It’s one of the most obvious things about a Government attempting to be populist that the things it does should be vaguely popular. There’s also an implication that they should get their messaging right as well.
And yet, this Government doesn’t seem to be terribly good at even something so simple, as demonstrated by this week’s announcement that HS2 was to be abandoned beyond Birmingham and the £36 billion supposedly saved would be spent on other projects. In principle, given that HS2 has been easy to attack due to overspends and a false prospectus – speed was merely a benefit, the big game changer was additional capacity – this should have been a vote winner in some places, especially those unlikely to benefit if HS2 had been completed.
So, the detail, suggesting that the Manchester Metro would be extended to Manchester Airport, even though that had happened a decade or so ago, or the disappearing announcements such as the Leamside Line, demonstrated a bizarre sense of incompetence which almost immediately undermined any credit that the Conservatives might have hoped to glean. And when Mark Harper explained to Victoria Derbyshire that these were merely examples of things that might happen, any credibility that might have been gained was, once again, frittered away. They just don’t seem to be any good, even at attempting to bribe voters with their own money.
I accept that I do often talk about the importance of basic competence in government, but if ever that message needed an audience, it’s now.
The gruesome events in the Middle East over the weekend are a reminder that a resolution of the Israel/Palestine situation is urgent. And whilst all the hand-wringing in the world is unlikely to change much, finding a way to cajole both sides to the negotiating table is going to be the only way to make progress. That’s made far more difficult that it was in the past by the lack of credible leadership on the Palestinian side and the sheer arrogance of the Israeli leadership in terms of their treatment of the residents of the Palestinian enclaves and the persistent attempts to subvert the borders of any potential Palestinian state. Who is there to offer security guarantees to both sides when a terrorist group is calling the shots in Gaza? And who is going to persuade the Israeli government to rein in those settlors who have expropriated Palestinian land? There’s no doubt that the sparring regional powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, will have a key role to play, whilst the ability to the United States to encourage moderation from the Israeli side will be crucial. It’s got to happen soon though, lest events spiral out of control.
Which brings me back to moderation. We’ve having some teething problems with our software this weekend, as it is proving difficult to approve comments that are in moderation. Bear with me, as I try various means to get the job done. I will note, in passing, that referring to someone as Adolf isn’t likely to make the cut. Please read our comments policy, especially those amongst you who didn’t read it last week.
Finally, Ed Davey came to speak to Federal Council on Friday night, and there was a set of questions for him to answer. I won’t go into any great detail here, although if any other member of Federal Council is minded to offer their thoughts, they’re more than welcome. I’ll admit that I found it easier to warm to him than I might have expected. And yes, it’s a friendly(ish) audience of people, some of whom Ed knows quite well, but I think that I saw for the first time how he might come across to others beyond the membership of the Liberal Democrats – as a decent, well-meaning person with a backstory that they could relate to. Liberal Democrat leaders often struggle to make an impression with the public, and the general lack of interest from the mainstream media doesn’t help. But I’d like to think that, in a General Election campaign, voters will see someone that comes across as genuine and keen to improve the country they live in.
A win in Mid Bedfordshire would help too, so good luck to everyone involved as we enter the last eleven days of the campaign!
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
By 1954 not even Dickie Attenborough was safe on a bombsite
Tories in disarray as Badenoch wings it on pensions
Can you help Barnardo's?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Peter Davies
Craig Levene
Nick Baird
David Evans
Anthony Acton
20 Comments
Interesting, Wales may benefit from the decision to scrap HS2 since Wales was to receive no Barnett Consequencials from the UK government spending on HS2 in England as it was regarded as of ‘national importance’, but Wales may get Barnett Consequencials if the money is diverted into other transport schemes in England.
I could never see there was much mileage in simply getting to Birmingham quicker – it was the whole deal that could have made some sense. But in terms of capacity, they should have started at the north and worked south – much more important than pure speed and would have gone some way to make good the closure of the Great Central Railway under Labour.
“ the big game changer was additional capacity”
That was the one thing HS2s supporters desperately grasped on to. However, it relied on a poor understanding of capacity and how much would migrate from existing routes on to (a potentially more expensive) HS2.
The capacity argument was effectively killed by two actions that negatively impacted capacity:
1) The decision to terminate in London, rather than connect to HS1 and have a through station like Tokyo.
2) The decision to half the number of platforms at Euston to 6, with the current design not permitting expansion. (It is perhaps noteworthy the design of the interchange station at Old Oak Common with 6 HS2 platforms and 8 conventional platforms seems to anticipate the cancellation of Euston…).
