We want a new Labour

If a Labour government returns to power next week – and there’s little to indicate that it won’t – at least the construction industry should be pleased. It’s hard to conclude otherwise. Labour may have lost its appeal on a personal level to those working in the industry, as our readers’ poll reveals (see pages 14-15), but it wins hands down as the party that will be best for the industry.

We’ve had 11 years of uninterrupted growth, the longest run since the 1950s, and the last four have been on the back of the £13.5bn of extra funding that Labour has invested in public services. Inflation’s been low; employment high. There is no expectation that the rate of growth of public spending will remain as buoyant – unless taxes are raised – or that the trials and tribulations of spending the money will get any easier. But there is an expectation that Labour will finish the job it started; there is little in the manifestos of the other two parties that suggest they will do any better.

The Conservatives are promising to match Labour’s proposed spending on schools and hospitals, but there is no indication that this will go on new buildings. Then there is the investment that this government has poured into the construction and refurbishment of social housing. That said, the Conservatives may loosen some of the red tape that is growing like Japanese knotweed around the industry and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to end the cockeyed system of charging more VAT on refurbishment work than new-build. Labour has been stone deaf to construction’s pleas on both of these fronts. Let’s hope that it will listen a bit harder if it returns to power.

It could start by paying attention to our poll this week. Although most respondents said Labour would be best for construction, their comments describe an industry that has become disillusioned with the government. In particular, eight out of 10 respondents say the industry is poorly represented. The last administration launched more than its fair share of initiatives, but

it was like 13 people trying to drive the same car. Although it may not be practical to pool all of the government’s responsibilities for construction in a single Department of the Built Environment, the industry does need to have its voice heard in Cabinet (see pages 25-27). Peter Rogers, the chairman of the Strategic Forum, is arguably the closest thing the government has to a construction adviser. He remarks: ”We have a very enthusiastic construction minister – but the problem is he is in a very junior position in a department that doesn’t think construction is very important. What we need is a consistent approach. We need a very senior minister who is responsible for driving the construction agenda forward.”

It is in the construction industry’s interest that it gets to finish Labour’s 100 hospitals; refurbish or build the country’s secondary and primary schools and turn the wilderness of the Thames Gateway into thriving, well-planned communities where people want to live and work. And it’s in the interest of absolutely everyone that we have someone in government who can co-ordinate policies on funding, regulation, taxation, training, planning, regulation and the environment to make it happen. Isn’t it?