What is the consensus on scrapping HS2?

Zara Lake on 23 October 2023

In the Conservative conference in Manchester Rishi Sunak officially announced cancelling the rest of the HS2 project. He now promises to reinvest “every single penny” into new transport projects in the North and in the Midlands that will make a “real” difference. 

This multi-billion high speed rail route was meant to bridge together the north-south divide, connecting northern cities like Leeds to the economic centre, London.

Sunak has now announced that everything beyond Birmingham will now be cancelled, even though it is already under construction. The project will now create £36bn worth of savings which will be switched to more spending on local transport based projects under the Network North scheme.

His words were “the facts have changed, and the right thing to do when the facts change, is to have the courage to change direction”. He has now vowed to create a “Midlands rail hub” that will connect 50 different stations, including building a tram system in Leeds along with upgrading a series of major roads and extending the West Midlands metro.

The High Speed Rail Group criticised Sunak saying he has caused the “biggest and most damaging U-turn in the history of UK infrastructure”. Scrapping a 14 year project that has been plagued by delays and cost overruns cannot just be done because “we’ve changed our mind”. 

A key question would be, what has been the reaction of the North to Sunak’s decision? Collectively, the newly announced smaller transport projects could positively affect a wider area and benefit people in smaller northern towns. Such as Sunak pledging a £2.5billion investment in a new tram system for Leeds alongside a number of other schemes in Yorkshire.

Tees Valley Conservative major, Ben Houchen said “good riddance” to the cancellation of the project as he believed it would offer ”absolutely no benefit” to wider regions in the North. 

Alternatively, towns such as Crewe in East Cheshire that were promised so much now worry about its future. Mrs Mellor says that “the railway was what kept the town running”. The hopes of brighter opportunities for jobs for younger generations has now been left forgotten. Conservative MP of Crewe spoke of his “extreme disappointment” as the HS2 project would have transformed their local economy.

Ultimately, whilst the government has proposed new and exciting plans they have continually been accused of ‘broken promises’ and could be seen to have a lack of trust with its voters. So will these new projects actually happen? After the scrapping of the eastern leg from Birmingham to Leeds in 2021, who is to say we may not have a similar circumstance.

The northern population needs reassurance that transport schemes will take place to improve their connectivity and standard of living in the most beneficial way.

If these projects fall under it will have a substantial impact on the way people vote and view the government from the North.

New BBC impartiality rules: more of the same – or a fresh moderating touch?

Stuart Everett on 13 October 2023

At the end of September, the BBC enacted a new set of rules for the impartiality of their flagship presenters, with particular emphasis on how stars act on social media. 

Staff on big draws like Match of The Day, Antiques Roadshow and Strictly Come Dancing are now allowed to “express views on issues and policies” but must “stop short of political campaigning.”

What the BBC classifies as ‘political campaigning’ includes supporting/attacking a party during a set period where their show is on air, attacking individual politicians’ characters, or commenting on debates during elections. 

The head of the review, John Hardie, expressed the importance of striking a balance between freedom of speech and editorial impartiality, telling the BBC the new rules allowed presenters to “take a side” but ensuring that they “state the facts of the issue”.

The changes come hot on the heels of social media controversy swirling around the BBC. 

In March, Match of the Day presenter and former England striker Gary Lineker labelled the Conservative government’s asylum policy “similar to Germany in the 1930s.” He was subsequently suspended by the BBC. The company rescinded this after fellow Match of the Day presenters acted in solidarity and refused to work on that weeks’ episode. 

Lineker’s Tweet that led to the suspension / @GaryLineker on X

Former Editorial Policy Controller Richard Ayre weighed in on the new rules, saying the BBC were simply “kicking the can down the road” and compromising with the biggest names on their staff, with little real-world change.

He said that views aired by presenters were usually criticised by other parts of the media, not actually the public watching.

Ayre labelled the “big right-wing press” as the group most involved in the outcry over Lineker’s statements. He suggested that these corporate interests would distort the new initiatives to argue “that the BBC [is] not impartial”, and therefore should not receive public funding. 

Gary Lineker has stayed relatively quiet on the issue. He sought to moderate the debate, taking to X (formerly Twitter) to back the reforms as “very sensible.” 

Whether or not there is any concrete change to follow from the new rules is a question of time, but for the moment it seems that very little of substance has changed at the BBC.

An Impartiality Crisis in the BBC

Oliver Bhutiani on 15 March 2023

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” reads the statue of George Orwell outside of BBC’s Headquarters in Westminster, unveiled in 2017. Balancing impartiality and free speech within the BBC is not a new issue but this balance has generally been upheld to at least a satisfactory extent – the BBC has employed a range of members from across the political spectrum with few major debates being sparked over an outright bias. However, more recently, increasing questions have been raised over a tendency for the BBC to favour views from the Right to those on the Left – beginning with revelations over the Director-General of the BBC having been a member of the Conservative Party, also including the BBC Chair, who donated £400,000 to the Conservatives and helped facilitate an £800,000 loan to Boris Johnson – and finally erupting with the decision to suspend Gary Lineker over a tweet opposing the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.