“ £36 billion supposedly saved would be spent on other projects”
Remember this is just the saving from the newly cancelled section. As for money saved, it is perhaps better described as bonds that now don’t need to be issued at higher rates of return than were the norm pre CoViD, which in turn means less stress on future tax revenues and can be presented as a tax saving and an invisible tax cut (taxes don’t need to increase by so much).
Has Ed Davey spoken yet about the estimated £5 billion that Wales is expected to lose out on due to the Tory government listing HS2 as an England and Wales project despite never touching Wales?
Anyone who read a long piece in the Guardian some months ago –would that have been an ‘op-ed?’ (ostensibly?) — apparently lauding the excellent qualities of Ed Davey may have wondered, as i did, why the Guardian should seem to praise him so. So did I, initially.
Then I suffered an uncomfortable turn of suspicion. In the Left-Right spectrum we are right next to the civilised Left. Does that make us Allies, or Competitors? And it seemed to me that we must never trust the Guardian as General Elections approach. The apparent praise of all Ed’s qualities was, I believe, written not to praise him, but to shed doubt on whether he actually has other, Electorally more important, qualities that were not mentioned?
We must always, at times like these, look twice at the Grauniad, and be on our guard
I agree with Graham Jeffs – they should have started in the north and addressed the capacity problems – especially for freight
The problem with starting in the North is that the capacity problems the line is trying to relieve are mostly in the South – between London and Rugby, and there’s also a much bigger market for rail travel in the South. That means that on its own, a London-Birmingham HS2 – although not as good as the original London-Manchester/etc. plans – will still have carry a huge number of passengers and make a huge difference to congestion on the West Coast main line – freeing up a lot of paths for more local trains. On its own, a Manchester-Birmingham HS2 that doesn’t go to London would likely carry far fewer passengers and could therefore struggle to pay its way.
Building HS2 started in the South because that’s the part of HS2 that was expected to make the biggest difference.
@simon – still rewriting history. HS2 was only envisaged as a London Birmingham shuttle, extension northwards was a subsequent addition to further justify HS2…
The “capacity” bottleneck you talk about could of been addressed without HS2 and simply bringing the central line trackbed back into service, with some minor new track formations this would of permitted existing Euston bound trains to divert via the new line rather than continue down the existing WCML.
But as lockdown demonstrated the “capacity issue” was more about daft economic policy and business practises than actual need.
@Roger Lake may be right to warn us to be slightly wary of the Grauniad. This is the paper that carried an article during the Chesham & Amersham by-election campaign which featured a lot of vox-pops from voters but managed not to mention the Lib Dems at all. And just 2 days ago it’s done the same sort of thing again, interviewing voters who might switch to Labour, most of whom previously voted Lib Dem!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/08/we-care-about-the-failing-nhs-and-the-cost-of-living-floating-voters-on-what-would-make-them-switch-to-labour
And what’s more, some of them are in Tory-facing Lib Dem target seats, like North Norfolk and North Devon. One has to wonder if the paper is in the pay of the sort of Labour apparatchik who would prefer the Tories (rather than us) to win where Labour is not in contention.
I stopped buying the Guardian in 2010 after having taken it for 40 years, because it was telling lies about the coalition. For a paper for whom the facts were sacred, I could not accept that it had decided to tell untruths about things that I knew were not as they said. This was after an election when they had, in as many words, told people to vote for us.
So, I agree very strongly with those above who say we can’t trust the Guardian.
Roland “ “ the big game changer was additional capacity””
Ok, HS2 passenger capacity was trashed by late in the day, politician based decisions.
Given that, where will the additional north-south rail capacity for passenger and more importantly freight now come from?
Or do we start planning for another motorway between London and Manchester?
@ Andy Hyde,
“Given that, where will the additional north-south rail capacity for passenger and more importantly freight now come from?”
Possibly by re-opening the Great Central Main Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line
@Roland That’s not correct. The original plans the Government put forward in 2010 were for a line stretching from London to Manchester and Leeds. There was never a serious official proposal for only a London-Birmingham shuttle. Indeed, when Labour first considering the idea before 2010, they were thinking in terms of a high speed line all the way to Scotland!
Re-opening the Great Central Railway was never a plausible alternative. That line was designed for and had a curvature for the speeds of 100+ years ago – maybe 80mph max – routing the fast WCML trains via that route would actually slow them down! Also, the GCR doesn’t go anywhere near Birmingham. And because the trackbed was lifted decades ago, you’d still have a similar expense to building a brand new railway – to get a massively inferior line!
@ Simon,
This is from the wiki entry on the GCML.
“The line was engineered to very high standards: a ruling gradient of 1 in 176 (exceeded in only a few locations on the London extension) was employed; curves of a minimum radius of 1 mile (1.6 km) (except in city areas) were used”
This isn’t consistent with your statement of an inadequate standard of construction- especially if we take into account that trains now tilt to avoid having to slow down on bends. However, even if speeds are limited to the 80mph you mention, this is quite adequate for freight trains and suburban services which could be diverted to Marylebone and so free up space at Euston.
