No matter your views on HS2, the way it has been ‘delivered’ is a national scandal and that alone should be enough to doom the Tory government.
The fact we have gone from a high speed link to the two biggest conurbations in the north, to only one, to none at all, to maybe even making journey times from Birmingham to central London longer (if it terminates at Old Oak Common) is pathetic. All that money spent for a defective railway line.
It is symptomatic of the rot at the heart of the British government.
I think the real scandal is that it is projected to cost £350 million/mile, when similar lines are delivered by the French and Spanish for a tenth of that. Either the NIMBYs should be overridden and the planning process massively curtailed or we should scrap it and also give up on building anything in this country.
Part of it is population density, so more people are affected in the UK than in France or Spain. The whole planning and environmental rigmarole is I’m sure a bigger factor.
It must surely be easier for Parliament to pass a Bill agreeing to pay everyone a 50% uplift on their property on the route, than to have to sit through a decade of public enquiries with vocal opposition groups on the route?
The cost of compulsory purchase is large, but it is "only" about £3 billion. The largest single cost item is the design of the run-in to Euston, which has still not been properly costed. The problem is the way this is being built- by consultants and PR Bullshitters, not by people who know what they are doing.
I think Sunak underestimates how angry people are about this. If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over. The control of major infrastructure projects should be brought in-house to the government and not done project by project with the expertise being lost once each project team is dispersed. Neither should there be a revolving door between the contractors and the delivery Quangos.
This is only a mere hundred miles London to Birmingham and it is coming in at c25x the cost of TGV Nord which is more than twice the length and in not that dissimilar population density.
PR and Bullshit do not beat engineers, and if Sunak is too incompetent to get this done, then the Tories must be put out of our misery.
What a way to build a railway.
"If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over."
A line so powerful that it is worth repeating. All of our competitor nations have all these things already - more motorways, high speed rail, a hub airport. We do not.
The solution - as you rightly point out - is a StateCo. Far enough from the reach of ministers and mandarins to operate without meddling, but not private sector giving fortunes to spivs.
In the past we used to have road construction units - a team of engineers who would build project after project after project. We had railway electrification units who did the same. And we could have it again if we recognised that (a) we need these things and (b) not spending the money is not zero-cost.
It is because the UK no longer to builds things or does things. The UK's current export is money. We send all our money to overseas investors.
That is just a myth. The UK just overtook France to become the 8th largest manufacturing nation in the world.
We were 3% ahead of France in 2021, then a tiny fraction behind in 2022. Where are the 2023 figures?
I am just quoting the Times from earlier this month. The point being that whether we are just ahead or just behind France it puts the lie to the oft repeated claim that we don't manufacture anything anymore.
And given that some of those countries ahead of the UK hold their position based on extreme exploitation of their workforce to a degree that would be completely unacceptable in this country I am not sure we could ever challenge them.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
Have you?
No, that was not the point under discussion.
The point is that people are what bring soul. People in the Netherlands have homes, they have infrastructure etc better than we do.
If you define "soul" as pretty Georgian buildings, where inside those pretty homes 16 people live in squalor in a home designed for four, then that's a soul that belongs to Beelzebub.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
I wouldnt really agree with that. From small thru medium to large, try Middleburg, Devanter and Utrecht.
I have lived in Baarn, Den Helder and Groningen. I stand by my comments.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupant, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
Seems very odd to me to make scrapping IHT a priority when there is so much else that should be: housebuilding, for instance, infrastructure, social care.
But if it is to be reformed my suggestions would be -
1. Scrap pretty much all the exemptions - agricultural land, AIM shares, charities & other loopholes etc.,. 2. A tax free sum of say £500K. 3. Above that a stepped rate, say, 10% on £500 - £1.5 mio, 20% on the next million, 30% on the next million, 40% on the next with 45% on everything above.
Pretty much everyone pays something, the rate is much lower for most people so there is less incentive to avoid, you get rid of most of the exemptions and loopholes and above the top amount - £4.5 mio - it works out as an effective wealth tax.
The rate - 40% - feels (illogically I appreciate) too high. It makes it worthwhile to try and avoid. Whereas if it was much lower and the incidence of the tax was wider, it would feel fairer.
But frankly abolishing it now is the wrong priority.
Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:
At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.
I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities
No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.
The issue is that the King is quite busy - time has to be scheduled. Additionally Harry is not trusted - the fear is that private conversations will be leaked (may be not by Harry, but he will - reasonably - tell his wife and she is definitely not trusted) - while any photographs will be monetised.
The King’s duty comes above what he might want as a person
LOL the King is busy, what kind of idiot believes that , the arsehole swands about stuffing his fat face and pocketing as much of the public's money he can get his hands on. A day's work would unhinge him.
Malc, think you need to discuss upping the chill pill dose with your doctor, you wouldn´t want anyone to think you had become unhinged again.
Why do you need to be an ignorant arsehole. Stop the drinking early morning and GFY.
1/10
You can do much, much better with insults than this.
Pull yourself to together and return to the form your are capable of.
Otherwise, no more turnip juice.
Go have aeronautical sexual intercourse with a rolling doughnut
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
Have you?
No, that was not the point under discussion.
The point is that people are what bring soul. People in the Netherlands have homes, they have infrastructure etc better than we do.
If you define "soul" as pretty Georgian buildings, where inside those pretty homes 16 people live in squalor in a home designed for four, then that's a soul that belongs to Beelzebub.
So the answer is no. You don't know what you are talking about.
Even then, his answer to a question about the North: "London".
If you want the economy in the North then the answer is to improve infrastructure in the North.
A major road building program building multiple motorways to connect each Northern town and city to each other (rather than redirecting everything into the bottleneck that is the M6 or M62) would unleash economic growth far more than aiding some commuters travelling into London.
Sadly there are a few barriers: The Treasury won't fund such schemes The private sector would rob us The public sector are grossly incompetent
We should do as so much of the developing world does, and ask China to build our new roads. Cheaper, quicker, less corrupt.
The Treasury isn't fit for purpose.
The only way to make it so might be to move Parliament and the Civil Service out of London.
Radical idea but many countries have capital cities that are not remotely linked to finance or anything else. Canberra rather than Sydney or Melbourne. Washington DC rather than NYC or San Francisco etc
Parliament is crumbling anyway. Build a new capital city in the North as an entirely new city - not Manchester, complete new build. Build a new Parliament, refurbish the old crumbling fire risk one and turn it into a museum. Move the Civil Service, in full, out of London - sell that land to the private sector or housing.
Could possibly make this quite cost-effective, by purchasing land that's not worth much in an uninhabited area of the North and selling all the land in London that will repay a considerable part of the costs.
I keep saying that we need to build new cities, so yes I agree. Despite the "we're full" lie there is an awful lot of empty space in the country. Build a new city in East Yorkshire, put the mechanism of government in there as the first phase, and watch as new roads and railways link it back into the rest of the country.
The eastern end of the M62. Big open spaces. East west motorway and railway already there. Humber Bridge gets connected north south - a new spine motorway to develop eastern England. A choice of big ports. An ocean of development money spent outside of London...
Not sure you need to go that far. Build a new city in NE Lincolnshire around the Grimsby area. It has good port links and you can build/improve road links to the Midlands and the North. Some big desalination plants to deal with water supply and there are already huge windfarms off the coast there.
Surely pipes to bring water from the Pennines would be cheaper then desalination plants?
They should get Prince Charles to build this new city as 'Charleston'. Could be the defining act of his reign and keep him out of trouble.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
One of the juniors at the bank I work at was living in a 3 bed flat. The landlord came in, divided the living room into 2 more bedroom. So she is now living in a 5 bed flat with no living room.
