If Reform hasn't got a policy for potholes, frankly, it hasn't got a policy for anything else either.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
What would Reform do about potholes? Now, I know that sounds like a rather odd question, but potholes are at the absolute epicentre of UK politics, and for a very good reason.
Potholes happen in roads. Roads are the clearest indication of infrastructure provided for the common good, at present, without charge being made. Repairing them requires taxation because they are provided for the common good, and repairing them requires that there be people available to repair them with a structure of government in place that can ensure that priorities can be established and delivery can be achieved. This is all about the social contract as a consequence.
It's about the relationship between government and meeting the needs of people. And people need roads without potholes. Potholes are really dangerous, which is why they are such a political hot topic. They can literally kill cyclists. They damaged the underframes and tyres of Porsches. Everyone is affected. And if they get worse, they actually make the movement of people and goods around the UK very hard. So, we need a government in Westminster with representation through local authorities to ensure that funding can be supplied for local need to meet the need to fill potholes.
So, what will Reform do about this? Because, let's be honest, Reform doesn't recognise that there is a social contract between government and people. Its whole political ethos is based upon the idea that people get on with things for themselves.
It doesn't believe in government spending. It wants to cut it wherever it can. And we know from recent precedent from the last 14 or 15 years that governments who are looking for cuts, cut local authority spending first, and local authorities are responsible for most potholes.
We also know that the way in which Reform is organised is very poor. We know that because we've seen the way it manages its own internal party affairs. It has no ability to even work out who should be candidates for that party, let alone manage anything else. But the management of potholes is quite complicated. Because you've got to identify where they are, record where they are, assess the risk, decide to issue a contract, organise that contract, issue it, then make sure that the contractor has fulfilled their obligations, make settlement and everything else.
This is a major task undertaken by government for our benefit, at cost, which is very little appreciated because once the pothole is filled, it's gone away, as far as the public are aware. They're no longer concerned about it; it's a non-issue. And yet, although the public might take it for granted, the cost is real.
Now, can Reform get its head around issues which are actually as politically complicated as that, and manage the situation in a way that delivers benefit without praise being offered in return? I simply don't know. But because this is such a focal point of local concern in so many communities, Reform needs a pothole policy. And I don't even think it's capable of producing that.
After all, who is going to fill these potholes is a very good question. It's a simple, straightforward fact that we don't have enough skilled people in the UK to undertake all the building activities that we need to plan for now if we are to manage climate change, meet the need for housing and everything else. We've relied on migrants. What will happen if Reform denies us those migrants? Will potholes go unfilled?
What happens if this perpetuation of government by chaos, which would appear to be the Reform plan, becomes a part of our lives? Will we actually even be able to use our roads?
It is a very important question because at the core of that question is a question about the very competence of a party who wants to be in government and who simultaneously hates everything about what government is and everything about what it can supply. But when in reality, what government supplies is at the very core of the delivery of well-being to the people of the UK, I don't know how Nigel Farage would reconcile this.
I know that good government could reconcile this, and some finance is essential to that process. And I know how to deliver that finance too. And we could even induce people to undertake those activities, if only we put into place the right government policies. But at present, none of those things are remotely close to the Reform agenda, and therefore, I think they need to face some political reality, as does everybody who's thinking of voting for Reform. Because if Reform hasn't got a policy for potholes, frankly, it hasn't got a policy for anything else either.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think Reform are more likely to adopt a policy about damage to Porches before one about potholes!
If only hot air would fill potholes the Reform Party would be the government in power! Fortunately they are purveyors of disinformation for which senior members of the party get paid handsomely by billionaires and millionaires. Accordingly there is no incentive to actually produce anything tangible like realistic policies which would lead to the potholes being filled. Of course they are merely imitating the other Neoliberal Pagan parties this country is plagued with so even if Reform Party politicians did manage to gain power to govern disillusionment would quickly set in. Eventually I hope voters in the UK will wise up and start rejecting politicians who simply make a good living from spreading lies and disinformation but have no competency to actually come up with policies that work. At the moment though it feels like a long wait!
I think reform are more likely to adopt a policy to prevent harm to Porches than they are to adopt one about repairing potholes!
There are some things that are emblematic,cand potholes are one of them. Highlighting all that’s involved in repairing a pothole is necessary, it says much about many other aspects of how people live together and how do many things are done on our behalf without us even noticing. It shows how meaningless the idea of “independence” truly is, we rely on each other almost completely.
Big smile on my face this morning! You even mentioned Porsches!
The recent frosty weather will of course have made this worse, as will the heavy rain, & flooding.
A great discussion topic for the next omnibus journey – ouch, that was a big one!
Previously you told us that taxes didn’t fund public spending. Now it apparently does (when it suits your argument.
