Labour "making decision" over whether to back HS2 next spring

New shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh says "we are in the process of making that decision" when asked if Labour will support the High Speed 2 bill.

I noted yesterday that new shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh had made some strikingly sceptical comments about High Speed 2, warning, in an echo of Ed Balls's conference speech, that "we need to ensure it is the best way to spend £50 billion for the future of our country".

Today, in another significant intervention, Creagh has revealed that Labour is "in the process" of deciding whether or not to support the HS2 bill next spring. While her predecessor, Maria Eagle, declared in her conference speech, "we support High Speed 2", Labour has now moved to a position of genuine agnosticism.

Here's Creagh's exchange with Adam Boulton on Sky News earlier today.

Adam Boulton: The situation is going to be again, we are talking about 2015, talking about Labour coming in are they in favour of it or not?

Mary Creagh: The Bill is going through Parliament we are going to have it on the 31st October, the paving Bill, we are then going to have...

AB: Which you are going to support?

MC: We are. And then we are going to have the big hybrid Bill coming forward in March or April next year so there is a lot of work to be done and we will be going through the government’s figures with a fine tooth comb.

AB: Can you pledge whether you are going to support it or not?

MC:  Well we are in the process of making that decision and when we make it you’ll be the first to know.

Creagh later added:

It would be, you know, it would be easier if they’d done more work on it, we are still actually at the very beginnings of it. I was at the Department yesterday, I looked at the proposals for the line to go from Birmingham to Leeds, there are going to be a lot of communities that are looking at it and making their input on what the line could do and of course as soon as you start to introduce tunnelling it is £100m per kilometre, that is very expensive.

Based on that, the odds are against Labour backing the bill in March/April. If the party does U-turn, the choice facing the coalition will be whether to persist with the project in the face of opposition, or to argue that it is not viable without cross-party support (due to the time frame involved) and to find its own way of spending that £50bn.

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.

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

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.