This kind of behaviour used to be how it rolled at the bottom end of the property market*. The real slums. That it is reaching the middle classes will boil the frog a little more.
Then the reaction…
*I’ve personally seem multiple instance of houses where adults live in bunk beds, stacked in every room. This is where supper cheap migrant labour lives.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
I wouldnt really agree with that. From small thru medium to large, try Middleburg, Devanter and Utrecht.
I have lived in Baarn, Den Helder and Groningen. I stand by my comments.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
Have you?
No, that was not the point under discussion.
The point is that people are what bring soul. People in the Netherlands have homes, they have infrastructure etc better than we do.
If you define "soul" as pretty Georgian buildings, where inside those pretty homes 16 people live in squalor in a home designed for four, then that's a soul that belongs to Beelzebub.
So the answer is no. You don't know what you are talking about.
I absolutely do know what we are talking about. What we are talking about is people's living standards.
Squalor is worse than whatever you define as "soul". No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Point one is that taxation is not "confiscating assets". Growth in housing values is unearned wealth being accumulated and I would say it is reasonable to tax it.
I think the "taking XYZ out of the tax system" is years past its sell-by date, and we need a broadening of the tax base, and a depending at the higher end - especially targeting gaps and loopholes such as the "tax free gift out of normal income" loophole, which gives tax free income / wealth transfer from wealthier people to their children. Also Trusts.
I'd radically broaden Inheritance Tax to a majority of estates, starting at very modest rates, and make it payable by the receiving party not the Estate. There's perhaps a case to make it payable at the marginal rate of income tax for that party, to encourage wider distribution.
It’s probably heresy to say, but I think there’s a case for increasing the pensioner’s tax burden. As an OAP with several pensions, plus a wife with the same, I’m probably better of than I’ve ever been, although the fact that I now need carer support eats into things a bit, although I do, of course, get assistance with that.
OKC, all well and good but many many pensioners do not have several pensions. What taxes do you not pay currently or are you wanting a special pensioner only tax on top of them paying all the taxes other people pay. PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
Even then, his answer to a question about the North: "London".
If you want the economy in the North then the answer is to improve infrastructure in the North.
A major road building program building multiple motorways to connect each Northern town and city to each other (rather than redirecting everything into the bottleneck that is the M6 or M62) would unleash economic growth far more than aiding some commuters travelling into London.
Sadly there are a few barriers: The Treasury won't fund such schemes The private sector would rob us The public sector are grossly incompetent
We should do as so much of the developing world does, and ask China to build our new roads. Cheaper, quicker, less corrupt.
The Treasury isn't fit for purpose.
The only way to make it so might be to move Parliament and the Civil Service out of London.
Radical idea but many countries have capital cities that are not remotely linked to finance or anything else. Canberra rather than Sydney or Melbourne. Washington DC rather than NYC or San Francisco etc
Parliament is crumbling anyway. Build a new capital city in the North as an entirely new city - not Manchester, complete new build. Build a new Parliament, refurbish the old crumbling fire risk one and turn it into a museum. Move the Civil Service, in full, out of London - sell that land to the private sector or housing.
Could possibly make this quite cost-effective, by purchasing land that's not worth much in an uninhabited area of the North and selling all the land in London that will repay a considerable part of the costs.
I keep saying that we need to build new cities, so yes I agree. Despite the "we're full" lie there is an awful lot of empty space in the country. Build a new city in East Yorkshire, put the mechanism of government in there as the first phase, and watch as new roads and railways link it back into the rest of the country.
The eastern end of the M62. Big open spaces. East west motorway and railway already there. Humber Bridge gets connected north south - a new spine motorway to develop eastern England. A choice of big ports. An ocean of development money spent outside of London...
Not sure you need to go that far. Build a new city in NE Lincolnshire around the Grimsby area. It has good port links and you can build/improve road links to the Midlands and the North. Some big desalination plants to deal with water supply and there are already huge windfarms off the coast there.
Surely pipes to bring water from the Pennines would be cheaper then desalination plants?
They should get Prince Charles to build this new city as 'Charleston'. Could be the defining act of his reign and keep him out of trouble.
Even then, his answer to a question about the North: "London".
If you want the economy in the North then the answer is to improve infrastructure in the North.
A major road building program building multiple motorways to connect each Northern town and city to each other (rather than redirecting everything into the bottleneck that is the M6 or M62) would unleash economic growth far more than aiding some commuters travelling into London.
Sadly there are a few barriers: The Treasury won't fund such schemes The private sector would rob us The public sector are grossly incompetent
We should do as so much of the developing world does, and ask China to build our new roads. Cheaper, quicker, less corrupt.
The Treasury isn't fit for purpose.
The only way to make it so might be to move Parliament and the Civil Service out of London.
Radical idea but many countries have capital cities that are not remotely linked to finance or anything else. Canberra rather than Sydney or Melbourne. Washington DC rather than NYC or San Francisco etc
Parliament is crumbling anyway. Build a new capital city in the North as an entirely new city - not Manchester, complete new build. Build a new Parliament, refurbish the old crumbling fire risk one and turn it into a museum. Move the Civil Service, in full, out of London - sell that land to the private sector or housing.
Could possibly make this quite cost-effective, by purchasing land that's not worth much in an uninhabited area of the North and selling all the land in London that will repay a considerable part of the costs.
I keep saying that we need to build new cities, so yes I agree. Despite the "we're full" lie there is an awful lot of empty space in the country. Build a new city in East Yorkshire, put the mechanism of government in there as the first phase, and watch as new roads and railways link it back into the rest of the country.
The eastern end of the M62. Big open spaces. East west motorway and railway already there. Humber Bridge gets connected north south - a new spine motorway to develop eastern England. A choice of big ports. An ocean of development money spent outside of London...
Not sure you need to go that far. Build a new city in NE Lincolnshire around the Grimsby area. It has good port links and you can build/improve road links to the Midlands and the North. Some big desalination plants to deal with water supply and there are already huge windfarms off the coast there.
Surely pipes to bring water from the Pennines would be cheaper then desalination plants?
They should get Prince Charles to build this new city as 'Charleston'. Could be the defining act of his reign and keep him out of trouble.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
Right idea, wrong tense.
Infrastructure has needed to grow for decades and largely hasn't, because we collectively decided not to spend the money.
Like anaerobic respiration, you can do it for a bit, but paying off the oxygen debt is inevitable in the end.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
I'm heading off in five hours' time for a week's cycling around the Netherlands (currently planning to do the Rhine route from Hook of Holland upstream, but no firm plans). I promise to come back with some observations...
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
Have you?
Three HS2 points:
1 - The HS2 corridor takes about 2/3 to 4/5 less land than a motorway - 19m width vs about 50-150m. 2 - Whilst being able to carry more passengers. 3 - I'm not sure that a brand new motorway would be much cheaper on comparables, taking everything into account.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?
Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live
Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.
People bring soul, not towns or cities.
The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.
Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.
That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.
Wrong.
I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.
As have many others in this country.
Have you?
Yes. I have also lived in the Netherlands which was the point under discussion.
Have you?
Three HS2 points:
1 - The HS2 corridor takes about 2/3 less land than a motorway - 19m width vs about 50-100m. 2 - Whilst being able to carry more passengers. 3 - I'm not sure that a brand new motorway would be much cheaper on comparables, taking everything into account.
Each new road takes away land that could be used for new homes. BR please explain.
Seems very odd to me to make scrapping IHT a priority when there is so much else that should be: housebuilding, for instance, infrastructure, social care.
