Does the fact that the goalposts keep changing suggest HS2 may be a flawed plan?

I wrote a blog post 18 months or so ago questioning just how useful the time saving afforded by HS2 is likely to be.

This was in response to the main argument at the time, that London and Birmingham will be brought some 20-25 minutes closer through HS2. Although I am in general a fan of 'big capital projects' I wasn't so convinced the logic stood up this time.

Its interesting that over the course of time, as the opposition to HS2 has become more vociferous, so the arguments have shifted away from time savings and onto other areas.

Firstly, the argument that it will have huge economic benefits to the regions was advanced. But as this piece from the BBC demonstrates, the experience from other countries is far from convincing on this score.

Now the argument has shifted again to the capacity argument - which was advanced very well on my earlier blogpost by the inestimable Duncan Stott.

Whether by design or not, HS2 will definitely add capacity and that's the key reason I support it. Its direct connections from London to Birmingham and later Manchester mean it will primarily relieve the WCML to provide a better service to Milton Keynes, Watford, Northampton, Crewe, Stafford etc.

I suspect this is its job by design. It is just being sold differently politically

Now I have more sympathy with this argument; if the HS2 development is designed to free up capacity on other lines and there will be a commensurate upgrade of services on commuter lines at the same time, then I can see a good argument there (although HS2 will not allow any increased capacity for freight trains - because it is not designed to carry them).

But I don't think that 'all connected' plan or case has been made yet; until it has its hard to see how the argument for HS2 can be made; certainly the report published today by the Public Accounts Committee doesn't think the commercial argument has been made (nor do they think HS2 will help the regions).

In my heart I want to support HS2; but my head just wont let me. Sure I want a railway service fit for the 21st century. But i need to see the plan that delivers that.

I don't think the HS2 plan on its own delivers yet.

UPDATE


Forgot to add in my favourite comment on the original post...

 

A few thoughts on Sarah Teather – who, lest we forget, we were told left government to spend more time with her constituency.

People have asked a lot in the last 24 hours why so many party members are so hard on Sarah Teather. And she does seem to be getting it in the neck an awful lot.

Of course, announcing you’re not standing again in protest against your party leader a week before conference, is never going to make you popular.

Claiming you’re resigning over issues of social justice when you’ve just voted against Same Sex Marriage is also likely to cause some considerable complaint.

And deciding you’re happy to continue earning your full salary and taking the whip of a party you no longer feel you represent is also likely to lead to a certain amount of comment.

Never the less there seems a lot of suggestion that Sarah is receiving more than her fair share of comment because she is a woman.

Now, there is undoubtably  a huge issue with misogyny on the web generally, and in social media in particular. The recent abuse of Caitlin Moran, Grace Dent, Caroline Criado-Perez and others is both shameful and shaming.

And I suspect some of the opprobrium being heaped on Sarah will have a tad of the sexist about it.

It’s also true that the party clearly does have a ‘woman’ issue, with huge under representation in the Commons at every level.

But surely the reason why Sarah is being so criticized is not because she is a woman – but because she is a former government minister.

A Minister who voted time and time again for government policy, not raising any issues with the leadership or the party’s actions in government publicly until she had been removed from office.

The party respects a rebel backbencher, who gives up any hope of position or authority in order to represent what they believe (especially if those votes are in line with party policy and conference motions, when the parliamentarians appear to be doing the opposite).

But Sarah was always going to struggle when, having left government, she suddenly wanted to play the rebel card.

I am sure her views now expressed are sincere and well meant.

But the time to express them was when resigning as a Minister – not shortly after leaving office, not of her own volition.

Finally, let’s not forget, we were told Sarah was leaving government because she wanted to spend more time fighting for her seat.

Looks a little ironic now.

And I think THAT’s why Sarah is getting what is, perhaps, more than her fair share of abuse.

PS

For a glance at the other side of the Sarah Teather opinion coin, see this post from Gareth Epps

Will Straw, straw men, possibly other hay related jokes

So, asks Will Straw, newly selected Labour PPC for Rossendale and Darwen…

“if the Lib Dems are so keen to reinstate the 50p tax, why did they stand by and let Osborne cut it?”

 Oh dear.

It seems to have eluded Mr Straw that we are in a coalition.

That cutting the band from 50p to 45p was the quid pro quo we demanded for taking 2.7m people out of tax altogether, and reducing taxes for a further 24m.

That Labour could have done the same but in fact chose to abolish the 10p tax band, thus increasing the tax burden on the poorest.

That the Labour party had 13 years to introduce the 50p tax band; they managed it for just the last 6 weeks they were in power.

That the current top rate of tax is 5p in the £ more than the top rate under Labour for 12 years and 8 months of their tenure.

That having an aspiration to continue to tax the wealthiest, not the poorest, is something you might expect Labour to laud.

And that Labour actually seems quite keen on other Lib Dem tax policies. The Mansion Tax springs to mind.

Sure, Will Straw is just politicking.

But he’ll have to do better than that.

I don't write the headlines....

My latest in the New Statesman. On Secret Courts. We are - once again - against. Come home Jo Shaw!

One of the best things about being a member of the Lib Dems is that twice a year you get to have a blazing row with your leadership about why they don’t know their arse from their elbow and that time is shortly upon us once again. Yes folks, conference season starts next week.

