FionaK |
|
| The Government has approved phase one of a high speed rail link which will cost an estimated £33 billion to half the journey time between London and Birmingham. There is mixed reaction to this partly because it will run through some of nicest country in the south east and the people who live there don't want it spoiled: or, to put it another way, there will be a lot of environmental damage. Others object on grounds that the line will only service the rich and will never give a return on investment ( which the government disputes). At a time of very deep cuts in public spending others are wondering where the money is coming from and fear the consequences for services which serve a wider public. Many also point out that the existing rail network is badly underfunded and overcrowded and suggest the money could be better spent there.
On the other side of the argument people say that the outdated and expensive existing rail network is bad for business, and that a high speed network is essential for a modern economy. They say that ultimately it will also benefit cities in the North ( the line is supposed to be extended to Leeds and Manchester after phase one is finished: though I doubt that will ever happen and it will certainly not happen until after 2026). They point out that the same opposition was put against the channel tunnel but it has proved a boon (so they say: no idea on what evidence). Interestingly the CBI and other business groups say it will be good for jobs. And that is the point, to my way of thinking
This project makes no sense in the terms discussed: the government says we are so broke we have to sell all public service and push millions of people into poverty, including the disabled. They say that all government intervention is an unmitigated disaster and everything should be left to the market. Yet they and their friends in the corporations are making an exception for this vanity project. One wonders why
I suggest that it is because they know fine that neoclassical austerity won't work in their own terms: because what is this but infrastructure spending a la Keynes? It is not as good as such a policy could be if it was done openly: because then we would see better-directed spending. But it is better than nothing. All this tells me is that they know fine that their prescriptions are disastrous and they are casting about for ways to change the actions without changing the story. When jobs and some economic benefit ensue they will claim it as a victory for far sighted, business friendly government and they will say it vindicates their nonsense. Watch what they do and not what they say. They don't believe their own rhetoric: why should we?
|
| | |
