That is a funny headline. As an atheist I'm all about the, shall we say, civic side of Christmas, but I would find it hard to bemoan the religious 'baggage'.
Christmas is a funny one though, it's obviously a pagan festival repurposed by Christians in Europe to sell their new religion, and many of the elements we enjoy, like Father Christmas or Christmas trees, have sweet FA to do with Christianity.
Have you got an abridged version? It seems to consist mainly of debunking claims I'd never even heard of. It just seems to me unlikely to be a coincidence that Christians scheduled one of their major festivals at the same time as the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, or that this festival has become the main one in the Christian calendar, coinciding with the time when people most need cheering up. Similarly, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that many elements of Christmas celebrations don't derive from scripture.
It's a lot of words and, as you say, doesn't touch the central point which is, a winter solstice jolly is very obviously a winter solstice jolly, however you slice it. And has nothing to say about the truth or not of Christianity anyway.
Polly makes a good point about “lo he abhors not the virgin’s womb” though, bloody weird, why would you? "I can tell you this, I'm a broad minded sort of person and can take most internal organs in my stride, but where I draw the line is..."
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
They are not a quick fix, but a key and lacking component to improve connectivity in urban areas, something that over 60 German towns and cities have and very few in the UK have.
We're also missing the high speed railway, both highlighting the low term lack of investment in infrastructure outside of London in this country.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Whilst I agree with your underlying perspective, you are rather exaggerating when it comes to Spain's Tram system. There are a total of 9 cities in Spain with tram systems. There are also 6 cities with metro systems some of those are in cities which also have trams.
There are in total 14 cities in Spain served by metro or tram systems
Madrid (4 or 5 separate but linked systems) Barcelona Bilbao Alicante Valencia Granada Malaga Seville Cadiz Mallorca Tenerife Murcia Vitoria Zaragoza
In the UK there are 4 cities with metro systems (if you count the Liverpool Merseyrail). There are also 7 cities with tram systems - none of which also has a metro system.
There are in total 11 cities/towns in the UK served by metro or tram systems
London (3 now if you count the Underground, DLR and Crossrail separately) Glasgow Newcastle Liverpool Manchester Edinburgh Croydon Blackpool Nottingham Sheffield Birmingham
It is also worth pointing out that the development of the Spanish rapid transit systems have relied heavily on EU finding since Spain is a beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU budget. It is always good to build stuff when other people are paying.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
HS2 and crossrail are two of the largest infrastructure projects in Europe in recent years.
True, though Crossrail is in That Here London, as are the Jubilee Line Extension and Overground. And London is doing fine.
Elsewhere, the pickings are much thinner. We know what ought to be done, but we drag our feet something rotten about doing it. See the way that HS2 has been quibbled about and pruned, and some people would happily bin it tomorrow.
Do countries like Spain have nimbys, or are we just overpopulated for area?
Just back in the UK for a few days. Driving North on the M6 was pretty interesting. Basically the infrastructure constructed in the 1960s/70s is trying to cope with the traffic levels of 50 years later, and despite band-aid fixes like the so-called "smart Motorways", it is failing badly.
Small fixes in the rail system only upgrade things from a Victorian level and the strikes make the system unusable anyway- last Wednesday I was quoted over £300 for a single ticket on trainline from London to the Cotswolds. In any event it should not take nearly three hours to complete a 90 mile journey.
It left me reflecting that the NHS strikes in England are just another stunning failure of leadership. Everywhere you look the whole country looks dreary and run down. It takes longer to drive to Scotland from the South than it did 30 years ago.
Schools in Scotland are in complete crisis, and previous Scottish excellence in, for example, STEM subjects has just evaporated. At every level political intervention and incompetence is evident, and all the Scottish Parliament can point to is legislation, which- whatever its merits- is addressing the concerns and rights of an stunningly small minority. The point is that everyone has an opinion on Trans rights, whereas few understand the scale of the economic mess that both Scotland and England now face. Several members of my family have had to up sticks and leave Scotland because the systems they rely on do not deliver what they are supposed to do.
Although the party of government is clearly bereft of ideas and talent, the entire political system is sclerotic and creaking. The national conversation is mean and small and leading nowhere: In Scotland the Nats shut down all debate unless on their own terms, and it is a bitter and pointless mess. Brutal and aggressive the atmosphere is increasingly coarse and threatening. In England the milquetoast Tory leadership feebly protest that corruption is not that bad... failing to recognize how angry voters are at the fiasco of the last 6 years.
I am sure that most people, like me after only 4 days here, are just shouting at the TV as some PR bullshit line is paraded past the graphics heavy/information lite interviewers.
If we get the governments we deserve, it seems that the voters must be apathetic and defeated on both sides of the border.
One thing is for sure, the fate of the world is certainly not being decided by the pygmy leaders in either London or in Edinburgh.
Great that you’ve popped back to give us the benefit of your vicariously held opinions. We really don’t get enough of that on PB.
I have to say I have travelled down to Heathrow and back in the last 24 hours to pick up my son and daughter in-law and do not recognise the description of the M6 particularly as I use the toll road.
Furthermore I have travelled to Lossiemouth from Llandudno since 1965 and the travel times are immeasurably better though the A9 lack of dualling is a long standing issue
Yes we have problems but so do many other countries including those in Europe
The difference is that other countries do not ignore their problems until it is too late. Travelling on Polish Roads over the past 30 years has been transformed, for example. The speed limit on what is now the A96 is down to 50 in several places, because junctions were never upgraded. I can remember how things were before -say- the Forfar bypass was built in the mid eighties, but since then things have not been maintained. As noted the Motorway viaducts in Birmingham will need to be replaced soon and the costs are going be scarily high. Who has the leadership skills to explain to the Brits how bad things will be if we don´t start fixing things up even at the cost of disruption to millions...
