UK's Railways,- HS 2. More Conservatives across the line.

Today's Sunday Times has published what it claims will be the twin Y shaped routes of Britain's proposed high speed line north of the first London-Birmingham stage. The official government announcement is expected shortly.

Just as stage one continues to face highly emotional and state funded opposition from the mainly (very) Conservative and conservative constituencies lying along its route, the essential northern extensions are facing the same sort of noise wherever faced with similar well heeled constituencies and constituents further north. This is despite different "we want it here" clamouring from points further north . The divergence of approach illuminates well the north/south divide. In the affluent Chilterns any talk of the national interest or the needs of the north cuts little ice. There is simply little interest in anywhere much further up the country than the fashionable Cotswolds. Even the wealthy rural Cheshire enclave, the home of much northern brass and pretty much the furthest outpost of the Tory party, is considered not quite "one of us".

No surprise then that the Sunday Times reports the Conservative Mayor of Cheshire East as declaring "We don't want HS 2 coming through our part of Cheshire. We would very strongly resist it". No doubt they will but  hopefully for the future of British rail capacity and ease of travel to, through and within the midlands and north and ultimately Scotland, the robust Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin will listen but continue to hold his course and drive his bulldozer forwards so that actual construction can begin. Ideally that should be earlier than the currently planned 2016 date.

The UK's air, rail and road transport systems have suffered from political paralysis for decades .Wasted opportunities (expansion of London airport capacity) and road and rail congestion pile up by the year. Air traffic diverts away to Amsterdam and Paris and, more distantly, to the newly dynamic Gulf. Labour's Lord Adonis, ironically a former Liberal Democrat, had at last got a grip on things between 2008 and the 2010 General Election.  Unusually enthusiastic about his portfolio, something seldom appreciated in a Minister, he was firmly pushing ahead on Heathrow's third runway. He  had also launched HS 2 as well as kicking off the beginnings of what is now a major programme of rail electrification. The latter is the easiest to deliver as with few exceptions it can be done without the laborious process of getting planning permission. Building work and hardware are already beginning to appear.

There is much to be done to make all areas of UK's transport infrastructure fit for at least the 25-50 year timescale future, a thing itself may well be beyond the lifetime of many of the "Say No To...." campaigners. Sadly this may explain their lack of interest in it.  "Localism" and the devolution of the ability to stop anything down to the level of a local coffee shop happening is all very well but there are times when it has to be put and even pushed aside. Fortunately by the look of it, Mr McLouglin will listen to everyone , make a few costly alterations, and then drive on.

Three Shades of Grey,- is that Boris at the end of the tunnel?

A fairly recent innovation the lomg suffering British public could do with out is New Year message from our political party leaders,- well, heads. They would all probably increase their ratings by saying absolutely nothing during what is meant to be the festive season.

None of them is in the least bit festive,- ever.

Dave seriously says we are on the right track but it is a long and tedious one with lots of grey along it.

Ed the preacher says something in class war tones about fairness. Nothing about how he, the Ballses and the Brown team brought the country to its economic knees through reckless overspending and artifical creation of non productive artificial jobs in the public sector while throwing out welfare bungs in all directions. They would dearly love to have another go at the same recipe. After all, "the rich" can pay for it.

Nick, the perpertually ashen faced, also goes on about the unobtainable nirvana of total fairness while urging his party to keep the coalition government in the centre and free of evil Tory plans to be beastly. Joining the easy-to-do class war and adding to the impression that he is still in short trousers, the ex-Westminster public schoolboy he says his coalition partners can't be trusted to look after people other than the super-rich.  Overall the LibDems' aim in life appears to be to ensure the government's ability to do anything much is neutralised and neutered.  They don't like new runways, railways, roads, power stations and most other things that make people and the world go round either. Marks for exciting forward thinking ? Zero. Great partners to have.

