HS2 is one of the major projects that seemed unlikely to survive the Conservative leadership election in its early stages. Several candidates, including Boris Johnson, lined up to suggest that the vanity project isn’t fit for purpose – or at least lacking a convincing business case.
Indeed, the 2019 Conservative manifesto only used vague wording about the project, which certainly didn’t indicate a strong vote of confidence from the prime minister. And that’s not surprising when you consider how split senior Tories are on this, with the business secretary, Andrea Leadsom, and the Tory candidate for mayor of London, Shaun Bailey, both calling to scrap the project.
And while such a move would be extremely bold from No 10, HS2 would require inexplicable political will to reach any form of completion – and to what end?
Many politicians seem to believe that since we’ve already spent a few billion on HS2, we may as well hold our breath and stick £100bn more on red and hope for the best. Obviously, that’s ridiculous.
With a limited business case, no environmental case, and inflated costs hitting over £90bn, it’s no wonder that even celebrities have recently come out in opposition to the doomed project.
I’m wary of a Boris “red bus” moment, but you’d be forgiven for thinking that £90bn could be better spent elsewhere, particularly with the new government’s erratic spending pledges.
Indeed, even if you ignore the more emotive cases for greater healthcare spending or reallocating the funds to education, recent figures have outlined the shocking disparity between London and the north when it comes to transport funding.
So, the obvious course of action is to spend the money on improving northern transport links, rather than a project that will be obsolete by the time it opens.
Frankly, I’ve become convinced that HS2 is a plot by the Conservative party to convince the UK again of the benefits of the free market and small government. Frankly, after looking at this project, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to look at HS2 and think: “great job, let’s give the state more control over our money and lives”.
Another argument for this diabolical white elephant is that it would “unlock” the power of the north. No, it wouldn’t.
The UK is the most centralised state in the developed world, and without first devolving fiscal powers to northern administrations, firms would be incentivised to relocate to London, meaning that HS2 would work to the detriment of the very places the prime minister says he wants to help.
Those in the HS2-linked cities would be far more likely to take the slightly shorter trip to London for higher wages and a career in the City – and who could blame them?
If the government is serious about “unlocking” the potential of the north, it should devolve greater powers to the northern regions and allow them to encourage businesses out of London with lower corporation taxes.
It should support ambitious cities like Leeds in its aim to become the digital capital of the UK and the home for upstart tech firms by unequivocally ruling out any “tech tax”.
And it should look to move elements of our political bubble out of London to encourage tourism and industry.
Leadsom, Bailey and others are absolutely correct to want a review of HS2. While those who see the project as the centrepiece for the “northern powerhouse” are guided by good intentions, it is absolutely essential that the government rejects the all-style-no-substance politics of recent years and instead chooses to adopt an evidence-based approach to policymaking.
