How did the Tories do? Part 3
I’ve reviewed the manifestos because they exist, and people voted on them. Here’s yesterday’s review of how the Tories did against the 2019 manifesto.
But I’m not a fan of manifestos as a way of either choosing a Government, or running a country.
Goals not Projects
Manifestos are a specific list of commitments written at a moment in time. Budgets will change and priorities will evolve. When the Tories came to power in 2010, the iPhone was new technology, now we have Chat GPT.
Instead, I would much rather politicians gave us a list of goals.
So, for example, some transport goals might be:
Achieve the UK’s carbon budget for transport to achieve our Paris 2015 climate obligations
Support sufficient new housing to meet forecast population growth
Increase GDP per head of the 10 biggest cities outside London to at least the European average.
And then some key measures might include regional GDP per head forecasts, carbon emissions and areas of housing potential unlocked through connectivity.
I would much rather each party told us what they want to achieve and how they plan to resource it, than gave us a long list of moment-in-time projects.
Values and purpose
The other way in which people choose a Government is about values. Often the actual projects in the Labour and Tory manifestos are remarkably similar. But the public choose on the basis of what each party cares about. That’s important, as it tells you what they will prioritise when the chips are down.
And in this respect, the Tories’ time of office has been very strange.
What was so weird was that the Tories weren’t just failures at delivering their promises, they weren’t even any good at being Tories.
After all, we all know how it's meant to work.
Labour invests in the state but they go too far, leaving behind public services that deliver well but are somewhat fatty.
The Tories then strip away the fat with cuts and private sector discipline but go also too far, leaving public services on their knees.
Then Labour invests and round we go again.
That’s what a two-party system looks like.
1997 and 2010 both felt like that. In 1997, the Tory party handed over privatised rail and bus networks, and a London Transport that was state-owned but creaking. Levels of subsidy had plummeted on their watch.
In 1997 Labour inherited a legacy of underfunding, and (other than in the Metropolitan areas) fixed it
In 2010, Labour bequeathed the Tories fleets of modern trains, a series of major rail projects under way (HS2, CrossRail and Thameslink), a TfL awash with cash, a London bus network consuming nearly £1 billion a year for an off-the-scale better service and a nationalised Network Rail burning through its credit card, which went by the innocuous name of the Regulated Asset Base. (Comparatively the lack of improvement in the City Regions outside London is a stain on the reputation of the last Labour Government).
The new Reading station: a credit card funded spectacular from the last Labour Government
But 2024 was different.
The Tories left behind a rail network that was more state-controlled but less efficient (the opposite of what might have been expected). The bus network was subject to more state micro-management (fare caps, BSIPs, funding settlements) but no attempt had been made to improve efficiency or resolve the systemic issues of integration between modes. The Tories’ traditional reliance on the private sector faltered, as transport companies were tied up in ever tighter layers of control and specification, but the state was hamstrung by indecision and contradictory objectives.
The Tories somehow managed to shrink useful services (the bus network collapsed by around a quarter on their watch) but utterly fail to eliminate waste. A quick search of the DfT website of the last 14 years shows a department pouring out strategies, policies and papers, all of which were written by intelligent, capable people and few of which will have had the slightest impact in the context of wildly oscillating, contradictory policy direction. This is the kind of thing a competent Tory party would never have let happen.
Traditionally, the Tories were the party of economic growth. But investment (both private and public) collapsed and connectivity with our biggest trading partner was decimated. The number of UK stations with direct access to the continent reduced by two thirds: the number of stations on the continent with direct access to the UK collapsed by a similar amount.
It’s a damming legacy for the Tories: more state control, fewer useful services, less private sector innovation, more state waste, less investment, fewer connections. Only the Tories of the 2010-2024 vintage could be so bad at being Tories.
But if there is one perfect memorial to the Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak administration, it is HS2.
Influenced by the tabloids. But how can a railway be "woke"?
Labour handed over plans for HS2 done Labour-style: full fat, high cost, big scope. Had it been built, it would have transformed Britain, positively, for generations. Had Labour won in 2010, I have no doubt something much like the original plans would have happened.
Conversely, Mrs Thatcher would have scrapped it, privatised it or value-engineered it to buggery. Less useful; lower cost.
Only this generation of Tories would have spent nearly £100bn (larger than the GDP of more than half the countries on earth!) on a railway that was both useless and wasteful.
The 200mph Aston to Acton shuttle is the perfect symbol of an extraordinary legacy of exceptional incompetence.
How can I help?
Click here for services
I'm 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘀. I help organisations in the transport and mobility sector drive innovation, overcome complex challenges, and achieve faster results, drawing on 20 years of leadership across both public and private sectors.
I offer 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴, and 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 services that energise teams, shape strategies, and remove barriers to change. Whether you’re aiming to accelerate innovation, solve tough problems, or inspire your people, I’m here to help. Let’s talk!