You do have an incredibly negative view of the UK.
Well, I do have the privilege of seeing other countries where the problems are neither so serious nor so ignored. The astonishing modernization of countries like Estonia and Poland is exciting and actually rather moving, given the horrors of 20th century history.
I am not so much negative as irritated that it did not have to be this way. The issues we face could have been addressed a long time ago but largely for short term political convenience they were let to drift until they became a really serious problem. In a way I am an optimist, I believe that reform can actually deliver us a better country.
A comparison between Polish and UK GDP per capita (PPP) from 1990-now
The countries grow in remarkable lockstep, with a few exceptions - the GFC and Covid hit the UK worse, tho at the other times Poland's growth has been a little slower
The UK's GDP per cap remains $12k ahead of Poland's
So you mean we've gone from around 180% more than Poland to around 33% more?
That means, and I hate to break it to you, that they've been growing a lot quicker than us.
But if we've both added - say - £20k per person to GDP over the past 30 years, what's the problem? You'd expect Poland to grow faster as it is released from the artificial penury of communism.
Because the “mental map” is changing, as noted above.
Britain used to be on a par with France and catching up with Germany or even US (for a brief moment in the 2000s).
Now we are struggling to keep ahead of Spain and I do actually suspect that the UK “North” is on a par with Poland now.
So, I was going to dispute your contention re Spain, but - on OECD numbers - the gap in real disposible income has almost disappeared between us and them.
What's fascinating, though, is the reason: Spaniards earn 15-20% less than Brits, but their housing and other living costs are significantly lower.
But housing costs vary enormously per person.
If you've paid off your mortgage then they can be minimal.
While for others they can take almost all of their earnings.
Meaning there can be huge differences in standard of living between similar people in this country merely because of differences in age or location.
Of course: but on average, Brits spend a higher proportion of their income on housing than almost every peer country.
They also end up with more housing, and more housing assets, so I never know quite what to make of this reasoning. It's like saying: buying more iPhones out of disposable income than your neighbour country adds to your well-being, but buying the equivalent additional housing doesn't.
It doesn’t add enough to your well-being if prices are inflated beyond affordability and you can’t afford childcare and a season ticket etc.
If houses were literally unaffordable to most people, we'd see 30 million Brits living on the streets. So "affordability" must mean something else - roughly, I imagine it means that people would like more for what they spend, which is of course a very reasonable thing to want, but it's no longer clear that it's a desirable policy goal to reduce their spend on houses when articulated this way. If people want that extra 100 sq ft instead of a season ticket, who're we to stop them. Now to the extent that you can make housing cheaper for the same quality, why not! - but for most policies that would do this, 70% of people will want to vote you out, even voting Lib Dem if they have to - and they might just end up spending the difference on more housing anyway.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
If you have been on the trams in Manchester, you will realise their capacity are quite limited. Most of the services are 2-car trams with limited capacity.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
I think it's a little better than that - when you consider all forms of rapid transit, including suburban heavy rail, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham also have comparable systems to Manchester.
Generally, yes, our cities' rapid transit infrastructure could be better. But having removed it all in the middle half of the twentieth century we were starting from a very low base. Progress over the past 45 years has been sporadic but in the right direction.
That is a funny headline. As an atheist I'm all about the, shall we say, civic side of Christmas, but I would find it hard to bemoan the religious 'baggage'.
Christmas is a funny one though, it's obviously a pagan festival repurposed by Christians in Europe to sell their new religion, and many of the elements we enjoy, like Father Christmas or Christmas trees, have sweet FA to do with Christianity. On the other hand, I am an atheist who loves singing Christmas carols and finds the story of the little baby Jesus in the manger very seductive. I just let the whole crazy cultural mish-mash wash over me and try to enjoy the bits I like. None of it is coherent for me, but it's what we've got.
Only in Europe, for Christians in Brazil or South Africa or Australia Christmas isn't even in winter but their Summer
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
If you have been on the trams in Manchester, you will realise their capacity are quite limited. Most of the services are 2-car trams with limited capacity.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
I travel by Metrolink daily.
Look at the infrastructure built to encourage economic growth in London to help facilitate that massive centralisaion.
Compare to the investment elsewhere in the country and you can see clearly why companies choose to base themselves in London.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Whilst I agree with your underlying perspective, you are rather exaggerating when it comes to Spain's Tram system. There are a total of 9 cities in Spain with tram systems. There are also 6 cities with metro systems some of those are in cities which also have trams.
There are in total 14 cities in Spain served by metro or tram systems
Madrid (4 or 5 separate but linked systems) Barcelona Bilbao Alicante Valencia Granada Malaga Seville Cadiz Mallorca Tenerife Murcia Vitoria Zaragoza
In the UK there are 4 cities with metro systems (if you count the Liverpool Merseyrail). There are also 7 cities with tram systems - none of which also has a metro system.
There are in total 11 cities/towns in the UK served by metro or tram systems
London (3 now if you count the Underground, DLR and Crossrail separately) Glasgow Newcastle Liverpool Manchester Edinburgh Croydon Blackpool Nottingham Sheffield Birmingham
It is also worth pointing out that the development of the Spanish rapid transit systems have relied heavily on EU finding since Spain is a beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU budget. It is always good to build stuff when other people are paying.
Some countries, like France, Netherlands, or Germany just pay for them themselves, so you last point is irrelevant.
Also a simple count doesn’t really do the issue justice. Look at Birmingham’s metro map and do a comparison with other European cities of a similar population.
Anyway, again, there are always people who want to nitpick. The big issue is clear, Britain has failed in invest - not just in transport infrastructure, but also as we saw the other day, in healthcare infrastructure. The same is certainly true in R&D and unlikely in education.
