Boris comes out against high-speed rail

Cynic

"But it will also emphasise David Cameron’s point that the government is doing a major national infrastructure project that is not for the benefit of the capital and the south." As far as I can see, it isn't for the benefit of anybody, except a few people who would be able to afford the high fares to shave 30 minutes off the London-Birmingham journey. It's an EU vanity project that would have a devastating effect on the countryside for no gain.

daniel maris

Haha - Tories as Luddites...who'd a thunk it!

HSR is being adopted by every leading country and for very good reasons. It clearly makes huge sense in a country as small and crowded as the UK and with such a lopsided regionalised economy. Making London commutable from Liverpool is the way forward.

Shame Boris has adopted this position for electoral reasons. He is right on the London Airport - it should be created out in the Thames estuary.

Perry

Boris, as always, puts a finger right on the button, and tells it like it is, - albeit to people who might shuffle uncomfortably.

This in contrast to the mealy-mouthed platitudinal two-tongued homilies delivered by the H2B.

Charles

"Oddly"? Or "As planned"?

Two members of a political party co-operating in a way that benefits both of them? Shurely not possible!

In2minds

If you are for better public transport then you are against HS2. It really is that simple.

Sir Arnold

What does "H2B" mean, can someone explain?

David Lindsay

So whoever pulls the strings of Boris Johnson as he exercises what would be an almost entirely titular position even if a serious politician occupied it has caused him to denounce a high-speed rail link from the North? No surprise there, of course.

Ed Miliband has restored Labour’s historic norm as a party far more Scottish and Welsh than the country at large, but nevertheless overwhelmingly English, like the country at large. For that matter, Alex Salmond has restored Scotland’s historic norm, in which Labour was always considerable and sometimes predominant, but was certainly never dominant. Glasgow had a Conservative-controlled City Council into the 1970s. Durham has had a massively Labour-controlled County Council for a hundred years. This also points to the fallacy of the ever-monolithic Labour cities and the ever-monolithic Tory countryside.

For Labour dominance, you needed, and you need, to look to the North of England, where, pace the BBC, the Labour Party was founded. The combined population is significantly larger than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a highly distinctive culture of economically leftish social conservatism serving and served by agriculture, manufacturing and small business, with its roots in Catholicism, Methodism and a form of High Churchmanship very different from that in the South; all three reach back to ancestrally Jacobite doubts about the legitimacy of the Hanoverian State and its capitalist ideology.

We probably have to talk about the three English regions, even if we would prefer to talk about the historic counties from before an unprotesting Thatcher was in the Cabinet. In each of those regions, both Labour support and Labour membership were proportionately higher than in Scotland even before the recent elections, and are very dramatically so now. Labour experienced heavy losses to the SNP in Scotland and heavy gains from the Lib Dems in the North. But the Lib Dems, among other people, have not gone away. And loyalty is a two-way street.

So Miliband’s price for supporting the Scotland Bill should be two amendments. One would concern each of the present or, where they have been abolished in the rush to unitary local government, the previous city, borough and district council areas in the North, twinning it with a demographically comparable one in Scotland and with another in the South East. Across each of the key indicators – health, education, housing, transport, and so on – both expenditure and outcomes in the Northern area would have to equal or exceed those in each of its twins, or else the relevant Ministers’ salaries would be docked by the percentage in question. The other such amendment would provide that in any policy area devolved to Scotland, no legislation would apply in any of the three English regions unless supported at Third Reading by the majority of MPs from that region.

The Lib Dems might then insist on the same for the South West. Fine. After all, no one would lose under any of this. There would be no more politicians than there already are. Both expenditure and outcomes in Scotland and in the South East would have to be maintained in order for the twinning system to work. And the Conservative Party could continue to enact any legislation that it liked for its electoral base in the South, or at any rate in the more easterly parts of the South. But without these amendments, there should be a Labour three-line whip to vote against this Bill. After all, it would undeniably be consistent for the party that introduced devolution to say that the matter was settled. Nor do Labour, or indeed Lib Dem, MPs from Scotland exist in order to give more power to the SNP, which on past form stands absolutely no chance of unseating them no matter how well it does for Holyrood. Just ask those MPs.

What if either or both of Scotland and Wales ever really were to secede? See above as to the distinctive political culture of the North. All of that might as well be in Swahili to most people in London and the South East. There are probably more Swahili speakers there than there are people who would know what any of it meant, London being the only city in these Islands where it is impossible to assume that everyone can speak English if addressed in it – less British than Dublin or Cork. The South holds us in undisguised cultural contempt despite depending on us for something as basic as water. If our vast reserves of coal were once again being tapped, then British energy independence could easily be achieved, especially if assisted by lots of lovely nuclear power stations, all without the slightest need for windmills or to entreat Poseidon. But when the City needs to be bailed out, then that corner of the country is happy to take the money of people who have bothered to maintain as much as we can of a proper industrial base, in the teeth of governments of both parties over 30 years.

