When taking into account that Sunak’s direct prime ministerial predecessors have been reported as being against this decision - and Sunak’s recent anti-anything-but-drivers policies - is there any unspoken reasoning [i.e. hidden agenda] behind this decision? And why Sunak seemingly wields the power to cut a multi-billion project (and tens of thousands of jobs in the process) without going though parliamentary process?
His predecessors:
1) a co-architect of today's ravaged society resulting from austerity, with extreme poverty, normalised street living, drugs everywhere, crime ignored by the police, years long waiting lists for surgery etc etc
2) a bitter woman who seems to take every opportunity to be "bloody difficult"
3) the man who is disregarded in the media and often on here as insincere, a liar etc etc
4) a woman who couldn't pass her probation.
He did what his weak, inept precessors neglected to. Of course they're not happy. He's made a show of them. I count that as a good sign.
In fact, the only pm who briefly "wanted" HS2 was the one who announced it shortly before an election, as an insincere act to try and either win it against the odds, or leave a headache for the incoming.
And indeed a headache is has been. It's only this wailing reaction from a few quarters that's scared others off from pulling the plug on this destructive nonsense. Of course, the longer it's gone on the more vested interests and the more snake oil salesmen.
The Manchester obsessed BBC clearly don't like that it's been pulled. Especially given how negatively they've been reporting the replacement (including burying the fact that £12bn will still be spent on the line into Liverpool). But in fact, I think he came across quite well.