Professor David Begg, director of the Campaign for High Speed Rail, rebuts the latest right-wing small state madness from the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Professor David Begg is the Director of the Campaign for High Speed Rail
This morning the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) released their assessment of the proposed high-speed rail project, co-authored by Dr Richard Wellings and Kyn Aizlewood. The IEA’s report (pdf) reflects an old-fashioned, free-market-obsessed ideology that wants to spend Britain’s transport infrastructure investment predominantly on roads in the South East.
These sorts of ideologues have no appreciation of the important external benefits that a modern high-speed national rail network would bring for jobs and regeneration.
It is not surprising that the IEA has come out against HS2, when you read about some of the authors’ other thoughts and background. From their past work, the authors are clearly obsessed by roads – particularly in the South East – and would happily privatise the railways on which Britain’s families and local business people depend.
The co-author, Kyn Aizlewood, does not disclose that his views are clearly effected by the close proximity of his house to the proposed rail route and that he is a member of an anti-HS2 action group.
In January 2009, Wellings wrote:
“High-speed rail also offers poor value compared with roads. £30 billion would perhaps buy 1,000 miles of motorway, which, if sensibly located, could be expected to carry more passengers and freight than the entire rail network. And the funding could be entirely private, paid for by tolls, particularly if competing routes were also priced.”
In May 2011, Wellings wrote:
“As long as Network Rail and other individual railway firms remain in receipt of taxpayer-funded subsidies, there will be little incentive to drive down costs and to provide a more efficient service.
“It is right that passengers should pay a greater proportion of the cost of the services they use; but it is also right that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for services that are grossly inefficient and are used by only a small proportion of the population. Allowing rail operators to own the infrastructure could transform Britain’s rail network.
“The government must stop tweaking with a fundamentally flawed model and instead unshackle the railways, and the railway operators, from the dead hand of state control.”
We also note with interest that Wellings’ co-author, Kyn Aizlewood, also appears to live on the proposed route.
In a number of comment threads and letters on the subject of high-speed rail, Aizlewood reveals that he is a resident of Kenilworth. In fact, Aizlewood appears to not only live along the route, but is also the organiser of one of the local Stop HS2 opposition groups.
In an interview with the Coventry Telegraph, he reveals his position as the official organiser of the ‘Keep Burton Green’ action group, as he promotes the wine-tasting evening the group hosted to raise funds to oppose the high-speed rail project.
The Coventry Telegraph reports:
Organiser Kyn Aizlewood said: “Our wine group has helped to bring the community together, meeting regularly to improve our appreciation of wine. The high speed rail line will cut our village in two, literally destroying the heart of the village and we will need funds over the coming years to fight this project. This will be an entertaining evening and we welcome your support.”
The IEA have completely failed to grasp the wider benefits of the high-speed rail project, which will create jobs, boost investment and spread the economic wealth of this country to places outside of the TPA heartlands of London and the South East.
I would expect better from an otherwise reputable think-tank than to parrot misinformation and repackage the discredited views of opponents to the project who are clearly motivated by a mixture of small-state ideology and ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ attitudes.
They should be ashamed of themselves for abusing their research credentials to produce such a thinly veiled propaganda piece.
44 Responses to “High Speed Rail: Deconstructing the right wing dogma”
MARK WINN
HS2 will do nothing for Cardiff, Swansea, Oxford, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Coventry etc as it doesn’t go through any of these cities. In fact it will do nothing for London Birmingham Manchester or Leeds either as it will lead to less money being spent on exsisting rail routes that we all use and puts it instead into one big vanity project that none of us will use. Shame on Unison for swalling the nonesense of the HS2 lobby.
MARK WINN
Sorry I should have read the title first sorry to Unison Proffesor Begg you should be ashamed for this article yourself, you have no arguements against what the IEA say so you just indulge in abuse. HS2 really are losing the argument then…….
Mr. Sensible
Robbin, I have always thought that HS2 should happen alongside, not instead of, investment in the existing network, but I remain fully in favour of it.
I fully agree with you Professor Begg, but would draw your attention to a Guardian article I read last week which suggested that the IEA also suggested abbolition of the NHS, cutting foreign aid and saying that in general the cuts didn’t go far enough.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/13/thinktank-advocates-abolition-of-nhs
I will be interested to see how the Transport Secretary manages to convince the Secretary of State for Wales given that her constituency is in the Chilterns…
nick
i dont know how they can be described as a respectable group – all they are doing is repeating the stop hs2 mantra which is hardly surprising when one of the authors of the report is associated with the anti hs2 campaign. if this is true it is a clear conflict of interest as it means that their report is not unbiased.
as for those of you who say the money would be better spent on existing railways this is in fact not the case. and it completely ignores the massive disruption to train services that would be caused, transfer to buses for the work to go ahead as happened on the west coast line which cost £9 billion and likely more houses demolished. hs2 through west london is basically running along an existing line but people are protesting about that ! and of course you would literally drive people back to their cars as their rail journeys would be so delayed !!!
and given that the iea prefers roads to rail, those using their report to support their anti hs2 stance should be very wary of getting into bed politically with a group who would presumably like to build and widen motorways all over the country including the chilterns ! the same goes for the rac foundation and the head of next who see roads as the only transport alternative ! and whether or not you agree with the politicians who mostly support hs2 at least they have been elected unlike all these lobby groups who are involved due to their political ideology.
Thomas Crane
The tragedy of this project is that its supporters are starting to cast it as a left vs right matter. There is a strong case from the left for this not to go ahead. Consider the following
-the figures provided by HS2 itself indicate that the overwhelming majority of users of the new service will be in the upper income quartile and particularly those earning over £70,000. However the cost of the network will be met by those on all income levels
-the commitment to spend £33 billion on a single project with such a poor return in terms of jobs created underlines the need for a proper industrial policy-which would use the state to encourage high value manufacturing. It is ironic that the Government is simultanously pushing a scheme which will require a wholly new set of trains etc which will all be bought from abroad when its decision on Thameslink essentially spells the end for train manufacturing in the UK. The potential for revolutionising our economy and hearlading a new era of post-Thatcher cooperation between the state and industry would be immense if even half the funds devoted to HS2 could be used for this purpose.
-the transport budget is being cut with the services used by the poorest in society, namely the bus network, being cut by over 20%. So the Government is prioritising transport services which the richest will use and the poorest will lose out.
-Philip Hammond’s revelation that he intends to sell the link once it is bought and extensively use PFI to fund the line in the first place indicates that this plan is another in a long line of projects where the key benefits will accrue to the investment bankers. It is perhaps for that reason that the Guardian reported that Goldman Sachs is helping to fund the pro HS2 campaign.