Plans for new £1 billion tram line that will 'change lives' revealed
A major £1 billion plan to build a new tram line linking East Birmingham to north Solihull has been unveiled - a proposal that is expected to 'transform lives' after weeks of high level negotiations.
The proposed Metro line would run from Birmingham city centre, through Digbeth and Bordesley Green, to key sites including Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham Airport, the NEC, and the HS2 interchange at Arden Cross.
It would also serve a planned £2.9 billion Birmingham City FC stadium and sports quarter, expected to open by 2030.
The proposal, titled "Invest a Little, Unlock a Lot," is being pitched to the Government as a way to drive regeneration, create jobs, and unlock billions in private investment.
An initial Government contribution of £350-£400 million is being sought, reports Birmingham Mail.
West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker, who has led lobbying efforts alongside Knighthead CEO, Tom Wagner, said: 'We hope [ministers] recognise this is not just a tram line, but will connect communities to each other and to huge investment opportunities.
'This is a massive opportunity for our region and the city of Birmingham and my role is to use my powers and commitment to ensure this happens quickly.'
Parker and Wagner took the plans to Downing Street in April and have held meetings with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander.
The route would begin at the new HS2 Curzon Street station and travel via the Digbeth Loc entertainment hub and the Sports Quarter in Bordesley Green before extending towards the NEC, Airport, and HS2 interchange in North Solihull.
The objective is that this first phase would coincide with the opening of the all-new Birmingham City Football Club stadium in 2030.
The Blues, under American ownership, is planning a significant move to a new stadium and sports complex as part of a £2.9 billion project, which will see thousands of sports and entertainment fans ferried to and from the sports village.
Later, the Metro route would be extended out towards Heartlands Hospital, the NEC, Birmingham Airport and north Solihull, to the HS2 interchange at Arden Cross.
Labour leader of Birmingham City Council John Cotton, Conservative Solihull Council leader Ian Courts, and Mayor Parker issued a joint statement calling the scheme 'a moment of real opportunity for East Birmingham and North Solihull.'
They added the shared plan would 'bring new jobs, better transport, more homes and stronger communities to the people who live here.'
The project has been under discussion for over a decade but failed to progress due to lack of funding.
However, supporters believe momentum is now firmly behind the scheme.
In Parliament on Thursday 1 May, MP Liam Byrne praised the proposal, calling for the creation of a Mayoral Development Corporation to oversee the building of the tram line and to help maximise the speed and delivery of the proposed plan.
While Government funding has not yet been confirmed, an announcement could come as early as the June spending review, as local leaders say they are confident their message has been heard.
Meanwhile, a brand new £1billion Tube-style transport system is finally set to launch in Wales – and it promises to transform travel across the South of the country.
Dubbed the 'Welsh Tube', the ambitious project – over 10 years in the making – will stretch a staggering 105 miles (170km), linking the capital Cardiff with outlying towns including Merthyr Tydfil, Treherbert and Aberdare.