But if it is to be reformed my suggestions would be -
1. Scrap pretty much all the exemptions - agricultural land, AIM shares, charities & other loopholes etc.,. 2. A tax free sum of say £500K. 3. Above that a stepped rate, say, 10% on £500 - £1.5 mio, 20% on the next million, 30% on the next million, 40% on the next with 45% on everything above.
Pretty much everyone pays something, the rate is much lower for most people so there is less incentive to avoid, you get rid of most of the exemptions and loopholes and above the top amount - £4.5 mio - it works out as an effective wealth tax.
The rate - 40% - feels (illogically I appreciate) too high. It makes it worthwhile to try and avoid. Whereas if it was much lower and the incidence of the tax was wider, it would feel fairer.
But frankly abolishing it now is the wrong priority.
The right priority though for Sunak to get the Tory core vote and bluewall turning out for him again.
There are few votes in more tax for social care however and even housebuilding proposals saw lots of southern Tory councils go LD and/and or Independent in May over Tory councils Local Plans seen as building too much in the greenbelt (although longer term we do of course need to get more younger people on the housing ladder with more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt land)
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
The Netherlands is 50% more densely populated than the UK. Of course they also have higher road density.
I don't have figures at hand for road density per population, where are you looking at that?
The other question is what some people call the roads vs. streets distinction. Roads being how you get between places, streets being what you stick buildings onto.
A lot of the stats conflate the two, but they're different things in a well-run system. And Streets massively outnumber and outdistance roads. Streets being very low speed limits, cars are possibly allowed if they absolutely have to be there and promise to be very quiet and well-behaved.
He's definitely worse than Truss - the leadership election showed that. It seems to have been rapidly forgotten how bad he was in that contest.
Plus Truss at least recognises the problem (lack of growth), even if she wasn't hugely competent at fixing it - although she faced resistance from people who should have been neutral.
Sunak is just flailing around mis-managing decline, and will take his party to a well deserved annihilation. There is no alternative to that now
He isn't, under Truss the Tories were heading for 1993 Canadian Tory style annihilation and being overtaken on seats by the LDs and SNP while Labour won a landslide.
Now under Sunak Labour are still heading for a 1997 style landslide at present but the Conservatives are still projected to come a clear second on seats and still be the main opposition
Seems very odd to me to make scrapping IHT a priority when there is so much else that should be: housebuilding, for instance, infrastructure, social care.
But if it is to be reformed my suggestions would be -
1. Scrap pretty much all the exemptions - agricultural land, AIM shares, charities & other loopholes etc.,. 2. A tax free sum of say £500K. 3. Above that a stepped rate, say, 10% on £500 - £1.5 mio, 20% on the next million, 30% on the next million, 40% on the next with 45% on everything above.
Pretty much everyone pays something, the rate is much lower for most people so there is less incentive to avoid, you get rid of most of the exemptions and loopholes and above the top amount - £4.5 mio - it works out as an effective wealth tax.
The rate - 40% - feels (illogically I appreciate) too high. It makes it worthwhile to try and avoid. Whereas if it was much lower and the incidence of the tax was wider, it would feel fairer.
But frankly abolishing it now is the wrong priority.
George Osborne's 2009 IHT proposals — raising the threshold to £1 million — ended Gordon Brown's tenure. I suspect that is the sum total of CCHQ's and Rishi's analysis and the details are to be filled in later. The funny thing is Osborne never went through with it anyway.
It is pretty clear that the world is not going to act on climate change. I am increasingly defeatist, and think we might as well enjoy ourselves before the inevitable mass extinction of civilisation.
We have already acted, and are continuing to act. The problem is that a lot of the acts are grand gestures (net Zero, sudden bans on things, closing nuclear plants) rather than anything sensible (eg carbon tax).
More nuclear power and renewables replacing fossil fuels longer term is far more effective than a carbon tax
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
I'm heading off in five hours' time for a week's cycling around the Netherlands (currently planning to do the Rhine route from Hook of Holland upstream, but no firm plans). I promise to come back with some observations...
Pray for no wind. Or take a sail.
Have you seen the Ranty Highwayman's video channel? He does safaris on cycling infra, including schemes in the UK, and many in the Netherlands. He also has an excellent blog which explains road design type subjects.
"A Highway Engineer's Adventures in Time and Space."
He's not worse than Truss or Johnson. Both of them struggled with basic day to day administration and he runs a steady ship. He's also got several important deals done.
Rishi's problem is that he's perceived to be detached and disinterested coupled with poor political salesmanship. When you add this in to his approach to risk which, in its delivery, goes from extremely cautious to cautious to desperate panic it conveys a lack of confidence that others pick up on and irritates them because they don't really know or trust his motives.
It's not actually the policy. The guy has never crystallised what he's about, where his heart is and why you should trust him, or communicated his vision and prospectus for Britain.
It’s also about the policy. The desperate flailing around on climate change is actively damaging.
Liked by a bunch of Lefties, all the usual suspects I see.
Look at the YouGov polling on the issue.
I'd describe those who liked Nigelb's comment as PB's Centrist Dads rather than PB's Lefties.
Which is exactly Sunak's problem. Because Centrist Dads voted for Cameron, and if you look at the YouGov polling - the very same polling highlighted by OGH in his previous header - they were initially prepared to give Sunak the benefit of the doubt. Now they're not.
Er, no. The Woodpecker, Heathener, IanB2, El Capitano, Foxy...
All the usual suspects. None of them are centrists in the slightest.
And then on DuraAce's characteristic unpleasantness you also have MexicanPete, NorthernMonkey and Carnyx. They may support Labour, LDs or the SNP but they are all of a type.
This site has become a haven for Lefties. It's what it is now.
England has become a haven for Lefties. It's the Tories wot done it.
It is hard to tell what the right even stand for. Pro business or anti business? Free trade or protection? Law and order or minimal law on the cheap? High tax or low tax? Low immigration or half a million a year?
The rhetoric never matches the delivery, and the rhetoric changes every couple of years according to what polls better.
A good third of people who would have been considered right wing in the 2000s would now be viewed as lefty by the remaining fan club. Another third support the blue rosette without giving much thought or out of (sometimes justified) fear of Labour. The remaining third have taken us here yet are unwilling to take even the slightest responsibility and prefer to blame the blob and lefties after13 years of Tory government.
TBF, one might make not entirely dissimilar observations about the left. What is on short supply on both sides is competence.
Sure. But they have not been in power for a long time, and were rightly clobbered by the electorate for the Corbyn nonsense. Now it is the rights turn to be dragged back to the middle.
Sunak and Hunt are relatively the middle in Tory terms, if they lose the party will be heading in the Braverman, Badenoch and Rees Mogg direction not to the centre.
In Labour terms the Tories are only at 2009, with Sunak Gordon Brown, they haven't even got to their Ed Miliband or Corbyn yet
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
I'm heading off in five hours' time for a week's cycling around the Netherlands (currently planning to do the Rhine route from Hook of Holland upstream, but no firm plans). I promise to come back with some observations...
Pray for no wind. Or take a sail.
Quite a windy week coming up, particularly on Wednesday and Friday. Worse in western UK than NL though.
I’m on my way to the back of beyond. Flight to Hamburg then a 2.5 hour drive up into southern Jutland to meet a Danish client. It would be hard to think of a location in GB further from an airport with Sunday flights outside Scotland. Probably only Cornwall or Ceredigion.
He's definitely worse than Truss - the leadership election showed that. It seems to have been rapidly forgotten how bad he was in that contest.