Without the farming, fishing, manufacturing and shop-keeping land of an economically leftish social conservatism rooted in Catholicism, Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism; without the farming, manufacturing and shop-keeping land of an economically leftish social conservatism rooted in Catholicism, several varieties of Nonconformity, and the sane High Churchmanship that provides the background music to the Church in Wales; then what, exactly, would there be in the Union for our enormous population and, compared to the South East, our vastly more reliable economy?

The MPs for, and the municipal leaders of, the 12 ceremonial counties of Cheshire, Cumbria, Durham, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, and West Yorkshire should issue a Declaration that, in the event of the secession of either or both of Scotland and Wales, each of those ceremonial counties would become a State of the Union of the North of England. Both the Union and each State would be headed by the monarch, as in Australia. Here as there, the relevant heraldic shield would be imposed on the Blue Ensign in order to produce, in this case, the flags of the last outposts of the Britain and the England in which most British and most English people grew up.

Fergus Pickering

Here's something neither mealy-mouthed nor platitudinal. The 'Devastation' of the countryside is bollocks. This is the usuel rich mimbys moaning. A rail line is a narrow strip - unlike a road. The cost is neither here nor there. Cancel a few wars. Cancel an airport. Cut down on payouts to the poor. The line will be used by the same sort of people that use the high-speed line to Kent and the high-speed line to Nottingham i.e. everybody who wants to travel. The line is of no importance to Londoners. It isn't for them. It's for people OUTSIDE London. It will be built and few people wil pine.

Rhoda Klapp

Daniel Maris thinks we need high-speed electric trains and our electricity ought to come from wind farms. Why not combine the two directly, and have sail trains?

The best objection to HS2 is financial. If there is some financial advantage, let those who will profit finance it themselves. It is, as I suspect, a loser project bound to go over budget in money and time and need endless subsidy, then I do not care to pay for it. I suspect that there are two kinds of supporter, those who like railways and those who expect to get their snouts in the trough. If you want it, pay for it. Don't ask me or the taxpayer for the money.

Simon Stephenson.

daniel maris : 10.57pm

Oh, stop dreaming. The addition of one slightly faster railway line, opening in fifteen years time, is not going to make a fleabite's difference to regional disparities. The decision about this project should not be the modern political calculation for vanity projects - is it possible to create acceptance of the assumptions necessary for this to be portrayed as a project that is both socially desirable and commercially viable? No, the decision should be subjected to the more stringent test - what is the opportunity cost? What is the value of what we will not be able to do if we choose to go ahead with HS2? Is this the best use of the resources which will be required to deliver this project?

Norman Dee

As described "vanity projects" with high speed rail are unnecessary, we're a small country not like France and Germany where really long distances are involved. What we need is a really efficient "Fast" rail system coupled with control over internal flights. Make internal flights business class only, it should not be cheaper to fly 40 people from London to Edinburgh, than it is to take 200 people the same distance by rail. Per head it will have less impact on the environment as well. Don't use my numbers these are figures plucked from the sky, it is a common sense point not an accurate calculation.

TrevorsDen

A rail line does not devastate the country, how does a track 20 yards wide devastate anything; and if high speed trains are so bad in a tall thin overpopulated country then why is Japan so proud of its?

What we have is a mayor of London wanting more money spent on London an]just as we have a first minister in Scotland wanting more money spent in Scotland.

RCE

daniel maris @ 10:57

Why would London workers want to commute to Liverpool?

Eric

Why does CrossRail avoid Euston?

Why not put in a 'Mornington Crescent' type loop?

But, for goodness sakes, at least build in the 'spurs' now so that it can be added later without disruption.

Let's have joined up thinking to give us joined up railways.

DavidDP

"It's an EU vanity project "

Just like "Boris island."

Jack Simpson

I support high speed rail in principle, but, above all, I want the Conservative Party to win the next general election and I really don't think there's anything to be gained by alienating our Southern supporters probably for very few in return up North.

Dan

Although I am not as well-acquainted with the HS2 proposals as some, I think it is right that the government should help the North's economy. And those who oppose HS2 should at least offer alternative proposals for how the government can help the North. Otherwise, they have absolutely no credibility.

Verityred

Oh joy, another cut and paste job from Mr Lindsay's lonely blog. His love of Ed Milliband is so very touching, two goggle eyed fruitcakes

MaxSceptic

David Linsay's contributions are always impressive.

Mostly for their prolixity.

MaxSceptic

TrevorsDen asks:

A rail line does not devastate the country, how does a track 20 yards wide devastate anything; and if high speed trains are so bad in a tall thin overpopulated country then why is Japan so proud of its?

The impact of a high-speed railway is not limited to its physical - uh - footprint. Living anywhere close to one is a very noisy affair.

As for Japan: they are weird (sorry, different). Their living modes (urban, suburban and rural) are ghastly. Whilst their technology may be admirable, their manner of living and its impact on the countryside is not to the taste of most Englishmen and women.

alexsandr

the billions wasted on high speed could be used to improve capacity on the existing rail ntwork. We have trains able to do 140mph but cant because we dont have signalling for that speed.
and we need flying junctions to improve capacity.
and we urgently need more and longer trains for the northern cities.
and extra tracks on busy sections like cov-brum (There are places where goods lines were removed long ago like through adderley park that could be put back easily)

In2minds

@Dan - The North could also help itself. Stop voting Labour would be sensible.

daniel maris

Simon Stephenson...the voice of short-termism.

