The media in the spotlight: is the media reporting of HS2 fair and balanced?

[AM9]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-construction.149100/

"Full construction" has started on HS2
22,000 jobs boost as HS2 swings to full construction

I note that Lord Berkeley was recycling all the old catchphrases and claims on this morning's R4 Today programme, - 'vanity project' 'spend the money on other transport projects', 'total cost opf over £200bn' etc., they were all trotted out as per the script.

There will be a burst of similar media interviews masquerading as news and then it will mostly fade away as the project reaches a maturity.

 

[59CosG95]

I note thaat Lord Berkeley was recycling all the old catchphrases and claims on this morning's R4 Today programme, - 'vanity project' 'spend the money on other transport projects', 'total cost opf over £200bn' etc., they were all trotted out as per the script. There will be a burst of similar media interviews masquerading as news and then it will mostly fade away as the project reaches a maturity.

Mr Rukin from StopHS2 was also trotting out his eponymous "dead in the water" catchphrase. Only a matter of time before he realises that his stable had a lot of unlocked doors.

 

[ABB125]

Stop HS2 is quoted as saying that creating 22000 jobs is "desperate" spin to try and justify the project. And that each job is costing around £2 million. Hmmm.....

 

[camflyer]

About time too.

Any significant comments etc that may alter the original plan?

This is an important milestone but it's largely a symbolic one as the ground works are well advanced and we passed the point of no return several months ago.

However, none of this will stop to anti-HS2 lobby from complaining. I'm sure that on the day before the first passenger service runs they will still be demanding that the scheme be stopped.

Now let's get on with planning of the northern of Birmingham section which hopefully should get folded into the NPR project.

 

[camflyer]

Stop HS2 is quoted as saying that creating 22000 jobs is "desperate" spin to try and justify the project. And that each job is costing around £2 million. Hmmm.....

Of course these "22,000 jobs" are just those directly involved with the construction. There will be many thousands more created by the redevelopment around Old Oak Common, Curzon St and other sites along the route.

The protestors also fail to mention the catastrophic impact on the construction sector should HS2 be scrapped.

Just wondering, are the *original* maps and plans still available online anywhere? I'm talking about the original proposals which I think came out some time around 2009/2010 and involved significantly more demolition and significantly fewer tunnels than currently proposed.

I found this from 2010

Proposed London to West Midlands high speed rail line of route plan and profile maps

A set of maps providing a detailed depiction of the preferred route option that will be taken forward for public consultation during 2011.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk

I don't think the route has changed much (apart from dropping the LHR spur and the HS1-HS2 link) but certainly more tunnelling was added to keep MPs in the shires happy. If the protestors complain about the cost they should be reminded that mitigating their complaints led to a lot of the cost increases.

 

[37424]

Of course these "22,000 jobs" are just those directly involved with the construction. There will be many thousands more created by the redevelopment around Old Oak Common, Curzon St and other sites along the route.

The protestors also fail to mention the catastrophic impact on the construction sector should HS2 be scrapped.

I am slightly puzzled why they bothered with this announcement today after all they gave the official go ahead a few months back and obviously some work has been going on for some time. The problem it seems to me for HS2 is that the majority of the population and the press were against HS2 even before covid and its even more so now, so getting on with as little publicity as possible would seem the best option to me at the moment.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The usual everyone will now WFH has been trotted out as well. Ignores the fact that in our team meeting this morning only 10% expressed any desire to WFH medium to long term.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why does the BBC give “StopHS2” so much coverage and legitimacy? It’s reduced to pretty much a “one man and his dog” size organisation now?

 

[HSTEd]

The usual everyone will now WFH has been trotted out as well. Ignores the fact that in our team meeting this morning only 10% expressed any desire to WFH medium to long term.

Whether staff want to WFH or not is irrelevant.
WFH permits the business to shift all costs associated with maintenance of an office onto the worker.

Huge numbers of people will find they won't have an office to go back to.

