BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Oxbridge is elitist

The current Oxbridge system is, by its very nature, unequal and elitist. The entrance exam and lengthy system of interviews are far more suited to schools that have the resources to prepare their children for them. Passing the interviews requires a staggering degree of innate talent or years of training in productive academic techniques such as debate, critical thought and the ability to read and research independently. This is an approach to education which schools in deprived areas, trying to motivate kids from sometimes very difficult backgrounds, do not have the time or money to take up. This was shown recently by a report from the Office of Fair Access, which stated that the proportion of students from low-income families (defined by OFFA as those from families with an income of less than £15, 200 per annum), admitted by the universities has dropped since 1996.[1] The brightest individuals are therefore kept out of the best institutions – a situation which dampens aspirations among the majority of Britain’s school-children and maintains a harm, in that those with the greatest potential and the strongest work ethic do not have an equal chance of being admitted to Oxford or Cambridge. [1] Lee Elliot Major, ‘The simplistic solution to Oxbridge elitism won’t work,’ The Guardian, 28 May 2010 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/28/fair-access-oxbridge-social-elite (accessed 4 January 2012)
Oxbridge is anti-meritocratic

It is wrong to argue that Oxbridge is anti-meritocratic simply because it takes in pupils largely from private schools. Both Oxford and Cambridge are very difficult to get into requiring three A grades – the top grade - at A level.[1] Oxford and Cambridge are therefore taking in the best from the UK school system. That Oxford and Cambridge maintain their dominance of the top industries shows just how good these too universities are at educating their students. [1] ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, University of Oxford, http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/faq.shtml
Oxbridge is anti-meritocratic

The high number of students at Oxbridge who went to public school has meant that what is colloquially known as ‘the Old Boy network’ has prevailed. Oxford and Cambridge for example have always held a grip on the highest offices with 41 of 54 British PMs having attended Oxford or Cambridge.[1] As in turn those who attend Oxbridge are nearly all privileged this ensures the most influential circles of society remain the preserve of the wealthiest, yet not necessarily the most intelligent or able. This is harmful to society at large, as it means industries are not absorbing the best that the country has to offer from all levels of society – only those who are rich enough to get in.[2] The negative effects that a lack of diversity in key industries can have include the discouraging image given to young people from poorer economic backgrounds, dampening the aspirations of those whose families are not rich. Furthermore, industries such as the media, banking and the civil service are not profiting from recruiting talent from every level, hampering the potential of these sectors to be as productive as they can be. [1] Richard Lofthouse, ‘First among equals’, Oxford Today, Vol. 23, No.1, Michaelmas 2010, https://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=619 [2] Owen Jones, ‘Abolish Oxbridge,’ Labour List, 1 June 2011 - http://labourlist.org/2011/06/abolish-oxbridge/ (accessed 3 January 2012)
Reforming Oxbridge could cause a ‘brain-drain.’

The great conceit of those who support Oxbridge is that the students that go there matter more than the institutions and their respective “brands” do. Students from Oxbridge are simply too few in numbers to have any great impact on the UK’s economy if they decided to go overseas to be educated. Forcing Oxbridge to adopt a reformed and updated model of learning would reverse the regressive and dated idea that Oxbridge students are more intelligent and valuable to the nation’s future than they really are. Such an attitude needs to change if the vast majority of the country’s graduates have a chance at success.
More capacity is needed on Britain’s railways

Capacity on the railways is a big problem in the UK. Due to growth since privatisation Britain’s railways take as many passengers as it is physically possible to do; more than a fifth of rush hour passengers have to stand.[1] Growth is almost certain to continue as the roads too are at capacity and population continues to rise. The result is more railways are needed. Rail freight meanwhile if forecast to double by the 2040s. The West Coast Main Line is a particular bottleneck for freight with 40% of UK freight services using the line; any increase would have to come at the expense of passenger services.[2] Transferring the main rail services to the high speed line would free up the WCML to increased freight and commuter use so HS2 would not just mean an increase in long distance capacity. [1] BBC News, ‘London-bound train overcrowding: 100,000 have to stand’, 24 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23436819 [2] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.50, 54
HS2 would benefit Britain’s economy

Big infrastructure projects often provide a big boost to the economy. HS2 will do this in two ways; the first will be in the economic activity created in building the line and the estimated 3100 jobs staffing the railway. Much more important however are the wider economic benefits. On a cost-benefit basis HS2 is considered to be ‘high value for money’ because it will have a 1:2.3 cost:benefit ratio. This ration however could be considerably better if ridership keeps increasing for longer or faster than expected. The overall benefit to the economy is estimated at £53 billion.[1] [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.31
HS2 would damage the England’s green and pleasant land

Railways are supposed to be green – they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than cars or planes. Yet many of those benefits are sacrificed by the desire for high speed which makes these trains much less environmentally friendly than normal trains due to the extra power necessary to reach such speeds. The impact on the British countryside will be immense. The railway will run through four Wildlife Trust reserves, 10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), more than 50 ancient woodlands, and HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result will be the fragmentation of populations of insects, bats, birds and mammals. The Wildlife Trusts argue “The very last thing we should be doing is creating new linear barriers to the movement of wildlife.”[1] [1] The Wildlife Trusts, ‘HS2’, http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/HS2
HS2 is too costly

