Tom Richmond: Fat chance of a high-speed future as would-be controller goes off the rails

I accept that the issue has been poorly handled by the Government – Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin published the latest business case on Tuesday and warned of 14 years of delays and bus replacement services on existing North-South lines if HS2 is scrapped.

I do wish the Government’s justification had been more coherent from the outset – its approach has not commanded confidence, even amongst HS2 enthusiasts like myself.

But the Shadow Chancellor’s political games cannot be allowed go unchallenged any longer.

And the evidence pointing to Balls being guilty as charged?

His high-profile party conference speech just over 12 months ago when he accused Tory backbenchers of jeopardising Britain’s largest ever infrastructure project.

This is what he told the Manchester audience: “Where we face important long-term challenges, we must seek a consensus that puts short-term politics aside and puts the national interest first, just as we did over a decade ago when we made the Bank of England independent. And nowhere is such a consensus more essential than on our national infrastructure.”

Speaking in the North West city that will be one of the HS2 gateways, Balls went on to say: “Successive governments – including our own – have ducked or delayed vital decisions on our national infrastructure, allowing short-term politics to come first... what a ridiculous way to run the country. No wonder business is fast losing confidence in this Government’s ability to make long-term decisions.”

How ironic that the Shadow Chancellor should have had the brass-neck to accuse “Conservative MPs” of blocking high speed rail before saying that it falls to Labour “to be the party to break this cycle” of delay and dither.

Fast forward 12 months and it is the wobbly leadership of Labour – the party which instigated HS2 under Gordon Brown – that is playing politics and allowing short-term considerations, namely concerns about Ed Miliband’s floundering leadership, to dominate and force a despairing David Cameron to threaten to call a halt if Balls becomes even more confrontational with his agenda.

Talk about double standards. Just imagine, for a moment, Labour’s reaction if Tory opposition had seen the scope of HS2 limited to a single line from London to Birmingham as originally proposed – the Conservatives would have been accused of being the anti-North party.

So why the Labour hostility? I believe the reason to be this: Balls is desperately trying to find a way to prove to a sceptical country that he (and Miliband) can be trusted with the nation’s finances again, and he believes that a sceptical stance on HS2 will help families to forget the profligacy of the last government. This also explains the machinations behind Labour’s recent reshuffle that saw the hierarchy move towards the left.

While Labour’s official position is that the party will not sign “a blank cheque”, Maria Eagle – a noted HS2 enthusiast – was shunted sideways to environment.

She was replaced as Shadow Transport Secretary by the more eloquent Mary Creagh. The significance? Though claiming to have an open mind, she represents Wakefield – one of the Yorkshire councils now opposed to HS2 – and Balls holds the adjacent Morley and Outwood seat.

As such, she is unlikely to defy the wishes of her near neighbour who very much remains in the driving seat – he spoke for the Opposition on high-speed rail on Tuesday – or Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman who declined to utter the phrase “HS2” during her Sunday interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr.

Do not get me wrong. The Government has squandered vital momentum since David Cameron led the Cabinet to Leeds in January to launch HS2.

Ministers should have been doing far more explain the benefits – whether it be quicker journey times, increased capacity and an opportunity to bring new investment to the regions.

Ditto the undynamic leadership and management of Leeds Council – it has not done enough to promote the regeneration opportunities for the city, allay concerns about the distance between the existing station and the proposed HS2 terminal and the wider economic benefits for West Yorkshire.

No wonder the Government is struggling to make its case if beneficiary local authorities will not do so – and hence why some local MPs are now alarmed at the extent to which Leeds and West Yorkshire is already losing out to a more effective council in Manchester and the corporate and civic leadership across the North West.

It is why a Cabinet-level minister still needs to be appointed to take sole charge of high-speed rail – and to find a more effective means to bring together the very best politicians, business leaders, engineers, economists, planners, financiers and accountants to ensure the scheme does not exceed the £42.6bn budget (including contingencies). The latter point certainly reflects the Balls intervention of 12 months ago when he spoke about the importance of “building a consensus which crosses party lines, without chopping and changing one Parliament to the next. A consensus to re-build Britain for the future”.

Yet it is the betrayal of consensus politics which explains why the Labour leaders of England’s eight ‘core cities’ – including Leeds and Sheffield – have broken ranks and spoken out in support of HS2. They recognise that the antagonistic approach of Ed Balls contradicts Ed Miliband’s “one nation” election agenda.

In many respects, this schism is more profound than David Cameron’s difficulties with Tory MPs in the leafy Chilterns – Labour grandee Jack Straw used a weekend interview to highlight HS2’s benefits for the North West while his colleague Graham Stringer could barely conceal his disgust at his party’s antics.

But the Balls approach also reveals the void at the heart of its transport policy. Having vetoed a third runway at Heathrow, opposed the introduction of road tolls and become the party of HS2 sceptics, how does nimby- supporting Labour – or should that be the newly-formed Not In Ed Miliband’s Back Yard party of Nembies – plan to raise the investment necessary to overhaul Britain’s infrastructure?

How does Labour, the supposed party of the North, plan to increase capacity on the railways if it blocks HS2, and without forcing passengers to suffer 14 years of misery while key routes are upgraded?

How does Labour propose to build a consensus on long-term transport or energy schemes when its current actions smack of short-termism?

And how does Labour deal with this fundamental question on infrastructure: “If we don’t start to plan now, what will we say in 30 years’ time when our children ask ‘why didn’t you act when there was still time?’”

The person who posed this most profound of questions? An interesting one. Yes, you’ve guessed it – the one and only Ed Balls who is now threatening to blow the whistle on HS2, and signal all change, because Labour’s policy-making and consensus-building is as unreliable as the trains during this week’s storms.

As Ed Miliband would contend, Britain deserves better. I rest my case.