Do you think you might have a modicum of credibility if you were consistent with yourself, let alone known facts, which you frequently ignore?
In local govermment external funding, including tax, does of course pay for spending. Local authorities, as I made clear, pay for pothole repairs. They are not currency issuers. Therefore tax does pay for what they do. I really do think you need to pay attenttion.
And, by the way, you are not Mr Blobby. I knew the man who was.
The first victory for pothole economics! Flushing out the reality that Crinkly Bottom District Council has neither a central bank. nor a fiat currency, so hss FINITE rcash, depending on central government grants and revenue from LOCAL taxation.
Central government has both the bank and the currency and does NOT fund spending with taxes.
This is why Mr Blobby regularly falls flat on his face – a toxic combination of terrible potholes and economic ignorance.
Mr Blobby, a spiteful comment that is totally unnecessary.
Richard has always been consistent particularly about MMT and tax, arguing the need for new money into the economy that is not based on tax or credit.
The reason Richard did his Taxing Wealth Report was to enter the world of our short sighted politicians who are claiming that they cannot create new money and must rely on tax money and look at the existing tax system and how it could be used more effectively to deliver what the Labour government said it wanted to deliver.
What was revealed was a tax system set up that was not collecting the taxes that it should be in areas of the economy that particularly favour the rich who can afford to be taxed as even some of them have said themselves.
Richard’s work is all about that, pointing out to Rachel Reeves and Starmer that rather than put up employer NI contributions that is seen as really negative, the rich could have paid more through his forensic research into the tax system and the government could have found the money by closing loopholes or ending some of the tax breaks or incentives.
Really, I do not know how a supposedly intelligent person can come to any other conclusion about what Richard is doing other than that?
Sure, local taxation does pay for services, but surely you are aware that local authority support grants from central government have been cut to the lowest levels ever in modern times. Ending the tax breaks that Richard identified could have helped Labour find the money to improve local services , from potholes to the NHS.
One of the reasons there are more pot holes is that the UK increase the maximum weight of a HGV was increased from 40 tonnes to 44 tonnes. There was a study done (in the 60’s) in the USA on roadway design and damage, according to this formula ((Weight 2)^2 / (Weight 1)^2)^2. Note some people have tried to reduce the effect by dividing the weights by the number of tires but the effect is still very large. Note that some forget to multiply the number of tyres.
I believe that the road authorities know this which is why a lot of bridges over old railway lines have been filled in. Note the infill must not touch the old arch as this will collapse it.
This may have been the reason for replacing the old Forth road bridge.
I’m going to do some work on this, if I can find anything resembling a “policy” in the pile of toxic divisive rhetoric that flows from Fa***e’s corporate fiefdom.
Maybe he’s planning to fill them with gold? (There are 189,000 reasons why he might be doing that https://www.thenational.scot/news/24840584.nigel-farage-made-189k-just-four-hours-work-advertising-gold/ linked to the 10 minute rule bill that four of his MP’s are sponsoring to ban QE, while promoting a return to the gold standard. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-01-08/debates/8B7172B2-ADDA-4448-B830-D96FAF3FAD5E/QuantitativeEasing(Prohibition)?highlight=lowe#contribution-0AB2FEF6-7337-4F9A-B947-2F2716B3E879 ).
There is a blog coming on this…
Populism is how we give people with no domain knowledge the power to run what they do not understand.
It is a curse of modern society I am afraid.
And I am sick of it.
Nearly 30 or so years ago I was involved in that well known leisure activity, volunteer ship repair on the 1949 built MV Balmoral when she was still in service.
Now the surveyor didnt do the whole ship in one go, each compartment and bit of equipment was every so many years so – say in the winter of 1995 we would do port engine cylinders 1-3 and the scavenge pump, forepeak and the compartment immediately behind it etc etc. and in about 4 years we would be back.
That meant that the ship met the relevant safety standards and was reliable. (eat your heart out Cal Mac!)
Now in the same way Gasworks Lane, Gasworks Lane Junior Mixed Infants School, Gasworks Lane General Hospital your house my car etc etc need regular scheduled maintenance. You can schedule it and work out what it costs.
If you dont do the work then the place falls to bits. In the case of The Balmoral then we would not pass survey so it would not sail but in the case of roads, hospitals etc its got to get really bad before they close and people can be put at risk.
So either Reform, The Monster Raving Loonies or whoever else is or wants to be in Government has to budget a certain amount of money each year to keep ‘The Public Estate’ in good order. If it doesnt as we are seeing with roads, schools, hospitals, prisons etc etc then it all falls apart.
Its not in the broadest sense a difficult decision to make but is anyone currently willing or capable of making it?
From an observational point of view in my part of the country, potholes are repaired. Unfortunately, the repairs are done so cheaply and badly, that new potholes return quite quickly. Even roads that are entirely resurfaced do not appear to remain intact for long. Some years ago, the local authority sought to blame the French for the kind of materials used as if this was out of their hands.
