Balls and Cable sound the alarm over HS2. Who will U-turn first?

It is no longer unthinkable that one or both of Labour and the Lib Dems could go into the next election pledging to scrap the project.

High Speed 2 is an increasingly rare example of an issue on which there is a consensus among the three main parties. But Peter Mandelson's recent rejection of the project as an "expensive mistake" and the 25% rise in its estimated cost to £42.6bn (even before a shovel has touched the ground) has created the space for a more nuanced debate about its costs and benefits. 

So it is striking that both Vince Cable and Ed Balls are now making sceptical noises. Cable told Today this morning:

Well, the case for High Speed 2, which is still being made – I mean, the figures, as you know, are being revisited – have to meet a standard of cost/benefit analysis which the Treasury seeks, and which meet the requirements of the Green Book, as it’s called, on public investment.

And Balls told the FT:

We need to keep a close eye on value for money. I am concerned about the rising costs. As a Leeds MP I can see the benefits for the region and the north of England, but it is not a blank cheque...we have to know the benefits justify the expenditure, so therefore value for money continues to be an important test for me.

It would be wrong to assume that Balls is preparing the ground for a Labour U-turn. Ed Miliband remains personally supportive of the project and HS2 evangelist Andrew Adonis, the party's shadow infrastructure minister, who Miliband has just appointed to lead a growth review, is also determined to prevent any backsliding. But it is no longer unthinkable that one or both of Labour and the Lib Dems could go into the next election pledging to scrap the scheme. In these straitened times, £42.6bn is not to be sniffed at. As one Labour MP recently put it to me, "just think how many houses we could build with that". 

A placard placed by the Stop HS2 Campaign sits in a hedegrow near to the planned location of the new high speed rail link in Knutsford. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The SNP thinks it knows how to kill hard Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled MPs must have a say in triggering Article 50. But the opposition must unite to succeed. 

For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, the crowd in the Supreme Court listened as the verdict was read out. Parliament must have the right to authorise the triggering of Article 50. The devolved nations would not get a veto. 

There was a moment of silence. And then the opponents of hard Brexit hit the phones. 

For the Scottish government, the pro-Remain members of the Welsh Assembly and Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, the victory was bittersweet. 

The ruling prompted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to ask: “Is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

Ever the pragmatist, though, Sturgeon has simultaneously released her Westminster attack dogs. 

Within minutes of the ruling, the SNP had vowed to put forward 50 amendments (see what they did there) to UK government legislation before Article 50 is enacted. 

This includes the demand for a Brexit white paper – shared by MPs from all parties – to a clause designed to prevent the UK reverting to World Trade Organisation rules if a deal is not agreed. 

But with Labour planning to approve the triggering of Article 50, can the SNP cause havoc with the government’s plans, or will it simply be a chorus of disapproval in the rest of Parliament’s ear?

The SNP can expect some support. Individual SNP MPs have already successfully worked with Labour MPs on issues such as benefit cuts. Pro-Remain Labour backbenchers opposed to Article 50 will not rule out “holding hands with the devil to cross the bridge”, as one insider put it. The sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, will consider backing SNP amendments she agrees with as well as tabling her own. 

But meanwhile, other opposition parties are seeking their own amendments. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour will seek amendments to stop the Conservatives turning the UK “into a bargain basement tax haven” and is demanding tariff-free access to the EU. 

Separately, the Liberal Democrats are seeking three main amendments – single market membership, rights for EU nationals and a referendum on the deal, which is a “red line”.

Meanwhile, pro-Remain Tory backbenchers are watching their leadership closely to decide how far to stray from the party line. 

But if the Article 50 ruling has woken Parliament up, the initial reaction has been chaotic rather than collaborative. Despite the Lib Dems’ position as the most UK-wide anti-Brexit voice, neither the SNP nor Labour managed to co-ordinate with them. 

Indeed, the Lib Dems look set to vote against Labour’s tariff-free amendment on the grounds it is not good enough, while expecting Labour to vote against their demand of membership of the single market. 

The question for all opposition parties is whether they can find enough amendments to agree on to force the government onto the defensive. Otherwise, this defeat for the government is hardly a defeat at all. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.