 

[mr_jrt]

At my workplace I'd estimate about 10% want to go back, and that's primarily senior management...the rest much prefer working from home. So much nicer than an open plan office, and we haven't skipped a beat. People are saving an absolute fortune in time, commuting costs, and have much higher quality of life accordingly.

 

[JamesT]

Why does the BBC give “StopHS2” so much coverage and legitimacy? It’s reduced to pretty much a “one man and his dog” size organisation now?

The BBC need to give a balanced viewpoint on stories. You can have a long thread elsewhere over whether they manage that, but one way to do it is to have someone from each side of an argument on. StopHS2 are the most high profile of the anti groups so easy to book on whenever there’s a HS2 story.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Stop HS2 is quoted as saying that creating 22000 jobs is "desperate" spin to try and justify the project. And that each job is costing around £2 million. Hmmm.....

That's on the assumption that you have created nothing in the process and just flushed the end product down the drain.

Shapps did mention the long term benefits of the national main lines (well, WCML and ECML) and that they had been delivering benefits for "about 150 years".
The WCML is actually 182 years old this year.

I can't find out what is actually "starting" today - presumably there will be ceremonial shovels being wielded somewhere by Boris & co.
It may just be the point when the accounting budget being spent switches from "enabling" (voted several years ago, before project approval) to "construction" (voted in January, after Royal Assent).
The major contractors will be mightily relieved.

 

[stuartl]

Whether staff want to WFH or not is irrelevant.
WFH permits the business to shift all costs associated with maintenance of an office onto the worker.

Huge numbers of people will find they won't have an office to go back to.

There was a report a few days ago that Capita are planning to close, I think, 100 offices and increase wfh permanently. This could though be as much to do with their big financial problems as anything else.

 

[Ianno87]

Whether staff want to WFH or not is irrelevant.
WFH permits the business to shift all costs associated with maintenance of an office onto the worker.

Huge numbers of people will find they won't have an office to go back to.

Some companies may find they have staff retention problems in that case - being able to meet and work with colleagues face to face (even if not every day) is a huge source of job satisfaction and productivity.

 

[mr_jrt]

There is of course being impartial and being responsible. When asked if it's raining it's not responsible journalism to get someone who says it is and someone who says it isn't when you should be sticking your head outside and seeing if it gets wet. That's the important bit that's missing from a lot of modern journalism these days.

 

[The Ham]

At my workplace I'd estimate about 10% want to go back, and that's primarily senior management...the rest much prefer working from home. So much nicer than an open plan office, and we haven't skipped a beat. People are saving an absolute fortune in time, commuting costs, and have much higher quality of life accordingly.

The big issue with WFH (working from home) is that the rise of it is just as likely to increase rail use than decrease it.

Why? As if you are not traveling to work ~225 times a year then the "business case" for car ownership changes significantly as much of the miles you do are work related. If you remove 6,000 miles of travel a year (13 miles each way to work) it's likely to only reduce your fuel costs and some maintenance costs (most likely things like reduced frequency of replacing tyres) and whist there's some advantages to depression it's going to be fairly minor (most people being concerned is it about average milage for age but not willing to pay a significant premium for those below average).

Given that the average cost of car ownership is over £3,000/year including purchase costs (yes lower is possible, but then so is more). If you were doing 10,000 miles a year you may reduce by 1/3 your costs even though your miles have gone gone by nearly 2/3.

That would change your cost per mile from 30p/mile to 50p/mile.

Whilst it's saving you money chances are you could save more by getting rid of the car and walking/cycling more and using public transport (including rail) for the rest.

Given that 25% of miles traveled are on journeys on over 50 miles then chances that's a fair chunk of the 4,000 miles (statistically it should be 2,500 miles) and whilst some of those might be work related for some, most of the rest would be visiting friends & family, holidays and other leisure travel. Something which wouldn't change with an increased level of WFH.

Whilst some may avoid the need to travel weekly for work and being with the family at weekends, there's also those who'll move to somewhere nice and commute long distance for the few times a year they need to go somewhere (be that a meeting or going to the office or training).

As such the impact from WFH is unlikely to be clear cut and certainly not a significant fall like some are suggesting.