As many have pointed out, it seems unlikely that this suspension would have taken place if the tweet had instead been in support of the Government policy. There are plenty of examples of right-wing tweets sent that the BBC deemed acceptable – not limited to Alan Sugar tweeting a photoshopped picture of Jeremy Corbyn next to Adolf Hitler. Next to some of the tweets and statements made by right-wing members of the BBC, the tweet by Linker seems more acceptable – especially given that the tweet echoed views from actual holocaust survivors on the Government’s policies. Given that the BBC has a problem with political bias that reaches even the top of its directorship, questions have emerged over how the BBC should move forwards from this, and what its enforcement of impartiality should look like.

It must be noted however, that the BBC provides an invaluable role: it maintains a high journalistic standard in the UK; provides free and balanced information for those abroad – especially in countries increasingly clamping down on free press; and acts as a globally recognised high standard representative of UK journalism, among many other roles. Calls for the BBC to be defunded, privatised, or shut down would massively damage the press standard in the UK – the US clearly showing the damaging results of partisan, biased reporting. Attempts to implement US-Style news programmes into UK television have failed, in part as a result of the BBC upholding high standards of reporting.

Reform of the BBC is therefore necessary to uphold its high standard – not an easy goal to achieve, but a vital one. It is clear that both the Chair and Director-General must step down – failure to uphold their own guidelines on impartiality should not be tolerated. Individuals within the BBC must be permitted to share personal views independently, on their own platforms – as Andrew Neil was permitted to do, sharing his views on Climate Change, Brexit, and the SNP, while adhering to impartiality while on the BBC platform. But these standards must be uniform – views from across the spectrum should be treated equally – Gary Lineker should be as free to express views on the government as Andrew Neil was on Brexit. While Lineker’s suspension has been lifted and the BBC is claiming to review its impartiality guidelines, to ensure lasting change, these guidelines should be enforced by a neutral body from the top. The government should no longer have any role in appointing the BBC Board – instead this must be kept in check by a completely independent standards committee.

Controversy over bias within the BBC is an inevitable issue – and a necessary one. But when cases of bias are as clear and obvious as we have seen in the Gary Lineker case, it is vital for the BBC to enforce its own guidelines, even – and especially – against those at the very top of the institution.

Image Credit: Flickr

Anti-Trade Union Laws Must Be Resisted

Kaynan Hudson on 21 February 2023

As strikes take place across the U.K., the Conservative Party is planning to introduce a wave of anti-union and anti-strike legislation. Continuing in Thatcher’s footsteps, the party remains committed to its ideological conflict with organised labour.

Rather than negotiating with trade unions, the Conservative strategy is to eschew negotiations in the hopes that prolonged industrial action will turn public sympathy against the strikes, and thus make it politically easier for anti-strike legislation to be brought forward in Parliament.

The government should be tackling the underlying causes of the strikes. Although the disputes are about a range of issues (job security, working conditions, etc.), pay disputes are common throughout. The government claims that public sector pay rises are not possible in the current economic climate. Yet, apparently, rising bankers’ bonuses and an increase in the wealth of the already wealthy are fine.

It must be recognised that it is not the working class that have caused the current economic problems. It is not the fault of cleaners, waking up in the early hours of a winter morning to clean a train station. It is not the fault of nurses, who worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic. It is not the fault of our postal workers, our teachers, our firefighters; it is not the fault of any part of the working class. The blame is squarely upon the government.Instead of touring morning television studios, ministers should be negotiating with trade unions, agreeing on pay settlements, guaranteeing job security and protecting workers’ terms and conditions. They should be using wealth taxes to fund investment into our public services and boosting recruitment numbers. Instead, they are devising plans to further weaken the organisational capacity of the working class by restricting union activity and the ability of working people to strike.

The right to strike must be defended. Contrary to Conservative arguments, industrial action is always a last resort. The Royal College of Nursing, for example, has not gone on strike in 106 years in England. Workers who strike also lose pay for every day that they withdraw their labour. Amidst a cost of living crisis, this is not an easy decision.

However, when the government is refusing to negotiate, or when employers continue to be obstructive, working people are left with no other choice but to withdraw their labour. Although disruptive, strikes are the final option taken by unions when all other options have failed. If people want the strikes to end, then they should direct their anger not at those on strike, but at the government and employers who have created the conditions leading to the strike.

The government is aiming to divide the working classes, so that anger is not directed at the government, but at other working people who take industrial action. Ultimately, this is self-destructive. It is the trade union movement that has won working people most of their rights. Governments do not simply grant rights out of goodwill; they must be fought for.

History illustrates this. A specific example is the right to equal pay, which was won by Ford workers in the 1960s who went on strike over gender discrimination. Other examples include the two-day weekend, paid maternity leave, retirement ages, health and safety standards, the minimum wage, paid holidays, workplace pensions, the eight-hour working day, and so much more.

To attack and undermine trade unions is also to attack workers’ rights and the achievements of generations of trade unionists. Fundamentally, every person should have the right to collectively organise and to withdraw their labour. It is through the collective organisation of workers that the working class can derive their political strength and defend their interests.

That is why all anti-trade union laws must be resisted. If such reforms are enacted, people’s right to collectively organise will be diminished. This will make it harder for workers’ interests to be advanced. Instead, workers’ rights will come under sustained attack from the Conservatives, and there will be minimal legal options to resist them. In a democratic society, people must have the right to organise politically to represent their interests. The interest of labour is represented through the labour movement. To restrict union activity is to restrict the right of the working classes to have their political and economic interests represented. Fundamentally, anti-union and anti-strike legislation is undemocratic, and it must be resisted.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons