Over-Bloated and Over-Budget: Critics Slam HS2 Project
The high-speed train project HS2 has come under fire as it was revealed that its PR department consists of 167 staff, costing a whopping £8 million per year. The news, revealed by Trending In The News, has led to sharp criticism of the project, with critics calling it "over-bloated, over-budget and off the rails."
Lack of Transparency: Concerns Raised by Local MP
Buckingham MP Greg Smith expressed his frustration with HS2, stating that the project has shown a lack of respect for taxpayers. Despite the substantial number of PR staff, Smith claimed that his constituents are still uninformed about road closures and other disruptions caused by HS2. He added, "HS2 Ltd is over-bloated, over-budget and off the rails."
The Cost Breakdown: Spin Doctors and Social Media Managers
According to a Freedom of Information request, HS2 Ltd's Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Directorate had a total budget of £8,086,998 last year, slightly dropping to £7,889,489 this year. The budget includes the salaries of more than a dozen spin doctors and five social media managers. Three staff members are specifically dedicated to "woke training" in the Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion team, with a vacancy for a fourth.
HS2's Defence: Comprehensively Engaging with Communities
In response to the criticism, a spokesperson for HS2 Ltd highlighted the project's parliamentary obligation to engage with affected communities during the construction process. They claimed that this accounts for the majority of the costs incurred by the PR department.
Uncertain Future: Manchester Leg Under Scrutiny
The uncertainty surrounding HS2's future was further amplified at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, where Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refused to confirm whether the Manchester leg of the project would be axed. While Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove acknowledged the importance of HS2, he stressed the need to assess its value for money.
Despite ongoing debates and criticisms, HS2 continues to face scrutiny over its substantial PR department and its budgetary implications. The project's ability to effectively engage with affected communities and deliver value for taxpayer money remains a point of concern as discussions surrounding its future develop.
