The paradox of liberty: we should freely
choose to help one another.

Via Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it:

[...] Taken together, the UK and US studies both account well for existing data on cost underestimation and benefit overestimation. Both studies falsify the notion that in situations with high political and organizational pressure the underestimation of costs and overestimation of benefits is caused by non-intentional technical error or optimism bias. Both studies support the view that in such situations promoters and forecasters intentionally use the following formula in order to secure approval and funding for their projects:

underestimated costs + overestimated benefits = funding

Using this formula, and thus ‘showing the project at its best’ as one interviewee said above, results in an inverted Darwinism, i.e the survival of the unfittest. It is not the best projects that get implemented, but the projects that look best on paper. And the projects that look best on paper are the projects with the largest cost underestimates and benefit overestimates, other things being equal. But the larger the cost underestimate on paper, the greater the cost overrun in practice. And the larger the overestimate of benefits, the greater the benefit shortfall. Therefore the projects that have been made to look best on paper in this manner become the worst, or unfittest, projects in reality, in the sense that they are the very projects that will encounter most problems during construction and operations in terms of the largest cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and risks of non-viability. They have been designed like that, as disasters waiting to happen.

The paper goes on to say, “Professional and occasionally even criminal penalties should be enforced for managers and forecasters who consistently and foreseeably produce deceptive forecasts”. Wise words yet we shall have to hope the HS2 project and all the other infrastructure projects planned by the Government are unique in not suffering from the endemic flaws described in the paper.

I’ll leave interested parties to read the paper for themselves but I will add this: while the Government has cloaked itself in the legacy of the great British railway pioneers, they were entrepreneurs risking private capital in commercial projects. The same cannot be said of HS2.

That matters and it matters for all the reasons we have historically defended free societies from the encroach of planning.

The Government has announced its decision on HS2:

The Government has decided to proceed with the development and delivery of a new national high speed rail network to provide the capacity that Britain needs to compete and grow.

I just left the Chamber after listening to the oral statement and a good number of colleagues’ questions. The mood is overwhelmingly in favour, on both sides of the House. I remain convinced of the point of view I put to the FT:

Steve Baker, MP for Wycombe, said he was unconvinced that the huge cost of the scheme was justified. “The maths doesn’t add up; this is just sinking capital into a lossmaking project. If you’re going to use the power of the state to do that, then you shouldn’t be surprised that this country is getting poorer.”

Since people often ask me and since I have asked so many questions already, I asked the Secretary of State if she had considered tunnelling the width of the Chilterns. She had: it would cost £1.2bn, which was considered unaffordable.

So the project goes ahead. In the meantime, I’m reading a brief which sets out the tale of woe which is the failure of high speed rail projects in Portugal, Spain, France, Poland, The Netherlands, Norway, Taiwan, China, the USA and  Brazil…

In 1953, the economist Ludwig von Mises wrote:

In a capitalist country the railroads and the telegraph and telephone companies pay considerable taxes. In the countries of the mixed economy, the yearly losses of these public enterprises are a heavy drain upon the nation’s purse. They are not taxpayers, but tax-eaters.

Perhaps little changes, but I should prefer value-creating infrastructure, not infrastructure which makes us poorer.

Via AGAHST:

Nearly two thirds of population opposed to money being spent on HS2

A YouGov public opinion poll has found that nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on the planned £32 billion high speed rail link between London and Birmingham (HS2).

64 per cent of those surveyed in the poll (commissioned by groups opposed to HS2) believe that it is wrong to spend money on the proposed line at this time. In June this year 48 per cent of respondents to a YouGov poll for the Tax Payers’ Alliance were opposed to plans to fund what will be, per mile, the world’s most expensive railway.

Voter opposition

The latest poll found that 66 per cent of Labour’s general election voters are opposed to HS2, which was originally proposed by a Labour Government. 68 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters are against the line along with the majority of Conservative voters, 59 per cent.

North South DivideWhile supporters of HS2 believe that it will help close the North-South divide both regions are already united in their opposition to it. 62 per cent of Northern respondents; 64 per cent of those surveyed in London and 66 per cent of respondents in the South think that it is wrong to spend money on it at the current time.

Despite the Scottish Government’s enthusiasm for the line, 70 per cent of Scottish respondents are opposed to HS2, which will cost UK taxpayers £773 million in planning and consultants in the current Parliament alone. Perhaps most interestingly, respondents from the Midlands and Wales, the region that takes in Birmingham where the phase of the line will terminate, came out 64 per cent in favour of shelving spending on the project.

Last week, the Localism Bill was passed into law. I was glad to support its passage.  Through 13 years of New Labour, we witnessed continual moves towards centralised planning and micro-managing of our everyday lives. This new law will see central government interference cut and give power back to citizens, community groups and local councils.

To accompany the Act, the Government have helpfully updated the ‘plain English guide’ that was produced to accompany the Bill. You can read it here.

For councils this will mean: 

• Clarification of the rules on predetermination in order to free up councillors to express their opinions on issues of local importance without the fear of legal challenge;
• Abolition of Labour’s discredited Standards Board regime;
• Greater control over business rates.  Councils will have the power to offer local business rate discounts, which could help attract firms, investment and jobs;
• Cancellation of Labour’s unfair ‘ports tax’, which threatened to cripple key businesses, it simplifies the process for claiming small business rate relief to help small shops and small firms; and
• New planning enforcement rules, giving councils the ability to take action against people who deliberately conceal unauthorised development.

For local communities it will grant:

• The Right to Bid to run local services;
• The Right to Challenge by putting forward ideas to help their community;
• The Right to Veto excess council tax rises;
• The opportunity to draw up Neighbourhood plans;

However, there are caveats. I am an advocate of local referenda so I was disappointed to see that the Lords removed the flagship ‘local referendum’ provision from the Bill. That would have allowed voters to launch local referenda on local issues. Referenda do remain for council tax, right-to-build and neighborhood planning, but I know this will be a disappointment to some people in Wycombe.

Neighbourhood plans must, understandably, work inside some limits. If major infrastructure is decided upon at a national level, such as this benighted high-speed rail line, or if a strategic local plan calls for a certain number of homes to be built, then the Localism Act has safeguards to ensure neighbourhood plans do not override these wider ranging policies. Again, this will be a disappointment.

Nevertheless, I hope that the Localism Act will live up to its initial goal of radically decentralising power and fostering an environment where communities will have a greater say in their local area. We will see…

Via Hansard – Commons | Houses of Parliament, Today in the Commons (13th October 2011): Page 17:

Contrary to certain assumptions, I am the only Buckinghamshire MP whose constituency is not affected by the high-speed rail proposal. I know that your constituency is affected by it, Mr Speaker, and that your constituents have very strong views and that you submitted a substantial response to the consultation. The Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), responded robustly to the consultation on behalf of her constituents, delivering seven files of objections and evidence against HS2, which will cut a deep scar through the middle of the area of outstanding natural beauty in which her constituency sits. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), and the Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), were present earlier, and I know that their constituents are implacably opposed to HS2. Many other members of the Government also have objections, including the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who also has strong views.

Although my constituents are not directly affected, they oppose HS2 on a number of grounds, but before I go on to explain my opposition, I wish to welcome the Government’s noble intentions. Whether in seeking the rejuvenation of the economy, the revitalisation of the north or the protection of the environment, or in trying to attract international inward investment, their intentions are indeed noble, but I regret to say that I do not support the means by which they seek to meet those ends.

Read the rest here.

There being huge pressure on the debate, I had to drop most of what I wanted to say about the proposal. Suffice to say I remain opposed.