Little wonder that most of the nation reach for the "Off" or at least "Mute" button every time these three gents appear on the screen. All three totally lack inspiration, vision or have anything exciting to say. Ed occasionaly manages a smirk. Otherwise all three find humour, pleasure, joy and those sorts of things impossible to express. Would most people enjoy going in holiday, having a kitchen supper, a drink in a pub or even a latte in Starbucks with them? Unlikely.

The 2015 election may well end up in another coalition with Labour the largest party and the LibDems snuggled up to them in what most of their MPs and members would consider a much more natural and comfortable alliance. The LibDems would most likely find that Labour treated them with greater courtesy and "respect" but were actually far more ruthless in cutting them to shreds behind the scenes. The Conservatives are pussycats compared to Labour in many of the political dark arts and are much more organised in the execution of them.

Unless they win an outright overall majority the Tory Party will want a change of leader after the election. It is possible , though less likely, that they will go for one before as many now recognise that Cameron's image is now too firmly set as the remote toff surrounded by small clique of similar going back to his school and university days. The fact that he has allowed this positioning to develop indicates that his political and social antennae are poor or that he doesn't understand what he is seeing. Neither gives confidence in his political longevity or ability to emotionally connect with the electorate.

There is also the question of Cameron's philosophy and vision for Britain around which he has to invite the nation to rally. He simply doesn't seem to have one.  He is at best a manager,-and not a very exciting one,- not a leader. There is no sign of energy and commitment to even a dream of a ew and better future for Britain and without one what has he and his party to offer? All that the Party does is presented piecemeal and not as a coherent whole although in fact it has many good and consistent strands running through it. Is Cameron and therefore a Cameron led party electable in 2015?

Conservatives have therefore probably spent the last few very grey days of a pretty grey 2012 looking gloomily into 2013 hoping to see something better through the murk. They will also be trying to dismiss the feeling that the party might arrive at the end of 2015 having done the hard yards in getting some sort of order back into the economy and dealt with a wide range of issues whose ill effects have built over decades and especially since the Brownite abandonment of Prudence in 2000 only for Labour to take over again , say "thanks for doing the nasty and difficult stuff,- we'd have had to do that too " and reap the benefits through a new term of office.  The Tories might even reflect that 2010 was an election which would have been better lost.

In searching for a beacon of light and a clue as to how 2015 might be won, Tory strategists must be looking at the 2012 London Mayoral elections. Here, against a pro-Labour flow a Tory arch-toff Boris Johnson, defeated the long standing London darling of the London left , chattering classes, establishment socialites as well as normal people, Ken Livingstone . That proved that the Conservatives' problem isn't about Etonians, toffness and those staple hates of the left. It's about charisma and the ability to communicate with and relate to absolutely anybody,- even when stuck on a zip wire. The Tory problem would be even worse if either of the other two leaders has an ounce of presence or ability to inspire. Fortunately neither do which is why few bother to listen to them either.

Boris Johnson, by far the cleverest and most erudite of the four, is never going to be an old style classic Prime Minister. Neither is he going to be in the weapy eyed moralising articificial "Tone" Blair sort. Nor will he modify his accent to fit what he thinks to be the audience and he won't dive into Greggs to buy a pasty for the photo opportunity. He will create enough of those of his own.

One drawback is that Boris tends to be waylaid by single issues and get into some difficult cul-de-sacs. However , if supported by a first rate group of people to actually do the business and make things happen he could be exactly what the British nation needs to rally and energise people and the economy. His "Do something" approach is miles apart from Cameron's kicking of the tough balls into the far distance beyond 2015. He radates energy, is able to deliver tough messages in an acceptable though often blunt way. He is not boring and he is a very able politician. He should not therefore be dismissed as any kind of joke or joker. With the right team he could save the Tory party from even more shades of grey and even a disaster in 2015 and beyond. For starters he wasn't booed at the London Olympics.  For seconds he'd radiate energy and fun (while demanding performance from his everyone) anywhere. That's a pretty good launch pad.

