Transport Insights

With Rachel Reeves under fire for her pre-Budget spin, it’s worth another look at how misleading her claims were about the post-Budget announcement of local highways maintenance funding for the last four years of the Parliament.

The unfortunate thing is, Labour is (for now) giving councils the funding boost and medium-term certainty they need, but mangling the message.

There is a significant – and positive – emphasis on councils doing preventative treatments, which takes the emphasis away from filling potholes in the short term but should mean there are fewer to fill later on.

This may explain why, as I have said, Reeves again misstated the Labour manifesto pledge to fix a million extra potholes for every year of the Parliament, now only talking about doing so by the end of the period.

But (according to the Treasury press release) she also said:

We are doubling the funding promised by the previous government

This is, I am afraid to say, doubly misleading, as the small print in the press release explains that it compares:

£1.067bn funding allocated by the previous Government for FY2024/25, to £2.134bn funding allocated by this Government for FY2029/30

So, firstly, it isn’t money promised by the Tories but actually allocated.

And this confirms that the claim is based on two years that are five years apart and therefore subject to inflation.

The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has published Regulatory guidance on intelligent transparency, which states:

To support appropriate interpretation of data and analysis, the publication of data to support public statements or otherwise should include clear information on how the data or analysis have been produced, and how it can be used. Specifically, you should include information about:  

• The definitions used within the data and any impact on how they can be interpreted (e.g. are financial data in real or cash terms?)  

It adds:

Care should be taken to avoid selective use of data or use of data without appropriate context as this can lead to misuse which damages public trust. 

The OSR’s Guidance for statements about public funding provides further examples of things that should be considered in the context of public funding announcements.  It states:

The figures used in the statement are clearly labelled as being in cash terms or real terms.

It is important to know whether a public funding announcement takes account of inflation. Statements made in cash terms (i.e. nominal terms) will reflect a change in funding based on the prices as at the time periods referenced. This will tend to show a greater change in funding than statements made in real terms (i.e. constant prices) which account for inflation and therefore account for the change in prices over time.

It is generally more helpful to make public funding statements in real terms to understand the impact on funding levels felt by public services on the ground.

I’m not sure Reeves was trying to be helpful – just seeking more bang for her buck.