Keir Starmer’s administration is all about ‘growth, growth, growth’ – there is money available but its transport policy is often ‘grey’
Is Keir Starmer presiding over a technocratic transport policy?
Keir Starmer is now into his second year as PM – but is transport a secondary priority for his administration? Yes and no. It’s a priority insofar as it relates to the main goal of pursuing economic growth – which is reflected in an increase in capital spend for the sector. However, at the same time the Starmer government, like the Blair government, doesn’t want the more incendiary end of transport policy (ie how it relates to car use) to ignite. Louise Haigh, who sought to bring some impetus, energy and a soft left perspective to the brief, was given the boot. And now, to paraphrase Henry Ford – you can have your transport policy any colour you like – as long as its grey.
But let’s get back to the capital spending taps being switched in the direction of more spending. The Spending Review says it will increase capital spend (excluding HSL) on transport, averaging nearly 2% annually in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30. Meanwhile, local government revenue spending is back on an upward trajectory after being hammered by the previous administration. The more established city region mayors have done a good job in pressing home their advantage and have won some significant, long-term funding deals. Some are also using this funding to help pump prime the transition to public control of bus services.
However, the wider desire to look busy on growth has also led to a slightly manic and indiscriminate wider wave of planning and funding decisions across all modes, with airport extensions waved through and various sprawl-generating major road schemes given the nod (most bafflingly the £9bn-plus Lower Thames Crossing) alongside public transport schemes. This blur of activity now conceals what’s in danger of becoming a rather bland average national transport policy of backing all modes equally at the expense of an overall shape to policy. Whilst at the same time skewing towards the macho bulldozer optics of mega schemes, which inevitably reduces the funding available for other budget heads.
The uptick in capital spend in city regions will hasten the need for transport authorities to move their centre of gravity from writing policies and papers to delivering schemes. There’s also a danger that this switching on of funding taps will be allowed to obscure the British problem of high scheme costs and slow delivery. The vote of confidence that the Westminster administration has given the tram in its spending decisions is, of course, hugely welcome. But because we build trams for twice the cost and half as fast as the French, the extra money only goes so far. So, no new British city (outside of an existing tram-served conurbation) will gain a tram system from this recent funding increase. Without tackling this British disease on costs, we don’t make the most of it when the taps are turned on.
The focus on growth has also led government to act decisively on local government. They want to create clear lines of sight between Westminster and local government, which means removing mayors and tiers of local government where possible. Established mayoral authorities are benefitting from longer-term, larger funding pots, and on transport, the way is now clear for them to move to the London model and take charge of strategic highways and taxi licensing.
Meanwhile, right now, is Andy Burnham, the UK politician, showing the most leadership on transport? Having more powers and funding in the city regions is great, but you also need political leadership to sell the policies to the public, whilst making sure officials don’t disappear into a downward spiral of lowered expectations. Not only did Burnham go all out on bus franchising, but he also made sure there was the right team in place to make sure the transition went better than expected. Now he’s building on that base to bring wider social benefits, including targeted fare initiatives, local bus manufacturing jobs, and more night buses to support the nighttime economy. In short, Manchester’s public transport is going as yellow as London’s is red, whilst at the same time having an eye to transport’s role in household budgets and keeping the bar high for what he expects the executive arm to achieve.
Is Andy Burnham the UK politician showing the most leadership on transport?
If Burnham’s approach to the Bee Network shows how it should and could be done, then rail nationalisation is the opposite. Rail nationalisation is all adjectives and no verbs. Of course, the transition needs to be handled well, but if it is just a technocratic decanting exercise with ‘expectation management’, managerial career continuity and somewhat more reliable trains as the main objectives – then it’s a massive missed opportunity. While Manchester’s buses have gone unapologetically yellow, based on clear objectives, all we have to show so far on rail nationalisation is a few half-hearted and non-committal stickers on a few trains. A rudderless boat in a sea of well-paid rail executives and consultants.
One reason nationalisation is getting less attention is because it’s seen as adjacent to the primary goal of growth. Hence, there is a contrast with the government’s high-profile attempts to streamline the planning process and reduce the scope for legal challenge or protest. Despite this green and pleasant land’s biodiversity crisis, it’s the remaining enclaves of relatively undisturbed flora and fauna that are to blame. Or, if it’s not the bats, it’s the NIMBYs (also known as voters), or the planners (either for doing too much planning, or not enough). All this shrill and noisy punching down has wider ramifications for the setting of precedents and establishing norms for the authoritarians that loom over democracies the world over. It’s also technocratic arrogance and group-think. If the technocrats of previous decades had their way, then the East Coast Main Line would have ended at Newcastle, York would have an urban ring road around the city walls, and Hebden Bridge would be full of tower blocks. It’s people power, NGOs (and government running out of money) that have time and time again saved the technocrats from themselves and these places from disaster.
