'"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
'"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
Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex-Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
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?
It feels like Labour in 2019 when any random thought crossing Seamas Milne's mind became a policy commitment. I'm still half-convinced the man was a Tory plant. He even went to the same school as Rishi.
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
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.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the argument preceding it. Segregated bikes lanes shift a lot of bike traffic off the road, negating the arguments you make about bikes slowing the traffic. You can decrease pressure on vehicular traffic without building more capacity for it, by building capacity for bikes.
Yes segregated bike lanes work, I said that all along, but where is that space coming from is the question?
If its from grass to the side of the road, then yes, that works.
If its from newly developed land alongside a newly developed road, that works.
If its from building new roads to ease traffic on old roads, then narrowing old roads to build a cycle path then that can work.
If its from cannibalising road lanes, then that doesn't.
Which is why there's no alternative to doing what the Dutch have done for over half a century which is build roads and cycle paths.
'"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
Yes and the Brexit Party would probably have beaten the May led Tories into 3rd place had a general election been held in June 2019 before Brexit had got done
They had flaws, but they at least were trying to support aspiration and make things better. Sunak isn't even trying.
From my point of view those two were still worse. But vs a low bar.
Johnson was too lazy actually to get anything meaningfully done. That probably puts him on a par with Sunak but for different reasons. But on top of that he was corrosive to trust and due process in politics.
Truss was just bonkers. From the pork markets speech to her recent attempts to claim she was the victim of an establishment coup, she just doesn’t live in the same world as the rest of us. She lives in this weird slightly psychedelic Truss-land.
Sunak is just weak, ideologically incapable of thinking and acting long term, and politically out of his depth.
All three have been pretty solid on standing up to Russia, but Truss felt a little dangerous in that role. Johnson really meant it, I’ll give him that.
The problem with Sunak is that he seems to exhibit some of the worst aspects of both his predecessors.
The Borisian laziness has been on display for most of the past 9 months - doing very little, letting supposedly-key bits of legislation run out of time, denying the existence of every problem that came up, and repeating the 5 Priorities mantra over and over and over again. (Whatever happened to those priorities? Are they no longer important?)
But now - perhaps stung by Starmer calling him "Inaction Man" - he's flipped into a Truss-style frenzy. Stopping his meat tax, abandoning upcoming milestones on the road to net zero, banning dogs and smoking, trashing all the useful bits of HS2.
I'm reminded of Violet Bonham-Carter's description of the choice between Bonar Law and Lloyd-George in 1922: "a contest between a man with sleeping sickness and a man with St Vitus' Dance". 101 years later, Rishi is managing to act like both at the same time.
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
The problem is that the north's rail network is dominated by inter-city trains heading to Glasgow or whatever. No room for commuters.
An alternative to HS2 might've been metro or tram networks for all major northern cities and their suburbs. But that's not particularly sexy.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
HS2 did not need to be built as a High Speed (high cost) line - it needed to be built as a dedicated bypass line - fastish (say 200 kph) without all of the Nimby tunnels and shiny superstations. Would have been around 25% of the cost and sustainable. Too late for that now.
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road? Your "new road dogma" would lead to a completely incoherent network that no one would use.
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of using that money to invest in housing.
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?
AIUI they haven't done the tunnel south from OOC yet. They have bought the extremely expensive customised-for-the-geology tunnel boring machines; they are doing the preparatory work to put them underground before OOC station is done (since you can't do it afterwards); but they are not going to start them digging. Instead they will be regularly maintained and cared for as they sit idle underground. This is of course nuts.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
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.
As long as people are prepared to put up with what the junior at the bank puts up with no-one has any reason much to change things.
In many parts of the country housing is not a major issue. People with jobs get themselves housed realistically, with high levels of private ownership alongside social housing and a rented sector. This receives no attention whatsoever, but this fact is an element in choices people have to make in reflecting on career options.
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?
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months
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.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the argument preceding it. Segregated bikes lanes shift a lot of bike traffic off the road, negating the arguments you make about bikes slowing the traffic. You can decrease pressure on vehicular traffic without building more capacity for it, by building capacity for bikes.
Yes segregated bike lanes work, I said that all along, but where is that space coming from is the question?
If its from grass to the side of the road, then yes, that works.
If its from newly developed land alongside a newly developed road, that works.
If its from building new roads to ease traffic on old roads, then narrowing old roads to build a cycle path then that can work.
If its from cannibalising road lanes, then that doesn't.
Which is why there's no alternative to doing what the Dutch have done for over half a century which is build roads and cycle paths.
The question of where the space comes from is highly relevant both to building new bikes lanes and to building new vehicle roads. The slight difference is that bike lanes take less space.
In instances where there is no space to build either, a different solution is needed.
Which is why developing where there is space is best, then you can do both no problem. With a clean slate you can have space for roads, paths and tramways - and done right that doesn't actually take much extra space either - have a look at Melbourne.
Which is why we should be developing new towns and cities, not just trying to cram everyone into the same overcrowded one.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
Your "new road" dogma we would lead to a completely incoherent cycle network. Finding space is easy on existing roads - just remove on street parking.
I'm in no bubble. 80% of us live in urban areas. You're the weird one with the 40km commute and a road fetish.
Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?
Absolutely not.
But if you're going to do this damn thing, then do it properly.
Stop changing the specifications once they're agreed, stop NIMBY lawsuits or reviews getting in the way and once the specs are agreed just build it in full.
“One source said any decision to cancel the section of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester could not be made at the conference and would have to come before it. “He has to do it before Tories go to Manchester. To do it there would be inconceivable. It would be a kick in the teeth for the city. So doing it before seems to be the plan.””
Yep. A kick in the teeth three days sooner is so much better. Doubt the Mancs will notice
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
Your "new road" dogma we would lead to a completely incoherent cycle network. Finding space is easy on existing roads - just remove on street parking.
I'm in no bubble. 80% of us live in urban areas. You're the weird one with the 40km commute and a road fetish.
I live in an urban area.
My commute is to an urban area.
People travel, what's wrong with that? That's not at all weird. And my commute time is below the average nationwide.
I have no road fetish, I have a desire for both roads and cycle paths to be built like the Dutch have done for half a century. As you have an anti-road fetish, you obsess over half of what I want to built and cry havoc over it.
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?
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months
Good to see you defending him seeing as his brother wouldn't sweat it.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Is IHT the last remaining major financial benefit to marriage?
I think it is. And maximising the allowance to £1m involves (I think) having children and being a homeowner.
But for people of wealth IHT is mostly a voluntary tax, and a great scheme for enabling solicitors of the Dickens/Lincoln's Inn tradition, as well as accountants, to keep their wives and children from wandering, starving and barefoot, to the workhouse clutching tattered copies of the Settled Land Act 1925.
'"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
Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex- Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?
Which is easier to win back with Brexit still in the mix?
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
When Sunak was born, Thatcher had already been in office for a year.
When she left office, he was still in primary school.
(Whereas I was in sixth form. When she went, I was in the college media centre, reading news in French. All the politics students came in to watch the BBC.)
Sunak's Thatcherism has an awful lot of cosplay about it. Different to Truss's but the same issue.
'"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
Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex-Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?
As Sunak almost certainly wouldn't win back voters now going Lab or LD but would still fail to win back voters going RefUK or DK.
After 13 years in power Tories also want some rightwing red meat if they are likely going to lose power anyway, much as Brown raised the top income tax rate to 50%, passed the Equality Act 2009 etc as red meat for the left in the final years of the last Labour government
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
I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).
Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?
It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Not if the decisions you make, in your desperation, are seriously damaging to the country
Also it probably won’t work. This insane flip flopping makes them look even more contemptible
It’s not a 30% strategy it’s a 20-25% strategy. Which will leave them on 150 seats or fewer. It doesn’t actually fend off electoral catastrophe
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
Rishi has been both CoE and PM. I wonder whether anyone can point to any modest achievement towards the dry land of the smaller state under his watch. How much has State Managed Expenditure fallen as a % of GDP, and which major bits of our national life has been handed back from the state to somewhere else?
In reality, on tax, borrow and spend there is no significant difference between Tory and Labour. Both intend to continue this, and none have a plan to pay back the debt except by inflating it away.
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?
AIUI they haven't done the tunnel south from OOC yet. They have bought the extremely expensive customised-for-the-geology tunnel boring machines; they are doing the preparatory work to put them underground before OOC station is done (since you can't do it afterwards); but they are not going to start them digging. Instead they will be regularly maintained and cared for as they sit idle underground. This is of course nuts.
Ah, thank you. I haven't spoken to my Camden friend for some time so am not up to date on the situation (he regularly shows me the latest doings in between things like the church whose graveyard Thomas Hardy dug up, and the opriginal London and Birmingham Railway industrial archaeology, the Castle pubs, etc.).
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
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
I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).
Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?
It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.
No unless you are a working royal or were a working royal for most of your working life you don't get accomodation at Windsor.
There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.
Rishi is not a closed borders fan. He is a fan of reducing numbers arriving by means unacceptable to the Daily Mail. He is a huge fan if inward migration. Look at the numbers.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
You aren't Tory core, you voted for Blair. You weren't even part of the 31.7% who voted for Hague.
As for voters under 50, you are apparently even considering voting for the ultra NIMBY LDs who just this morning have slashed their housing development proposals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.
Do we know Rishi’s avital instinct on immigration. A lot of the real Rishi is obscured by his various sops to the Suella wing and the Daily Mail etc.
I’d have assumed, personally, that he is pro high immigration.
Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
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
I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).
Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?
It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.
No unless you are a working royal or were a working royal for most of your working life you don't get accomodation at Windsor.
There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc
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
Truss beat Sunak and Truss lost to a lettuce.
Therefore Sunak is worse than a lettuce.
There you go, thinking like a mathematician again
😉
Surely not! Syllogism belongs to Aristotlean Philosophy and Aristotle was rather dodgy on mathematics.
Actually, all the Greeks were a bit dodgy on mathematics, but they had a good handle on geometry
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.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
You aren't Tory core, you voted for Blair. You weren't even part of the 31.7% who voted for Hague.
As for voters under 50, you are apparently even considering voting for the ultra NIMBY LDs who just this morning have slashed their housing development proposals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
Those proposals are still ahead of the Tory reality...
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for Rishi to win seats at the next election by running a competent government really well and finding just 630 or so fantastically able, articulate and sane candidates to stand for election in each seat on an honest manifesto with figures, ideas, vision and plan?
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?
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months
Good to see you defending him seeing as his brother wouldn't sweat it.
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
I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).
Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?
It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.
No unless you are a working royal or were a working royal for most of your working life you don't get accomodation at Windsor.
There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc
Talking of royals, this is a great little piece (most editorial pieces in British press are little: contrast with the mammoth dissertation that is a standard sized article in NYT or WaPo).
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
The Tory Party has already been annihilated. This lot are UKIP Mk2 they just forgot to change the name.
The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.
The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.
He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.
Rishi is not a closed borders fan. He is a fan of reducing numbers arriving by means unacceptable to the Daily Mail. He is a huge fan if inward migration. Look at the numbers.
It would certainly be more intellectually consistent if he were an open border fan. But I’d say 80% of his politics is opportunistic anyway, with the remaining 20% being that dry Thatcherite streak people have mentioned.
Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....
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?
AIUI they haven't done the tunnel south from OOC yet. They have bought the extremely expensive customised-for-the-geology tunnel boring machines; they are doing the preparatory work to put them underground before OOC station is done (since you can't do it afterwards); but they are not going to start them digging. Instead they will be regularly maintained and cared for as they sit idle underground. This is of course nuts.
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.
Apart from the drivers and firemen of the GWR locos based there ... and many a train spotter. If Wormwood Sctubs is included, it did find a small place in history - the Royal Navy's armoured car base in 1914-15 etc where some of the early 'landship' experiments were done. Including one W. Churchill.
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.
As long as people are prepared to put up with what the junior at the bank puts up with no-one has any reason much to change things.
In many parts of the country housing is not a major issue. People with jobs get themselves housed realistically, with high levels of private ownership alongside social housing and a rented sector. This receives no attention whatsoever, but this fact is an element in choices people have to make in reflecting on career options.
There used to be minimum housing standards. The Conservatives abolished them.
Do we have any figures on rail passenger numbers post-covid? All this kerfuffle about HS2 seems a bit irrelevant without them.
Honestly? I neither know nor care. We need to demonstrate that we can set goals and finish a job once started. I suggest this is the obvious problem with this government, veering from current thing to current thing with the gross stupidity of the idle rich and never finish anything. Heathrow terminals and rail routes are just the obvious sign of this. They need to be taught thru electoral defeat that this stupidity has to stop.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
Oh, where about in the North are those located?
Interesting and clear graphic chronology is available in this link below, click it and click the years and cycle through them from 1958 to today. Almost all our motorways were built by the end of the 70s, there hasn't been any major investment in two generations despite a 25% population growth since then.
This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics
Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline
Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....
But, like the rock star in Restaurant at the End of the Universe, any deceased person lives on in the form of his estate, which is held in trust for him by his executors to deal with ...
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
I don't speak for the government, nor am I required to answer for them.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
The Tory Party has already been annihilated. This lot are UKIP Mk2 they just forgot to change the name.
Not in the slightest- there's very little right-wing about this government.
The best you could say is that they're a gerontocracy.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
Yes, we seem to have reached the point where closure / vindication / karma requires a thrashing. After the thrashing they can come back, but not before.
So if they lose narrowly in 2024 it’s possible the thrashing is just deferred. Might one argue 2019 was the final thrashing that allowed Labour to move on from 2010?
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for Rishi to win seats at the next election by running a competent government really well and finding just 630 or so fantastically able, articulate and sane candidates to stand for election in each seat on an honest manifesto with figures, ideas, vision and plan?
What makes you think voters are interested in an honest manifesto?
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.
We've probably got another year of this shit to get through.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
The Elizabeth Line, Thames Tideway, T5 and the London Olympics were, are or are on course to all be very successful projects.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
The Tory Party has already been annihilated. This lot are UKIP Mk2 they just forgot to change the name.
Not in the slightest- there's very little right-wing about this government.
The best you could say is that they're a gerontocracy.
Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending?
I'm not sure it is. But I'm pretty sure that continuing to bugger about with the scope of it now it's in progress is going to end up making it cost more and deliver reduced benefits, so trying to cheesepare on it now is a terrible idea based on short term political optics.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
You aren't Tory core, you voted for Blair. You weren't even part of the 31.7% who voted for Hague.
As for voters under 50, you are apparently even considering voting for the ultra NIMBY LDs who just this morning have slashed their housing development proposals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
I was Tory core - until this laughable shower of shit came along. I’ve said this before, but you really do need to read the writing on the wall
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for Rishi to win seats at the next election by running a competent government really well and finding just 630 or so fantastically able, articulate and sane candidates to stand for election in each seat on an honest manifesto with figures, ideas, vision and plan?
What makes you think voters are interested in an honest manifesto?
Tediously, it is the politician’s job to lead and persuade. You and your ilk have forgotten that, which is why the country is fucked.
This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics
Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline
Yes, it is beyond frustrating that we have made it impossible for us to build a railway or runway or a power station without spending insane sums arguing and rearguing the merits to the point that any gain for the country is probably lost and all we have is huge debts to meet from a general taxation which is simply not increasing enough, not least because the lack of infrastructure makes productive investment impossible. We really, really have to stop this.
Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....
What are the inheritance rules in the OC?
For, I suspect, that is where his estate will be divvied up.
Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....
What are the inheritance rules in the OC?
For, I suspect, that is where his estate will be divvied up.
I thought he was more Venice Beach than Orange County.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
The Elizabeth Line, Thames Tideway, T5 and the London Olympics were, are or are on course to all be very successful projects.
So you're suggesting investing in infrastructure works? I seem to be detecting a common thread in the geography of those projects.
Can you name the top infrastructure investment in the past decade or two in the North that have been successful projects?
Our population has grown by a quarter, our infrastructure has not kept up.
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.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
Oh, where about in the North are those located?
Interesting and clear graphic chronology is available in this link below, click it and click the years and cycle through them from 1958 to today. Almost all our motorways were built by the end of the 70s, there hasn't been any major investment in two generations despite a 25% population growth since then.
This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics
Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline
The expansion of judicial review well beyond the intention is part of the problem. Parliament passes an act. It’s done. It doesn’t need 10 years of appeals, counter appeals and reviews
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.
As long as people are prepared to put up with what the junior at the bank puts up with no-one has any reason much to change things.
In many parts of the country housing is not a major issue. People with jobs get themselves housed realistically, with high levels of private ownership alongside social housing and a rented sector. This receives no attention whatsoever, but this fact is an element in choices people have to make in reflecting on career options.
The population grows. The housing does not. Eventually this will fuck up where you are. It's mathematically certain.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
Yes, we seem to have reached the point where closure / vindication / karma requires a thrashing. After the thrashing they can come back, but not before.
So if they lose narrowly in 2024 it’s possible the thrashing is just deferred. Might one argue 2019 was the final thrashing that allowed Labour to move on from 2010?
Yes, it's a bit like Germany in the 20th century. Losing the Great War in 1918, the way they did - a slightly frustrating armistice, with no actual occupation of German land, and just a few hungry people in Berlin - was not enough. The Germans went away simultaneously humiliated, and with the sense they *could* have won it
So they came back for more in 1939, in an even less pleasant guise, and then they had to be utterly annihilated, no question, and Berlin had to be levelled, millions raped, the country divided, and so forth
The Tories under Theresa May were the Kaiser's Germany - then Boris was a kind of burlesque Weimar interlude, when you thought they might be fun, then Truss was the hyperinflation, and now they are the Nazis, and Sunak is Hitler, who must be entirely vanquished
Comments
They need to go down to a Canadian style defeat then rethink what they are: from first principles
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
If its from grass to the side of the road, then yes, that works.
If its from newly developed land alongside a newly developed road, that works.
If its from building new roads to ease traffic on old roads, then narrowing old roads to build a cycle path then that can work.
If its from cannibalising road lanes, then that doesn't.
Which is why there's no alternative to doing what the Dutch have done for over half a century which is build roads and cycle paths.
The Borisian laziness has been on display for most of the past 9 months - doing very little, letting supposedly-key bits of legislation run out of time, denying the existence of every problem that came up, and repeating the 5 Priorities mantra over and over and over again. (Whatever happened to those priorities? Are they no longer important?)
But now - perhaps stung by Starmer calling him "Inaction Man" - he's flipped into a Truss-style frenzy. Stopping his meat tax, abandoning upcoming milestones on the road to net zero, banning dogs and smoking, trashing all the useful bits of HS2.
I'm reminded of Violet Bonham-Carter's description of the choice between Bonar Law and Lloyd-George in 1922: "a contest between a man with sleeping sickness and a man with St Vitus' Dance". 101 years later, Rishi is managing to act like both at the same time.
An alternative to HS2 might've been metro or tram networks for all major northern cities and their suburbs. But that's not particularly sexy.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1705710848432279974?s=20
The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).
Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of using that money to invest in housing.
I might abstain. I might vote Labour. I ain’t voting Tory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66468773
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
In many parts of the country housing is not a major issue. People with jobs get themselves housed realistically, with high levels of private ownership alongside social housing and a rented sector. This receives no attention whatsoever, but this fact is an element in choices people have to make in reflecting on career options.
He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months
Which is why we should be developing new towns and cities, not just trying to cram everyone into the same overcrowded one.