Plus Truss at least recognises the problem (lack of growth), even if she wasn't hugely competent at fixing it - although she faced resistance from people who should have been neutral.
Sunak is just flailing around mis-managing decline, and will take his party to a well deserved annihilation. There is no alternative to that now
I love the way the Truss-ites think she is the only one who has understood we have had low growth for a long time, and it would be preferable to have higher growth. Quite remarkable.
If Sunak realises that we need more growth then that's even worse, because it means (according at least to his actions) he thinks he can tax and regulate us into growth - that makes Truss look like an absolute genius in comparison.
For the avoidance of doubt, nothing I have written should be taken as meaning I think she was competent, or would have been successful as a leader. Just that she at least recognised the problem and wanted to try to fix it, which is more than the alternatives have done, are doing, or would do.
Everyone from Corbyn through Starmer, Miliband, Blair, Cameron, May, Sunak, Johnson understands that we have low growth and wants higher growth. They just have different views on how to deliver it.
Anyone with the slightest interest in politics or the economy knows we have low growth. Everyone bar the few % of green luddites and perhaps some of the bring back the 1950s brigade want higher growth.
Truss was just a good salesperson for a fantasy way of achieving it to the Tory selectorate. The story didn't work with the people she wanted to sell the debt too though.
There’s an even larger group who say they want growth. They just don’t want any new houses, reservoirs, factories.
Often, they want high immigration. Just no actual places for the immigrants to live or work.
who?
Haven’t you heard the people, here on PB, arguing for these things?
Liberal Green NIMBYism is a big force. It comes from subscribing to several worthy causes - liberal immigration policies, save the green belt etc. - without dealing with the inherent contradictions where they meet.
A distinction should be drawn between growth and expansion. The former implies greater wealth through efficiency and hard work. The latter implies more and more of the same.
It is pretty clear that the world is not going to act on climate change. I am increasingly defeatist, and think we might as well enjoy ourselves before the inevitable mass extinction of civilisation.
We have already acted, and are continuing to act. The problem is that a lot of the acts are grand gestures (net Zero, sudden bans on things, closing nuclear plants) rather than anything sensible (eg carbon tax).
More nuclear power and renewables replacing fossil fuels longer term is far more effective than a carbon tax
And the point of a carbon tax is to encourage the development of low carbon energy resources by putting a thumb on the economic scales. So that the transition most of us recognise needs to happen happens sooner and more gradually.
A carbon tax is meant to be the right wing solution to the issue, as opposed to a flat ban.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
I'm heading off in five hours' time for a week's cycling around the Netherlands (currently planning to do the Rhine route from Hook of Holland upstream, but no firm plans). I promise to come back with some observations...
Pray for no wind. Or take a sail.
Have you seen the Ranty Highwayman's video channel? He does safaris on cycling infra, including schemes in the UK, and many in the Netherlands. He also has an excellent blog which explains road design type subjects.
"A Highway Engineer's Adventures in Time and Space."
Today's lunchtime view isn't quite up to yesterday's, but the weather is a whole lot better, even if there's a strong pong coming from that barn...
Ar eyou on a world tour, you seem to have been on holiday forever
My ninetieth day inside Schengen this year comes up on Wednesday, so I will soon need to be home...
Time to move beyond Schengen to warmer climes as the season turns.
No, after a year with a lot of travel, I need to get home to have a sauna installed in the spare bedroom; that should be warm enough for the winter.
In the spring I did:
F ENG C(Lon-Pic), A Pic-Bur, A Bur-Switz, A Switz-Pie, A Pie H, A Pie-Ven, A Ven H, A Ven-Tyr, A Tyr H, A Tyr-Switz, A Switz-Bur, A Bur-Pic, F ENG C(Pic-Lon)
In the summer it was F NTH C(Lon-Hol), A Hol-Kie, F HEL & F NTH C(Kie-Nwy), A Nwy H, A Nwy-Swe, F BOT C(Swe-Fin), A Fin H, F BOT & F BAL C(Fin-Kie), A Kie-Hol, F NTH C(Hol-Lon)
And just recently, F ENG C(Lon-Pic), A Pic-Bur, A Bur-Mun, A Mun-Tyr, A Tyr-Vie, A Vie-Bud, A Bud H, A Bud-Tri, A Tri H, A Tri-Tyr, A Tyr H, and soon A Tyr-Switz, A Switz-Mun, A Mun-Bur, A Bur-Pic, F ENG C(Pic-Lon)
Seems very odd to me to make scrapping IHT a priority when there is so much else that should be: housebuilding, for instance, infrastructure, social care.
But if it is to be reformed my suggestions would be -
1. Scrap pretty much all the exemptions - agricultural land, AIM shares, charities & other loopholes etc.,. 2. A tax free sum of say £500K. 3. Above that a stepped rate, say, 10% on £500 - £1.5 mio, 20% on the next million, 30% on the next million, 40% on the next with 45% on everything above.
Pretty much everyone pays something, the rate is much lower for most people so there is less incentive to avoid, you get rid of most of the exemptions and loopholes and above the top amount - £4.5 mio - it works out as an effective wealth tax.
The rate - 40% - feels (illogically I appreciate) too high. It makes it worthwhile to try and avoid. Whereas if it was much lower and the incidence of the tax was wider, it would feel fairer.
But frankly abolishing it now is the wrong priority.
George Osborne's 2009 IHT proposals — raising the threshold to £1 million — ended Gordon Brown's tenure. I suspect that is the sum total of CCHQ's and Rishi's analysis and the details are to be filled in later. The funny thing is Osborne never went through with it anyway.
Correction. Rather like Uxbridge and ULEZ, that's the comfortable conclusion they've decided on. What finished Gordon Brown was a perception that Labour's time was up.
Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:
At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.
I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities
No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.
Balmoral is the King's private residence, so as Harry's father he offered him the chance to stay there.
Windsor castle is a state residence, if Harry wanted to stay there he should have stayed a working royal based in the UK rather than move into a California mansion and stop royal duties. As a result if he now comes to London again he can stay in a hotel like other US based tourists
It is pretty clear that the world is not going to act on climate change. I am increasingly defeatist, and think we might as well enjoy ourselves before the inevitable mass extinction of civilisation.
We have already acted, and are continuing to act. The problem is that a lot of the acts are grand gestures (net Zero, sudden bans on things, closing nuclear plants) rather than anything sensible (eg carbon tax).
More nuclear power and renewables replacing fossil fuels longer term is far more effective than a carbon tax
And the point of a carbon tax is to encourage the development of low carbon energy resources by putting a thumb on the economic scales. So that the transition most of us recognise needs to happen happens sooner and more gradually.
A carbon tax is meant to be the right wing solution to the issue, as opposed to a flat ban.
No it just hits average earners, small businessmen and drivers and industry
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Point one is that taxation is not "confiscating assets". Growth in housing values is unearned wealth being accumulated and I would say it is reasonable to tax it.
I think the "taking XYZ out of the tax system" is years past its sell-by date, and we need a broadening of the tax base, and a depending at the higher end - especially targeting gaps and loopholes such as the "tax free gift out of normal income" loophole, which gives tax free income / wealth transfer from wealthier people to their children. Also Trusts.
I'd radically broaden Inheritance Tax to a majority of estates, starting at very modest rates, and make it payable by the receiving party not the Estate. There's perhaps a case to make it payable at the marginal rate of income tax for that party, to encourage wider distribution.
It’s probably heresy to say, but I think there’s a case for increasing the pensioner’s tax burden. As an OAP with several pensions, plus a wife with the same, I’m probably better of than I’ve ever been, although the fact that I now need carer support eats into things a bit, although I do, of course, get assistance with that.
