Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham at the Labour conference in Brighton last year. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

HS2 critic Andy Burnham to vote in favour tonight

Shadow health secretary will back the bill, despite previous criticisms, as it only applies to the first phase of the project.

Andy Burnham caused some ripples earlier this year when he refused to rule out voting against High Speed 2 in an interview with me for the NS (for which he was swiftly slapped down by Ed Miliband's office). He said then: "I’ve given no guarantees about supporting it. I’m not talking as a frontbencher here, I’m talking as the MP for Leigh. I will not let my constituents carry on paying through their taxes for the rail network when they don’t have reasonable access to it. It’s as simple as that. If the government’s going to lay new railtrack in my constituency, it can bloody well give us a station."

When I asked how he would respond if the government did not meet his demands, he suggested that Labour (which backs the project) would have to suspend collective responsibility and allow him to vote against the rail project. "If they don’t look again at the depot, I’d have to say to my own whips: 'everyone's constituency is going to be affected differently and everyone’s going to have to account. You can’t have a blanket position because it doesn’t affect everybody equally does it?'"

With this in mind, I asked a spokesman for Burnham whether the shadow health secretary would be voting in favour of HS2 tonight. He confirmed that he would be, but rightly noted that the vote covers the first phase of the scheme, "which only goes as far as Crewe" and therefore does not extend to Burnham's constituency. It is the vote on the second phase of the project (north of Birmingham), for which a separate bill will be tabled, that will be the real test of his position.

After Ed Balls's threat to withdraw support from the project last year failed to lead to outright opposition, it looks increasingly likely that Labour will continue to back the government. Shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh said yesterday: "Labour is supporting HS2 to cut congestion on the railways, better connect our great cities and help deliver a One Nation economic recovery.  HS2 will link and help regenerate our cities in the Midlands and North, get young people into work and help our small businesses to grow.

"The government has finally brought this Bill to Parliament after four years of delays and mismanagement which have caused costs to rise.

"We will continue to hold the government to account for keeping costs down on the project as there can be no blank cheque for this or any other project."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.