And instead we’ve bid up the pricing of housing which means that so much of our disposable income goes on “rent” that our standard of living is falling behind our peers.
The Tories are currently holding the ball, but the issue goes way back.
That is a funny headline. As an atheist I'm all about the, shall we say, civic side of Christmas, but I would find it hard to bemoan the religious 'baggage'.
Christmas is a funny one though, it's obviously a pagan festival repurposed by Christians in Europe to sell their new religion, and many of the elements we enjoy, like Father Christmas or Christmas trees, have sweet FA to do with Christianity.
Have you got an abridged version? It seems to consist mainly of debunking claims I'd never even heard of. It just seems to me unlikely to be a coincidence that Christians scheduled one of their major festivals at the same time as the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, or that this festival has become the main one in the Christian calendar, coinciding with the time when people most need cheering up. Similarly, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that many elements of Christmas celebrations don't derive from scripture.
It's a lot of words and, as you say, doesn't touch the central point which is, a winter solstice jolly is very obviously a winter solstice jolly, however you slice it. And has nothing to say about the truth or not of Christianity anyway.
Polly makes a good point about “lo he abhors not the virgin’s womb” though, bloody weird, why would you? "I can tell you this, I'm a broad minded sort of person and can take most internal organs in my stride, but where I draw the line is..."
The irony is, in fact, that the coincidence is likely to be the other way around - that because the feast of Christmas fell near the pagan feasts of Saturnalia (17-22 December) and Yule (21-24 December) it looks as though it might be derived from them, when it wasn't.
Just back in the UK for a few days. Driving North on the M6 was pretty interesting. Basically the infrastructure constructed in the 1960s/70s is trying to cope with the traffic levels of 50 years later, and despite band-aid fixes like the so-called "smart Motorways", it is failing badly.
Small fixes in the rail system only upgrade things from a Victorian level and the strikes make the system unusable anyway- last Wednesday I was quoted over £300 for a single ticket on trainline from London to the Cotswolds. In any event it should not take nearly three hours to complete a 90 mile journey.
It left me reflecting that the NHS strikes in England are just another stunning failure of leadership. Everywhere you look the whole country looks dreary and run down. It takes longer to drive to Scotland from the South than it did 30 years ago.
Schools in Scotland are in complete crisis, and previous Scottish excellence in, for example, STEM subjects has just evaporated. At every level political intervention and incompetence is evident, and all the Scottish Parliament can point to is legislation, which- whatever its merits- is addressing the concerns and rights of an stunningly small minority. The point is that everyone has an opinion on Trans rights, whereas few understand the scale of the economic mess that both Scotland and England now face. Several members of my family have had to up sticks and leave Scotland because the systems they rely on do not deliver what they are supposed to do.
Although the party of government is clearly bereft of ideas and talent, the entire political system is sclerotic and creaking. The national conversation is mean and small and leading nowhere: In Scotland the Nats shut down all debate unless on their own terms, and it is a bitter and pointless mess. Brutal and aggressive the atmosphere is increasingly coarse and threatening. In England the milquetoast Tory leadership feebly protest that corruption is not that bad... failing to recognize how angry voters are at the fiasco of the last 6 years.
I am sure that most people, like me after only 4 days here, are just shouting at the TV as some PR bullshit line is paraded past the graphics heavy/information lite interviewers.
If we get the governments we deserve, it seems that the voters must be apathetic and defeated on both sides of the border.
One thing is for sure, the fate of the world is certainly not being decided by the pygmy leaders in either London or in Edinburgh.
What an excellent post.You have captured the post Brexit mood perfectly though I would apply it more to England than Scotland. The country (particularly England) compared to other places in Europe is going down the toilet. It has never been this bad. I've just come back from France and Italy and the contrast is frankly embarrassing. My advice to anyone under 50 is to sell your homes and move before it gets even worse
Given Italy now has Meloni in charge, if by 2028 we have Starmer as PM and France Le Pen as President you will change your tune rapidly
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
If you have been on the trams in Manchester, you will realise their capacity are quite limited. Most of the services are 2-car trams with limited capacity.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
I travel by Metrolink daily.
Look at the infrastructure built to encourage economic growth in London to help facilitate that massive centralisaion.
Compare to the investment elsewhere in the country and you can see clearly why companies choose to base themselves in London.
There are many reasons to invest in London, and mass transit is one of them, but the primary difference between London and Birmingham from a global economic perspective is not the tube.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
HS2 and crossrail are two of the largest infrastructure projects in Europe in recent years.
True, though Crossrail is in That Here London, as are the Jubilee Line Extension and Overground. And London is doing fine.
Elsewhere, the pickings are much thinner. We know what ought to be done, but we drag our feet something rotten about doing it. See the way that HS2 has been quibbled about and pruned, and some people would happily bin it tomorrow.
Do countries like Spain have nimbys, or are we just overpopulated for area?
My immediate impression is the latter but that might just be lazy thinking on my part. There are very large areas of the interior of Spain which have very low population density but of course that then tends to concentrate the population more in the coastal regions so it is a weird case of extremes - low population density overall but one of the highest population densities in Europe in its metropolitan areas.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
If you have been on the trams in Manchester, you will realise their capacity are quite limited. Most of the services are 2-car trams with limited capacity.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
I travel by Metrolink daily.
Look at the infrastructure built to encourage economic growth in London to help facilitate that massive centralisaion.
Compare to the investment elsewhere in the country and you can see clearly why companies choose to base themselves in London.
There are many reasons to invest in London, and mass transit is one of them, but the primary difference between London and Birmingham from a global economic perspective is not the tube.
