Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

One of the greatest problems with England is its nostalgia for what has passed and its reluctance to acknowledge that the future is coming. It is possible to make an accountant’s case for HS2 and it is possible to make an equally good accountant’s case against it. There are environmental arguments which hold water both for and against.

HS2 is more than money. It is a vision. A vision of a modern forward looking Britain building high speed communications and a modern infrastructure to provide economic stimulus in the now and a more certain future in a competitive world for generations to come. Yes, you can mess about lengthening platforms and adding carriages to trains, but this is no more of a solution than putting bigger propellers on piston engined planes in the belief that will enable them to compete with jets. A dedicated high speed line without all the junctions and switches is as different a journey experience as chalk from cheese as everyone who goes by rail to France or rides the high speed commuter line in Kent can testify.

It is timely to remind the House of Lords committee which fails to see the case, that it is precisely this approach which has led to a decline in our industrial capacity and the fashioning of an economy founded on house price inflation, shopping and service jobs, delivering the lowest productivity per capita of any of the advanced nations. We have been completely left out of making lap tops, tablets, smart phones, TVs and almost all consumer electronics; a truly sorry outcome for the cradle of the industrial revolution. And as we all know the thing that gave that legs was the railway. In the modern age the railways have become the most environmentally friendly people carrier and without the very best the British people will be riding backwards. A bit like the House of Lords.

Gripping Reads at affordable prices.

Download for 99p each

Download for $1.50 each       ALSO IN PAPERBACK

Alex Salmond has said that the SNP will block a Tory minority government if it holds the balance of power at Westminster in May. Several things have to happen first. Mr. Salmond has himself to be elected, the Scot nats have to meet the expectation of their winning between 40 and 50 seats (many academics and commentators believe 30 is nearer the mark) and Labour has to lose to the Tories in England. If all that fell into place and Cameron, although the leader of the largest party, could not get enough support from whatever collection of minor parties manage to win seats, including the Lib Dems, to get his Queen’s speech through, then yes it would work Salmond’s way. If Labour went along with the plan, which at present they say they will not. They could abstain in a Queen’s speech vote, intending to bring down the government at the height of its unpopularity in the midst of its next episode of slash and burn.

This is what happens when you have a voting system that allows not only lots of parties in, but lots of MPs on minority votes. If the Tories had not campaigned against AV they would under the transferrable vote almost certainly achieve a majority on their own. So it is all their own fault. Thus for them to complain today that Salmond’s threat is somehow defying the democratic will of the people is to talk complete and utter piffle.