There’s a wider problem with focusing on economic growth and infrastructure. A recent IPPR report (It’s the cost of living, stupid – why progressives lose and win) shows that people see reducing the cost of living as more important than infrastructure investment in support of economic growth. They also see cutting household costs as a greater priority than raising wages. Following that logic through on public transport, this translates into revenue spent on fares (which also has the advantage over capital schemes in that you can cut fares quickly and have a universal impact). Which is why I wonder what sense it makes to move to a £3 maximum fare (or £6 return) plus locally varying concessions for participating operators in England outside London (and for Scotland and Wales to have no simple compelling fares offer at all)? £3 also risks becoming the new floor – particularly affecting poorer people making shorter urban journeys. For those who are travelling with others it also pushes bus fares closer to the equivalent taxi fare. It also led to posters going up on bus stations across the country telling people their bus fare was going up by 50%. Rather more impactful for voters on low incomes than talk of distant infrastructure schemes and planning reform. No fares offer is without pros and cons, but the £2 fare was a clear and compelling proposition whereas £3 feels like a compromise that won’t stand the test of time. Again is Burnham giving the lead by sticking to the £2 scheme (£5 a day)?
So, in summary the current Westminster administration is all about ‘growth, growth, growth’. This means the taps have been turned on to a degree – but in a fairly indiscriminate manner. Out of all this, savvy authorities are taking advantage to route new funding to public transport where they can. Their new challenge for them is to rapidly transition into big time transport authorities moving at pace to improve and integrate all modes in a socially progressive way. Meanwhile, the character of the transition from private to public control of public transport is still to be determined. Excessive technocratic caution or dynamism driven by real political vision?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: For decades Jonathan Bray has been at the forefront of making progressive change happen on transport – from stopping the national roads programme in its tracks in the 1990s to getting buses back under public control in the 2020s. He is an advisor to the Welsh Government on bus franchising and an independent advisor. www.jonathan-bray.com
This article appears in the latest issue of Passenger Transport.
Going for growth, but lacking vision
by Passenger Transport on Sep 19, 2025 • 9:39 am No CommentsKeir Starmer’s administration is all about ‘growth, growth, growth’ – there is money available but its transport policy is often ‘grey’
Keir Starmer is now into his second year as PM – but is transport a secondary priority for his administration? Yes and no. It’s a priority insofar as it relates to the main goal of pursuing economic growth – which is reflected in an increase in capital spend for the sector. However, at the same time the Starmer government, like the Blair government, doesn’t want the more incendiary end of transport policy (ie how it relates to car use) to ignite. Louise Haigh, who sought to bring some impetus, energy and a soft left perspective to the brief, was given the boot. And now, to paraphrase Henry Ford – you can have your transport policy any colour you like – as long as its grey.
But let’s get back to the capital spending taps being switched in the direction of more spending. The Spending Review says it will increase capital spend (excluding HSL) on transport, averaging nearly 2% annually in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30. Meanwhile, local government revenue spending is back on an upward trajectory after being hammered by the previous administration. The more established city region mayors have done a good job in pressing home their advantage and have won some significant, long-term funding deals. Some are also using this funding to help pump prime the transition to public control of bus services.
However, the wider desire to look busy on growth has also led to a slightly manic and indiscriminate wider wave of planning and funding decisions across all modes, with airport extensions waved through and various sprawl-generating major road schemes given the nod (most bafflingly the £9bn-plus Lower Thames Crossing) alongside public transport schemes. This blur of activity now conceals what’s in danger of becoming a rather bland average national transport policy of backing all modes equally at the expense of an overall shape to policy. Whilst at the same time skewing towards the macho bulldozer optics of mega schemes, which inevitably reduces the funding available for other budget heads.
The uptick in capital spend in city regions will hasten the need for transport authorities to move their centre of gravity from writing policies and papers to delivering schemes. There’s also a danger that this switching on of funding taps will be allowed to obscure the British problem of high scheme costs and slow delivery. The vote of confidence that the Westminster administration has given the tram in its spending decisions is, of course, hugely welcome. But because we build trams for twice the cost and half as fast as the French, the extra money only goes so far. So, no new British city (outside of an existing tram-served conurbation) will gain a tram system from this recent funding increase. Without tackling this British disease on costs, we don’t make the most of it when the taps are turned on.