That’s not the argument
The argument is that it helps explain the difference between Birmingham and, say, Düsseldorf.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
They have gleaming investment and yet their kids fan out over freezing Northern Europe because a job is better than no job. That's the funny thing about investment: you can build it, make it look cool, and still people might not use it to generate economic activity (i.e. tax revenue).
Because their population grew more rapidly. Looking at unemployment rates, Spain's was 15% in 2000 and remains closer to 15% than 10% today. The UK's unemployment rate is south of 5%; Spain's has rarely gone under 10%. Spain is a great country in which to be a skilled, middle-class worker. For the other half, outcomes can be as miserable as in the medieval bits of Italy.
It's a bit more complex than that: Spain's employment-to-working age population ratio is now at all time highs, despite the unemployment number.
The St Louis Fed has data on the working age population of Spain, and you can see that it went from 27 million in 1999 to a peak of 31.6m at the end of 2008. It has since dropped back to 31 million.
Employment to working age population has therefore gone from just over 50% (14 out of 27 million), to 67% (20.5m out of 31 million). And this is now above the 2008 peak of 64%.
Now, the bulk of the improvement - as @another_richard noted - happened at the start of the period, but it's simply not the case that Spain's improvement in incomes has come from everyone leaving for other jobs across the EU. On the contrary, in the last quarter century, Spain has probably had the biggest improvement in the proportion of working age people in work in the developed world.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Whilst I agree with your underlying perspective, you are rather exaggerating when it comes to Spain's Tram system. There are a total of 9 cities in Spain with tram systems. There are also 6 cities with metro systems some of those are in cities which also have trams.
There are in total 14 cities in Spain served by metro or tram systems
Madrid (4 or 5 separate but linked systems) Barcelona Bilbao Alicante Valencia Granada Malaga Seville Cadiz Mallorca Tenerife Murcia Vitoria Zaragoza
In the UK there are 4 cities with metro systems (if you count the Liverpool Merseyrail). There are also 7 cities with tram systems - none of which also has a metro system.
There are in total 11 cities/towns in the UK served by metro or tram systems
London (3 now if you count the Underground, DLR and Crossrail separately) Glasgow Newcastle Liverpool Manchester Edinburgh Croydon Blackpool Nottingham Sheffield Birmingham
It is also worth pointing out that the development of the Spanish rapid transit systems have relied heavily on EU finding since Spain is a beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU budget. It is always good to build stuff when other people are paying.
Some countries, like France, Netherlands, or Germany just pay for them themselves, so you last point is irrelevant.
Also a simple count doesn’t really do the issue justice. Look at Birmingham’s metro map and do a comparison with other European cities of a similar population.
Anyway, again, there are always people who want to nitpick. The big issue is clear, Britain has failed in invest - not just in transport infrastructure, but also as we saw the other day, in healthcare infrastructure. The same is certainly true in R&D and unlikely in education.
And instead we’ve bid up the pricing of housing which means that so much of our disposable income goes on “rent” that our standard of living is falling behind our peers.
The Tories are currently holding the ball, but the issue goes way back.
You are being misleading. I was not talking about other countries - I was specifically referring to Spain. So in the context of the discussion and the comment I was replying to it was in no way irrelevant.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
If you have been on the trams in Manchester, you will realise their capacity are quite limited. Most of the services are 2-car trams with limited capacity.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
I travel by Metrolink daily.
Look at the infrastructure built to encourage economic growth in London to help facilitate that massive centralisaion.
Compare to the investment elsewhere in the country and you can see clearly why companies choose to base themselves in London.
There are many reasons to invest in London, and mass transit is one of them, but the primary difference between London and Birmingham from a global economic perspective is not the tube.
That’s not the argument
The argument is that it helps explain the difference between Birmingham and, say, Düsseldorf.
It was literally the argument - "why companies choose to base themselves in London."
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
I think it's a little better than that - when you consider all forms of rapid transit, including suburban heavy rail, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham also have comparable systems to Manchester.
Generally, yes, our cities' rapid transit infrastructure could be better. But having removed it all in the middle half of the twentieth century we were starting from a very low base. Progress over the past 45 years has been sporadic but in the right direction.
To be fair Spain also removed all of their tram systems and didn't start reintroduction until after the end of the Franco era.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a country where our Metro Mayors had the power to do so and did not have to go begging to the treasury in Whitehall begging for them to be allowed to build anything ?
It's really odd how other economically successful cities right across the capitalist world gets on and builds them, recognising the long term economic benefit yet almost uniquely the UK is different and would not benefit in the same manner.
Latest EMA, allocating half the Reform and Green vote share to the Tories and Labour respectively, gives Labour an overall majority of 218. NB Labour had a 179 overall majority in 1997.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
Exactly
Look at Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of western Europe, medium sized cities have extensive tram networks, they all have extensive (and growing) high speed rail networks.
In the UK we have failed to invest in infrastructure outside the South East and as a result we don't see the productivity and wealth we see across Western Europe outside of the South East.
And here's a take on why this matters. Rush hour buses are slow and unreliable, which limits the economic power of provincial cities in England;
A quick check on Google suggests over 60 different German towns and cities have an operating tram networks.
Other than Metrolink in Manchester, no other UK city has close to a comprehensive tram network and non where outside London has a real underground.
We only have high speed rail going from London to the continent and a whole heap of mostly southerners complaining about the idea of taking high speed rail north, so much so half of the northern section has been cancelled.
The Manchester Metro is very good for a metro. I was in Pisa last week and there was a sign on their light rail into the city advertising train journeys to Venice for 18 euros (300 kms).
Are you sitting down? I want you to sit down, Mr HYUFD. I have bad news for you. Mr Gibson is an actor. He is, also, Australian (and US born). And in the film Braveheart he was acting. You know, making up stories about what he isn't in real life.