And just like the London Underground, it'll see trains running as frequently as every five minutes in some areas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Reflections on populism, as Tory political black hole puts democracy at risk
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Putting Nigel Farage back in his box may require more than just exposing the shortcomings of populist leaders now causing electoral upsets and mayhem throughout Western democracies. The Hamilton by-election produced a Labour victory. The SNP identified the wrong opponent and lost. The Tories just collapsed. The Reform Party though, confirmed the danger that they pose to our country courtesy of an electoral system built for another age and a political black hole created by 14 years of a soulless and reckless Tory Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hidden from public view until polling day in Scotland, populism, a seemingly innocuous term and very much of English origin, via UKIP and the Brexit party, has now emerged as a frightening reminder of a political idea which is now tearing America apart and overwhelming any idea of democracy and justice. The Scottish by-election and the recent elections in England should be a wake up call for the traditional or progressive parties in the UK who are in need themselves of 'reform' based on a deeper understanding of a changing electorate. The political black hole left by the last Tory Government, reflects their running of Britain into the ground, souring the mood of electors and paving the way for populism to take hold. What is crucial, is not just the austerity, national decline, diminishing expectations, economic stagnation and the savaging of the public realm , but the erosion of trust and respect for politics resulting in a bitter, angry, insecure electorate exhibiting all the signs of low mood, a negative psyche, and a political Zeitgeist requiring a new spirit for a new age refurbishing our beliefs, attitudes, feelings and values, a new driving force reflecting new concerns and aspirations of a different future. This is vital if we are to deal with the much more frightening and damaging legacy. Rachel Reeves successfully used the term, financial black hole to fix in the minds of electors the extent of the financial carnage facing the new Government. Progressives now need to use and understand the term, 'political black hole' if we are to confront the crisis in our politics, and the stress being imposed upon our democracy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sounds alarmist but there is evidence everywhere of complacency and the familiar refrain of 'it couldn't happen here' despite populism and authoritarianism finding expression today in the form of American troops on the streets of Los Angeles. We need a vision of the future that inspires and offers solutions to our more intractable problems and restores trust in our politics and politicians. Any sense of alienation can find a home in Populist parties. For progressive parties, a period of reflection would make more sense than being tempted to drift to the right and compete with the divisive ideas of the Reform Party. The 'scunner' factor is creating doubts about the relevance of our traditional politics to the daily lives of electors. Entertaining the idea of a cult leader should be deeply offensive to supporters of democracy. Deep seams of discontent could be easily mined, by Farage who is the consummate opportunist, a predator circling for political prey. There are however other issues which may more reliably explain our vulnerable democracy and the ramshackle nature of our electoral system. Evidence abounds of an ancient electoral system not fit for modern day purposes and an electorate weary and dissatisfied with political outcomes. Too often we cast electors in a series of political dramas but they feel sidelined in what should be about them and at times feeling more like the victims of politics not the beneficiaries. Policies often lack stories or messaging or relevance of where people fit in? The discourse at Westminster is often perceived as too complex, technocratic, managerial, London centric, and lost in complex issues such as AI, Growth, Gender and GDP where a lack of inclusive or illustrative narratives are alienating people. Westminster is making few concessions to the idea of four nation politics. And we still live in an over centralised Union. The missteps by the Government in its early stages undoubtedly undermined the Labour Party creed and brand. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are however deep seated long term issues that must be addressed, in particular the voting system. The 'First past the Post,' method of electing MPs is antiquated and undemocratic and could be a dangerous entry vehicle for populists. In July 2024, the Labour government was elected with a landslide of 412 MPs out of the total number of 650 MPs in the House of Commons. But this was achieved with only 9.7 million votes out of a total of 48 million people in the UK registered and eligible to vote. Labour gained 20 per cent of the total eligible vote and 30 percent of those who did vote: this means that nearly 40 million people didn't vote Labour or didn't bother to vote! Reform won 5 seats, with over 4 million votes the Conservative party with nearly 7 million votes won 121 seats. Our electoral process can deliver a huge majority of seats in the House of Commons on the back of a minority of voters in the country. None of this makes sense and remains a key issue in our weakening democracy. Westminster represents constituencies but doesn't reflect the people. It provides a reminder of what a party like Reform could achieve, with a deeply divided country, the collapse of Tory party and a fragile and less trusting electorate. This is why progressive parties must build consensus politics. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Turnout also matters. The 2024 Westminster election turnout of 59.4 was the second lowest since 1918. A record high of 83.9% was achieved in 1950. The Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton had a turnout of 44.2 percent of those eligible to vote. For some this was a decent outcome but surely after an intensely fought campaign, a figure of nearly 60 percent not bothering to vote is an indictment of a failed voting and political system and ultimately our democracy. Our electoral system favours the two main parties. What is happening in Europe requires a wake up call to recognise that populism inevitably leads to authoritarianism, and a threat to
