Today’s judgments won't derail HS2 - but serious questions remain

High court rules on compensation over HS2.

The Department for Transport will, once again, be in the spotlight today as the High Court gets set to rule on whether the government followed proper procedures before approving its HS2 rail project. Given the recent lamentable procedural failures over rail franchising, tension within the Department will likely be running high.

From the government’s point of view the best outcome is obviously a green light from the court. Not only will this save blushes at the Department, it will allow the coalition to push, full steam ahead – if that is the correct idiom for a project that will not bear fruit until 2033 – with what has become one of its flagship projects.

However, even if the judicial review does come down in favour of the protest groups it is unlikely that HS2 will be halted completely: in rail terms it will receive an amber light rather than a red one.

The protestors no doubt hope that any legal setback to the project will open the way for further challenges which will pull HS2 into a quagmire of reviews and disputes which could carry on until the government finally loses interest or, at least, until the next election is called.

This hope is probably in vain. Given the number of recent setbacks and U-turns the government will be in no mood, or position, to compromise over a scheme it has so solidly thrown its weight behind. Just like the weary commuter, waiting for the train back home after a long day at work, the government will likely accept the delay with resigned determination. This is doubtless helped by the fact that there is widespread support across the political spectrum for HS2. For many on the left it is one of those big infrastructure projects which not only creates jobs and opportunities but also helps to narrow geographical disparities between London and part of the country.

What the outcome of the judicial review will not do is resolve, conclusively, whether HS2 is a sensible idea. Here, so many questions remain unanswered.

There is the argument that the benefits of the spending should be spread more widely. For example, despite commitments on electrification, parts of the rail network in the South West remain chronically deprived of investment. Certainly, dividing the pot of HS2 money up more equally between the regions would produce a less dramatic, less visible end result. However, smaller incremental rail improvements across the country may yield a much greater economic benefit than one big, budget-busting project.

In many ways this is an argument about the need for speed. HS2 will certainly reduce journey times between London and the midlands and parts of the north, however, given the lofty sums of money involved the improvements are marginal at best. Moreover, given the fact that many people use their time on the train fairly productively – whether working or relaxing – there is a real question mark over whether a faster journey accrues genuine economic benefits. The debate is further complicated by the point that without improving regional transport connections – those roads and public transport services which feed into the stations HS2 serves – a reduction of time spent on the train probably becomes pretty pointless.

The one thing HS2 will certainly do is help improve capacity; something much needed on a rail network that is now bursting at the seams. However, HS2 is an expensive solution to this issue and there are simpler ways of increasing capacity. Adjusting the existing infrastructure to accommodate double-decker and longer trains, for example, would cost a fraction of HS2.

The answer to all of these points – and many more – will simply not come from the outcome of today’s review. Nor have they come from government, which has presented a less than compelling case for its policy. Only time and hindsight, it seems, will help us form a view of whether HS2 is a sound scheme. For now, the jury is still out.

The Department for Transport will, once again, be in the spotlight. Photograph: Getty Images

 Managing Director of Conlumino

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.