If you get your views of Scottish politics from a dodgy history film ...
Gibson directed Braveheart though and is anti English (see also the Patriot and Gallipoli). He is anti Jewish too (see the Passion of the Christ and remarks he was caught making)
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Well, they can’t. Hardly, anyway. Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Well, they can’t. Hardly, anyway. Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
Exactly.
Some of the people who want to abdicate any responsibility of the government to help improve matters in this country appear to have a gaping lack of understanding in how this country actually operates.
Andy Burnham cannot just go and borrow to build a new metro, he cannot raise taxes to build a new metro, everything he does has to go through the treasury who decide what he can and cannot do.
That is a funny headline. As an atheist I'm all about the, shall we say, civic side of Christmas, but I would find it hard to bemoan the religious 'baggage'.
Christmas is a funny one though, it's obviously a pagan festival repurposed by Christians in Europe to sell their new religion, and many of the elements we enjoy, like Father Christmas or Christmas trees, have sweet FA to do with Christianity.
Have you got an abridged version? It seems to consist mainly of debunking claims I'd never even heard of. It just seems to me unlikely to be a coincidence that Christians scheduled one of their major festivals at the same time as the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, or that this festival has become the main one in the Christian calendar, coinciding with the time when people most need cheering up. Similarly, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that many elements of Christmas celebrations don't derive from scripture.
Whether it seems an unlikely coincidence to you or not, the evidence suggests it was a coincidence, based on the idea Jesus died on the same day he was conceived which was believed to be the 25th March.
Similarly, it's uncontroversial that while many elements (e.g. Christmas trees) are not scriptural in origin, neither are they pagan.
If we don't want to read it fine, but don't claim things are 'obvious' from a position of ignorance or at best, limited knowledge and then refuse to engage with the actual scholarship when it is presented to you. If I'm honest, I thought it would interest you.
A quote from your source
"This is total garbage – nothing like this is found in any version of the Baldur story and where Andrews got this crap from I have no idea."
Scholars may *think* this on a regular basis - they are not up to the job if they don't - but by putting it in print they forfeit absolutely all claim to be taken seriously.
Your 25 March argument is a bit thin because it's just another cardinal event in the solar calendar and 2. the "idea" is without much I can see in the way of biblical authority.
And none of this matters anyway, except to silly US fundamentalists. What with holly and fir trees and mistletoe and snow this is clearly a festival with Northern European decorative theme. So what?
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Well, they can’t. Hardly, anyway. Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
I'm familiar with people being more willing to talk about how good things would be without being willing to put their money where their mouths are.
The media is full of groups from A to Z all demanding money for what they deem is important and how if its given it will be, to use a phrase, a 'wealth multiplier'.
And if it doesn't turn out to be so then the answer being yet more money being 'invested'.
Now 'to govern is to choose' and all that but I do have sympathy for those who have to make the decisions in these situations.
Because whoever makes the decision - national government, local government, businesses or private individuals - actually getting a positive return on an investment is a lot harder to do than it is to talk about 'wealth multipliers' on the internet.
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Well, they can’t. Hardly, anyway. Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
I'm familiar with people being more willing to talk about how good things would be without being willing to put their money where their mouths are.
The media is full of groups from A to Z all demanding money for what they deem is important and how if its given it will be, to use a phrase, a 'wealth multiplier'.
And if it doesn't turn out to be so then the answer being yet more money being 'invested'.
Now 'to govern is to choose' and all that but I do have sympathy for those who have to make the decisions in these situations.
Because whoever makes the decision - national government, local government, businesses or private individuals - actually getting a positive return on an investment is a lot harder to do than it is to talk about 'wealth multipliers' on the internet.
Vancouver (WA) Columbian - Kent concedes 3rd District race to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
Republican Joe Kent on Wednesday officially conceded the race to represent Washington’s 3rd Congressional District after being defeated by Rep.-elect Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania.
“I promised during the campaign that I would accept the outcome of the election, now definitively determined as the recount has concluded,” Kent wrote in a statement. “This morning, I called my opponent to concede and offer my congratulations on her victory.”
He identified a lesson to glean from his loss: increase Republican turnout in future elections.
“We cannot continue to lose the voter turnout battle,” Kent wrote. “Our party must adapt, and I look forward to helping lead this change.”
The acknowledgement came after counties in the 3rd District concluded individual machine recounts, per Kent’s request. These results showed that Perez won the race with 160,323 votes, or 50.14 percent, leading Kent’s 157,690 votes, or 49.31 percent. In the recount, she gained nine votes compared with his additional five.
“I’m glad Joe Kent accepted his loss, and I look forward to serving as Southwest Washington’s independent voice in Congress,” Perez said. “Democracy is alive and well in our corner of the country.”
In his statement, Kent noted that he will have more to say in early January, presumably about his political future.
“Rest assured that I’m not done yet,” he wrote.
The Washington secretary of state’s office is anticipated to recertify the election results this week. Elections cannot be certified more than twice.
SSI - Getting specific
> in Clark Co (with nearly two-thirds of total WA03 vote) Kent gained +3 votes in the recount, while Perez picked up +7.
> in Cowlitz Co, both Kent & Perez each gained +1; in Thurston Co Kent gained +1, while Perez increased by +1 in Skamania, the last county to do its part of requested machine recount.
> no changes in other four counties in 3rd CD
My take on Joe Kent is that he and Trump Republican Party have more problems than "the voter turnout battle". Such as a PERSUASION problem.
Seeing as how he manged to lose a district that the GOP could & should have won, (im)purely thanks to his embrace of the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo, with timely assist from SCOTUS.