 

And as per normal there’s no shortage of rows on the horizon as the leadership suggests the party faithful back Osbornomics, ask us to agree that they were right all  along about tuition fees, and invite us to keep Trident. Oh, it’s going to be a corker this year…

 

But one of the other nicest things about being a member of the Lib Dems is that from time to time, the leadership listens, holds its hand up, accepts it go it wrong – and changes stuff. And one of those occasions will also happen next week. It seems the leadership has accepted that the party faithful may have had a point over what was THE row of Spring Conference 2013 and is prepared to reverse the legislation on Secret Courts.

 

You’ll have to hunt hard for proof of this, but fortunately I know a man with both a magnifying glass and the inside track. And in the penultimate debate of conference, a motion is being proposed by David Laws and seconded by Duncan Brack (each representing, I think it's fair to say, opposite ends of the party) inviting conference to endorse the manifesto themes paper.

 

With a foreword by Nick Clegg, hidden away on Page 22, it says:

 

 "We will find practical alternatives to the use of closed material proceedings within the justice system, including the provisions of the Justice and Security Act 2013, with the aim of restoring the principle of open justice".

 

Now, while the party will argue endlessly with itself over various aspects of policy on health, education, defence or the economy, give it a civil liberties issue and it will unite in a moment. Because that’s the main reason why most people join the Liberal Democrats. And as a result Secret Courts is probably the thing that’s happened in government that makes folk unhappiest.

 

And joy of joy – Nick’s held his hand up and concurred. Hats off.

 

Now, there’s a way to go yet. Conference has to vote for it, the full manifesto has to be written – and we’ve got  to be part of the next government to repeal the current legislation. There’s a way to go yet.

 

But at least we’re on the right road.

Who is in the G20 then?

As all the world is talking about the G20, it's a sobering thought to wonder how many people can actually name all 20 members. At least there are 20 members (unlike the G8 - which has 9). But can you name them.  Have a go - the scroll down for the list.

For what its worth - I got a humbling 18.... Partly mind because I wrote down China twice. There, I've even given you one...




























1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Brazil
4. Canada
5. China
6. European Union
7. France
8. Germany
9. India
10. Indonesia
11. Italy
12. Japan
13. Mexico
14. Russia
15. Saudi Arabia
16. South Africa
17. South Korea
18. Turkey
19. United Kingdom
20. USA

How did I do?

How did I do?

I wrote this early last Weds morning; before the (watered down) Syria motion was published (when I wrote it everyone expected the motion to permit military action immediately).  Before Ed M started putting down conditions for his support; when everyone thought the bombing would start around Friday. and of course, before the vote.

 How did I do?

The media is full of folk pontificating that 'something must be done about' Syria. There’s an implication in the fact that Miliband was called into Downing Street yesterday, that it’s been decided that the 'something' involves flying cruise missiles into buildings where we suspect bad things happen. Parliament’s recalled and we all look forward to seeing if we’re going to be presented with a dodgy dossier and a refusal to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice (ring any bells?).

Yet in the midst of all this, my lot are strangely silent. Nick’s identikit statement to Cameron’s aside, there’s been almost nothing said, in the mainstream media or on social media, by anyone in the Lib Dems since it was announced that there’s going to be a vote. I can hazard a guess why.

Last time Parliament was asked to support military advice, there was a UN resolution already in place, and the remit of the military was clear – they were to protect civilians. Not too hard to support that. But this time it’s rather different.

Firstly, there’s no UN resolution in place. As the House of Commons Defence Committee Report on the Libyan conflict made clear: "we are concerned that the abstentions of five Council members, particularly the veto wielding countries of Russia and China, may make obtaining United Nations support more difficult for similar situations in the future".

They had that right.

Secondly, there’s apparently no mandate here to defend civilians, nor any pretence of such. This is about punishment. Setting down a marker. Letting other chemical weapon-hording dictators know that there’s a red line you just don’t cross. You can almost hear advisers whispering in Cameron’s ear that "there’s only one language these people understand". 

Thirdly, when Lib Dem MPs voted to 'defend civilians', I suspect most expected it not to extend far beyond enforcing the no-fly zone requested by some members of the Arab League. I wonder how many of those trooping through the lobby realised they were voting for regime change by military intervention (recall that the NATO operation was shut down just 11 days after the death of Gadaffi). What wording will they be asked to support this time – and what lies behind those words?

These are difficult issues for all MPs. But for the Lib Dems, with our proud record of opposing the Iraq war, it’s especially hard. Of course Iraq-is-not-Libya-is-not-Syria. But until there’s a UN resolution, and clear proof of who used chemical weapons on whom, it’s hard to see how Lib Dems can support military action. And sure the Prime Minister can tell us he’s seen that proof. But we’ve been there before, haven’t we?

I suspect Lib Dem MPs are under severe pressure to do what the political glitterati are telling them is their, ahem, moral duty, but in their heart of hearts they know the evidence hasn’t yet been presented to them to make that case. And while they are leaving the door open - hence their silence - the wider political leadership is going to have to work a lot harder to get them on side.

At least I hope so.

Julian Assange; How he fills his day now.

Sorry: been away and busy at work. But am now back,and what better way to say hello than this film showing what Julian Assange has been up to recently. Scroll to 3.44 on the off chance you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing.


 

H/t to (have a sit down) @louisemensch