Cameron; “No magic money tree, but I’ll fight for HS2”

Does he even realise he is contradicting himself?

Does he even realise he is contradicting himself?

David Cameron proved he has totally lost the plot yesterday, saying in a speech in Keighley that there was ‘no magic money tree’, but that he would fight for HS2. This was on the same day that it was revealed that the planned HS2 development at Euston station may be downscaled as the budget has been underestimated by 30-40%, and the same week that it was revealed that HS2 has already cost the taxpayer over a quarter of a billion. A ‘Paving Bill’ is now planned for HS2 to release more money for the project quicker.

After claiming that the magic money tree (quantitativus easingii) does not actually exist, the Prime Minister said;

“Some of the changes we need will have to be fought for. Housing and planning reform. The building of new roads, bypasses and HS2. These are fundamental changes that are essential for the future of our economy, but they are not, and will not, be universally supported. Well, my message is simple, make no mistake, in this battle for the future of Britain I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and fight.”

His viewpoint was not universally accepted, with one audience member describing HS2 as a “Westminster village pipe-dream.”

If Mr Cameron really wants a fight, we are quite prepared to take this outside!

No related content found.

4 comments to “Cameron; “No magic money tree, but I’ll fight for HS2””
  1. For the third anniversary I have sent the Independant article and a letter to Mrs Cameron perhaps she can see what her husband seems unable to.I have said that the government has lied and there are many of the electorate that don’t like it.I am also intending to write to Prince Charles after his Countryfile appearance.We have to explore every avenue,we may just hit on the right one.

  2. To mark the third anniversary of the governments plans for HS2 I am writing to the ministers in charge of the project.

    Given all the increasing evidence that this scheme is bad value for money and catastrophic for many areas along the route, I firmly suspect that this is a secret EU directive that the government cannot get out of. There seems to be a lack of transparency about what instructions from the EU our government has received and I would like all documents and meetings to be made available to the public. Secret deals with agencies not concerned for the future of our nation are highly worrying and anti democratic.
    I have written to my MP and ministers for transport with these concerns.

  3. If the court case goes against the govenment they have the perfect excuse to put a stop to hs2 and save face and 32 billion plus so let’s all hope and pray that the court comes up with the right judgement and put a stop to this vanity project

  4. Thesis: HRt Hon D Cameron is advocating for HS2 knowing it to be a flawed project and that it will not provide what he promises.
    Antithesis: He truly believes he can save he Nation single handed and has all the answers and he is correct.
    There are two options here:

    He is aware of his obfuscation as PR and Spin, dressing up his ruthlessness with ‘common good’ ,with feigned blokiness, his erosion of democracy as ‘improving democracy’ the same applies to his green belt and planning policies and notions of Small Government, BIg Society and Localism.

    Or he believes absolutely in what he says and does not question himself.

    If the latter I am reminded of a couple of comments by Jeremy Sherman:

    Imagine someone whose intentions are beyond reproach. He really really wants to do the right thing. He declares that he cares completely about you. Nevertheless, his intentions have negligible effect on his actions. He does inconsiderate things that hurt. If you call him on it, he treats it as an attack on his intentions. He is offended and persists in declaring his intentions with passion and clarity. And he’s right–in and of themselves, his intentions are really really beyond reproach…….

    Harvard evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers noted long ago that having the capacity to lie is biologically adaptive, as is having the capacity to detect a liar, as is having the capacity to lie undetected, which is best served by believing your own lies. The better you are at believing your own lies the less likely you are to reveal your lie with unconscious signals.
    Self-deceptability is therefore a tool of some value, especially when you can deceive yourself about your own motives–believing your heart is in the right place regardless of where it really is. Self-deceptability frees you to do what you want to do and shields you from being identified as self-serving.

    How do I suspect in the context of the thesis that HS2 is a flawed project and that he would know this? Simple I read the key documents relating to Conservative Policy on the matter and the criticisms by the Bow group.