Beware Eurocrats talking solidarity.

Actually, beware of anyone uttering the word "solidarity". Anyone, anywhere, any time taking it at cosy face value as a friendly arm around the shoulders displays only solidarity between the ears. The word is entrenched deeply in socialist and controlling/dictatorial lexicons. It is code not for a warm embrace but a crushing bear hug, around the throat if necessary, and means  conform or else". It is a word of the controller, dictator and/or bully. Treat it therefore with extreme caution.

It is therefore no surprise that it cropped up in the wake of the treacly self congratulation indulged in by those EU leaders who so ridiculously accepted the absurd Nobel Peace prize for not having marched into or over each other since 1945. The Times' picture of the heads of Mrs Merkels, President Hollande whose countries fought each other in World War 2 and Mario Monti of Italy whose nation cleverly fought on both sides all close together , each with their own variations of what is probably meant to be a triumphant smile is priceless and  worthy of a major caption competition. Maybe the uniting factor was that David Cameron wasn't there to spoil the rather good party (no cheap wine again this week, that's for sure), There is no sign in the photos of Dave's emissary, the lad Nick, but he was there somewhere glowing at being at least in the same room as the big boys and the Head Girl.

The "s" word then cropped up again in this week's Eurozone success when the same players agreed to bind themsleves more deeply and more expensively into driving on with the artifical one-size-fits all fiscal impracticality, the Euro, yet again denying the awful cliff edge somewhere ahead just beyond,- and maybe not very far beyond,- their headlights. Intoxicated by the resultant cameraderie up popped the unelected head of the unelected European Commission the sharp suited Barroso saying that the agreement heightened the need to drive on to further political unity,-or solidarity. To him and many other very well fed (thankyou European taxpayers) Brusselscrats the answer to any Eurozone or EU problem is a call to push further into unity and centralisation rather than to pull back, reflect and back away from visions of an even more stifling regime of undemocratic centralist control . The option of veering away to the much lower cost, more democratic and more sensible,practical and desirable notion of a free trade rather than fully controlled and micro managed Europe.

The purveyors of solidarity have therefore had a good few days and are glowing suitably as well as growling or glaring at or simply ignoring the perfidious British who mainly don't like what they see coming, and Lib Dems apart , never really have done.

 To celebrate all this and administer a further dose of solidarity, the usual suspects have, regardless of Britain's early protests, voted to increase the EUs budget and thereby the Commissions abilty to meddle in anything they care to. All this increases the cost of the whole Brussells apparatus at a time when none of those who pay the bills have any spare cash and are cutting back on their governmental spending extravagances back home (Well, some are. Others are asking for more time and meanwhile remaining on the beach  afraid of going cold turkey after decades of dependence on state funds). The rest of the world, especially the parts which are working 24/7 to secure better standards of living for themselves and the next generation, look on with amazement as the already fat, happy and self indulgent Europe adds further costs/overheads to its activities and doing business while continuing to indulge in all kinds of limitations on its own productivity and prosperity and to generally tie its own hands and feet together. This world beyond shakes its heads in disbelief, shrugs and gets on with designing and building the future. Unthinking "Solidarity" is the way to ensure that Europe doesn't have one.

Taking out the suspense. Do we really want that?

Not long ago episodes of the weekly cliff hanging thriller would end with the killer's knife-bearing hand raised ready for the fatal blow. Then would follow a brief burst of tension inducing music and  the credits would mercilessly roll leaving the viewer in a paroxysm of terror. A whole week before the truth is revealed . Did he/she do it or did something intervene in the nick of time?  Recently the format has changed. Just as you thought it was all over there are flashes forward to next week's edition. In some of these the intended victim looks fit and well. From that it can reasonably be concluded that they, usually a near psycho lady detective, ducked at the crucial moment so all was well. Phew, that's good then. No suspense, no tension. Put the kettle on. We can sleep well tonight and the next edition can be viewed from on the sofa, not behind it.