Back in the day, local authorities would have had their own highway maintenance departments and personnel. Now, presumably, this has been privatised and tendered out either to the lowest bidder, or some other criterion. Another wonderful example of the dubious benefits of privatisation, perhaps.
I am very lucky to live in the USA were roads at all levels (federal, state and local) are on the average some of the best in the world.
If the want to see the USA natives pick up their pitchforks & torches then storm a county council or city commission meeting and go into protest action just allow the roads (potholes) and bridges (traffic congestion) to not receive the proper routine maintenance they require to be in tip-top shape.
Hi Richard, intriguing post as always, and without doubt on the ball. The main problem I see for myself as a mere civilian without any influence apart from one vote in my constituency, as I suspect like most of the population, is actually who to vote, if any, at the next general election?
I don’t want to lend my vote to labour again as I think this rewards the current centre right Labour Party. Of course if they had someone like corbyn again, I would happily vote for labour. So that leaves me with not voting? But that then may help Tories/Reform?
Like you have highlighted, I don’t think the GP are any better economically than labour, so I wouldn’t want to vote for them currently neither. Appreciate your insight.
Cheers
I share your dilemma
I have no idea what I will do next time
Unless the Greens change several policies I have difficulty with them
And I do with all the rest
The FT has this headline: “Rachel Reeves seeks to revive City of London links with China”.
I do not want to turn this comment into a discussion on the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of government, but rather what Reeves and Labour believe are the future strengths of the British economy. It appears it is the primacy of the City, of London, of a service economy dependent on imports; but outside the EU. So more of the same.
I was struck by GB’s discussion of the economy (beyond his inside view of the Gilt market). He recognised we had a balance of payments problem (but doesn’t really seem to explore why). He recognises our energy policy has been a total disaster (not least to our energy security and the price we pay); but it was not Labour that created the problem – it was hardline neoliberal ideology. The same can be said of water and sewage, or the rail network. Nobody has invested in critical British infrastructure under forty years of neoliberal priorities; we have not invested sufficiently in renewables in the cutting edge, high risk areas (because the private sector will not take the risk in key technologies, like tidal – only the public sector can do that); the provate sector will not invest in nuclear, so the Government invests in nuclear because it seems easier, although we are grossly overpaying for it, and giving our great grandchildren the same unanswerable conundrum on how you decommission the permanent detritus; the answer is only the public sector ever cleans up anything, and overpays again; and the sheer scale of the British infrastructure shortfall now is destroying our wellbeing, and undermining our economy. GB also has nothing to say about Brexit; a total self-destructive disaster, all on its own.
In short a City of London, service sector economy, outside the EU, scavenging round the world for trade deals comically negotiated from systematic weakness (they see us coming, and they can see all we sell is lawyers and bankers, an oversold collection of talents); and relying on the private sector for innovation is a suicide note to history; we are not the the US, and the UK model is nothing like the US. It is nothing like anything, except total failure.
I do not have the answer for Britain. I begin to think the British are so deep in their self-inflicted mire, so utterly lost, that either they do not want to change, or do not know how. I do know Scotland needs to extricate itself from this perversity; and it doesn’t have time to wait, in the hope that Britain awakes from its catatonia.
I agree that England has definitely lost its way
I should have begun, with the point that I do not want to discuss the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of trade treaties specifically with China; that is beside my point, whatever the merits or demerits..
Surely the correct solution would be privatise the road system? They could be sold at a knock-down price to Elon Musk and his fellow billionaires. Repairs could be funded by tolls. Though it be inconvenient to have to pay to leave your house, any conventional economist will tell you that it would be far more efficient. It would fill Rachel Reeves’ mysterious black hole. And it would allow hard-up billionaires to make money rather than have to pay tax.
Joking aside, what is the state of the M6 toll road, vis a vis the equivalent bit of the M6?
1. Re: traffic volume, however they measure it (tonnes per axle per annum?)
2. Re state of road
3. Money spent on maintenance per mile per annum including tolls
4. Ditto, but excluding toll income ie: from Treasury).
5. Converted into £ pa per tonne per axle & compare? I know nothing about roads?
6. Surely Reform UK could buy or lease the M6 toll road (they could pay full market value & pay in gold (!) and of course run it at a profit without subsidy (no bailout available) and rely on capitalism for it to suceed? Access to police, fire & ambulance, including air ambulance to be charged to ReformUK at full market cost ( but free to road user/victims).
As capitalism is such a superior model they should jump at the opportunity?
We would be charged for walking on them, should the billionaire toerags own our roads, and they would probably block entrance/exit to our driveways if we didn’t cough up!
Everything has to be monetised by them, the poor souls! My heart bleeds for them.