I'm in no bubble. 80% of us live in urban areas. You're the weird one with the 40km commute and a road fetish.
But if you're going to do this damn thing, then do it properly.
Stop changing the specifications once they're agreed, stop NIMBY lawsuits or reviews getting in the way and once the specs are agreed just build it in full.
“One source said any decision to cancel the section of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester could not be made at the conference and would have to come before it. “He has to do it before Tories go to Manchester. To do it there would be inconceivable. It would be a kick in the teeth for the city. So doing it before seems to be the plan.””
Yep. A kick in the teeth three days sooner is so much better. Doubt the Mancs will notice
(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)
debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.
My commute is to an urban area.
People travel, what's wrong with that? That's not at all weird. And my commute time is below the average nationwide.
I have no road fetish, I have a desire for both roads and cycle paths to be built like the Dutch have done for half a century. As you have an anti-road fetish, you obsess over half of what I want to built and cry havoc over it.
I do know he is trying to expel Andrew from Windsor Royal Lodge. But Andrew cuts a less sympathetic figure for some reason.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
But for people of wealth IHT is mostly a voluntary tax, and a great scheme for enabling solicitors of the Dickens/Lincoln's Inn tradition, as well as accountants, to keep their wives and children from wandering, starving and barefoot, to the workhouse clutching tattered copies of the Settled Land Act 1925.
When she left office, he was still in primary school.
(Whereas I was in sixth form. When she went, I was in the college media centre, reading news in French. All the politics students came in to watch the BBC.)
Sunak's Thatcherism has an awful lot of cosplay about it. Different to Truss's but the same issue.
After 13 years in power Tories also want some rightwing red meat if they are likely going to lose power anyway, much as Brown raised the top income tax rate to 50%, passed the Equality Act 2009 etc as red meat for the left in the final years of the last Labour government
Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?
It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.
Also it probably won’t work. This insane flip flopping makes them look even more contemptible
It’s not a 30% strategy it’s a 20-25% strategy. Which will leave them on 150 seats or fewer. It doesn’t actually fend off electoral catastrophe
In reality, on tax, borrow and spend there is no significant difference between Tory and Labour. Both intend to continue this, and none have a plan to pay back the debt except by inflating it away.
Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.
There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.
The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.
There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc
As for voters under 50, you are apparently even considering voting for the ultra NIMBY LDs who just this morning have slashed their housing development proposals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
A lot of the real Rishi is obscured by his various sops to the Suella wing and the Daily Mail etc.
I’d have assumed, personally, that he is pro high immigration.
The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.
Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.
Actually, all the Greeks were a bit dodgy on mathematics, but they had a good handle on geometry
https://t.co/MI7mggS3eh
I particularly like the last paragraph. A warning to republicans.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/UK/killen-strait-armoured-tractor
Interesting and clear graphic chronology is available in this link below, click it and click the years and cycle through them from 1958 to today. Almost all our motorways were built by the end of the 70s, there hasn't been any major investment in two generations despite a 25% population growth since then.
https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/chronology?year=1958
Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline
I am simply putting forth the political logic.
The best you could say is that they're a gerontocracy.
So if they lose narrowly in 2024 it’s possible the thrashing is just deferred. Might one argue 2019 was the final thrashing that allowed Labour to move on from 2010?
So why should I vote for it?
You and your ilk have forgotten that, which is why the country is fucked.
NEW THREAD
For, I suspect, that is where his estate will be divvied up.
Can you name the top infrastructure investment in the past decade or two in the North that have been successful projects?
Our population has grown by a quarter, our infrastructure has not kept up.
So they came back for more in 1939, in an even less pleasant guise, and then they had to be utterly annihilated, no question, and Berlin had to be levelled, millions raped, the country divided, and so forth
The Tories under Theresa May were the Kaiser's Germany - then Boris was a kind of burlesque Weimar interlude, when you thought they might be fun, then Truss was the hyperinflation, and now they are the Nazis, and Sunak is Hitler, who must be entirely vanquished
I hope this helps younger PB-ers