The case for HS2 is becoming more confusing with every new argument. It seems that the campaign against the project is arguing in opposite directions. This may aim to cover all possible aspects of the project’s consequences for the taxpayer and passengers, but at the same time appears strangely illogical.

In the same report, the No campaign wants services for other parts of the country to be improved, yet claims that if this took place it would cost the public billions.

They state that the service will be underused, and at the same time so many passengers will travel via HS2 that the terminal at Euston will be unable to cope with the demand without an expensive extra Crossrail project.

It also criticises HS2 for its negative impact on the environment, yet suggests building parts of the track in tunnels underground would be financially unfeasible.

HS2 can’t win apparently - if it continues as planned it is condemned, and if it tries to change that is equally unacceptable. Appeasing the opposition appears to be impossible – but why do we get the sense that they would not be nearly so vociferous in opposition to an expensive new motorway?