Boris Johnson’s director of transport policy has even told the London Assembly ‘no mode should be seen above any other’ on London’s streets, which seems to reverse a pro public transport policy introduced by Steven Norris during the last Conservative government.

Your Institute will, of course, continue to advise a government of whatever persuasion on best practice in all aspects of passenger transport, planning and the supply chain. It’s part of our charity status as a Chartered Institute that we do not lobby in any political way, but we do make firm recommendations and reports to Government, as our recent criticism of the Government’s Towards a Sustainable Transport System highlights. As an organisation we are then, completely apolitical; but that doesn’t stop me asking the fascinating question, where do members interests best lie? Is our profession set to fair best under the status quo or under the Conservatives? (or the Liberals, etc, he adds balancedly).

I have a stereotype in my head that you are welcome to shoot down in flames. I tend to think the passenger transport professional feels most at home under a Labour administration and road hauliers under the Conservatives. I’m not entirely sure why I believe in this sweeping generality. Perhaps it’s because way back in the mists of time (well 1948ish) Labour nationalised the railways and most road haulage, and the succeeding Conservative Government re-privatised the road haulage industry before you could say ‘Leyland Comet’.

Will there really be much to choose between the two main parties on transport issues? Labour has enthusiastically supported Public Private Partnership (PPP) funding; which might seem a Tory idea. Cameron is quick to ditch his ministerial car to work in favour of his bike (though unkind rumours indicate his briefcase and boxes follow on in the Jag.) which seems the sought of socially responsible idea we’d perhaps more traditionally associate with Labour

Of course policies don’t remain constant even under a single administration. In the Brave New World of 1997 Labour had a ten year transport plan which included axing new road programmes; and Two-Jags stated he would be disappointed if car travel didn’t decline under his tenure as Transport Minister. I don’t think Ruth Kelly will be found uttering these words.

And transport’s political flash-points change. It’s fair to say privatisation has receded as an issue – but carbon emissions have grown hugely in importance in the last 10 years.

Would an incoming Tory Government cut fuel tax? Gordon Brown has kicked his planned fuel tax rise into touch more often than Johnny Wilkinson so might a re-elected Labour administration also change fuel tax policy to encourage road hauliers?

Anyway, that’s enough soothsaying for now. Whatever happens, we’ll be there on your behalf; arguing for an increase in the status of all transport and logistics professionals. Vote CILT!

Whoever, you vote for, the Government always wins!  This may be cynical but, in some ways, it's just as well for transport, which can have much longer timescales than the 4 or 5 yearly election cycles.  Parties in oppostion can come up with all sorts of ideas but then find that, when they have to actually govern, radical ideas may not work. 

One area where your sterotype may not apply is in aviation policy.  The current government is supportive of managed growth (not 'predict and provide') developed through a long running research and consultation process, supported by the business community and the regions.  The current political opposition seems to be suggesting that growth should be much more constrained and the new London Mayor wants to look again at a Thames Estuary airport.  If there is regime change at the next general election, it will be very intersting to see if a new government throws away all the work of the last 10 years and starts again.  And, I wonder, what will the answer be - probably the same but delayed 10 years!

You are right that the CILT should continue to advise government.  In my view, one of our strengths is that we can think stragegically and long term and not be swayed by events ('dear boy' as Macmillan said) or short term issues.