The case for High Speed Two to be built up to Scotland is a moral one as well as an economic one
The plan for High Speed Two as originally conceived by Labour is an example of exactly the kind of infrastructure project that is distinctly lacking from the government’s economic agenda. Labour’s proposal encapsulated the industrial activism that our government championed in its final years in office.
HS2 as envisaged by Labour would mean substantial public infrastructure investment over a number of years that would deliver significant and enduring economic benefits, creating jobs and reducing the UK’s transport carbon footprint.
Contrast Labour’s approach with that of the government. By only taking legislative powers to build a connection between London and Birmingham, the coalition reveals again its paucity of policies for real and sustained economic growth stimulated by public funding.
Properly implemented, the full HS2 project would start delivering economic benefits from conception to completion and beyond. HS2 would present significant procurement opportunities for UK companies. Community the union’s members in the steel industry would greatly welcome the boost in production that winning the rail supply contract would provide. Producing the rail for up to 335 miles of track would provide an incentive for greater private investment in UK construction and industrial steelmaking. There would also be consequent knock-on benefits through the supply chain.
HS2 would also be an opportunity for a UK government, of any persuasion, to finally demonstrate that it knows its way around EU procurement rules and maximises the use of community benefit clauses to boost UK business and local economies.
But it is not just the economic benefits of HS2 that are important. It is also the social and political statement that is made in joining the north and south.
As a union with the majority of its members far from London and the south-east, HS2 would represent recognition of the contributions that the north should rightfully be making to our economic wellbeing. The social impact of Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield being one hour and a quarter from the capital should not be underestimated.
It is also important to acknowledge the effect that HS2 would have in easing the capacity constraints on both the Midland Main Line and the East Coast Line, which in turn would improve the connectivity between many of our industrial towns and cities north of London.
As somebody who witnessed first-hand what the Tories did to those industrial heartlands in the 1980s, I plead forgiveness for my scepticism about their decision to only take HS2 from London to Birmingham, letting the rest rely on expensive upgrades to existing infrastructure, that will not deliver the same long-term benefits or connectivity and will continue to maintain the north-south divide.
The coalition would do well to heed those who advocate the full implementation of the HS2 project. Failure to seize that opportunity will reveal the lack of political and economic vision at the heart of the current government.
—————————————————————————————
Michael Leahy is general secretary of Community the union
—————————————————————————————
double double ditto !
I cannot support a programme which, once again, avoids/ignores the economic needs of the north east of england – that’s the bit between leeds and berwick!
Unless you build it north to south it is a dead duck north of the M62.
Indeed those along the M62 would probably put a lot more emphasis on investment in Liverpool to Hull /Newcastle and in M62 corridor than than HS.
I know the East Coast operator is increasing timing incidentally but Virgin is surreptitiously reducing it. 14% off is the best and most people do the prep work for their meetings on the early trains.
North connected to South is a strong political and economical philosophy that needs to be done, the whole time the South is separate from the North there is no unity or motive.
The jobs created through the multiplier and investment would be a good investment, if we take up my sponsorship idea. By advertising on lets say the trains in this circumstance we could claw back more money in the long term; lets say a firm or a co-operative gives money to help with the investment then an advertising lease can be given rather than purchased afterwards.
The market for advertising would mean that the trains them selves have the capability to be sustainable or even profitable.
We can apply the sponsorship advertising lease to parts of the NHS as well, it is all still central, but a firm, co-operative or individual sponsors a certain ward or hospital nothing changes, but costs go down it then as to be renewed at a later date.
Costs go down and firms look good.
Win ,win. Why would the poor mind if the rich sponsor, the poor can’t sponsor but if they could it would cost more in tax else where, this way we can make from the rich while the rich make.
Tory Blog 30.8.11 ; “Labour attack dog chasing its own tail” Well, it’s practising on the right end then !