As such, let's just get in with rail investment, like HS2, until we know the long term trend.

 

[AM9]

Mr Rukin from StopHS2 was also trotting out his eponymous "dead in the water" catchphrase. Only a matter of time before he realises that his stable had a lot of unlocked doors.

... and what he describes a "dead in the water" has sailed, leaving him high and dry.

 

[AndyY]

Why does the BBC give “StopHS2” so much coverage and legitimacy? It’s reduced to pretty much a “one man and his dog” size organisation now?

This thread may be an echo chamber of fans for HS2, but most of the people I know are against it, especially with the pandemic and so few people travelling in the foreseeable future.

 

[DorkingMain]

This thread may be an echo chamber of fans for HS2, but most of the people I know are against it, especially with the pandemic and so few people travelling in the foreseeable future.

I've never heard a credible argument against HS2 that wasn't "It costs too much money!" (So does any infrastructure project, you don't get any major capacity increase for free) and "It's too environmentally damaging!" (again, so is any infrastructure project)

The reduction in passenger numbers is a massive red herring - most of that reduction is in home to office commuters. Intercity travel will recover quite quickly (and already is) especially with encouraging people to holiday in the UK.

 

[class26]

This thread may be an echo chamber of fans for HS2, but most of the people I know are against it, especially with the pandemic and so few people travelling in the foreseeable future.

But that is to look just a year or two ahead. HS2 is for a century or more. Who can say what will happen by then./ The WCML and ECML were built 150 years ago . The Victorians didn`t muck about with all these doubts, they just got on and built it all and we are thankful they did.

And i suggest many people are against it for entirely the wrong reasons. There are many newspaper forums where the armchair experts all seem to know more than the people who have been researching and planning for years. Upgrade the existing lines - we all know that would be doomed and so on.
I challenged one lady on a forum which i forget now,. She suggested that it would surely be simpler to just have double deck trains. I mean - why hadn`t all the experts thought of that one ? So obvious if only they had asked this lady. until i pointed out to her that we would have to rebuild every bridge and what about New Street.?

 

[Chester1]

This thread may be an echo chamber of fans for HS2, but most of the people I know are against it, especially with the pandemic and so few people travelling in the foreseeable future.

How many people who are against it are aware that most of the contracts have been signed and therefore we will be paying most of the cost regardless of whether or not its built? I suspect once that becomes obvious public opinion might switch towards demanding low fares. There will always be some determined not to complete it until the last day of work.

 

[camflyer]

This thread may be an echo chamber of fans for HS2, but most of the people I know are against it, especially with the pandemic and so few people travelling in the foreseeable future.

Most of the people against HS2 are those who know nothing about it. All you get is "Birmingham 15 minutes faster", "I won't use it anyway" or "it doesn't stop at my town" and some random number in the hundreds of billions about the cost.

 

[mds86]

The BBC need to give a balanced viewpoint on stories. You can have a long thread elsewhere over whether they manage that, but one way to do it is to have someone from each side of an argument on. StopHS2 are the most high profile of the anti groups so easy to book on whenever there’s a HS2 story.

I heard a BBC news report yesterday talking about the construction 'starting' along with its benefits and then they spoke to an anti HS2 group who were saying that despite 22,000 jobs being created, over 70,000 jobs are being lost over the route of phase 1. How can the BBC allow pre-recorded interviews like that be broadcast without any independently verified source of where these 70,000 jobs are being lost? Yes, I appreciate that some jobs will be lost from businesses who are having to close / relocate for construction but the figures in the news report are just scaremongering people into forming an anti HS2 view.

 

[PeterC]

I challenged one lady on a forum which i forget now,. She suggested that it would surely be simpler to just have double deck trains. I mean - why hadn`t all the experts thought of that one ? So obvious if only they had asked this lady. until i pointed out to her that we would have to rebuild every bridge and what about New Street.?

The forum doesn't appear to have an emoticon for putting your fingers in your ears and going "la lal la" otherwise I could have indicated her response.