Which drove thousands of moderate-to-conservative voters, including significant - indeed determinative - slice of Republicans, largely suburban residents (their urb being Portland OR) into voting for . . . wait for it . . . a DEMOCRAT.
Joe Kent says he's not done. Well, he's certainly half-baked. AND almost certainly the best thing that could happen for Congresswoman-Elect Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, electorally-speaking anyway, would be for Joe Kent to be her 2024 re-election opponent.
Are you sitting down? I want you to sit down, Mr HYUFD. I have bad news for you. Mr Gibson is an actor. He is, also, Australian (and US born). And in the film Braveheart he was acting. You know, making up stories about what he isn't in real life.
If you get your views of Scottish politics from a dodgy history film ...
Gibson directed Braveheart though and is anti English (see also the Patriot and Gallipoli). He is anti Jewish too (see the Passion of the Christ and remarks he was caught making)
Anyway, you can poke at the data for long time. The overall picture is pretty clear and things looks set to get worse before they get better.
The more interesting question is why?
In essence, it seems Britain has failed to invest for quite a long time, and has spent its money bidding up an inflexible housing market instead.
Lots and lots of complexity underneath that, but that to me is the core of it.
Look at countries like Spain.
Any city of any size has a metro or trams, they have a new massive high speed rail network.
They have been investing heavily in infrastructure to grow the economy for a long time now.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Meanwhile in the UK Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield have light rail and Glasgow and Liverpool have underground systems.
I'm not sure that Britain's economic problems are the result of Leeds being excessively dependent upon buses.
The systems are puny and half-hearted compared with peer cities.
I don't know about the others but the Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield systems are extensive.
Nor does not being served by Sheffield super-tram stop Hallam being the most affluent part of the city.
Light rail systems might be nice to have for those who benefit from them but they're no quick fix to this countries problems.
Well, it turns out the light rail systems (or equivalents) are not just nice to have but wealth multipliers for modern metros.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
I don't believe in quick fixes.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
Well, they can’t. Hardly, anyway. Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
I'm familiar with people being more willing to talk about how good things would be without being willing to put their money where their mouths are.
The media is full of groups from A to Z all demanding money for what they deem is important and how if its given it will be, to use a phrase, a 'wealth multiplier'.
And if it doesn't turn out to be so then the answer being yet more money being 'invested'.
Now 'to govern is to choose' and all that but I do have sympathy for those who have to make the decisions in these situations.
Because whoever makes the decision - national government, local government, businesses or private individuals - actually getting a positive return on an investment is a lot harder to do than it is to talk about 'wealth multipliers' on the internet.
Britain (and I guess you) chose.
Rising house prices.
That's one thing I can plead innocent about.
As I would much rather have lower house prices and the wealth currently stored in them invested in light rail systems.
I don't know whether that would lead to a positive return on investment or not but it would be better than the social and economic evil that is unaffordable housing.
That is a funny headline. As an atheist I'm all about the, shall we say, civic side of Christmas, but I would find it hard to bemoan the religious 'baggage'.
Christmas is a funny one though, it's obviously a pagan festival repurposed by Christians in Europe to sell their new religion, and many of the elements we enjoy, like Father Christmas or Christmas trees, have sweet FA to do with Christianity.
Have you got an abridged version? It seems to consist mainly of debunking claims I'd never even heard of. It just seems to me unlikely to be a coincidence that Christians scheduled one of their major festivals at the same time as the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, or that this festival has become the main one in the Christian calendar, coinciding with the time when people most need cheering up. Similarly, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that many elements of Christmas celebrations don't derive from scripture.
Whether it seems an unlikely coincidence to you or not, the evidence suggests it was a coincidence, based on the idea Jesus died on the same day he was conceived which was believed to be the 25th March.
Similarly, it's uncontroversial that while many elements (e.g. Christmas trees) are not scriptural in origin, neither are they pagan.
If we don't want to read it fine, but don't claim things are 'obvious' from a position of ignorance or at best, limited knowledge and then refuse to engage with the actual scholarship when it is presented to you. If I'm honest, I thought it would interest you.
A quote from your source
"This is total garbage – nothing like this is found in any version of the Baldur story and where Andrews got this crap from I have no idea."
Scholars may *think* this on a regular basis - they are not up to the job if they don't - but by putting it in print they forfeit absolutely all claim to be taken seriously.
Your 25 March argument is a bit thin because it's just another cardinal event in the solar calendar and 2. the "idea" is without much I can see in the way of biblical authority.
And none of this matters anyway, except to silly US fundamentalists. What with holly and fir trees and mistletoe and snow this is clearly a festival with Northern European decorative theme. So what?
Nonsense. Scholars often talk that way. Evans on Irving springs to mind, or Trevor Roper on Taylor.
There are multiple reasons for 25th March being considered the day of Jesus death, none of which with one possible exception (an eclipse that didn't happen) are to do with astrology.
As for your last paragraph, it seems to matter to you as well given how emotional you're getting.
Latest EMA, allocating half the Reform and Green vote share to the Tories and Labour respectively, gives Labour an overall majority of 218. NB Labour had a 179 overall majority in 1997.
It may well look in a years time that the current evens on Lab majority is a great value bet.
Not that I think Starmer either deserves or needs a 200 seat majority.
After a busy day, I have been browsing the thread. It does seem the consensus that we are a rather shabby and down at heel nation, being overtaken by our peers. We have succumbed once again to the British disease of spending economic success on land and property.
Our victorian industrialists did that with their desire to ape the upper classes (Rees Mogg is an example, with the family money earned in coal mines and invested in Eton and Financial Services, often offshore), but in the modern age we have democratise that disease, so the middle classes invest in property on a more petty scale.
Declininism and periodic devaluation seem to be out lot.