OKC, all well and good but many many pensioners do not have several pensions. What taxes do you not pay currently or are you wanting a special pensioner only tax on top of them paying all the taxes other people pay. PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
I suspect he means NI. Pensioners don't get any preferential treatment vis a vis income tax.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Maybe the PB brains trust has already noticed this, but if Sunak resigns - or loses the next election, it could break a record that has stood since 1945:
Larry the Cat might see his sixth Prime Minister.
Liz Truss might have been a disaster as a PM,but she did Larry a massive favour: he got to his 5th PM in only 12 years, while Peter the Cat had to wait 16 years for his fifth, Clement Attlee, to enter no 10. However, Larry got a later start, entering service at age 4, so he's still fairly old at 16 himself. But he could still hang on to 2025.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:
At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.
I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities
No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.
The issue is that the King is quite busy - time has to be scheduled. Additionally Harry is not trusted - the fear is that private conversations will be leaked (may be not by Harry, but he will - reasonably - tell his wife and she is definitely not trusted) - while any photographs will be monetised.
The King’s duty comes above what he might want as a person
LOL the King is busy, what kind of idiot believes that , the arsehole swands about stuffing his fat face and pocketing as much of the public's money he can get his hands on. A day's work would unhinge him.
He must be super busy given the state pay for two people to get him dressed, iron his shoelaces and squeeze the toothpaste onto his brush.....not sure I have ever met anyone that busy that they require that level of time saving.
Come on, be fair to the poor man. The guy who squeezes his toothpaste also doubles up as the person who handles the binbags full of dodgy cash. How very economical, eh?
So my RWC predictions for todays games, repeated from a few days ago:
SCO v TON. This game has consolation prize written all over it. Scotland could still qualify but it will be incredibly difficult. Expect a high scoring game but with Scotland pulling away by 20 at the end.
WAL v AUS. Another massive game. Wales will have the advantage of having rested almost all of their first team for two weeks – while Australia have to turnaround only 1 week from their battering by Fiji, and will be nursing mental as well as physical scars. This is a must win game for Australia or they are going home, while Wales could potentially lose and still qualify, or even win the group – it is that close. Expect Gatland to work out an effective game plan while Eddie Jones will come up with something…anything. I think Wales will win this match but by 6 points or less.
I will go a little further and predict an exact scoreline: Wales 24 Australia 18.
LDs slash new housing target comitment to try and win NIMBY voters in the South of England, albeit Davey tries and spins it as more community focused schemes.
'Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey says his party has not changed tack on housebuilding targets in order to win votes from Conservative supporters.
The party is considering dropping a commitment to build 380,000 new homes a year, in favour of targeting 150,000 new council or social homes.
He denied the party opposes new housing in Tory-run areas where they are trying to win parliamentary and council seats.
'Suella Braverman has ordered a review of armed policing after some Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearm duties when a marksman was charged with a murder.
The home secretary said officers have to make "split-second decisions" and must not fear "ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties".' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906193
'Suella Braverman has ordered a review of armed policing after some Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearm duties when a marksman was charged with a murder.
The home secretary said officers have to make "split-second decisions" and must not fear "ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties".' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906193
Cruella keeps her 100% record for picking the dumbest possible response to any scenario
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
And how many seats will have a REF UK candidate when it comes to it, anyway
Quite why they even figure in the polls when they are so invisible and incidental is something of a mystery. Surely it's just people who always replied 'UKIP' and can't kick the habit?
Maybe the PB brains trust has already noticed this, but if Sunak resigns - or loses the next election, it could break a record that has stood since 1945:
Larry the Cat might see his sixth Prime Minister.
Liz Truss might have been a disaster as a PM,but she did Larry a massive favour: he got to his 5th PM in only 12 years, while Peter the Cat had to wait 16 years for his fifth, Clement Attlee, to enter no 10. However, Larry got a later start, entering service at age 4, so he's still fairly old at 16 himself. But he could still hang on to 2025.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Point one is that taxation is not "confiscating assets". Growth in housing values is unearned wealth being accumulated and I would say it is reasonable to tax it.
I think the "taking XYZ out of the tax system" is years past its sell-by date, and we need a broadening of the tax base, and a depending at the higher end - especially targeting gaps and loopholes such as the "tax free gift out of normal income" loophole, which gives tax free income / wealth transfer from wealthier people to their children. Also Trusts.
I'd radically broaden Inheritance Tax to a majority of estates, starting at very modest rates, and make it payable by the receiving party not the Estate. There's perhaps a case to make it payable at the marginal rate of income tax for that party, to encourage wider distribution.
It’s probably heresy to say, but I think there’s a case for increasing the pensioner’s tax burden. As an OAP with several pensions, plus a wife with the same, I’m probably better of than I’ve ever been, although the fact that I now need carer support eats into things a bit, although I do, of course, get assistance with that.
OKC, all well and good but many many pensioners do not have several pensions. What taxes do you not pay currently or are you wanting a special pensioner only tax on top of them paying all the taxes other people pay. PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
I suspect he means NI. Pensioners don't get any preferential treatment vis a vis income tax.
Exactly and majority of pensioners are not working or doing an odd couple of days at best so the NI gathered would be peanuts in any event.
No matter your views on HS2, the way it has been ‘delivered’ is a national scandal and that alone should be enough to doom the Tory government.
The fact we have gone from a high speed link to the two biggest conurbations in the north, to only one, to none at all, to maybe even making journey times from Birmingham to central London longer (if it terminates at Old Oak Common) is pathetic. All that money spent for a defective railway line.
It is symptomatic of the rot at the heart of the British government.
I think the real scandal is that it is projected to cost £350 million/mile, when similar lines are delivered by the French and Spanish for a tenth of that. Either the NIMBYs should be overridden and the planning process massively curtailed or we should scrap it and also give up on building anything in this country.
Part of it is population density, so more people are affected in the UK than in France or Spain. The whole planning and environmental rigmarole is I’m sure a bigger factor.
It must surely be easier for Parliament to pass a Bill agreeing to pay everyone a 50% uplift on their property on the route, than to have to sit through a decade of public enquiries with vocal opposition groups on the route?
The cost of compulsory purchase is large, but it is "only" about £3 billion. The largest single cost item is the design of the run-in to Euston, which has still not been properly costed. The problem is the way this is being built- by consultants and PR Bullshitters, not by people who know what they are doing.
I think Sunak underestimates how angry people are about this. If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over. The control of major infrastructure projects should be brought in-house to the government and not done project by project with the expertise being lost once each project team is dispersed. Neither should there be a revolving door between the contractors and the delivery Quangos.
This is only a mere hundred miles London to Birmingham and it is coming in at c25x the cost of TGV Nord which is more than twice the length and in not that dissimilar population density.
PR and Bullshit do not beat engineers, and if Sunak is too incompetent to get this done, then the Tories must be put out of our misery.
What a way to build a railway.
"If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over."
A line so powerful that it is worth repeating. All of our competitor nations have all these things already - more motorways, high speed rail, a hub airport. We do not.
The solution - as you rightly point out - is a StateCo. Far enough from the reach of ministers and mandarins to operate without meddling, but not private sector giving fortunes to spivs.
In the past we used to have road construction units - a team of engineers who would build project after project after project. We had railway electrification units who did the same. And we could have it again if we recognised that (a) we need these things and (b) not spending the money is not zero-cost.
It is because the UK no longer to builds things or does things. The UK's current export is money. We send all our money to overseas investors.