Some years ago, a local cul de sac (mostly unsurfaced) was in a bit of a state. The council had not adopted it so repairs were down to the residents, one of whom happened to drive a digger or something. He went round his neighbours offering to do the necessary work and asking for quite a modest contribution to the cost of materials. Some people refused, saying they didn’t have a car so the state of the road didn’t worry them. It didn’t occur to them that taxis and delivery vans came to them, and some taxi drivers might refuse to come up the road if something weren’t done about it. A good illustration of how people think (or fail to think) about infrastructure.
Michael G – you write in jest and accurate, sarcastic wit… But there’s an element of truth as well:
On a local social media group, there’s been some comments about the icy conditions (in Sheffield) and the difficulty for pedestrians and cyclists (pavements and cycleways are never gritted) meaning they take the bus – at great cost, relative to journey distance. Leading to further discussion about the relative cost of public transport versus driving (marginal cost assuming a car is available). Road pricing, more than just clean air zone or ULEZ fines, would alter those relative costs. I think forms of charging are applied in a few places overseas, in the sense of all roads being toll roads.
We also have the more immediate issue of people from outside the local area (who pay no local taxes here so don’t contribute to the road repair bill) who commute into the city, often in heavy SUVs, and park free on the streets ( far enough outside the centre not to pay) and walk 10 or 15 minutes to major workplaces such as offices and the main teaching hospital.
Presumably the everyone for themselves Reform solution is to buy stronger SUVs and those huge US style pickups with luxury cabs (a tax break, apparently, for the self-employed or small business). With their economic policies, everyone will be able to have one.
In my city of Sheffield, the council is bound into a PFI contract with Amey for all road works… until 2037!
I’ve yet to find out how this can be changed.
As I say, whenever the opportunity arises (those omnibus conversations, as someone wrote):
“Never trust anyone who says private finance is the solution for providing public goods and services.”
I hope this particular blog gets some traction (which will no doubt have to come via your social media versions). In my experience those who complain loudest about potholes are exactly those who resent paying tax of any sort.
Someone should tell them that by driving on public roads they have already accepted the basic tenet of the socialism they despise.
I located what passes for Reform UK policies here – it’s called “Our Contract with you” (of course,Reform UK as a company rather than a democratic party has a contract rather than policies!!!”
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf see p17 of the document.
There isn’t anything about road maintenance or how to pay for the road network or maintain it.
And strangely, they put transport and utilities into the same section without making it at all clear how they differ.
But, top of the list is “being pragmatic” whatever that means, and “keep it secure from foreign threats”!
(presumably they won’t allow shariah law on the motorways…. and there will be regular patrols to keep small boats off the motorways).
Wear and tear on roads and pedestrians will be increased – they plan to scrap 20mph zones (“except where they are needed for safety reasons”) – as all the 20mps zones in my city are in residential areas or through retail streets, I can’t see how they will scrap ANY.
On infrastructure they say this:
(please, if you understand this, do help me out)
Accelerate Transport Infrastructure
Focus on our coastal regions, Wales, the North, and
the Midlands. Improve existing rail and road links.
Integrated services are critical.
Thereafter:
Tighter Regulation and New Ownership Model
for Critical National Infrastructure
The British taxpayer needs to be in control of
Britain’s utilities. Launch a new model that
brings 50% of each utility into public ownership.
The other 50% would be owned by UK pension
funds, benefiting from new expertise and better
management. We will ensure standing charges are
capped to help low users and pensioners.
A Single Government Infrastructure Funding
Stream
Overhaul and merge the National Infrastructure
Commission and the Infrastructure Bank. Scrap Net
Zero objectives. Simplify the funding process to save
time, cut waste, boost funding and accountability.
Did you spot “tighter regulation” and “nationalise” in there?
Isn’t that all a bit communist, red tape and statist?
I wonder how Pension funds will feel about buying and owning 50% of road infrastructure – do they have to buy it all in one go? I can’t quite see how that works out for them but it looks like I was right about my suggestion for the M6 Toll Road, except that they want to hand over 50% of ALL roads & other transport infrastructure (and utilities) to Pension Funds.
I’m not sure I want my Pension fund owning 50% of a decaying national grid or a decommissioning nuclear power station, let alone half the country’s potholes, but I’m sure the Honourable Member for Mar-a-Lago South knows how to make that work and if not,he can always check with the Honourable Member for X.
Anyway – the answer to the Pothole question above is that – Pension Funds Fix Potholes (well, half of them at least).
I’m sure your local Reform councillor or MP (if they haven’t resigned) can sort it all out for you next time they are in the UK.
Enjoy.
Well spotted
I scanned this document quickly earlier today when someone posted a link to it, and found only one item I could support – Reform favours proportional representation. So only 99% rubbish.