Coalition

Matthew Sinclair argues that the government’s plans for high-speed rail would not create enough jobs to justify the government spending money on the project. But his argument is disingenuous as he is not comparing like for like. He is comparing predictions about jobs created directly by high-speed rail with predictions about jobs created indirectly by investment in the wider economy. The 40,000 jobs created directly by high-speed rail are simply the tip of the iceberg – tens of thousands more will be created by the investment boom in the cities the new line will link up. These are the jobs being created by the “wider economy” that he mentions, but

Under a week ago, when James Forsyth wrote about how the government was successfully mobilising third party groups to support high-speed rail, it looked like Philip Hammond was going to get the neat debate he wanted. The script was simple: the new high speed line was urgently needed and in the national interest, a small number of people ardently opposed it because it would spoil their views. Since then that message has come unstuck. I think it is understandable that some people are very upset at the aesthetic disruption that could come with HS2.  But that isn’t the only objection. Plenty of people who have no particular attachment to Wendover,

The Sun has launched another sortie against Ken Clarke’s restorative justice programme. The paper reports: ‘SHOPLIFTERS could escape prison by just paying for what they pinch and saying “sorry”. Jail sentences and tough fines will be SCRAPPED as the default punishment for nicking from stores under controversial plans soon to be unveiled by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. Instead he wants thieves to make face-to-face apologies to victims and pay compensation.’ The Ministry of Justice has responded by saying that it ‘strongly believe[s] offenders should make more financial and other amends to victims and are in the process of consulting on plans for this.’ The substance of that statement contrasts with

National Pay Bargaining is one of the major impediments to rebalancing the national economy and improving the quality of public services. But as Julian Astle, the head of the Liberal think tank Centre Forum, notes the coalition is doing little about it. It knows that the public sector unions will go to the wall for national pay bargaining and so are holding off. Gordon Brown flirted with doing something about national pay bargaining, announcing a review of it in the 2003 Budget. But he then backed away from the issue. One area where the coalition is chipping away at national pay bargaining is schools. Academies and free schools have the

GDP growth figures have become the barometer of choice for commentators trying to tell the political weather – a good measure of how the public will eventually fall in the faceoff between Osborne and Balls. The story goes that a return to sustained growth will mean a return to rising living standards.  That means a vindication of the government’s position, and a victory for the Chancellor. As a simple story, that makes sense if the pressures now facing Britain’s households are straightforwardly growth-related – if, in other words, we’re in a post-recession hangover that will vanish when growth returns. But there’s now mounting evidence of a deeper problem for living

The Libya crisis looked like it would prove the critics of the government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review right. Was it not the case that the HMS Cumberland, now seen as crucial for the evacuation of British nationals, would soon be decommissioned. And would the Harriers not prove useful in a potential intervention? Coupled with criticism that the government struggled to handle the evacuation of British nationals, it looked like the makings of a credibility-destroying theme: strategic misjudgement and tactical incompetence. But a week into the crisis, the government’s handling of the evacuation – and response to the Libyan crisis overall – looks increasingly surefooted. The UK has led the

The events of the last two weeks have demonstrated that David Cameron needs a revamped foreign policy. This is not, in itself, a surprise. Foreign policies sketched out in opposition seldom survive contact with reality. Remember Bush saying he did “not do nation-building”? And who can forget the ignominious fate of Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy”? David Cameron sought to distinguish himself from the adventuring, idealistic Blair with what he regarded as a ‘pragmatic’ foreign policy – that is, promoting British exporters.   But as I say in my News of the World column (£) today, this rebounded spectacularly last week when his tour of the Arab world was overshadowed