You’d think, given the chance to express himself here, that the writer might at least have tried to give some coherent reason why he’s suddenly decided that the north of England should be kept deprived of trasnport links. I’ve been through all the links he’s put to his other pronouncements only to see vague waffle about local services.

It’s ridiculous that HS2 wasn’t built a couple of decades ago. The midlands and the north desperately need fast rail links to the continent.

@1
Totally agree. However, what Labour must do is to ensure that this investment is not at the expense of other, equally vital transport – and especially rail – investment. We need more electrification, re-opening lines to communites to help them access jobs and services, etc.

If HS2 gets cancelled – these other projects arnt suddenly going to materialise. They must be done as well, to complement HS2.

There’s plenty wrong with the analysis of HS2.

For example, the cost-benefit analysis work assumes that it will be scrapped after 60 years of service. Obviously this is stupid, but then what is government if no stupid?

Likewise, the cost column includes the subsidy to various Tory heartland campaigns in the form of additional tunneling costs – while the alternatives (an upgrade of other lines, for example) ignores all equivalent political sops because we haven’t had to make them.

Meanwhile we lag behind the world on infrastructure (WEF ranks us 24th) and as a result out people keep getting poorer.

So yeah, the issue here is slightly mixed messages from a minor opposition figure.

If New Labour have suddenly decided that we do have a spare £50 billion contrary to Mandy’s advice I can think of a hell of a lot of more worthy and important things to spend it on than this countryside-wrecking white elephant. Britain can’t even deliver decent broadband properly.

Baton Rouge

Actually the World Economic Forum’s global study ranks the UK’s broadband sixth in the world on the basis of kb/s per user.

That’s a lot better than our general infrastructure ranking of 24th.

Quite a lot to respond to here, and apologies for delay in getting to it.

1) On the update provided by Sunny, from an email to him from “Labour’s transport team”.

I accept that Maria and her team have acted in perfectly good faith, and that they believe they have gone through the review that Maria promised in 2010. But I think we have a different conception of what such a policy review is.

As far as I can see from the update, the Labour transport team beleive that reading and accepting the findings of Network Rail’s Review of Stategic Alternative to High Speed 2 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28572/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives.pdf)counts as a policy review.

I don’t, for two reasons:

a) The ‘high level’ review by Network Rail is limited to an assessment of what effect other line upgrading works would have on North-South line capacity. While this is useful, it doesn’t cover an assessment of the factor which most concern many, inlcuding now Peter Mandelson, namely the possible/likely negative wider regional economic impacts of HS2 (what Mandelson refers to as rail deserts, though this is arguably inaccurate – see below).

b) An internal review of a high-level document does not, to my mind, constitute inclusion of HS2 in a wider policy review, to which end a website was set up for member engagement.

2) Chris @1:

With respect, I think you misread my reference to “rail deserts”. This is Mandelson’s wording, and not one I would have chosen. However, what I think he’s trying to get at is not primarily that the North will be deprived of transport links, but that (intra-)regional economies will take on desert-like features as all the economic sustenance is drawn a) to London b) to the areas that do get the HS2 link.

Let me stress that I am not against HS2 in its totality, simply that it may need to be preceded by and fitted into an improved local and regional infrastructure such that as and ehen HS2 does come it doesn’t have the negative ‘suck away consequences that empirical research shows it has had in other countries, but which have not been taken into account in the UK.

Again, this should have been part of Labour’s plicy review, but we have been shortchanged by a so-called review (in good faith) which simply accepts that the most important job of HS2 to resolve current capacity problems (and it is striking the extent to which the Network Rail emphasises the negative impact of upgrade alternative on connectivity within the South East, suggesting that such issues are important there but can be disregarded elsewhere).

Finally, I don’t think it’s fair to critcise a post for not doing what it didn’t set out to do. This post was squarely about the review (or lack of it) process, not about the substance of the HS2 debate.

3) John Ruddy @”:

I don’t think we’re a huge distance apart, but I stress the fact that local and sub-regional improvements need to come first, because if HS2 comes first the drag and suck factors within regions and towards London will have a quick and irreversible effect, thus making sustainable regionalisation of the economy even more difficult in the long term.

4) Marign4error@3:

Maria Eagle may not be on TV every day, but in transport terms she is not a minor opposition figure.