Latest EMA, allocating half the Reform and Green vote share to the Tories and Labour respectively, gives Labour an overall majority of 218. NB Labour had a 179 overall majority in 1997.
It may well look in a years time that the current evens on Lab majority is a great value bet.
Not that I think Starmer either deserves or needs a 200 seat majority.
Think of it as a vote against the Conservatives; someone has to take those seats in the Commons.
After a busy day, I have been browsing the thread. It does seem the consensus that we are a rather shabby and down at heel nation, being overtaken by our peers. We have succumbed once again to the British disease of spending economic success on land and property.
Our victorian industrialists did that with their desire to ape the upper classes (Rees Mogg is an example, with the family money earned in coal mines and invested in Eton and Financial Services, often offshore), but in the modern age we have democratise that disease, so the middle classes invest in property on a more petty scale.
Declininism and periodic devaluation seem to be out lot.
Maybe true as an explanation but I do rebel against this essentialism.
It’s about policy choices and voting choices. Who would have thought, fifty years ago, that Korea and Finland and Poland and so on would be doing so well?
If we're such a shabby country, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to get here from France, a nation which is supposed to be better off than we are?
If we're such a shabby country, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to get here from France, a nation which is supposed to be better off than we are?
English language, relatively tolerant, flexible labour markets, existing communities, etc etc.
You post the same thing every few days and the answer doesn’t actually change you know.
After a busy day, I have been browsing the thread. It does seem the consensus that we are a rather shabby and down at heel nation, being overtaken by our peers. We have succumbed once again to the British disease of spending economic success on land and property.
Our victorian industrialists did that with their desire to ape the upper classes (Rees Mogg is an example, with the family money earned in coal mines and invested in Eton and Financial Services, often offshore), but in the modern age we have democratise that disease, so the middle classes invest in property on a more petty scale.
Declininism and periodic devaluation seem to be out lot.
Yes, that's the consensus on here, but it's bollocks.
We are world leaders in developing infrastructure and consulted on as such.
After a busy day, I have been browsing the thread. It does seem the consensus that we are a rather shabby and down at heel nation, being overtaken by our peers. We have succumbed once again to the British disease of spending economic success on land and property.
Our victorian industrialists did that with their desire to ape the upper classes (Rees Mogg is an example, with the family money earned in coal mines and invested in Eton and Financial Services, often offshore), but in the modern age we have democratise that disease, so the middle classes invest in property on a more petty scale.
Declininism and periodic devaluation seem to be out lot.
Yes, that's the consensus on here, but it's bollocks.
We are world leaders in developing infrastructure and consulted on as such.
In a way, that makes it worse.
There are people and firms in Britain with the skills to do this stuff.
But a lot of the time, we either don't do stuff, or do it in a cheap shoddy way.
And whilst I don't want to believe a pat story like "all the money UK taxpayers have saved by having relatively low taxes for decades has ended up in inflated house prices", it's relatively convincing.
Comments
Polly makes a good point about “lo he abhors not the virgin’s womb” though, bloody weird, why would you? "I can tell you this, I'm a broad minded sort of person and can take most internal organs in my stride, but where I draw the line is..."
We're also missing the high speed railway, both highlighting the low term lack of investment in infrastructure outside of London in this country.
There are in total 14 cities in Spain served by metro or tram systems
Madrid (4 or 5 separate but linked systems)
Barcelona
Bilbao
Alicante
Valencia
Granada
Malaga
Seville
Cadiz
Mallorca
Tenerife
Murcia
Vitoria
Zaragoza
In the UK there are 4 cities with metro systems (if you count the Liverpool Merseyrail). There are also 7 cities with tram systems - none of which also has a metro system.
There are in total 11 cities/towns in the UK served by metro or tram systems
London (3 now if you count the Underground, DLR and Crossrail separately)
Glasgow
Newcastle
Liverpool
Manchester
Edinburgh
Croydon
Blackpool
Nottingham
Sheffield
Birmingham
It is also worth pointing out that the development of the Spanish rapid transit systems have relied heavily on EU finding since Spain is a beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU budget. It is always good to build stuff when other people are paying.
Sadly attitudes like yours have greatly cost the country, but hopefully change will happen sooner or later.
The much bigger problem for U.K. cities is that so much power, business etc is centralised around London. Most other countries do not have that excess in concentration of central power. London just drains talent, business, jobs etc from the rest of the country.
Generally, yes, our cities' rapid transit infrastructure could be better. But having removed it all in the middle half of the twentieth century we were starting from a very low base. Progress over the past 45 years has been sporadic but in the right direction.
Look at the infrastructure built to encourage economic growth in London to help facilitate that massive centralisaion.
Compare to the investment elsewhere in the country and you can see clearly why companies choose to base themselves in London.
Also a simple count doesn’t really do the issue justice. Look at Birmingham’s metro map and do a comparison with other European cities of a similar population.
Anyway, again, there are always people who want to nitpick. The big issue is clear, Britain has failed in invest - not just in transport infrastructure, but also as we saw the other day, in healthcare infrastructure. The same is certainly true in R&D and unlikely in education.
And instead we’ve bid up the pricing of housing which means that so much of our disposable income goes on “rent” that our standard of living is falling behind our peers.
The Tories are currently holding the ball, but the issue goes way back.
The argument is that it helps explain the difference between Birmingham and, say, Düsseldorf.
Even when people claim they are 'wealth multipliers'.
But I'm not stopping anyone from investing their own money in these 'wealth multipliers'.
Perhaps our metro mayors would like to raise some taxes to pay for some more 'wealth multipliers'.
The St Louis Fed has data on the working age population of Spain, and you can see that it went from 27 million in 1999 to a peak of 31.6m at the end of 2008. It has since dropped back to 31 million.