HS2 is already looking very costly. California’s San Francisco to Los Angeles High Speed rail is 520 miles at a cost of $68billion (£42bln),[1] HS2 will only be 33miles but is already expected to cost about the same £42.6billion.[2] The cost has already grown and there are regular claims even by respected economics analysts such as the Institute of Economic Affairs that it will eventually rise to £80 billion.[3] Britain is only just recovering from a long recession and does not yet have its deficit under control, can it really afford such an immense cost? The money could be spent on a great many other things, not just upgrades to the existing network but schools and hospitals too. [1] AP, ‘No One Knows Where The Money Will Come From For California's $68 Billion High Speed Rail Plan’, Business Insider, 3 April 2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/california-relaunches-high-speed-rail-plan-2012-4#ixzz2jJgiLL5j [2] Hs2, ‘Route, Trains & Cost’, http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost [3] Leftly, Mark, ‘The wrong side of the tracks: Lobbyists for HS2 rail line funded by the taxpayer’, The Independent, 25 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks-lobbyists-for-hs2-rail-line-funded-by-the-taxpayer-8783673.html
Bridging the north south divide

This makes the strange assumption that Leeds and Manchester, or even Birmingham is the north. In pure geographic terms they are not even half way up the country from London – what about Newcastle and Scotland? The evidence for the possibility of a high speed railway helping to solve regional inequalities is decidedly mixed. Theoretically if one region has comparative advantage then providing it with better transport infrastructure should mean that region simply expanding its market – in this case London would likely have the comparative advantage so increasing inequality.[1] While this has not happened with all high speed links what will happen is that the regional hubs may grow but it will likely be at the expense of surrounding towns that are not connected and areas further away from the line. The government’s own figures estimate the cost to the North East of Scotland would be £220million per year.[2] [1] Puga, Diego, ‘Agglomeration and cross border infrastructure’, European Investment Bank Papers, vol.13, no.2, 2008, pp.102-24, https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/44896/1/574950850.pdf p.117 [2] BBC News, ‘HS2 ‘losers’ revealed as report shows potential impact’, 19 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652
Does not easily connect to the continent

Would it not be nice to be able to travel from Edinburgh straight through to Paris without having to stop in London? This was part of the initial dream of the Channel Tunnel with proposals for regional Eurostar services.[1] Unfortunately HS2 will not provide this option. There is a proposed link but it is currently single track and unlikely to be enough even to meet demand for domestic services running around London let alone international services from Birmingham and Manchester.[2] The much more sensible option of not having a terminal station, or at least some through platforms, has been ignored. [1] BBC News, ‘Regions ‘cheated’ over Eurostar’, 27 January 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/263836.stm [2] Railnews, ‘Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link’, 1 June 2013, http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/06/01-rethink-urged-over-absurd-hs2hs1.html
Faster travel between British cities

This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2.[1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big.[2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes. [1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013, http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/08/02/east-coast-pendolinos-could-deliver-faster-journey-times-than-hs2-for-anglo-scottish-services/ [2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10411885/HS2-time-savings-exaggerated-critics-say.html
There are other options

None of the alternatives is a comprehensive solution and particularly not to the capacity problem. What happens once the double decker trains are at capacity? Then you are back to thinking of building new lines. Upgrading existing lines would require 14 years of weekend closures to allow the needed capacity increases. This would be “a patch and mend job that would cause 14 years of gridlock, hellish journeys and rail replacement buses. The three main routes to the north would be crippled and the economy would be damaged.”[1] The difference between HS1 and the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line should also be mentioned. HS1 was a stand alone line that was on time and on budget,[2] WCML on the other hand was £6 billion over budget, four years late and caused immense amounts of disruption to passengers, what’s worse is the proposed upgrade part of the plan to make the line 140mph capable was abandoned.[3] [1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘HS2 alternatives could require 14 years of weekend rail closures’, The Guardian, 28 October 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/27/hs2-weekend-rail-closures-cost-backbench-mps [2] Major Projects Association, ‘Delivering High Speed 1: the successes and the lessons’, 7 February 2008, http://www.majorprojects.org/pdf/seminarsummaries/139summarydeliveringHS1.pdf p.4 [3] All Party Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, ‘A Better Deal For Public Building’, cic.org.uk, September 2012, http://www.majorprojects.org/pdf/seminarsummaries/139summarydeliveringHS1.pdf, p.24
High speed rail never makes a profit

