Banging the drum

What will be the key battle grounds during this year’s general election? Will the touchstone issue be Europe or the future of the NHS? Or will the result turn on inter-generational priorities such as university fees or granny bonds? As we bed down for 75 more days of relentless campaigning, is there any chance that construction’s long-term priorities could become vote-winners?

Building’s early contribution to the debate, the Agenda 15 manifesto - supported wholeheartedly by EC Harris - has now been followed by submissions from the RIBA and ICE. A number of clear, common themes are emerging around national priorities for infrastructure investment, increasing housing supply, delivering low-carbon retrofit, skills development and devolution.

Building’s manifesto makes a bold point that housing, infrastructure and retrofit should be made national, strategic priorities - a position that is largely shared by RIBA. The RIBA has a good line on the long-term consequences of short-term fixes, such as those made to address the housing and school crises. The ICE, interestingly, sets a goal to deliver demonstrable value to consumers and infrastructure clients - winning hearts and minds of the UK public through engagement and delivery of results.

All of the industry manifestos address big themes that have long-term implications for the UK as a place to live and work. These are the issues which construction instinctively understands and recognises as important. Naturally, other interest groups are also bidding to influence the election debate with their equally important priorities. Inevitably there is a sense of industries and interest groups talking to themselves in their manifestos - the risk being politicians will not hear them above the clamour. Given the limited room for manoeuvre available to parties, constrained by funding, time, ideology and the realities of local campaigning, it is hard to be optimistic that any point of view can hit home - regardless how important the issue is. So what has to happen to elevate construction’s priorities from an industry conversation to the national political debate?

In previous elections, construction’s lack of a common voice and association with complex, long-term problems have made it difficult to align our priorities with the realities of the electoral cycle. Given the unusual dynamics of the 2015 election - fought against a backdrop of devolution and the prospect of electoral stalemate - this may be the year when a few of the industry’s key issues gain greater political traction.

As the two-party system fragments, then the risk that national infrastructure priorities will become vulnerable to local electoral expedience will grow

The first issue is infrastructure planning. It is increasingly clear that it will become necessary to take politics out of infrastructure to ensure that projects and programmes can be delivered, particularly as the most likely outcomes of the election are either a minority government or another coalition. As the two-party system fragments, then the risk that national infrastructure priorities will become vulnerable to local electoral expedience will grow. What price could be exerted to close a deal - either to promote or to cancel particular projects? Promoting an independent infrastructure body as a protection against the realities of the “pork barrel” politics may be the industry’s best chance of implementing this critical change.

The second is devolution. The pace and range of the “Devo Manc” deal, covering transport, planning and housing across the 10 Greater Manchester local authorities, points to how the Scottish referendum and the growing influence of smaller parties have changed the regional political landscape for good. With health and social care, skills and business support and infrastructure investment due to be included in future iterations of reform in Manchester - then many of the priorities identified in the industry manifestos can be expected to become actionable at a regional rather than a national level. Construction’s high economic multiplier - calculated by the UKCG as being £2.84 for every pound spent - positions the industry well to be a beneficiary of the decentralisation of politics in England and Wales. So the industry should aim to ensure that its messages are consistent: should housing, for example, be dealt with as a national issue, with national targets? Or do regions need to be given the role and access to resources to ensure that they have the right supply of housing to usher in long-term growth and prosperity for their people? If responsibility is passed to regions and cities, will this be accompanied by changes to funding models also?

The final priority could well be the sustainability agenda - which previously has not featured as an electoral battleground. With an invigorated Green Party likely to play a more prominent role in the election, the high profile of fracking in some areas and enough mainstream concerns about the UK’s resilience to flood risk and energy supplies, all of the major parties are likely to be challenged to show that they are up to the task of providing effective stewardship in this most complex and difficult of policy areas. Even the timing of the UN Climate Change Conference in November 2015 will make this a more urgent agenda item. Construction’s long-term investment perspective and our key role in the stewardship of the physical environment give the industry a particular platform to promote the sustainability debate.

The post-election outlook is for less rather than more stability. Post-election politics are likely to be determined by wrangling over coalition agreements, not the fine-tuning of party manifestos. Positioning for long-term influence needs short-term expedience. Steps taken now to position construction’s agenda as an aspect of the price of power in a coalition could be critical in ensuring that the industry’s voice is heard in 2015.

Simon Rawlinson is head of strategic research and insight at EC Harris