    *1) http://www.conservativetransportgroup.org.uk/papers/CTG-HS2consultationresponse.pdf
    *2) http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp11-75.pdf
    *3) http://www.bowgroup.org/news/bow-group-and-london-chamber-commerce-and-industry-securing-best-route-hs2
    *4) http://www.bowgroup.org/news/bow-group-letter-hs2-published-times-newspaper

    It this context it is concerning that the PM can make the following statement:

    ‘These are fundamental changes that are essential for the future of our economy, but they are not, and will not, be universally supported. Well, my message is simple, make no mistake, in this battle for the future of Britain I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and fight.”

    ‘no mistake’ ‘not universally supported’* he who knowingly embraces a flawed project (and to an extent shows the indolence of the ‘decision’ following the most risible and Orwellian HS2 ‘Consultation’ as in totalitarian ‘1984’.
    The Paving Bill in this context rather supports the thesis

    The following exerts are very telling;

    High Speed Two (HS2): the debate
    RESEARCH PAPER 11/75 17 November 2011
    House of Commons Library

    Prior to the election, the Conservatives criticised Labour’s March 2010 White Paper on HS2, particularly for not going to Heathrow, and the Bow Group100 published a report calling on the Party to abandon Labour’s route if it won the election and opt for a direct route via Heathrow.101 The Liberal Democrats sought guarantees that money would not be ‘raided’ from existing rail projects to pay for HSR and asked for a long-term commitment to extend the scheme to Scotland.102…….
    Initial decisions in government
    The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government that took power in May 2010 stated in its Coalition Agreement that it would:
    … establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain. Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.103
    In a statement to the House, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, confirmed the government’s belief that “high-speed rail has the potential to bring significant and long-lasting benefits for Britain’s economy and society”.104 Bearing in mind the party’s previous criticisms of Labour’s chosen route, the Conservative Transport Group105 was disappointed that once in government the Conservatives did not stick with the alternative route via Heathrow and the M4 corridor, stating that:

    “in broadly adopting the Labour Government’s proposals for HS2, the Coalition has accepted a fundamentally flawed scheme that is the result of a similarly flawed brief”.106

    [Transport also has a key role to play in improving the UK’s economic competitiveness, particularly in
    the regions, and encouraging sustainable economic growth whilst minimising environmental impacts.
    It is important to be very clear that these objectives require a co-ordinated policy landscape and
    appraisal methodology, which allows proper assessment of proposals on a network-wide, intermodal
    basis. This does not yet exist and it is therefore impossible to properly evaluate the current proposals
    for HS2.
    However, even without a clear policy context, it is clear that, in broadly adopting the Labour
    Government’s proposals for HS2, the Coalition has accepted a fundamentally flawed scheme that is
    the result of a similarly flawed brief.

    HS2 Ltd. were simply tasked with the design, in isolation, of a high speed railway from London to
    Birmingham, with a pre-conceived notion of a Heathrow Interchange some 12km from the airport at
    Old Oak Common in west London.

    In contrast, Conservative rail policy prior to the election made clear
    the party’s determination to properly connect Heathrow, high speed rail and the existing classic rail
    network at a multimodal interchange located close to the airport on both the Great Western Main Line
    and the through high speed line………….
    By taking the high-speed line through Heathrow, the Conservative’s pre-election proposal followed the
    proven examples of successful European air/rail interchanges. It also provided the opportunity for the
    high speed line to connect to the GWML, allowing through running and bringing early benefits to the
    South and South West regions, and south Wales, and for HS2 to be routed through the narrowest part
    of the Chilterns AONB, rather than the route through the widest part adopted by HS2 Ltd (see Chart 1
    over)
    Chart 1 – HS2 via Heathrow Hub station (red line) avoids the widest part of the Chilterns Area
    of Outstanding natural Beauty (ANOB…………

    In seeking to respond to the revised brief provided by the Coalition Government in 2010, requiring
    HS2 to connect with Heathrow and HS1, HS2 Ltd. simply retrofitted a branch line and single track
    connection, respectively, to an otherwise unchanged alignment.

    This merely exacerbates the flaws in a proposal that does not deliver the results we desire. Heathrow,
    one of the world’s busiest airports and vital to the UK, and the UK’s future surface links to Europe,
    deserves and demands a co-ordinated approach that draws on European experience but which
    delivers a solution that meets the UK’s specific transport requirements for the new economy.

Comments are closed.

2010-2019 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2