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Donald Trump is reshaping democracy for authoritarians
It depicts US president Donald Trump as a firefighter arriving at an emergency scene somewhere – most likely Los Angeles – declaring: 'I'm here to put out the fire.' Facing off against him is a lone US citizen who duly points out to the firefighter that what, in fact, he's carrying is not a water hose but a flamethrower. To say that it encapsulates what is happening in Los Angeles right now would be an understatement, for the United States is changing in ways rarely seen before. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports Some, rightly, will argue it was ever going to be thus after the last US presidential election, and Trump was unleashed by the American people on themselves. In retrospect, doubtless some Americans regret electing Trump now that they see him set about the nation, brandishing every available tool or weapon capable of causing division or harm. 'Chainsaw' or 'flamethrower,' these have become Trump's weapons of choice in reshaping his country's democracy in tandem with imposing a blueprint of authoritarian rule. Yes, Trump has insisted that sending in federal troops is aimed at restoring calm or 'putting out the fire' of radical 'left-wing' agitators. He's even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the protesters in Los Angeles. But the real insurrection here – as back in January 2021 – is one ignited by Trump himself. There is a familiar even deeper historical pattern emerging here too, one that I was reminded of while watching a repeat on BBC4 recently of the landmark series, Rise Of The Nazis. As one newspaper review of the original series aired back in 1999 rightly noted, it served as a lesson in 'how easily – and petrifyingly quickly – a democratic country can move to a totalitarian dictatorship'. (Image: Evelyn Hockstein, REUTERS) Those who say such an observation is nothing but hyperbole in relation to America right now, need to think again. For watching the Rise Of The Nazis is to recall the ease with which propaganda, economic exploitation, and political manipulation came together and were harnessed for authoritarian rule. Trump like Hitler – and all those with authoritarian tendencies – know the political value in triggering those same tendencies among supporters by presenting them with a perceived threat to their shared way of life. Just as the Nazis manufactured crises to work to their advantage, so too does the Trump administration. Right now, the federal intervention in the US – again like 1930s Germany – is aimed at creating a showdown by painting a picture of a threat of disorder to the country at large. In Los Angeles, the template being deployed was outlined succinctly this week in The Economist magazine and goes as follows. First, 'announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Trump is doing what they elected him for'. (Image: MARK FELIX, AFP /AFP via Getty Images) Trump then is increasingly keen on using the military to quell protests against his policies. Sound familiar? 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said, when asked about the situation in Los Angeles. And that's just the start, for Americans will see lots more US military personnel and weaponry on the streets of Washington this weekend as parades marking the US Army's 250th anniversary get underway. That there are echoes here of the Nuremberg rallies of 30s Nazi Germany has not been lost on many. The deployment of federal troops and US Marines in Los Angeles aside, we've also seen paratroopers drop from the sky with Trump giving a partisan encore speech to troops at Fort Bragg. This weekend it will culminate in a 'big beautiful' parade to coincide with the 'great leader's' birthday that will make last month's Victory Day parade in Moscow look quaint by comparison. Only the most blinkered could fail to see what Trump is doing here. This, after all, is a president with whom the US military has by and large had little truck until now. Trump's timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam never did him any favours in the eyes of many veterans. His unwillingness to recognise their sacrifice in fighting fascism in the Second World War led also to that infamous remark that Europe's military cemeteries 'were filled with losers'. But now, for Trump, it's time to think again, for that's what despots and dictators do when they need the military onside. All this wooing of America's armed forces with false praise allows Trump to make a point of showing executive force he always coveted but could only dream of during his first term. Admittedly, not everyone is convinced by Trump's newfound 'celebration' of America's military might, with reports that US veterans are split over their president's true motives. While some see it as a thing to be proud of, others remain wary of Trump's manipulation of it for his own political ends. Which takes me back to events unfolding in Los Angeles, for here the devil lies in the detail. That detail is how Trump's administration has cited a provision in the armed forces code allowing the president to put National Guard members under federal control when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the authority of the US government. It's almost as if Trump and his cabal know what's coming with regard to America's future as they cynically seek to expand the powers of his presidency by riding roughshod over America's political system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Some might say so what? Trump, they argue, was elected democratically by a sweeping majority. But so too have other leaders who went on to consolidate authoritarian regimes. Back in 1930, while appearing before a constitutional court, Adolf Hitler brazenly informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to shape the government as he saw fit. 'So, only through constitutional means?' a judge asked, to which Hitler's now infamous sharp reply was, 'Jawohl'. Yes indeed. Just as Germany transformed politically in the 1930s before the world's eyes, likewise the momentum in America's shift toward authoritarian rule is accelerating by the day. It's high time we sat up and took notice of just what that could mean for us all.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
