The trains will remain in the factory for now. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The government has questions to answer over the rail fiasco

Passengers deserve better than ministers who are happy to be photographed next to new trains but then withhold the truth from the public.

Aptly, Patrick McLoughlin initially wanted to call the government’s spending on rail the “Rail Investment Programme” – until a civil servant pointed out that its acronym would be RIP. Eight weeks ago, those spending plans were still at the forefront of the Tory election campaign. The Conservative manifesto promised electrification for the Midlands and the North. We were treated to long lectures about the how Ministers were building a ‘Northern Powerhouse,’ and even a ‘Midlands Engine.’

Yesterday the electric dream died. Two major projects have been cancelled – or ‘paused,’ as the government delicately puts it – and the status of other plans is unclear. Contingent investment in new electric trains has been put off.  The economy is not going to be rebalanced after all. The Northern Powerhouse has had the power turned off. The Midlands Engine is rusting in a siding.

The most important question for the government is simple – who knew? Which of those Ministers who spent April touring marginal constituencies, reading out long lists of investment projects and hinting at more to come, knew that the axe was about to fall?

The case against the Transport Secretary and other Ministers in the Department for Transport is compelling. It has been a matter of public record for well over a year that the Great Western electrification project was in trouble – indeed, Labour first raised the issue in Parliament in May 2014. Network Rail’s Chief Executive, Mark Carne, said yesterday that: ‘We knew, already, very early on last year that certain aspects of the plan were going to be incredibly difficult to deliver.’

Ministers must bear ultimate responsibility. As the Transport Select Committee warned in January:

Key rail enhancement projects—such as electrification in the North and North West of England—have been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all.”

Claire Perry, the rail minister, conceded the point last week, when she admitted at an event for rail engineers that ‘we’ve given Network Rail the biggest challenge it has ever faced,’ and that Ministers had place a ‘massive demand on engineering capacity.’

Labour has documented how the combined cost of Midland Main Line and Great Western electrification doubled from £1.5 billion to £3 billion in just two years. As a consequence, in November of last year, Network Rail started to compile a list of ‘those items/projects that would be stopped or refused in order to live within the capital constraints.’

Minutes published today in response to a FOI request I made reveal that, on March 19th Network Rail’s Chief Executive said that the Department for Transport ‘had a line of sight to most of the information in the current iteration of the Business Plan,’ and went on to say the company would have to ‘close the funding gap but the Board needed to be aware that the funding gap could be significant.’

Crucially, Patrick McLoughlin was handed a report on September 1 on the state of Network Rail’s plans, which was jointly written by the Regulator, Network Rail, and the Department for Transport. He has subsequently refused to publish it. In the absence of a copy in the public domain, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that this report recommended that cuts be made in order to reduce the cost of Network Rail’s overall programme.

It is clear that ministers knew that Network Rail’s plans were in jeopardy and remained silent. As I warned on this blog back in March, the government knew that its rail investment plans were ‘falling apart’ and that this was ‘a story that the government is desperate to keep quiet.’

However, railways are hierarchical structures, and we need to ask just how far up the hierarchy awareness of these problems rose. Yesterday the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson refused to comment when they were asked when David Cameron was made aware of these cost overruns. As Michael Dugher said in his letter to Cameron this morning:

"It appears that despite you and your ministers knowing that these projects were in serious difficulty before the election, you decided to wait until after the election to reveal the extent of the problems before reneging on the commitments you had previously made.”

Passengers deserve better than ministers who are happy to be photographed next to new trains but then withhold the truth from the public, and who think that rail lines are the words they need to remember to get through their next interview. Unfortunately the Transpennine and Midland Main Line electrification schemes are not the only Network Rail projects that in trouble, and the government now needs to set out whether there are additional problems heading down the track.

Lilian Greenwood is shadow minister for transport.

Photo: Justin Tallis/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What does our latest poll mean for the Labour leadership race?

Jeremy Corbyn is ahead among councillors - and looks ever more certain to become Labour's next leader. 

This morning the Labour History Research Unit at Anglia Ruskin University released its last set of polling data of Labour councillors in marginal constituencies’ prior to the election of the new leader.