That is just a myth. The UK just overtook France to become the 8th largest manufacturing nation in the world.
No no - she has a point. We screw things together here for foreigners - we own very little of what is left of industry. All flogged off for a nice fee for the spiv who put the deal together.
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
That will be a question for future archeologists to ponder
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
Sell the land for squillions and cut inheritance tax with the proceeds.
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
That will be a question for future archeologists to ponder
Göbekli Tepe is the foundations of a comprehensive tram network that lost political support?
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Interesting. If the Tories object it's a fib because he has it all in trusts and whatnot, then he'll still be saving it already - which (edit: apart from making the poster still true) raises the question of why little people pay IHT right now and have done for decades, and in particular since 2010 ...
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Labour are sounding awfly hum-hah this morning. However Starmer will need a better answer as Euston is literally his constituency
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
The Netherlands is 50% more densely populated than the UK. Of course they also have higher road density.
I don't have figures at hand for road density per population, where are you looking at that?
The other question is what some people call the roads vs. streets distinction. Roads being how you get between places, streets being what you stick buildings onto.
A lot of the stats conflate the two, but they're different things in a well-run system. And Streets massively outnumber and outdistance roads. Streets being very low speed limits, cars are possibly allowed if they absolutely have to be there and promise to be very quiet and well-behaved.
A neat and useful distinction by use between roads and streets is that streets are destinations, and roads are for getting to destinations.
For the UK I would draw the distinction between classified and unclassified inside community boundaries, with something along the lines of As & Bs being roads of some sort, and the rest being streets - but with blurry boundaries due to local circumstances.
There is value in a similar distinction in rural areas too, since minor roads are often not appropriate for the national speed limit, and single tracks should be more like 30mph max, if that.
In Wales the new default limit is affecting approx 7700 miles of road/street out of a total of 22,000 miles in the whole country. I have not seen a number of % of urban roads/streets which will be affected in Wales.
In NL, approx 70% of urban roads/street by length have a 30kph limit. Quoting wiki, but it's a well-known and robust figure. I am not sure whether that includes streets with lower speed limits, such as Home Zones ("Woonerfs").
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
Sell the land for squillions and cut inheritance tax with the proceeds.
What to do with it? A mushroom farm? (Actually the solution for the Scotland Street tunnel in Edinburgh.)
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
As Bernard Cribbins sang
Well there we were, discussing this hole A hole in the ground so big and sort of round Well it's not there now, the ground's all flat And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat.
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
I don't understand what the problem is at Euston. As you say, they've already dug a very nice hole. All they need now is platforms and a tunnel to Old Oak Common. Why have they suddenly realised this is difficult? What's gone wrong?
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Unless they do a TSR.2 and Belah Viaduct and bring in the wreckers the day after. I believe the Highways Authority are particularly good at filling in railway infrastructure with quick-setting concrete.
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
I don't understand what the problem is at Euston. As you say, they've already dug a very nice hole. All they need now is platforms and a tunnel to Old Oak Common. Why have they suddenly realised this is difficult? What's gone wrong?
Sunak's conditional formatting in his nice spreadsheet has gone RED.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
That will be a question for future archeologists to ponder
Obvs a ritual centre. Like the unfinished motorway bridges in Glasgow. No other rational explanation.
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
I don't understand what the problem is at Euston. As you say, they've already dug a very nice hole. All they need now is platforms and a tunnel to Old Oak Common. Why have they suddenly realised this is difficult? What's gone wrong?
Likewise. Surely all the hard work is now done. They’ve bought the land, they’ve done the digging (I’ve watched them) the main works are now nearly complete
So presumably the problem is Euston station itself? FFS just get a grip
If Sunak had just got rid of the gas boiler deadline, the opposition would have fallen in line, and his claim to being pragmatic in pursuit of net zero would have been more convincing.
Instead, he went for a wedge issue, it leaked, parts of the car industry complained about the uncertainty, and the announcement looked amateurish. Not only did he play politics with the issue, but he lost. Any gain from voters relieved that they can buy a new petrol car in 2034 was lost among those who think Sunak is giving up on net zero.
Not only that, but he opened himself to ridicule on the “seven bins” story. Instead of saying that he would not require recycling to be sorted by households into seven bins – and there has been some doubt about what the law requires – he pretended to have “stopped” plans that were already under way. Again, playing politics and losing.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
And, as has been said before, winning back Reform UK voters gets the Tories a slightly less bad defeat. If they have any chance of winning a general election, they need to win back people now intending to vote Labour and LibDem.
There’s no £ left for HS2 but there are billions to cut IHT (?) which hardly anyone pays, & btw ban teens smoking, also more maths? The trouble with this sudden policy splurge is it feels so random. To what Q are these the answers?
Boris had positive memories to remind voters of that Truss & Sunak didn’t/don’t - first of all he was actually voted in by the public, and that means there’s a residual loyalty to him that the other two will never have. Also he can point to tangible successes - ending the Brexit stalemate, getting the vaccines in, & his support for Ukraine, where he seems to be a bit of a hero. His peak gross positive ratings dwarf his successors
If you think of it as a relationship - Boris would be an unreliable but charismatic charmer who your friends hate but who showed you a good time & you were once in love with. Even though there are times when you hate these people and swear you’ll never speak to them again, they often win you back around. A bit like Vince & Penny in Just Good Friends, or Mr Big in Sex in the City - the lows are horrific but the highs are the unsurpassed.
Truss & Sunak, being imposed upon the public rather than voted for, are like dates arranged by mutual friends when youre recovering after being hurt by someone you really loved. You try to make it work, you try and see the best in them, but your heart is never really in it. Eventually your mind drifts back to the real deal
I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
I don't understand what the problem is at Euston. As you say, they've already dug a very nice hole. All they need now is platforms and a tunnel to Old Oak Common. Why have they suddenly realised this is difficult? What's gone wrong?
Likewise. Surely all the hard work is now done. They’ve bought the land, they’ve done the digging (I’ve watched them) the main works are now nearly complete
So presumably the problem is Euston station itself? FFS just get a grip
What I can't work out is if they have done the tunnel from Old Oak Common aka middle of nowhere to the bit just south of the canal on the final run down to Euston?
There’s no £ left for HS2 but there are billions to cut IHT (?) which hardly anyone pays, & btw ban teens smoking, also more maths? The trouble with this sudden policy splurge is it feels so random. To what Q are these the answers?
And Mark Harper found iirc just under £20bn for new road schemes at about a fortnight's notice.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Yes, I'm kind of thinking of Starmer as the PM now. What he says (about anything) is more important than what Sunak says. It's an odd situation.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
As good as reason as you could need to vote for anyone but the Conservatives come the next general election.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Labour are sounding awfly hum-hah this morning. However Starmer will need a better answer as Euston is literally his constituency
Labour are edging around the bear traps the Tories are trying to lay.
The reality is simple. The cost of stopping is more than the cost of continuing. So it will go ahead.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
I'm heading off in five hours' time for a week's cycling around the Netherlands (currently planning to do the Rhine route from Hook of Holland upstream, but no firm plans). I promise to come back with some observations...
Pray for no wind. Or take a sail.
Have you seen the Ranty Highwayman's video channel? He does safaris on cycling infra, including schemes in the UK, and many in the Netherlands. He also has an excellent blog which explains road design type subjects.
"A Highway Engineer's Adventures in Time and Space."
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.
That's productivity growth. More with less.
And you're welcome 🥰
That depends.
On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.
On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.
Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.
Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?
Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Labour are sounding awfly hum-hah this morning. However Starmer will need a better answer as Euston is literally his constituency
I agree with scrapping most of the HS2 project, but clearly it should still go to Euston, or it really doesn't go anywhere. Make it go to Euston, and Birmingham if it must, then shitcan it.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Point one is that taxation is not "confiscating assets". Growth in housing values is unearned wealth being accumulated and I would say it is reasonable to tax it.
I think the "taking XYZ out of the tax system" is years past its sell-by date, and we need a broadening of the tax base, and a depending at the higher end - especially targeting gaps and loopholes such as the "tax free gift out of normal income" loophole, which gives tax free income / wealth transfer from wealthier people to their children. Also Trusts.
I'd radically broaden Inheritance Tax to a majority of estates, starting at very modest rates, and make it payable by the receiving party not the Estate. There's perhaps a case to make it payable at the marginal rate of income tax for that party, to encourage wider distribution.
It’s probably heresy to say, but I think there’s a case for increasing the pensioner’s tax burden. As an OAP with several pensions, plus a wife with the same, I’m probably better of than I’ve ever been, although the fact that I now need carer support eats into things a bit, although I do, of course, get assistance with that.
OKC, all well and good but many many pensioners do not have several pensions. What taxes do you not pay currently or are you wanting a special pensioner only tax on top of them paying all the taxes other people pay. PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
I suspect he means NI. Pensioners don't get any preferential treatment vis a vis income tax.
Exactly and majority of pensioners are not working or doing an odd couple of days at best so the NI gathered would be peanuts in any event.
NI is just another form of Income Tax. It should apply in full to all income which Income Tax applies to.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
And, as has been said before, winning back Reform UK voters gets the Tories a slightly less bad defeat. If they have any chance of winning a general election, they need to win back people now intending to vote Labour and LibDem.
The Tories have virtually no chance of winning the next general election, whatever Sunak does after 13 years in power swing voters are going Labour or LD now. The Tories just need to focus on narrowing the margin of defeat to rebuild in opposition when Labour will have to deal with the economy.
An inheritance tax cut is popular in polling with most voters anyway and those opposed to delaying the ban on new petrol cars and ban on oil boilers would almost all never vote Tory anyway
What I can't work out is if they have done the tunnel from Old Oak Common aka middle of nowhere
I was brought up (and lived for 25 years) about 400 yards from what will be the Old Oak Common terminal. Trust me, no one in the history of mankind has ever wanted to visit it - let alone get there quicker.
Eddie Jones was interviewed for the role of Japan head coach two weeks before the Rugby World Cup began, according to reports in Australia.
Jones, 63, returned as head coach of the Wallabies after he was sacked by England at the end of last year. Australia have lost six of seven matches since he replaced Dave Rennie but Jones has denied reports that he could replace Jamie Joseph as Japan head coach, a role Jones left after the 2015 World Cup to join Stormers. Eight days after joining the South African franchise, he became England’s head coach.
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Labour are sounding awfly hum-hah this morning. However Starmer will need a better answer as Euston is literally his constituency
I agree with scrapping most of the HS2 project, but clearly it should still go to Euston, or it really doesn't go anywhere. Make it go to Euston, and Birmingham if it must, then shitcan it.
I wouldn’t have built it in the first place. And said so on here. Britain doesn’t NEED high speed trains we are such a compact and densely populated country. This is an ADVANTAGE
The trillions spent on HS2 should have been spent on infra between the northern cities. Proper crossrail line from Liverpool to Leeds and beyond
We would now have £50bn left over to spend on other stuff
But now they’ve gone this far it is insane to make it sort-of-Birmingham to “outer London”. What is the fucking point. Build it from Euston to Manchester then have a fast - inexpensive - royal commission to work out why Britain is now so shit at infrastructure. And fix the process
Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.
Yes, I'm kind of thinking of Starmer as the PM now. What he says (about anything) is more important than what Sunak says. It's an odd situation.
Sunak stood up last week condemning policies which he pledged to protect people against. Policies which it transpires were proposed by Sunak back in March. He's in opposition to himself.
Then we had the lunacy of the Secretary of State for Transport writing to Starmer demanding that he change policy as the government were unable to do so.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
And how many seats will have a REF UK candidate when it comes to it, anyway
Quite why they even figure in the polls when they are so invisible and incidental is something of a mystery. Surely it's just people who always replied 'UKIP' and can't kick the habit?
RefUK are on 8% in the latest Opinium and Yougov polls, the highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since the 12% UKIP got in 2015
Comments
And given that some of those countries ahead of the UK hold their position based on extreme exploitation of their workforce to a degree that would be completely unacceptable in this country I am not sure we could ever challenge them.
Have you?
The point is that people are what bring soul. People in the Netherlands have homes, they have infrastructure etc better than we do.
If you define "soul" as pretty Georgian buildings, where inside those pretty homes 16 people live in squalor in a home designed for four, then that's a soul that belongs to Beelzebub.
Driving two tonne, single occupant, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
But if it is to be reformed my suggestions would be -
1. Scrap pretty much all the exemptions - agricultural land, AIM shares, charities & other loopholes etc.,.
2. A tax free sum of say £500K.
3. Above that a stepped rate, say, 10% on £500 - £1.5 mio, 20% on the next million, 30% on the next million, 40% on the next with 45% on everything above.
Pretty much everyone pays something, the rate is much lower for most people so there is less incentive to avoid, you get rid of most of the exemptions and loopholes and above the top amount - £4.5 mio - it works out as an effective wealth tax.
The rate - 40% - feels (illogically I appreciate) too high. It makes it worthwhile to try and avoid. Whereas if it was much lower and the incidence of the tax was wider, it would feel fairer.
But frankly abolishing it now is the wrong priority.
This kind of behaviour used to be how it rolled at the bottom end of the property market*. The real slums. That it is reaching the middle classes will boil the frog a little more.
Then the reaction…
*I’ve personally seem multiple instance of houses where adults live in bunk beds, stacked in every room. This is where supper cheap migrant labour lives.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
Squalor is worse than whatever you define as "soul". No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
That's productivity growth. More with less.
And you're welcome 🥰
Infrastructure has needed to grow for decades and largely hasn't, because we collectively decided not to spend the money.
Like anaerobic respiration, you can do it for a bit, but paying off the oxygen debt is inevitable in the end.
1 - The HS2 corridor takes about 2/3 to 4/5 less land than a motorway - 19m width vs about 50-150m.
2 - Whilst being able to carry more passengers.
3 - I'm not sure that a brand new motorway would be much cheaper on comparables, taking everything into account.
There are few votes in more tax for social care however and even housebuilding proposals saw lots of southern Tory councils go LD and/and or Independent in May over Tory councils Local Plans seen as building too much in the greenbelt (although longer term we do of course need to get more younger people on the housing ladder with more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt land)
A lot of the stats conflate the two, but they're different things in a well-run system. And Streets massively outnumber and outdistance roads. Streets being very low speed limits, cars are possibly allowed if they absolutely have to be there and promise to be very quiet and well-behaved.
😉
Have you seen the Ranty Highwayman's video channel? He does safaris on cycling infra, including schemes in the UK, and many in the Netherlands. He also has an excellent blog which explains road design type subjects.
"A Highway Engineer's Adventures in Time and Space."
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC19s00lNDLRaL3OA-y_zUiA
In Labour terms the Tories are only at 2009, with Sunak Gordon Brown, they haven't even got to their Ed Miliband or Corbyn yet
I’m on my way to the back of beyond. Flight to Hamburg then a 2.5 hour drive up into southern Jutland to meet a Danish client. It would be hard to think of a location in GB further from an airport with Sunday flights outside Scotland. Probably only Cornwall or Ceredigion.
