How Osborne can avoid more failure on infrastructure

Three years have been wasted as infrastructure 'plans' have failed to progress to projects. In the Spending Review, the Chancellor has a chance to reverse course.

There will be a sense of déjà vu on Wednesday when George Osborne stands up to announce "a long-term infrastructure plan" to help the economy move from "rescue to recovery". Nearly three years have passed since the Chancellor published his first National Infrastructure Plan. This document has subsequently been updated twice with small amounts of additional cash, such as an extra £5bn of capital investment last year, promised along the way.

We’ve now had a chance to assess whether these plans have actually materialised and what they have meant for the UK economy. The truth is that they haven’t amounted to much. In the first three years of this government, public sector net investment fell from £38.5bn to £24.3bn as the cuts kicked in. Although Labour had also planned a rapid reduction in capital investment, the Tories cut an extra £4.3bn.

The infrastructure 'plan' – perhaps better termed a wish list – currently includes 550 projects worth £310bn but just seven have been listed as "completed" or "operational". The latest set of construction figures show that output in the industry fell 4.7 per cent in the last year while output in the sector is down 12.1 per cent since the Chancellor first announced "new investments in the economic infrastructure" at his first Spending Review. Jobs in the sector have fallen too with 84,000 lost since the last election.

Not only have the government’s plans failed to live up to their billing, they are also poorly targeted at the regions that need most help. Transport spending is skewed dramatically to London and the south east. New analysis by IPPR shows that each Londoner will benefit 500 times as much as each person in the north east; 150 times as much as each person in the south west; 20 times as much as in the north west; and 16 times as much as in Yorkshire and the Humber. The top five most expensive regional public sector projects are all allocated to the south, London and the midlands. None of the top five projects are allocated to the north.

While there is a pipeline for transport, there is little for housing which remains one of the country’s weakest areas. Figures released at the end of last year revealed that starts for affordable home ownership were down 80 per cent from 3,197 to 629 since 2010. Starts for social rent did even worse - down 95 per cent. In other sectors, like energy, the government have given mixed signals about their ambition which has prompted CBI boss, John Cridland, to say, "This kind of uncertainty does not breed confidence - in fact, it scares markets and drives up the cost of capital". 

On The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Ed Balls challenged the Chancellor to announce an extra £10bn of capital spending. If the Chancellor follows his opposite number’s advice, there are three tests that he must follow. First, spending must be targeted at the areas that need it most. Housing, energy and transport are the most critical areas for new investment. There’s a strong case for devolving total housing spending – benefits and new build – to local authorities to help them shift the balance towards more construction. And in those areas that don’t typically require public funds, like privately financed energy projects, the government needs to do more to sing from the same hymn sheet and set the right tone for investment.

Second, the investment must do more to rebalance the economy from south to north. It’s absurd that Transport for London has a devolved budget while other regions of England do not. The government’s new infrastructure plan, which Danny Alexander is expected to unveil on Thursday, must include an analysis of how the proposals are underpinned by a commitment to regional rebalancing. Those extra resources which are available should be dedicated by Network Rail, the Environment Agency and other agencies to bring forward infrastructure projects outside of London.

Third, the government must ensure that all the new projects contribute to the decarbonisation of the economy, which is essential if Britain is to play its part in preventing catastrophic climate change. Road repairs should take priority over new roads as the Campaign for Better Transport has argued. Projects to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses, which create large numbers of jobs in the construction industry, must be prioritised. And ministers must start singing from the same hymn sheet on renewables.

A recovery was under way in 2010 before the government slammed on the brakes and removed the stimulus. Three years have been wasted as infrastructure 'plans' have failed to progress to projects. If the government is serious this time, it must ensure that it addresses Britain’s weak points, rebalances the economy, and help us go green.

George Osborne helps paint a picture of Canary Wharf during a visit to Old Ford Primary School on June 25, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Will Straw was Director of Britain Stronger In Europe, the cross-party campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. 

John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.