It’s certainly a limited enough snapshot but in broad terms the data suggests four things. Firstly, that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership. Perhaps no great shock there at this point. But Corbyn’s slight lead in our poll of only two points or under above Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham masks the fact that he has picked up over 11 per cent of councillors since June - whilst all other candidates have lost support here. Given his reputation as a centraliser, it is remarkable that Corbyn is also neck and neck with Andy Burnham as the candidate councillors believe ‘would be best for local government.’ If he’s just about won over this tough crowd it may indeed be game over.

Secondly, the £3 registered supporter experiment is viewed as a damaging one by many within the party. With almost six in ten councillors thinking it should be ‘scrapped ahead of any future contest’ compared to just over one in four seeing it as a positive, there may well be clamour to reform this model going forward. Whether Corbyn will want to challenge the legitimacy of a reasonable proportion of his backers is one thing, but he would likely have some support in doing so if others were to press the issue.

Thirdly, on whatever mandate Corbyn is elected the good news for him is that key councillors clearly back Corbynomics. His plan to create a regulated and publicly-run service to deliver energy supplies is backed by 78 per cent of councillors who either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the policy, while 77 per cent support nationalising the railway network as soon as practicable. Introducing a 50p top rate of income tax is backed by 79 per cent of councillors, while 73 per cent agree with a “mansion tax” on homes worth over £2million. Most of those individually poll well amongst the electorate, though the 75 per cent of councillors who think scrapping tuition fees would aid the Labour vote in their constituency are out of kilter with the only one in six members of the general public who support that measure.

But lastly, perhaps most crucially, the rub is that less than two in ten councillors surveyed think Jeremy Corbyn will win the 2020 General Election. Even amongst councillors pledging to vote for Corbyn that figure tops out at six in ten.

Our data aside, Corbyn’s medium term challenge will clearly be enormous, as they would be for any new leader. For one, Labour’s current core vote just doesn’t turnout in enough numbers – not only in terms of voting for Labour, but at all. In 2010 and 2015 Labour’s most successful demographics were the semi-/low skilled working class (40 per cent to 31 per cent over the Tories in 2010, 41 per cent to 27 per cent in 2015) and ethnic minorities (60 per cent to 16 per cent in 2010, 65 per cent to 23 per cent in 2015). Turnout for both these groups is at least one in ten less than the national average, and barely bobs over one voter in two generally.  

Instead, in 2015 the most likely people to vote were men over the age of 55 (79 per cent), the middle class (75 per cent), or property owners (77 per cent). And so Jon Cruddas’ reviews’ conclusion that Labour has fallen behind on the average Prospector vote – those who ‘vote pragmatically for whichever party they think will improve their financial circumstances’ – has much resonance. The grey middle class might not be the sexiest of demographics, but they often decide elections. Miliband may have gained 12 per cent more 18-24 year olds (turnout 43 per cent) in 2015 than five years earlier, but the fact that he managed to do 8 per cent worse than Gordon Brown’s 2010 performance with the crucial over 65s (turnout 78 per cent) put the final chisel in the Edstone.

Perhaps if you give young voters a “radical alternative” they really will turn out – though worth recording that turnout amongst under 25s at the ‘real choice’ election of 1979 was the lowest either side of the majority Labour governments of 1966 and 1997 – but there are no guarantees. All this is a challenge for Labour per se however, not just Corbyn.

For the bookies’ favourite himself there are some specific complications. Big ticket policies like People’s Quantitative Easing have been queried by fellow leadership candidates (to declare an interest, while I am a Kendallite, I wrote a report arguing for a much truncated, one-off form of People’s QE in 2012), though it is just about backed by councillors in our survey. Corbyn’s foreign policy choices of threatening to leave NATO (rejected by two thirds of councillors) and scrapping Trident (rejected by a third) are also likely to be controversial. And the sum total of a left leaning agenda – as Ed Miliband discovered – is often less than its constituent parts. If Jeremy Corbyn is going to become the first opposition leader since 1906 to gain a full parliamentary majority whilst pledging to raise the top rate of income tax, he’s got a lot of work to do.

But our survey suggests that he’ll get the time to do it. If our data suggests Corbyn is at present unlikely to be Prime Minister, for all the talk of an early coup against him, he looks in a strong position to at least contest that election. And that remains an astonishing rise.

Richard Carr is a Lecturer in History at the Labour History Research Unit (LHRU), Anglia Ruskin University. The LHRU has today released new polling data on the Labour leadership. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the LHRU, the kind councillors of all parties who took time to answer the survey, or Anglia Ruskin University.

Our Partners