A carbon tax is meant to be the right wing solution to the issue, as opposed to a flat ban.
In the spring I did:
F ENG C(Lon-Pic), A Pic-Bur, A Bur-Switz, A Switz-Pie, A Pie H, A Pie-Ven, A Ven H, A Ven-Tyr, A Tyr H, A Tyr-Switz, A Switz-Bur, A Bur-Pic, F ENG C(Pic-Lon)
In the summer it was F NTH C(Lon-Hol), A Hol-Kie, F HEL & F NTH C(Kie-Nwy), A Nwy H, A Nwy-Swe, F BOT C(Swe-Fin), A Fin H, F BOT & F BAL C(Fin-Kie), A Kie-Hol, F NTH C(Hol-Lon)
And just recently, F ENG C(Lon-Pic), A Pic-Bur, A Bur-Mun, A Mun-Tyr, A Tyr-Vie, A Vie-Bud, A Bud H, A Bud-Tri, A Tri H, A Tri-Tyr, A Tyr H, and soon A Tyr-Switz, A Switz-Mun, A Mun-Bur, A Bur-Pic, F ENG C(Pic-Lon)
Rather like Uxbridge and ULEZ, that's the comfortable conclusion they've decided on.
What finished Gordon Brown was a perception that Labour's time was up.
Windsor castle is a state residence, if Harry wanted to stay there he should have stayed a working royal based in the UK rather than move into a California mansion and stop royal duties. As a result if he now comes to London again he can stay in a hotel like other US based tourists
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"'
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!
It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension
Larry the Cat might see his sixth Prime Minister.
Liz Truss might have been a disaster as a PM,but she did Larry a massive favour: he got to his 5th PM in only 12 years, while Peter the Cat had to wait 16 years for his fifth, Clement Attlee, to enter no 10. However, Larry got a later start, entering service at age 4, so he's still fairly old at 16 himself. But he could still hang on to 2025.
Go Larry!
SCO v TON. This game has consolation prize written all over it. Scotland could still qualify but it will be incredibly difficult. Expect a high scoring game but with Scotland pulling away by 20 at the end.
WAL v AUS. Another massive game. Wales will have the advantage of having rested almost all of their first team for two weeks – while Australia have to turnaround only 1 week from their battering by Fiji, and will be nursing mental as well as physical scars. This is a must win game for Australia or they are going home, while Wales could potentially lose and still qualify, or even win the group – it is that close. Expect Gatland to work out an effective game plan while Eddie Jones will come up with something…anything. I think Wales will win this match but by 6 points or less.
I will go a little further and predict an exact scoreline: Wales 24 Australia 18.
'Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey says his party has not changed tack on housebuilding targets in order to win votes from Conservative supporters.
The party is considering dropping a commitment to build 380,000 new homes a year, in favour of targeting 150,000 new council or social homes.
He denied the party opposes new housing in Tory-run areas where they are trying to win parliamentary and council seats.
He said they opposed "developer-led" schemes without proper amenities.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
The home secretary said officers have to make "split-second decisions" and must not fear "ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties".'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906193
Quite why they even figure in the polls when they are so invisible and incidental is something of a mystery. Surely it's just people who always replied 'UKIP' and can't kick the habit?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/number-10-insiders-fear-beloved-31013660
Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.
I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day
Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion
They're not on your side.
For the UK I would draw the distinction between classified and unclassified inside community boundaries, with something along the lines of As & Bs being roads of some sort, and the rest being streets - but with blurry boundaries due to local circumstances.
There is value in a similar distinction in rural areas too, since minor roads are often not appropriate for the national speed limit, and single tracks should be more like 30mph max, if that.
In Wales the new default limit is affecting approx 7700 miles of road/street out of a total of 22,000 miles in the whole country. I have not seen a number of % of urban roads/streets which will be affected in Wales.
In NL, approx 70% of urban roads/street by length have a 30kph limit. Quoting wiki, but it's a well-known and robust figure. I am not sure whether that includes streets with lower speed limits, such as Home Zones ("Woonerfs").
Well there we were, discussing this hole
A hole in the ground so big and sort of round
Well it's not there now, the ground's all flat
And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat.
And that's that!
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/25/row-growing-after-third-historic-rail-bridge-filled-in-with-concrete
So presumably the problem is Euston station itself? FFS just get a grip
Instead, he went for a wedge issue, it leaked, parts of the car industry complained about the uncertainty, and the announcement looked amateurish. Not only did he play politics with the issue, but he lost. Any gain from voters relieved that they can buy a new petrol car in 2034 was lost among those who think Sunak is giving up on net zero.
Not only that, but he opened himself to ridicule on the “seven bins” story. Instead of saying that he would not require recycling to be sorted by households into seven bins – and there has been some doubt about what the law requires – he pretended to have “stopped” plans that were already under way. Again, playing politics and losing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rishi-sunak-lose-election-2023-conservatives-b2417196.html
Edit: the only change I'd make is to have Sunak just a bit too small, proportionately.
There’s no £ left for HS2 but there are billions to cut IHT (?) which hardly anyone pays, & btw ban teens smoking, also more maths? The trouble with this sudden policy splurge is it feels so random. To what Q are these the answers?
If you think of it as a relationship - Boris would be an unreliable but charismatic charmer who your friends hate but who showed you a good time & you were once in love with. Even though there are times when you hate these people and swear you’ll never speak to them again, they often win you back around. A bit like Vince & Penny in Just Good Friends, or Mr Big in Sex in the City - the lows are horrific but the highs are the unsurpassed.
Truss & Sunak, being imposed upon the public rather than voted for, are like dates arranged by mutual friends when youre recovering after being hurt by someone you really loved. You try to make it work, you try and see the best in them, but your heart is never really in it. Eventually your mind drifts back to the real deal
The reality is simple. The cost of stopping is more than the cost of continuing. So it will go ahead.
https://www.doyouremember.co.uk/memory/little-big-man
Also, Rishi refitting his bathroom.
https://www.adsoftheworld.com/campaigns/little-big-man
On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.
On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.
Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.
Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?
Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.
An inheritance tax cut is popular in polling with most voters anyway and those opposed to delaying the ban on new petrol cars and ban on oil boilers would almost all never vote Tory anyway
I was brought up (and lived for 25 years) about 400 yards from what will be the Old Oak Common terminal. Trust me, no one in the history of mankind has ever wanted to visit it - let alone get there quicker.
Factor in billionaires tax planning and his likely status as a non-dom or citizen elsewhere by the time it happens and it will be closer to £0.....
Jones, 63, returned as head coach of the Wallabies after he was sacked by England at the end of last year. Australia have lost six of seven matches since he replaced Dave Rennie but Jones has denied reports that he could replace Jamie Joseph as Japan head coach, a role Jones left after the 2015 World Cup to join Stormers. Eight days after joining the South African franchise, he became England’s head coach.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eddie-jones-interviewed-for-japan-job-two-weeks-before-world-cup-msf9wjnhd
The trillions spent on HS2 should have been spent on infra between the northern cities. Proper crossrail line from Liverpool to Leeds and beyond
We would now have £50bn left over to spend on other stuff
But now they’ve gone this far it is insane to make it sort-of-Birmingham to “outer London”. What is the fucking point. Build it from Euston to Manchester then have a fast - inexpensive - royal commission to work out why Britain is now so shit at infrastructure. And fix the process
Then we had the lunacy of the Secretary of State for Transport writing to Starmer demanding that he change policy as the government were unable to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election