The same thing has happened in that other, if declining, theatre, the House of Commons. Budget statements and other policy statements were closely guarded secrets. Heads would roll (at one time literally) if there were any leaks. In the Budget the first hint the nation got of whether the next 90 minutes were going to cause elation or depair could come in the Chancellors drink, his antidote to a dry throat, something that can occur especially if one is lying. A glass of tap water would signify austerity, but milk, honey and maybe a dash of something a little stronger indicated a happy afternoon and good times to come. If he was clearly smashed before he even started talking that was probably a bad sign. Now almost all parliamentary announcements or trailed ,-that means officially leaked,- days in advance .As result they are thoroughly analysed by the 24 hour media not just once but three times. Before, during and after. The during really need not happen at all. The middle man, the House of Commons bit, could be eliminated entirely and the whole process of announcing and discussing anything be left to the various media and twitters and tweets. In view of the quality of and attendance at many Commons debates there may be some merit in that but on the other hand when you think about what some of the press, not to the mention the own-agenda BBC, can get up to that may not be worth the downside risk if we want to keep some vestiges of democracy.

In both cases better theatre and more excitement and interest would be generated by not knowing what was going to happen in the real thing on the day. Do we really want decaffinated versions of everything? No adrenaline rushes, clenched knuckles or looking away? Just perpetual blandness?

Can we rewind and go back to anticipation and suspense? We know that excitement must carry a health warning "Could raise blood pressure, cause heart failure, death, etc" but we think it's worth it. It might just feel a bit more real. For the politicans it might just raise interest in what apart from fiddling expenses and polishing desks with assistants or colleagues goes on in Parliament. Some gain there to be sure. Now back to Sarah Lund.

Europe. Cameron comes in from the cold,- and effectively.

David Cameron will have come home from his couple of days in Brussels with some satisfaction.None of this will have been derived from the £120 a bottle wine served at the leaders' inevitably non austerity dinner. They just don't do the under £10, the under £20, £50 or even £100 ranges on these occasions and must have some peculiar assumption that their millions of constituents wouldn't want them to either. "Nothing but the best for our leaders" must be the Eurocrats assumption of what the struggling masses would be saying if asked. Indeed the same rule of opulence extends everywhere one finds the officials, from the front of aeroplanes to the creature comforts of their offices. As is well known though, nobody in Brussels does actually ask "the people" what they want,- even whether or not they want an EU in its political rather than free trade area form at all.

Having flown over (What, no Eurostar?) against a background of media and Labour pictures of how foolish it would be to isolate the UK from the centre of vital European decison making and all those "can't/mustn't do it" bogeymen  and Guardianista and Blairists' handwringing about how vital the EU monolith concept is to Europe's survival in the face of the world's other and trading giants, it was expected that Dave would return isolated ,with a bloody nose and a straight "No" from everything to all he demanded.

Instead he was far from isolated . Instead there emerged a new grouping of the UK, the Nordic countries, Holland and a Germany split from its usual bedmate France. These countries all said "Enough" and agreed that spending must be curbed.  Holland's socialist, agriculture subsidy addicted, France risked Angela's scowls and positioned itself  with the southern  and ex Soviet satellite "We want more money" group . These good people also believe that the financier of their cargo cult should be Germany. What would anyone be saying if they were a good, hard working German especially if  one of those on the western side of the country who have paid for former East Germany to become part of the unified country?