An increase in WFH may well see households cutting back from two cars to one but I seriously doubt that it will prompt anybody to go from one to zero. People are not necessarily "rational consumers" when status items are concerned.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's funny how any attempt by BBC News to show both sides of the HS2 argument is dismissed as "biased" by those in favour of the shiny new train set. If you're so certain that the shiny new train set won't be a white elephant, why be so ferocious against anyone who isn't a true believer?

I'd say the report was very balanced, showing both the pro-HS2 viewpoint and the anti-HS2 viewpoint. And I'm very much anti-HS2.

There's no need to repeat old arguments, as this is the thread for media reporting of HS2, not actual HS2.

I think it is fair reporting to report the figures and supposed advantages promoted by HS2 Ltd and also report the opinions of those who think HS2 Ltd's figures and supposed benefits are nonsense. I don't think HS2 Ltd's PR puffery should be taken as undisputed fact, because it isn't undisputed fact.

Most of the people against HS2 are those who know nothing about it.

You mean like Lord Berkeley?

I know plenty about the project and think it is grossly overpriced (even using the "official" cost figures which are grossly understated), the advantages are grossly overstated, and that it is destroying the countryside for a white elephant that will only benefit the construction companies, most of whom donate lots of money to the government pushing HS2 through.

If you only report "HS2 is ace!" then that isn't unbiased reporting either. You can think Anti-HS2 people to be wrong, but it is fair to report on their concerns too.

As for "fact-checking", one of HS2 Ltd's advertised benefits is that companies can relocate to Liverpool and save money, and have bunged this in as a costed advantage to the economy! I'd love to see the working out on that one.

can the BBC allow pre-recorded interviews like that be broadcast without any independently verified source of where these 70,000 jobs are being lost?

People on UK payrolls fell by 750,000 in the last three months, and about 10%-20% of the UK population live directly on HS2's immediate phase one route. So I'd say the figure was pretty accurate.

More so than many of the nebulous advantages promoted by HS2 Ltd!

 

[camflyer]

The biggest supposed advantage of HS2 is increased commuter capacity on the southern WCML. It's fair to report the comments of those who, like me, think unbridled growth requiring a new line was unlikely pre-Covid but now see commuter traffic at 10% of normal, see it unlikely to increase any time soon, and wonder whether extra WCML capacity is actually needed after all.

If you look at the Dept of Transport data (can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic) national rail passenger numbers are now back to over 30% and were close to 40% last week

 

[Ianno87]

People on UK payrolls fell by 750,000 in the last three months, and about 10%-20% of the UK population live directly on HS2's immediate phase one route. So I'd say the figure was pretty accurate.

More so than many of the nebulous advantages promoted by HS2 Ltd!

It may be factually true, but without suitable challenge there's an (incorrect) implication that the 70,000 jobs lost are *because* of HS2. Which, except for perhaps a tiny proportion, isn't true.

The BBC etc should be setting figures like that in their proper context.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It may be factually true, but without suitable challenge there's an (incorrect) implication that the 70,000 jobs lost are *because* of HS2.

That isn't the point that was being made and in the interview it was clear that it wasn't the point being made. The point was 22,000 jobs is neither here nor there in a recession and there are better ways of spending £125bn+ if employmentis the aim. Of course the 22,000 jobs are not permanent either.

It's strange how anything that challenges the assumptions HS2 Ltd promote requires "proper context", but the assumptions that HS2 Ltd promote are treated as Gospel...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

People are not necessarily "rational consumers" when status items are concerned.

And that statement is 100% correct!

 

[Ianno87]

That isn't the point that was being made and in the interview it was clear that it wasn't the point being made. The point was 22,000 jobs is neither here nor there in a recession and there are better ways of spending £125bn+ if employmentis the aim. Of course the 22,000 jobs are not permanent either.

It's strange how anything that challenges the assumptions HS2 Ltd promote requires "proper context", but the assumptions that HS2 Ltd promote are treated as Gospel...

The 22,000 temp jobs of course lead to:

-A significant uplift of the technical skills of the workforce of the UK, which are sellable all around the world post-HS2
-Through the benefits HS2, growth and extra jobs as a result.

Context.