Hammersmith Bridge has been closed for five years as politicians have repeatedly passed the buck. It’s just one example of how the British state repeatedly fails to take big decisions and see them through, says Adam Hawksbee
How many politicians does it take to rebuild a bridge? In Pennsylvania, the answer is one. Last summer an overturned petrol tanker took down an overpass on the I-95 just outside Philadelphia, a major economic route carrying over $2bn of freight a week. Governor Josh Shapiro immediately signed an executive order to bypass normal processes, granting emergency no-bid contracts and agreeing environmental permits in days that usually take months, as part of a project costing roughly $30m. The bridge reopened in just 12 days.
How about in Britain? April 2024 marks an unhappy anniversary – it’s five years since the Hammersmith Bridge closed to vehicles after cracks were spotted in the 137-year-old structure. The buck has been passed between the Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, the mayor of London, and four different transport secretaries over who needs to grip the project.
No decisions have been made. The estimated cost of repairs has spiralled to £250m, and the most ambitious forecast is that the bridge will reopen in another five years.
This is the reality behind the UK’s sluggish growth rate, and dwindling public confidence in the government’s ability to improve their lives. Whether it’s building new homes and roads or running hospitals and prisons, the British state repeatedly fails to make difficult decisions and see them through.
In America, pro-market think tanks are increasingly focusing on how governments should get difficult things done. The libertarian-leaning Niskanen Centre in Washington DC has launched a dedicated “state capacity” programme. The Statecraft project at the Institute for Progress shares stories of how policymakers do seemingly impossible things, from preventing the annual waste of 17,500 donated organs to running a CIA base in Afghanistan.
In Britain, we have techno-optimists at the Tony Blair Institute and the civil service-focused Institute for Government. But the centre-right lacks a genuine theory of government or a blueprint for political decision-making. Into that breach has stepped Liz Truss, a terrible messenger who has hit on a simple truth: in the last few decades, politicians have ceded power to unelected regulators and arms-length bodies and now hide behind them when they face a tough call. In an attempt to avoid risks, politicians have dispersed responsibility and ducked the big calls – ultimately leaving them more exposed to the very risks they were originally concerned about, from pandemics to crumbling infrastructure.
Any conversation about UK state capacity also has to touch on centralisation. Unsurprisingly, the Hammersmith Bridge proposals have repeatedly found their way to desks in the department for transport. No council leader or mayor could take the executive action that fixed the ruined Philadelphia overpass in 12 days. And national politicians would likely be nervous if they could. Few people are stepping forward to take on roles in local politics with a big time commitment and limited impact. Too many councils suffer from a low competence equilibrium: they don’t have the calibre of politicians to secure new powers, nor the wide-ranging powers to attract strong candidates.
If the Conservatives lose the next election, a long list of topics will fill debates about the party’s renewal. Among familiar discussions about tax and spend, immigration and defence, one concern that should rise to the top of the list if the party really wants to transform Britain: state capacity.
Adam Hawksbee is deputy director of Onward