The focus on growth has also led government to act decisively on local government. They want to create clear lines of sight between Westminster and local government, which means removing mayors and tiers of local government where possible. Established mayoral authorities are benefitting from longer-term, larger funding pots, and on transport, the way is now clear for them to move to the London model and take charge of strategic highways and taxi licensing.
Meanwhile, right now, is Andy Burnham, the UK politician, showing the most leadership on transport? Having more powers and funding in the city regions is great, but you also need political leadership to sell the policies to the public, whilst making sure officials don’t disappear into a downward spiral of lowered expectations. Not only did Burnham go all out on bus franchising, but he also made sure there was the right team in place to make sure the transition went better than expected. Now he’s building on that base to bring wider social benefits, including targeted fare initiatives, local bus manufacturing jobs, and more night buses to support the nighttime economy. In short, Manchester’s public transport is going as yellow as London’s is red, whilst at the same time having an eye to transport’s role in household budgets and keeping the bar high for what he expects the executive arm to achieve.
If Burnham’s approach to the Bee Network shows how it should and could be done, then rail nationalisation is the opposite. Rail nationalisation is all adjectives and no verbs. Of course, the transition needs to be handled well, but if it is just a technocratic decanting exercise with ‘expectation management’, managerial career continuity and somewhat more reliable trains as the main objectives – then it’s a massive missed opportunity. While Manchester’s buses have gone unapologetically yellow, based on clear objectives, all we have to show so far on rail nationalisation is a few half-hearted and non-committal stickers on a few trains. A rudderless boat in a sea of well-paid rail executives and consultants.
One reason nationalisation is getting less attention is because it’s seen as adjacent to the primary goal of growth. Hence, there is a contrast with the government’s high-profile attempts to streamline the planning process and reduce the scope for legal challenge or protest. Despite this green and pleasant land’s biodiversity crisis, it’s the remaining enclaves of relatively undisturbed flora and fauna that are to blame. Or, if it’s not the bats, it’s the NIMBYs (also known as voters), or the planners (either for doing too much planning, or not enough). All this shrill and noisy punching down has wider ramifications for the setting of precedents and establishing norms for the authoritarians that loom over democracies the world over. It’s also technocratic arrogance and group-think. If the technocrats of previous decades had their way, then the East Coast Main Line would have ended at Newcastle, York would have an urban ring road around the city walls, and Hebden Bridge would be full of tower blocks. It’s people power, NGOs (and government running out of money) that have time and time again saved the technocrats from themselves and these places from disaster.
There’s a wider problem with focusing on economic growth and infrastructure. A recent IPPR report (It’s the cost of living, stupid – why progressives lose and win) shows that people see reducing the cost of living as more important than infrastructure investment in support of economic growth. They also see cutting household costs as a greater priority than raising wages. Following that logic through on public transport, this translates into revenue spent on fares (which also has the advantage over capital schemes in that you can cut fares quickly and have a universal impact). Which is why I wonder what sense it makes to move to a £3 maximum fare (or £6 return) plus locally varying concessions for participating operators in England outside London (and for Scotland and Wales to have no simple compelling fares offer at all)? £3 also risks becoming the new floor – particularly affecting poorer people making shorter urban journeys. For those who are travelling with others it also pushes bus fares closer to the equivalent taxi fare. It also led to posters going up on bus stations across the country telling people their bus fare was going up by 50%. Rather more impactful for voters on low incomes than talk of distant infrastructure schemes and planning reform. No fares offer is without pros and cons, but the £2 fare was a clear and compelling proposition whereas £3 feels like a compromise that won’t stand the test of time. Again is Burnham giving the lead by sticking to the £2 scheme (£5 a day)?
So, in summary the current Westminster administration is all about ‘growth, growth, growth’. This means the taps have been turned on to a degree – but in a fairly indiscriminate manner. Out of all this, savvy authorities are taking advantage to route new funding to public transport where they can. Their new challenge for them is to rapidly transition into big time transport authorities moving at pace to improve and integrate all modes in a socially progressive way. Meanwhile, the character of the transition from private to public control of public transport is still to be determined. Excessive technocratic caution or dynamism driven by real political vision?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: For decades Jonathan Bray has been at the forefront of making progressive change happen on transport – from stopping the national roads programme in its tracks in the 1990s to getting buses back under public control in the 2020s. He is an advisor to the Welsh Government on bus franchising and an independent advisor. www.jonathan-bray.com
This article appears in the latest issue of Passenger Transport.
DON’T MISS OUT – GET YOUR COPY! – click here to subscribe!