We'd still be trundling along on traffic light-strewn A roads rather than hurtling along Motorways at twice the speed if your objection about a 15 year time horizon were to be made judge and jury.

Of course HSR has to be subjected to an opportunity cost test but cutting journey times by such a significant margin could clearly have lots of benefits.

Simon Stephenson.

Dan : 11.20am

I agree that there needs to be some recompense paid by the South to the North for being able to trade in what, for the South, is an undervalued currency, and concomitantly for the North, an overvalued currency. But this fiscal transfer needs to be applied where it is going to have the most positive effect. I'm sure if the North were to be told that they have, say, £25billion a year to devote to ameliorating the effects of their uncompetitive currency, they wouldn't choose to devote a large chunk of this to linking them to London with a high-speed railway line.

There isn't a bottomless pit of finance for public projects, so every one given the go-ahead means others that must be deferred or cancelled. The key to competent social decision-making is to ensure that the projects chosen are the ones from which we have most to gain. It may be possible to project net gain from HS2, but is the net gain as great as that for each of the other projects that it will cause to be deferred?

Frank P

Why would anyone want to go to Liverpool speedily? Other than scousers, who would want to go to Liverpool at any speed?

Rhoda Klapp

You only cut journey times by a significant margin if you are travelling to and from somewhere near the stations. Otherwise the saved twenty minutes or so don't make much difference. But, go ahead if you can raise the money. Oh, you need my money? Get stuffed.

Simon Stephenson.

daniel maris : 3.38pm

Come on, Daniel. The qualitative difference between motorway travel and A-road travel is colossal compared to that betwen HS railways and what we've got already. If individually-controlled road travel was seen to be the way forward, rather than more extensive development of rail and/or air, then the argument for motorways was a no-brainer, as they say. Moreover, there is scope for considerable improvement in the existing rail structure - an improvement that would be fast-tracked if the Train Operating Companies were coerced into focusing more on their service to passengers, and less on the wellbeing of their shareholders and staff.

If it goes ahead, I'll bet you that by 2030 the main driving force behind praise for the HS2 decision will be an unwillingness to acknowledge that the go-ahead for such an enormous investment has, as with so many others, been made using second-rate thinking.

I really don't see much short-termist about this argument.

daniel maris

Simon S. - You are putting forward some rational arguments here which I agree need to be addressed in terms of how best one uses public money. I am certainly not a techno-freak and am happy to be persuaded that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

But against that I think we certainly need to note that Germany, Japan, USA and China all seem to think of HSR as a good investment. And I would add that my judgment is that the price of electricity will fall dramatically over the coming decades (against the general view of "experts") so making HSR highly competitive against air travel.

Perry

Boris comes out against high-speed rail

That’s absolutely right and good.

But please can Boris come INTO FRONT LINE POLITICS, displace the H2B, and start to put our house in order!.

Simon Stephenson.

daniel maris : 3.34am

"But against that I think we certainly need to note that Germany, Japan, USA and China all seem to think of HSR as a good investment"

Well, really all this is is an appeal to authority. These countries' politicians could all be making their decisions from similar flawed thought-processes to the ones ours use. But, even if they are not, there are some striking differences between the UK and these countries - particularly space and distances.

"And I would add that my judgment is that the price of electricity will fall dramatically over the coming decades"

This is quite possible, but surely the future development in electically powered transportation will be satellite-controlled personal vehicles, not trains?

Tendryakov

But why would anyone want to be nearer London or have London, or more accurately, Londoners - nearer to them? Worcestershire, like every other rural county, is already crawling with Londoners. Keep them where they belong. I understand that this is estimated to cost 4 billion or more. That money would be much better spent in tracking down and removing every illegal immigrant in the Uk, probably 2-3 million if not more. Now that would be money well spent. Not a hope, however, of anything as sensible as this being done.

Jim Burfield

It's very amusing to see Speccie readers saying the UK is a small country. London-Glasgow is more or less the same distance as Paris-Lyon (the first French HST line). Paris-Lyon is hugely in demand, so why would London-Glasgow not be?

Similarly, London-Plymouth, or Newcastle-Bristol are long distance and currently take hours to travel.

It's the same sort of thinking which spends a fortune tunnelling under London for trains from Aylesbury to Shenfield; ionsstead of proper intercities from, say, Cardiff to Kent.

The UK is big, and most of it is not very close to London.

a. dunn

Where will the electricity come from to power the HS2, and with impending blackouts would it not be more sensible to invest the 34 billion in the Severn Barrage eletricity production, investors waiting, which will benifit a wider and larger section of people for a better enviroment.
There are possible downside wildlife issues, though some sacrifices will have to be made if we all want power in our homes, most if not all will adapt as they always have. This could be built in conjunction with another barrage as proposed in scotland then there will be a see - saw action in power production. Could equal 6 nuclear power stations or 20 million tons of coal, with 2 barrages. Life expecatncy in excess of 120 years, Starting to look like a better investment than HS2.
Start lobbying your MP, voice your opinion in our investment in our future.