Missions and visions all the talk - but whose views count most?

THE PRIME MINISTER relentlessly talks of missions, the transport planning profession increasingly of visions. It’s easy language- but what does it really mean? Are they the same thing, or if not, are they compatible? Might there be a better way than either of these two concepts to properly think about where we are hoping to get to with policies and the deployment of resources - and what is visible, trackable and measurable to chart the progress of that?

The Labour Party manifesto promised a new administration with new priorities, and a new approach: mission-driven government.

This, it is explained, means “raising our sights as a nation and focusing on ambitious, measurable, long-term objectives that provide a driving sense of purpose for the country. It means a new way of doing government that is more joined up, pushes power out to communities and harnesses new technology, all with one aim in mind – to put the country back in the service of working people. Government is at its best when working in partnership with business, trade unions, civil society, faith groups, and communities. But without a shared project those partnerships barely get off the ground.”

This, to say the least is all a little confusing-- and tautological. Is the mission simply to have ‘a shared project’, or a ‘driving sense of purpose for the country’, or is the key point the specific deliverables someone (the Government?) has decided are in that project?

The missions of this government are, in any case, not too easy to keep in mind. There were five at the time of the general election. There are now six: Strong Foundations; Kickstarting Economic Growth; An NHS Fit for the Future; Safer Streets; Break Down Barriers to Opportunity; and Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower.

On top of the missions came the milestones the Prime Minister announced at his Pinewood studios plan relaunch.“The milestones for change set out in the plan will track the government’s progress against each of the missions by the end of the parliament, ensuring accountability to the public.”

These are supposed to be “measurable milestones” – although a milestone is surely itself a measure?

These included a new commitment to fast track planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, alongside the biggest housebuilding and infrastructure push in 50 years “to turbocharge economic growth across the country” with 1.5 million new homes.

In the plan itself, the “kickstarting economic growth” mission has two milestones: Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, and Rebuilding Britain. But how you might measure that is hard to see.

The prime minister’s speech at Pinewood Studios (hence his James Bond quip) was titled ‘Delivering change: our road-map for a mission-led government plan ‘described to the media as ‘a blueprint for a decade of national renewal.’

The wordplay was rather excessive. On top of missions, milestones and blueprint came kickstarting; turbo-charging; driving through; breaking down barriers, and of course repeated references to change.

Apart from the unmeasurable and ill defined ambitions,what does putting “the country in the service of working people” mean? ‘The Country’ is made up of those people, so it can’t be some separate institution working for them. Perhaps it really means having a government working for the people. A democracy, we might say.

To set the actual specifics required to be in that ‘service to the people’ is not so easy. We had an election this year, so have the people clearly spoken on the objectives they want over the next five years - down to the number of new homes that should be built,and where, for example? The government seems to think there is a commonly agreed national mission for that surge of building to happen, and that it now has the task of handing down the responsibilities (perhaps read ‘directions’) for implementing that to communities around the country. Might we note that this government has said (see above) that its new way ‘of doing government’ it to push out power to just those communities. Much more of that supposed distribution of shaping ambition was in the Devolution White Paper published this week.

Locally elected bodies should surely be empowered to work to objectives that suit the people living in particular areas? But what should happen if those bodies see things differently from the view handed down from central Government, as it seeks to pursue its own missions?

Shouldn’t establishing that strengthened more local layer of Government come first? Or should the guiding message now always be the Manifesto of the Labour Party, which came to Government with a big Parliamentary majority -though based on winning just 33.4 per cent of the vote, in a turnout of less than 60 per cent of the eligible electorate. Nor was it the major vote-winning party in large swathes of the country. That’s democracy for you. So not such a clear weight of force behind that over-riding mission about those homes,or the major plans for infrastructure that are also now a key part of the mission too.

Locally elected bodies should surely be empowered to work to objectives that suit the people living in particular areas. But what should happen if those bodies see things differently from the view of the central Government, as it seeks to put itself at the service of the people in setting and pursuing its missions?