The UK and Germany, despite their historic propensity for knocking nine bells out of each other, always been far more natural allies than adversaries. The Franco/German alliance has on the other hand been a much less natural one born of politics and a sort of German conscience. In general it has tied Germany's hands and benefitted France. Maybe, just maybe, the relationship  will now become less cosy or at least excluding of others . If that happens the EU could be much more free to rethink its own future. To do that , the politicians will also have to take on the biggest block to debate, -the very highly paid officials who have ben allowed to create a dream world in which they have been all powerful.  They were,- at last,- the clinically targeted aim of much that Cameron had to say this week. They personally have everything to lose and little to gain from any major change in the way the organisation does its business. They have always seen the scowling UK as the biggest threat to their power and glory. In natural response they are the biggest block to debate or anything that smacks of a real democracy rather than top-down rule by the unelected Commission itself. Their power control needs are very high and ultimately threaten the EU as an institution. Again Cameron scored a bullseye the machine rather than the member states this week. The boy done well.

Inevitably there were some ritual denialist mutterings from the UK's Labour Party about Cameron having (again) upset the EU and left Britain friendless (it always has been) and without influence (which the Europhiles, unware of the conversations that really happen in the offfice blocks, bars and restaurants of Brussels have always deluded themselves into believing the UK ever had.). In fact by drawing a line in the sand of profligacy, the UK brought a fundamental split into the open and  moved back to centre stage. It did not end up alone as hoped by Van Rompuy, Barroso and friends but was now joined by others  talking good, hard , financial sense.

Far from isolating Britain this week, Cameron has brought the country to centre stage as part of a rational group for whom continuing profligacy by the EU and the serious control ambitions and self indulgence of officials is not an option. The next round is "In the New Year". There is much to be done to consolidate this week's gain before then . For sure the "Spend" group will be working hard to overturn it and the Commission officials will be seeking every way to consolidate, perpetuate and grow their power,- their comfort ,and even those £120 bottles of wine.

Quickies behind the headlines...

-David Cameron is saying it is time to pin back profligate EU Commission spending. Absolutely right even if predicatably unpopular in Brussels where the spenders live,play and eat very well. Ed Miliband warns against standing up to the EU as the UK might lose influence. The reality ,to which Miliband either is blind to/denies or just doesn't comprehend ,is that the UK has never had much real power in the core of the EU.  There is little love for Britain in the largely socialistic and centralising corridors of Brussels, a city which itself would be pretty much dead if it were not for presence of the huge and free spending organisation. To seek to appease it by rolling over and accepting further profligacy is absurd as well as demeaning. Britain's greatest, if lonely, role is to be counter the self indulgent culture and get the organisation to be a realistic and useful addition to Europe's effectiveness rather than a huge financial and administrative drag on all it does. Does Asia lumber itself with such a cumbersome overarching, controlling and initiative,- stifling burocracy? No.

-The ongoing sad saga of Syria with the added complication of Gaza continues to goad western, and particularly British , consciences to "do something about it". But what? With whom? How? America is weary of the Middle East and  (New)Obama has clearly said that its real foreign policy interests are clearly in Asia. They are certainly not going to put boots on the ground and nor should anyone else. Nor will America rein in Israel as they should have done decades ago. That tail will continue to wag the dog. In Syria the multiplicity of factions and the lack of a clearly desirable, nice, clean, human rights orientated potential victor means that although it is different to Afghanistan there is nothing any military intervention is going to get other than a good hiding. The policy therefore has to continue with the diplomacy, probably unsuccessfully , and meanwhile to work with the country's neighbours to do everything possible to ease the humanitarian crisis by building and supplying (temporary) refugee camps along the borders.

-The penny or cent is slowly beginning to drop in some places that many so called eco-friendly policies of using only renewable sources for fuel and power generation are far from being what they claim and come at a massive price. Converting power stations to wood burning has to be lunacy. They do not carefully consume handfuls of sticks gathered in from the nearest woodlands. They gulp down piles of wood,- every hour, night and day. Wood doesn't renew itself in a few days. It takes years. That means that to meet eco targets we would have to cut down practically every rainforest on the face of the globe,- and still not have enough wood. The results would include extensive desertification and world food shortages. Eco? Good for mankind? No. Hideously expensive and self defeating? Yes.

