The Politics of Potholes

After 13 brutal years of Austerity, the Conservatives lost 1059 councillors in the May, 2023 local elections. Voters voted against the destruction of council services. The beneficiaries were Labour, LibDems and the Green Party. Worse, for the Conservatives, was lethal tactical voting.1

This happened in Havering in 2022. 20 years of Conservative power ended with a coalition between HRA2 and Labour. An example of the new political reality is Julia Lopez’s position. She has a massive majority and no Conservative councillors, in her constituency.

Havering finances have been hollowed out. The real reduction in funding since 2010, is £97 million p.a.3 An obvious consequence are potholes becoming more dangerous. They’re now causing significant damage to cars when they hit them.

Which brings me to The Politics of Potholes.

Resident Associations used to focus on street care. They reduced councillor allowances to supplement that budget. Now they must make political decisions about the use of resources. Unfortunately, they’re in hock to the ‘Law and Order’ lobby.

The HRA/Labour coalition continued Conservative policies. The Section 92 MetPolice contract at £300,000+ p.a. was renewed. They then turbocharged the CCTV surveillance system with a multimillion-pound investment. Both were agreed without meaningful debate.4

The problem is: What do HRA/Labour “Really, really want?”5. Havering’s roads are a disgrace and need millions of pounds of investment. The money could come from the CCTV capital programme.

Pothole Repairs or CCTV?

Both sides have passionate advocates and it’s the art of politics to prioritise and not lose support. Considering that HRA built their ‘brand’ on street care, it seems quixotic to plump for CCTV. Damian White binned the same CCTV propositions and he ‘won’6 the 2022 election. He only lost power because of a surprise coalition between HRA and Labour. Motorists experience potholes every day and many of them vote.

Notes

1 Tories swept out of Home Counties council after Labour and Lib Dems formed a ‘progressive’ pact (msn.com)

2 HRA = Havering Residents Association

3 Havering’s Budget and Rishi Sunak: 2023 – Politics in Havering

4 In a rare moment of sanity about CCTV, Barry Mugglestone gave Christine Vickery a quick lesson in cost/benefit analysis. Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) Go to one hour one minute  (1:01) for the exchange.

5 So, tell me what you want, what you really really want. – Bing video

6 23 Conservatives; 19 HRA; 9 Labour plus 4 others

Havering’s Cabinet ‘debates’ CCTV: 8th March, 2023

The estimated cost of this Upgrade and CCTV Relocation Proposal is £2.423m, to be funded from Capital and CIL monies.1

As a minimum, a ‘debate’ about spending £5 million capital and £500,000+ revenue should include a discussion of effectiveness. Councillors were unaware there were questions to ask. They seemed equally unaware that officers had noted CCTV isn’t a legal obligation. The decision was made without considering the economics and effectiveness of CCTV.

HRA are obsessed with street care, so would £500,000 revenue help enhance meeting residents’ desire for clean and smooth pavements? What about £5M capital?2 The three minute ‘debate’3 that was devoted to this critical issue is less than a new bike shed would get. But then they understand bike sheds. Don’t they? None of the economic points relating to an efficient use of council funds were mentioned. It was rubber stamped.

The Summary statement says CCTV makes, “Havering a safer place.”4 The question is whether it will  improve the current situation. Is there evidence CCTV makes a difference to levels of crime? Item 7, points 2-8,5 is silent on whether CCTV successfully fights crime.

The CCTV programme is very expensive.6,7 It is additional to £300,000+ pa for Havering’s five funded police officers.

Summary point 7 says, “…an effective and reliable CCTV system plays an essential part in assisting the Council to fulfil its duties under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, which requires local authorities to work with the police and other partners to prevent and reduce crime and disorder”.4 (my emphasis)

The police don’t think CCTV is that great.

Overall, use of CCTV makes for a small, but statistically significant, reduction in crime, but this generalisation needs to be tempered by careful attention to (a) the type of crime being addressed and (b) the setting of the CCTV intervention. CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles, while it has no impact on levels of violent crime.”8 (my emphasis)

Havering’s CCTV has been superseded by 1,000s of private CCTV systems and 10s of 1,000s of smart phones. This cabinet ‘debate’ was abysmal.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 08/03/2023 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) Item 5

2 The 2023 Capital programme is interesting and demonstrates that £5M is significant Appendix 1 – Existing Capital Programme Detail.pdf (havering.gov.uk) The £5M just about doubles the road resurfacing budget from £6M to £11M. This would reduce the costs to residents paying for damaged vehicles.

3 Go to minutes 1-4 for the ‘debate’ Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) See also Report detail p21 para 9:1

3 p14

4 pp14-5

5  p17 para 2:7 main report £500,000 revenue

6 p18 para 6:3 main report £5,000,000 capital

7 p15 See Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) There is no obligation to fund surveillance equipment. This is noted at p20 para 8:1 There is, however, a duty to have a Crime and Disorder committee which Havering doesn’t have. Para 5:1c (a)

8 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-works/What-works-briefing-effects-of-CCTV-2013.pdf p2