I could not help but be amused by a comment from Simon Jenkins in this morning's Guardian:
The latest body blow to the benighted [HS2] project came on Monday from parliament's "unofficial opposition", Margaret Hodge's ever trenchant public accounts committee.
As is now clear, the Green New Deal group ,of which I am a member, is opposed to HS2, but that was not my point.
The point is that we have come to an unusual situation where it is true that a single back bench committee, headed by a politician much older than all our party leaders, is now providing more opposition in this parliament than much (not all) of the shadow front bench.
Three things follow from that observation. The first is that the PAC needs a much bigger budget to do its work properly.
The second is that other committees need to get their acts together to emulate it.
The third is that it's time for the opposition front bench to swing into action, please.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
That maybe because the official “opposition” knows that the HS2 project is part of the trans-eu project. No is not an option. “do it your way or you’ll do it our way” is the reality.
I don’t believe that
Really Richard?
We can start with EU Directive 91/440, which led to the “privatisation” of the railways by insisting that “member states are required to ensure that organisations operating the infrastructure (track, signalling etc.), and those operating services (trains) are separate and run on a commercial basis” and has continued since with the Trans-European Transport (network) programme.
I have little doubt that all parties want out of this expensive white elephant, whose proposed cost now seems to be in excess of 70 billion.
I’m not arguing – but dates, urls and clear refs please
Because this is very obviously not the EU wide situation so I have some difficulty believing it
John M doesn’t know jack.
The French went with the letter of the law – RFF own the track, SNCF run the trains – but RFF then subcontracted all the maintenance of their assets back to SNCF, so you have the stupid situation of SNCF blaming RFF for not giving them train paths because of line works being done by SNCF…
To my knowledge, some other countries have yet to comply with the EU directive at all.
Richard, I know it’s early, but this:
Three things follow from that observation. The first is that the PAC needs a much bigger budget to do its work properly.
The *second* is that other committees need to get their acts together to emulate it.
The *second* is that it’s time for the opposition front bench to swing into action, please.
is surely too much of a gift to those who want to claim you’re not very good with numbers? (No, I don’t expect you to publish this; I’d rather your critics saved their time for more substantial commentary 🙂 )
Thanks
Shouldn’t insert the second and forget to change the third!
perhaps the other committees are doing good work, but just dont have a chairperson hell bent on generating as much publicity for herself as possible? just a thought.
The they need more publicity conscious chairs, I say
We need the HS2. If you don’t believe me, which you wont, try to travel from Birmingham to London any morning from 7.30 – 9am. Then please let uis know your wonderful views. Then we had the great wonderful idea, bu the prat Prescott! to build more houses on the routes from London to Birmingham. He forgot about two things that are deeply needed. Hospitals, as these new people will get sick and routes into London. But don’t worry we will be dead before the trains are to full to run, so who cares!
Try travelling on any train from 7.30 to 9am
Sorry – that’s the lousiest excuse ever heard
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/connecting/doc/revision/legislative-act-ten-t-revision.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/interoperability/doc/com_2011_665_3_-_connecting_europe_facility.pdf
Note that many parts of the above are concerned with all forms of interconnectivity, not just rail.
In the second url you’ll note that HS2 is listed in the “core corridors” annex (PART I: LIST OF PRE-IDENTIFIED PROJEC
TS ON THE CORE NETWOR
K IN THE FIELD OF
TRANSPORT )
Have fun.
But so what?
Nothing can compel HS2
We absolutely do not need HS2.
The evidence supporting the economic benefits is paper thin and doesn’t bear scrutiny.
The huge sum of money could be spent far more wisely.
Please though can someone please explain to me how is it possible to afford such a grandiose project, when tax credits/universal credit are not at a sufficient level to prevent half a million or more people relying on food banks to make ends meet?
No need to answer – the Public School Boy spivs in Government prefer “bungs and wonga”
We will see, in the course of time. The first url contains an “instruction” that all has to be done by 2050.
Elsewhere I note that the Galileo gps satellite constellation is on course, which will enable road pricing with much better location ability, due to higher power.
Interesting!
“The DWP, for example, coughed up £84.3bn in state pensions in the fiscal year between 2011 and 2012, using a system that cost £385m to run in that period alone; a system that was first introduced in 1987. For its part, HMRC processed £99.6bn of VAT receipts on an infrastructure that cost £430m to run and debuted in, wait for it, 1973”
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2013/09/12/nao_report_legacy_systems/