- Moves in the UK to speed up and simplify planning approvals, particularly for strategic infrastructure projects, are being noisy resisted by countless "Say No To...." groups.  It isn't that hearings are being abolished. Nor are appeals on the way out. It's simply proposed that those be reduced to to from the current four. Similarly the ability to demand judicial reviews of almost anything the government proposes to do /has done is also under question. The reviews aren't being abolished, just reined in so that the government is more free to do what it was elected to do,- get on and do the things necessary to run the country now and in the future. That does not seem unreasonable in the face of UK's visible slide from sclerosis into paralysis.

-Talking of sclerosis, the Sunday Times reports that poor old diarist Samuel Pepys had to spend a whole Saturday in the 1760s producing a report on how to sort out the naval dockyards at Portsmouth. A whole Saturday for one man!  That's not bad compared to the 3 years Sir Howard Davies , working with countless others, has been given to come up with (another) review of UK airports policy. The reality, -as many know,- is that the recommendations of this group could be produced at the end of a single day spent in some gloomy hotel basement by a gathering of real aviation experts. They might lack a few of the minutae, minutes of meetings with newt conservationists, badger protection groups and others but they would on a few flipcharts converted into a plain old fashioned Powerpoint presentation knocked up by a couple of young grads in the teabreak simply and clearly declare the obvious. As it is, the 3 year study, due for mid 2015 ,is in the best British tradition likely to simply form the basis for..... further discussion and consultation. Stretch , yawn and  the popping of more corks in Amsterdam and Paris.

Footnote: The Roskill Commission  thoroughly investigated the airports question and came up with the answer in 1973. According to 7 commissioners who did not live in Buckinghamshire ,the best alternative to Heathrow ( seen then as an addition to , not a replacement for it) is at Wing/Cublington in Buckinghamshire. The 8th member, who lived in Buckinghamshire, dissented and,- won. The answer still is correct. Apart from leaving it where it is at Heathrow, the right place for London's primary hub airport would be Wing/Cublington ,nicely situated between London and the large population areas around the south midlands and Birmingham. It could even be linked to the much objected-to new HS 2 high speed rail line. That would allow both "Say No To..." protest groups to be rolled into one. A big cost saving for the protest groups. Buckinghamshire County Council is already spending six figure sums of taxpayers' money on fighting HS2 or at least its preferred route through the "influential" mid Chiltern corridor. They would though probably consider more favourably an alternative, more southerly, route closer to where many more but much less "influential" people live. That's the reality of local "democracy". There aren't too many celebreties, retired actors, barristers and the like in High Wycombe. 

The US Election goes to the wire.

With just 24 hours to go before those who haven't already voted go to the polls at least everyone seems to agree that this one will go to the wire and a photofinish, followed maybe by days of legal wrangling to. Nothing other than an orderly world ever seems to be bad news for lawyers.

There is though a feeling that Obama will just about squeeze home. He's made it more difficult for himself by that one slip,- his disastrous, lacklustre performance in the first televised debate with Romney. Maybe one day we will know why he allowed himself to perform so badly. Exhaustion goes with the job and electioneering in particular so it's no excuse.

His victory would be partly because most people approve of the way he has handled the aftermath to Sandy ("God's indicator" say some) but it would probably be more because of the way the Electoral College works. There are many websites which explain this, one being http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012 elections electoral college map.html;.

There are more paths to victory for Obama than for Romney although if Romney won all the states that Bush gained in 2000 he would have a much bigger victory due to changes in population. If though he wins those states but loses Ohio he loses. That's one reason why everyone will be watching Ohio.

It is quite possible that Obama will win the Presidency though with fewer votes than Romney . That's what happened in 2000 in Bush v Gore when Gore won more votes overall.

If it does turn out that way the Republicans may be very sore losers and, with a continuing majority in the House of Representatives/Congress , they may make life even more difficult for Obama in his second term.

Either way the next President is going to have to make some very tough choices. It might,- as in the UK in 2010, be easier for the losers.


Andrew Lloyd-Williams.