@Peter Nice ideas. But… I didn’t deny the Great Central line was engineered to high standards: I pointed out that it was designed for the speeds that trains ran at when it was built. The gradient isn’t an issue as modern trains can cope with much higher gradients than trains of 100 years ago could. The curvature is an issue though. We are no longer building tilting trains – the Pendolinos and Voyagers are the last of them: They found tilt caused too many engineering issues, plus it forces the trains to be narrower so less capacity: Instead, the new Class 805/807 trains that are now being built to replace the WCML Voyagers have higher acceleration which more than makes up for the lack of tilt.
I don’t get why you’d put suburban trains on the new line? The point of HS2 is to take the fast non-stopping trains off the WCML so the towns along it can get a better service instead of seeing lots of trains pass through them without stopping (while as a bonus speeding up and also providing more fast trains). If you took the suburban trains off the WCML and left the fast trains on it, then surely those towns would end up with an even worse service? Marylebone is a small station – it only has 6 platforms – and is already at capacity so couldn’t cope with more trains. Plus the line out of it is diesel-only.
@ Simon,
To increase capacity into London, we’ll need more capacity at the rail stations too. This true whether or not we have a HS2. It sounds like the lines out of Marylebone need to be electrified and probably upgraded at the same time. That’s all doable. It’s also doable, in fact it has been done, not to rely on a terminus at London but instead to run the lines underground.
One big problem with the HS concept is that the lines don’t integrate with the rest of the rail network. HS2 and HS1 don’t even join up with each other!
We do need more lines, more stations etc but it all does need to be done in an integrated fashion. The challenge in the post war era has been to integrate the rail networks than existed in the pre-war era of separate lines and separate ownerships. This has been done to some extent but the job is far from complete.
Many of the Beeching cuts in the 60s have turned out to be short sighted as many claimed they would be at the time. So part of the development of a modern rail system should involve reversing many of them, making use of routes where we can.
We need to take into consideration what passengers actually want. Typically they don’t live in the centre of a major city and want to travel to the centre of another major city at high speed for a business meeting.
@Simon, at a risk of it picking…
The original HS2 pamphlet clearly shows a red line that starts just outside of London and stops at a junction with the WCML to the east of Birmingham. Yes grant words were spoken about a (possible) extension to Scotland, but the implication was that would use the existing WCML tracks…
Obviously, that was daft and received negative comment, so some further work was done to arrive at the proposals for Manchester and Leeds, with no appetite for continuing to Scotland… So yes you are right what was unveiled in 2010, after 2+ years of development was more than a shuttle.
I didn’t say reopen the Grand Central, I said utilise the track formation ie. corridor -something HS2 has done for parts of its route…
The real issue, if you are really concerned about UK trade and exports, is the north-south freight network. HS2, a pure passenger line, was favoured over a much cheaper and investor backed Liverpool to Channel tunnel freight line, which needed government support to release the track corridors (which included the Central line….) and be a guarantor.
As things stand HS2 serves commuters, which for a UK plc viewpoint, is pure overhead, whereas a freight line is production and logistics infrastructure…
@Peter: Agree with you about the need for capacity and the desirability of electrifying Marylebone (although doing that will be horrendously expensive and won’t give by itself give any extra trains). I think you ask good questions about it and I agree with you that integration between HS2 and the existing network is poor in places – it seems to me that is a valid criticism of the HS2 design (which doesn’t change that HS2 is badly needed and will be transformative in journey opportunities and rail capacity). There are certainly parts of HS2 that I would’ve preferred to see designed differently – particularly the way they went for terminus rather than through stations in London, Birmingham and (now cancelled) Manchester. But realistically, any huge new infrastructure project will always end up a compromise between cost, competing requirements, and what is actually achievable in engineering terms – and there will always be people like you and me saying, Why don’t they do it this way instead?. At some point you have to accept that no design is going to satisfy everyone, and just get on and build it. I’d say HS2 is long past that point.
Not connecting HS2 to HS1 has merits, bearing in the security checks for access to HS1. If an HS3 is to be built from Liverpool to Manchester and beyond, it would seem sensible to feed HS2 into HS3 instead of creating an expensive HS2 terminus alongside Manchester Piccadilly.
De-escalation is or should be the word of the day or year. Strange though it might sound in the midst of escalation now is the time to start talking about de-escalation. Both sides in this Middle East dispute have plenty to benefit from it if only in their political support. And with such violence on both sides it need not be much to be significant. From acorns do oaks grow.