Best Of

Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

Blame Trump & not Reeves.

Actually it is both, not least the job destroying budget but also bringing forward pre April economic activity to beat stamp duty hikes but of course exports to beats Trump's tariffs

Furthermore Reeves was not blind to the consequences of her budget and trade woes

We're now also going to get months of speculation as to which taxes are going to be increased in the Budget at the end of October.

Which will act as a further disincentive to investing by business and more financial angst among individuals as to pensions planning.

Reeves would do less damage if she increased income tax by 2% now and got it over with.

Pentagon launches review of Aukus nuclear submarine deal

​Ending pact would be blow to security alliance with Australia and UK


The Pentagon has launched a review of the 2021 Aukus submarine deal with the UK and Australia, throwing the security pact into doubt at a time of heightened tension with China.

The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.

Ending the submarine and advanced technology development agreement would destroy a pillar of security co-operation between the allies. The review has triggered anxiety in London and Canberra.

https://www.ft.com/content/4a9355d9-4aff-49ec-bf7e-ea21de97917b

Could become aukward.

Pentagon launches review of Aukus nuclear submarine deal

​Ending pact would be blow to security alliance with Australia and UK


The Pentagon has launched a review of the 2021 Aukus submarine deal with the UK and Australia, throwing the security pact into doubt at a time of heightened tension with China.

The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.

Ending the submarine and advanced technology development agreement would destroy a pillar of security co-operation between the allies. The review has triggered anxiety in London and Canberra.

https://www.ft.com/content/4a9355d9-4aff-49ec-bf7e-ea21de97917b

If Trump's minions kill AUKUS that will do catastrophic damage to relations with Aus and the UK. I wish I could believe Trump isn't that stupid, but he very much is.

On the bright side it would be a significant opportunity for the UK to sell SSNs (or at least designs and reactors) to selected allies if the US decides they're uninterested in doing that.

AUKUS was a branchild of the last administration, therefore it must be bad. It's oppositionalism at it's worse.

There's an extraordinary blindness to the fact that the US gets its gear cheaper, because the cost of development is subsidised by the British, the Japanese and a host of other nations, while the US gets first dibs, and (ulimately) control.

But if you cease to be a reliable partner, then who will buy your defence exports? Who wants to be dependent on a country that doesn't seem interested in keeping its commitments?

Which in turn means that the US will need to spend more money to be in the same position.

European defence companies have been handed the most extraordinary lifeline by the US.

Roads not mentioned by Reeves - literally not one single word.

Given the huge sums of capital investment announced, you would have thought roads (you know, the way most journeys are done) would get something.

Just astonishing that nothing said about going ahead with the A66 - the most obvious, big, important project ready to go.

And of course it's in the north - which Labour is meant to be favouring for investment.

Even Tim Farron (of the usually anti-roads Lib Dems) is very unhappy (of course it would benefit his own constituency!).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q0zl0j73po

So nothing about duelling the A1 to Scotland either?

That's already been cancelled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdxvppgjj0o

£68 million already spent on the project without it even being started.

WTF!?

There's an issue with these projects. They're not just planned by an ignoramus crayoning lines onto a map. Potential routes need surveying; geological, environmental, archeological and flora and fauna data all needs to go into the decision of which route to take. And if you want prices anywhere near accurate, you don't just say: "We'll put a concrete beam bridge over that stream"; you say: "Actually, the ground there is mud and peat down to twenty feet. We'll need piles down to the bedrock, and because the area often flash floods, we'll put in culverts either side to relieve floodwaters. Oh, and one can be used for an access track for a farmer, meaning we don't need to build that occupation bridge over there. We'll spend £5 million on the culverts, but save £8 million on not building the occupation bridge. Lifetime maintenance costs should also be lower for the culverts, and electrification clearances are not relevant."

This is outline, not detailed design, but until such decisions are made, costs are incredibly vague. This early work saves vast amounts of money later.

The surveys along cost money. Some work is being done on the EWR rail route near us, and some scrotes stole (from memory) over £200,000 of metal track that had been placed across fields to allow the surveys to occur. That's stuff needed just to support the surveys.

So the question becomes how much of these things do you do before detailed planning and construction starts: none, and have costs balloon during design and construction, or a large amount, and risk the money being lost if the project does not go ahead?

(And yes, there will be stupid costs in there, such as legal costs... )