What do ‘the people’ really want anyway? Can they speak with one voice nationally, or locally, or at least work out a suitably clear and balanced view of what is desirable and acceptable, and what their local areas will look like if all the aspirations come to pass. Agreeing that is a challenge in itself. Perhaps this is where the ‘vision thing’ comes in - a shared horizon we can all work towards, and to fit detailed decisions around. Something that many in the transport planning profession now feel is a vital basis on which to work, in shaping transport plans.

If so, it surely cannot, realistically, be just a ‘transport vision’ that decides things - because transport is something that is essentially provided to serve a bigger purpose, not an end in itself. A vision for the look, shape, make up, style, character and values of the area under discussion; perhaps with some suitable aspirational targets for matters like environmental quality and sustainability, levels of educational and employment opportunity - and access to goods and services in terms of connectivity. Indeed, this is where the more specific transport-related objectives could come in.

Against this scenario, we are not seeming to be doing very well at present. Many local authorities currently do not have an up to date local plan At the end of March this year Parliament was told that, 110 local planning authorities—a third of the total—had adopted a local plan in the past five years, while 291 had plans that were more than five years old. Of those, more than half were said to be ‘making progress’ towards updating their plans. Under the new National Planning Policy Framework, incidentally, an authority’s failure to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land to meet the new local housing need figure would mean that its local plan is to be formally treated as “out of date”.

Are these plans, in any case, the key to those ‘visions’ we are looking for? Such plans are only partly ‘values, character and aspiration’ documents anyway, being mainly there to set out land use and physical development futures, including those to guide the location of those centrally-determined new homes the government is so keen on getting built.

According to the Prime Minister, speaking at Pinewood, “our planning system…is a blockage in our economy that is so big…it obscures an entire future…

“Stops this country building roads, grid connections, laboratories, trainlines, warehouses, wind farms, power stations…You name it. A chokehold on the growth our country needs…Suffocating the aspirations of working families.”

“And even the projects we do approve…Are fought tooth and nail… Nail and tooth… Until you end up With the absurd spectacle of a £100m bat tunnel… Holding up the country’s single biggest infrastructure project.”

“This Government will not accept this nonsense anymore’ he said.” We will streamline the approval process in the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill.”

Keir Starmer linked the reform of all this back to those ‘get Britain building’ targets. Not just 1.5 million more homes…But also 150 major infrastructure projects. It does rather sound like the Government thinks it defiintely knows best what we all need.

The Prime Minister said he wanted to send “a very clear message to the nimbys, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats…The alliance of naysayers…We say to them – you no longer have the upper hand…”

So perhaps the key question is - where is that ‘upper hand’ now; on national and local and individual development decisions and infrastructure plans? And is there room for any more debate to set those guiding visions the transport planners are looking for? Or for any challenge by those who see flaws in proposals, contradictions in objectives, or weaknesses in calculations and forecasts, and would like the chance to point them out?

The Prime Minister is probably right - it all comes down to those who have, for the time being at least,’ the upper hand’.

Interestingly, this week’s English Devolution White Paper,from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, clearly proposes that a new set of strategic authorities across the country, expected to eventually all be led by Mayors, should clearly have an upper hand in their areas. Under her proposals they would be in charge of transport and local infrastructure particularly, but also concerning housing and strategic planning, and environment and climate change. ‘The public need a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in their areas so that they can hold local leaders accountable’, the White Paper says.

How this aspiration will work out alongside the iron grip of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor when there are differences of opinion, is something for political future watchers to no doubt speculate about. What is pretty certain is that the central government and these increasingly powerful bodies led by Mayors will not all share the government’s missions -or be there to just do the Government’s bidding.

Amid all the buzz words, and protestations of dedication to empowerment and more democracy, a suitable settlement for distributing power between the centre and the grass roots (perhaps we might say ‘upper and lower hands’) still looks quite far away.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT905, 18 December 2024.