Transport Funding: The government created it's own problems and now they're getting in the way of the real debate

Photograph: 43207 Departs Leeds by Joshua Brown (License)

The government's homemade problems on transport rumbled on this weekend, with blowback from their cancellation of funding for infrastructure in the North. This can at best be described as falling at first hurdle.

Having a debate about funding at all ignores the guarantee of huge benefits that any investment produces and obscures the real, and much deeper, debate that comes after: how that funding is structured to best serve communities.

The current distraction began when the government cancelled the full electrification of the Manchester to Leeds rail links, which had been at the heart of plans for George Osborne's so-called 'Northern Powerhouse'.

In response Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, gathered the political and business leaders of the North to a summit. It's purpose was to call for long overdue investment in the transport infrastructure of the North.

Only together, argued Burnham, could Northern leaders achieve greater parity of funding and overturn a situation that has London receiving eight times more in investment than the North - recently expressed in the cancellation of Northern electrification plans prior to the approval of further investment in London.

Chris Grayling, the government transport secretary, responded to the anger at the government by following the Tories' longstanding approach: shifting responsibility. Grayling and transport ministers announced that it is on the North to develop plans for the government to fund - as if Burnham's summit was what it wanted all along.

The government also took time out to complain that it wasn't invited to the Northern summit. But the summit was clearly the first step in building the solidarity necessary to construct a collective negotiating platform. Burnham himself adopted a stern stance, saying patience has run out, that London cannot continue to be developed at the expense of the North.

George Osborne, the former Chancellor and now Evening Standard editor,  couldn't help but wade in. In what was seen as an attack on his successors for not following through on his own policies, Osborne called for Theresa May to relaunch her premiership on investment in the Northern railways that could help geographically rebalance the national economy.

There are plenty of reasons for the North to be disgruntled at the government for it's failure to deliver and not least is that infrastructure spending alone is a boost to a local economy.

In the long term it is an unflinching in it's positive affect on economic growth. But in the shorter term it also creates a lot of jobs and a lot of contracts from which local businesses can benefit.

The rail links themselves reduce the time and distance between key locations. That is a boost for business, widening their customer base and giving them access to the benefits of operating at scale. It's also a boost for workers, widening opportunities while reducing the time spent on a commute.

But there is a downside - and it is this that the questions, of whether to provide funds at all, delays and distracts from. The better connections, the widening of opportunity can also encourage centralisation.

As a business pursues cheaper ways to work and greater efficiency, they have a tendency to gather in key locations, close to important suppliers, partners and customers. That raises big questions about how this will all impact the local business environment.

It cannot be taken for granted that plans for transport links will be a good in themselves. We must ask how they will serve each area. The answers we come up with must empower people, and empower them where they are.

Getting to the roots of that is tackling a microcosm of the bigger problem with globalisation, which has left behind entire communities, concentrated growing wealth and opportunity, and excluded the welfare of ordinary people from it's expansion.

Averting those outcomes means services must be tied to and benefit local people. Whether that means local cooperative or municipal rail companies, or some sort of statutory reinvestment, or some other solution, communities must profit from their local services, not be drained by them.

It is in many ways the same as for the energy sector, where action is needed to counter the impact of operating at scale and centralisation that leaves communities disinherited from the product of their own regional resources - exploited instead for private gain.

But first, we must start that debate. That means first getting passed the Conservative austere reluctance to invest in the future. Public investment is beneficial. So let's get beyond that point, and get down to how to get services working for communities, not rendering them little more than glorified or abandoned suburbs.

Rail chaos opens discussion of alternatives: Mutuals and co-ops offer community a stake, instead of rentiers who extract local wealth and without Whitehall centralisation

Photograph: Brighton Station from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

One of the big issues in the past few weeks has been the Southern Railways shambles, that has again exposed deep problems with the British system of rail franchises - at least three rail franchises face major strike action in the coming weeks (Topham, 2016; Topham, 2016{2}).

The franchise system has faced plenty of criticism. At the core is that a rail franchise is little more than permission to set up a toll booth and start extracting rent, squeezed out with higher prices, cuts to staff and services, and limiting expensive maintenance (Chakraborrty, 2016; Woodman, 2012; Milne, 2012).

Solutions to what are natural monopolies is not a simple matter. As a result much was made of Jeremy Corbyn's 2015 leadership election promise to renationalise the railways (Mason, 2016) - a brave decision for a party all too easily beaten over the head as centralising, bureaucratic, exorbitant spenders with a disdain for free enterprise (Kellner, 2014).

The latest round of railway chaos put Corbyn's policy of renationalisation on the table for a Readers' debate in The Guardian yesterday (Marsh & Walsh, 2016). The nature of the discussion was interesting to watch.

There was positivity towards renationalisation to be found, with some pointing to the more than a few good examples of public run transport services around Europe. In Paris, or in Germany, there are well maintained railways that are run for considerably lower fares than in the UK (Williams, 2015).

However, it was particularly interesting to see the perception that the only options being offered came in the form of a polarised dynamic, limited to either privatisation under greedy rentiers or nationalisation under inflexible Whitehall bureaucrats.

In fact commenters even went beyond that to observe that the railways in Britain are actually both and neither. That the railways are a kind of national-corporate cartel, with infrastructure nationalised while profit-making services were privatised - even more confusingly, often into the hands of state-owned companies from other countries.

What was clear in people's thoughts was that by some means the running of the rails needs to be decentralised, either with more lines or with more options. That no one interest should be given too much leverage, whether trade unions or rentier investors. And that responsibility for the rails should not be separated from the train services.

That combination, of well run public service and the need for decentralisation, in fact plays into the actual substance of Corbyn's policy, which was for public though not necessarily state railways (Connor, 2015). What Corbyn actually called for was to mutualise the railways as worker-consumer coops.

In mutualism, there is a path that has cut across progressive party lines. From Labour, and obviously the Co-operative Party, to the Liberal Democrats, the idea of workers taking a greater stake has a deep history. Whether as worker-management co-operation, workers on boards, or share-ownership schemes, at least a low level version of mutualism has long been proposed by those on all sides. But the present crisis in Britain's services calls for a deeper commitment.

There is much that mutualism can offer, even within the slow to change framework of capitalism. Autonomy, not least, for people to exercise power over their own working lives. And equity, a meaningful stake in the product of their own work. Between the two, you have a model that challenges both the lopsided struggle between workers and management that often leads to exploitation, on the one hand, and the extraction of wealth, on the other.

Fear of alienation by bureaucratic centralism is understandable in the running of essential services, from housing to energy and transport. But so is the pain caused by exploitative, extractive rentiers, and it has been clearly stated. Too much is taken out of communities, extracted as profit by rentiers (Milne, 2014) - who use wealth to step in and set up toll booths on essential local services. Little is ever fed back into the communities from which these private taxes are levied.

Mutualism and cooperation present an alternative. Working examples are already out there, tying the product of a community's resources to those communities, serving the common good without overbearing central control. But they need support to break through public-private corporatism and that means government to rethink how it intervenes - to be smarter and willing to decentralise.