Employment to working age population has therefore gone from just over 50% (14 out of 27 million), to 67% (20.5m out of 31 million). And this is now above the 2008 peak of 64%.
Now, the bulk of the improvement - as @another_richard noted - happened at the start of the period, but it's simply not the case that Spain's improvement in incomes has come from everyone leaving for other jobs across the EU. On the contrary, in the last quarter century, Spain has probably had the biggest improvement in the proportion of working age people in work in the developed world.
It's really odd how other economically successful cities right across the capitalist world gets on and builds them, recognising the long term economic benefit yet almost uniquely the UK is different and would not benefit in the same manner.
Are you familiar with the country called the UK?
Some of the people who want to abdicate any responsibility of the government to help improve matters in this country appear to have a gaping lack of understanding in how this country actually operates.
Andy Burnham cannot just go and borrow to build a new metro, he cannot raise taxes to build a new metro, everything he does has to go through the treasury who decide what he can and cannot do.
"This is total garbage – nothing like this is found in any version of the Baldur story and where Andrews got this crap from I have no idea."
Scholars may *think* this on a regular basis - they are not up to the job if they don't - but by putting it in print they forfeit absolutely all claim to be taken seriously.
Your 25 March argument is a bit thin because it's just another cardinal event in the solar calendar and 2. the "idea" is without much I can see in the way of biblical authority.
And none of this matters anyway, except to silly US fundamentalists. What with holly and fir trees and mistletoe and snow this is clearly a festival with Northern European decorative theme. So what?
The media is full of groups from A to Z all demanding money for what they deem is important and how if its given it will be, to use a phrase, a 'wealth multiplier'.
And if it doesn't turn out to be so then the answer being yet more money being 'invested'.
Now 'to govern is to choose' and all that but I do have sympathy for those who have to make the decisions in these situations.
Because whoever makes the decision - national government, local government, businesses or private individuals - actually getting a positive return on an investment is a lot harder to do than it is to talk about 'wealth multipliers' on the internet.
Rising house prices.
Republican Joe Kent on Wednesday officially conceded the race to represent Washington’s 3rd Congressional District after being defeated by Rep.-elect Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania.
“I promised during the campaign that I would accept the outcome of the election, now definitively determined as the recount has concluded,” Kent wrote in a statement. “This morning, I called my opponent to concede and offer my congratulations on her victory.”
He identified a lesson to glean from his loss: increase Republican turnout in future elections.
“We cannot continue to lose the voter turnout battle,” Kent wrote. “Our party must adapt, and I look forward to helping lead this change.”
The acknowledgement came after counties in the 3rd District concluded individual machine recounts, per Kent’s request. These results showed that Perez won the race with 160,323 votes, or 50.14 percent, leading Kent’s 157,690 votes, or 49.31 percent. In the recount, she gained nine votes compared with his additional five.
“I’m glad Joe Kent accepted his loss, and I look forward to serving as Southwest Washington’s independent voice in Congress,” Perez said. “Democracy is alive and well in our corner of the country.”
In his statement, Kent noted that he will have more to say in early January, presumably about his political future.
“Rest assured that I’m not done yet,” he wrote.
The Washington secretary of state’s office is anticipated to recertify the election results this week. Elections cannot be certified more than twice.
SSI - Getting specific
> in Clark Co (with nearly two-thirds of total WA03 vote) Kent gained +3 votes in the recount, while Perez picked up +7.
> in Cowlitz Co, both Kent & Perez each gained +1; in Thurston Co Kent gained +1, while Perez increased by +1 in Skamania, the last county to do its part of requested machine recount.
> no changes in other four counties in 3rd CD
My take on Joe Kent is that he and Trump Republican Party have more problems than "the voter turnout battle". Such as a PERSUASION problem.
Seeing as how he manged to lose a district that the GOP could & should have won, (im)purely thanks to his embrace of the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo, with timely assist from SCOTUS.
Which drove thousands of moderate-to-conservative voters, including significant - indeed determinative - slice of Republicans, largely suburban residents (their urb being Portland OR) into voting for . . . wait for it . . . a DEMOCRAT.
Joe Kent says he's not done. Well, he's certainly half-baked. AND almost certainly the best thing that could happen for Congresswoman-Elect Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, electorally-speaking anyway, would be for Joe Kent to be her 2024 re-election opponent.
We'll convene on Xmas Eve to see the scores on the doors.
I expect next year to be rather dull, politically. We have been rather spoilt in recent years.
As I would much rather have lower house prices and the wealth currently stored in them invested in light rail systems.
I don't know whether that would lead to a positive return on investment or not but it would be better than the social and economic evil that is unaffordable housing.
There are multiple reasons for 25th March being considered the day of Jesus death, none of which with one possible exception (an eclipse that didn't happen) are to do with astrology.
As for your last paragraph, it seems to matter to you as well given how emotional you're getting.
Not that I think Starmer either deserves or needs a 200 seat majority.
Our victorian industrialists did that with their desire to ape the upper classes (Rees Mogg is an example, with the family money earned in coal mines and invested in Eton and Financial Services, often offshore), but in the modern age we have democratise that disease, so the middle classes invest in property on a more petty scale.
Declininism and periodic devaluation seem to be out lot.
It’s about policy choices and voting choices. Who would have thought, fifty years ago, that Korea and Finland and Poland and so on would be doing so well?
You post the same thing every few days and the answer doesn’t actually change you know.
We are world leaders in developing infrastructure and consulted on as such.
There are people and firms in Britain with the skills to do this stuff.
But a lot of the time, we either don't do stuff, or do it in a cheap shoddy way.
And whilst I don't want to believe a pat story like "all the money UK taxpayers have saved by having relatively low taxes for decades has ended up in inflated house prices", it's relatively convincing.