We should not just be considering fares as the be all and end all. Successful rail companies elsewhere don’t tend to make a profit on ticket sales but instead through diversification. Tokyu, one of Japan’s private railways, has revenue of $2.63 billion and profits of $587millio but only a third of the revenue comes from rail fares with real estate bringing in about the same amount and much of the rest from retail.[1] Franchises make this difficult to operate in the UK but HS2 might have tracks/land/stations and operating trains integrated so providing an opportunity. Moreover it is wrong to suggest that only a couple of lines have made a profit as this is only a couple of lines have made a profit including the immense construction cost on the loss side of the balance sheet. Most high speed lines at least break even without subsidies after a few years of operation, as has been the case in Taiwan[2] – which is better than Britain’s other railways. [1] Jaffe, Eric, ‘The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success’, The Atlantic, 18 May 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/secret-tokyos-rail-success/2044/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail#Revenue_and_Cost
Bridging the north south divide

The UK has a north south divide in terms of wealth and income. London and the South East has for the last few decades done much better than the north; while industry and mining in the north has declined financial services in the south have boomed. The result is inequality between regions. High Speed Two will help to solve this inequality by increasing connections between north and south. The government “suggests that HS2 could provide a boost to the Birmingham city region equivalent to between 2.1% and 4.2% of its GDP. For the Manchester city region the figure is 0.8%-1.7%, for the Leeds city region 1.6%”.[1] This is because businesses will be more likely to invest there when there is better infrastructure, companies based in London in particular will be much more likely to see the benefits of investing in, or partnering with businesses in the north when they can easily reach those cities. [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf p.99
Britain is behind the rest of Europe on high speed rail

The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines.[1]   [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country
Faster travel between British cities

The most obvious benefit from high speed rail is that journey times will be less. From London the journey to Birmingham will be reduced from 84 to 49 minutes, Leeds from 132 to 82 and Manchester 128 to 68.[1] While faster journeys provide some economic benefit the are as much a social benefit of making more places accessible by allowing individuals to spend less time traveling and more doing what they want to when they get there. [1] Hs2, ‘facts, figures and journey times’, http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/facts-figures
There are other options

There are plenty of other options that don’t have the disadvantages of HS2 (high cost, environmental impacts etc.) but do meet most of the requirements like increased capacity. First because it is capacity on main commuter lines that is mostly needed it makes more sense to lengthen platforms and trains, and if that is not enough raise bridges to allow double deckers on the busiest routes. The government rejected such an option in 2007 due to the cheapest option costing £2.4billion, which seems cheap compared to HS2.[1] Similarly if the capacity problem is for freight as a chunk of the business case is then reopening the Great Central Railway could be the answer – most of the track bed still exists. It has been proposed as a useful freight corridor that would help take the load off the West Coast.[2] Finally terms of faster journey times as already noted there is little need for more speed in the UK but even without HS2 journey times will improve as East Coast and Great Western are to be upgraded to 140mph. And in terms of capacity on intercity rail the better option has been suggested as being lengthening trains and reducing first class – which has been estimated as having a benefit of £6.06 for every pound invested, 2.5times that of HS2.[3] [1] Millward, David, ‘Britons squash plans for double-decker trains’, The Telegraph, 16 September 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563277/Britons-squash-plans-for-double-decker-trains.html [2] ‘Great Central is the way to go’, http://beleben.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/great-central-is-the-way-to-go/ [3] Doward, Jamie, ‘HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report’, 14 January 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/14/hs2-value-rail-option-report
High speed rail never makes a profit

The UK already knows that it is difficult to make rail services pay their way, currently fares from passengers despite regular criticism of them being too high, only cover 65% of operating costs.[1] High speed rail is no different in this regard; most of China’s high speed lines make a loss[2] indeed the only lines to have made a profit are Tokyo-Osaka and Paris Lyon.[3] [1] ‘Rail ridership hits new highs as will regulated rail fares from January 2014’, Rail.co.uk, 19 August 2013, http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/rail-ridership-hits-new-highs-as-will-regulated-rail-fares-from-january-2014/ [2] Wan, Zhang, ‘High Speed Train Too Expensive’, Chienglish.com, 1 April 2013, http://english.cri.cn/7146/2013/01/04/2361s742015.htm [3] Feigenbaum, Baruch, ‘High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States’, Reason Foundation, 2013, http://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf
More capacity is needed on Britain’s railways

This is exactly what makes HS2 a bad scheme. Yes there is overcrowding but the worst overcrowding is on peak services travelling into London – commuter services – not on long distance trains. It is notable that the operator that is most over capacity is First Great Western which covers a route – to Reading and on to Bristol, South Wales and the West country - which will be unaffected by HS2 which goes north.
HS2 would damage the England’s green and pleasant land

Some of these costs have already been included in the cost:benefit ratio such as the impact of pollution and greenhouse gases. Moreover there have already been changes made to ensure that the high speed line runs in tunnels through areas where the damage would otherwise be significant. More than 50% of the route to Birmingham will be in tunnels or cuttings and much of the remainder will have barriers to prevent noise pollution.[1] Given the number of tunnels it is wrong to consider the railway one long barrier to wildlife. If it is considered a serious problem then solutions would not be immensely costly – tunnels under the tracks could be constructed for example. [1] Railway-technology.com, ‘High Speed 2 (HS2) Railway, United Kingdom’, http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/high-speed-2-hs2/
450 PPM

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.  2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).
Developing world

Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change. 1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.
Failure to reach global accord

The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless. 1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.  improve this