My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
Which would still be a tax rise, especially on pensioners.
It would also not afford tax cuts if it is just to cover rising spending.
NI should be hypothecated to fund state pensions and contributory JSA and ideally in time some social care
I have no objection to hypothecation.
I have an objection to some paying it and others not.
Apply it to all income no matter how its earned, just the same as income tax, and you can hypothecate it as you please.
I know it's a fairly technical quibble, but is it not the case that National Insurance is already hypothecated to some extent?
English & Welsh NICs go into the National Insurance Fund, which is used to pay out social security benefits (except for tax credits). The (relatively small) remainder at the end of the year goes direct to the NHS.
It's a bit different in Northern Ireland, which has a separate National Insurance Fund of Northern Ireland. It pays only for social security in NI, with the remainder going direct to the general UK Consolidated Fund. Dunno what happens in Scotland, but I presume it's something similar.
(I know about this after a mildly frustrating experience when an English NHS trust tried to charge me for treatment because my NHS number was registered in Northern Ireland...)
Sure, but there is lots more money to have to be paid for the NHS from general taxation. So NI's not hypothecated for social security (even sans tax credits), nor does it pay for the NHS ...
Edit: Plainly the setup is a historical relic, but that's about as relevant to today as claiming that HYUFD is arboreal simply because his ancestors had a long tail for climbing in trees with.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
Sounds like a good red wall policy then. The more those assorted ghouls and grifters are getting their corpulent jowls in a flap the better the policy is likely to be.
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
Sounds like a good red wall policy then. The more those assorted ghouls and grifters are getting their corpulent jowls in a flap the better the policy is likely to be.
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
No good. There is no connection to the WCML at Birmingham so it wouldn't relieve the congestion.
Unless it goes to at least Handsacre and more probably Crewe it will be as useless as Amanda Spielman.
And unless it goes to Manchester and Leeds (and from Manchester on to a link with the WCML) it will be barely more useful than Nick Gibb anyway.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
For some value of "make sense".
Two extreme scenarios from here:
First is to bin the project. That will have a cost X (unless we plan to leave a blooming great hole in Euston and so on), and leave us with no railway at all, or a railway that does nothing useful (Acton to Aston). So there will be the cost of any patches needed to solve some of the secondary problems HS2 was meant to unclog (suburban capacity around London, Birmingham and Manchester f'rexample).
Second is to carry on. That will have a cost Y from here. The money already spent has been spent and ain't coming back.
So the question is whether the benefits of doing HS2 properly (for some value of "properly"... to Euston? to Manchester? to Leeds?) are worth the difference between X and Y.
It's possible that Rishi (or one of Rishi's minons) has done those sums, but it seems unlikely. It's equally possible that Rishibot-2023 has reached the "singing 'Daisy Daisy'" stage of decline.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
For some value of "make sense".
Two extreme scenarios from here:
First is to bin the project. That will have a cost X (unless we plan to leave a blooming great hole in Euston and so on), and leave us with no railway at all, or a railway that does nothing useful (Acton to Aston). So there will be the cost of any patches needed to solve some of the secondary problems HS2 was meant to unclog (suburban capacity around London, Birmingham and Manchester f'rexample).
Second is to carry on. That will have a cost Y from here. The money already spent has been spent and ain't coming back.
So the question is whether the benefits of doing HS2 properly (for some value of "properly"... to Euston? to Manchester? to Leeds?) are worth the difference between X and Y.
It's possible that Rishi (or one of Rishi's minons) has done those sums, but it seems unlikely. It's equally possible that Rishibot-2023 has reached the "singing 'Daisy Daisy'" stage of decline.
If we cancel the work that's already been done we'll probably have to pay more on cancellation charges than it would cost to finish it anyway (and incidentally that may well apply to the northern leg too, large chunks of which are already under construction although Sunak seems not to know that).
After all, that's what the Treasury usually seems to negotiate in their infinite incompetence.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
Sounds like a good red wall policy then. The more those assorted ghouls and grifters are getting their corpulent jowls in a flap the better the policy is likely to be.
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
What is the effing point in that?
Euston to Brum, 3 minutes quicker
Don't get me wrong, HS2 was always stupid, we are a small, compact, often dynamic nation, we don't need high speed rail like bigger countries with greater distances to deal with, this is an advantage. Unfortunately rail geeks got a hold of the correct idea that we need more capacity by loudly saying WE NEED HIGH SPEED - no we don't. 100mph (which we can do now) is entirely enough for Manc - Brum - London. Just increase capacity but knit the northern cities together with Crossrail and Metros
Anyway now tiz done. Yes they really have dug the holes. Just finish it
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
No because of the signal it sends out to the contractors and consultants and other parasites who've landed us with this massive white elephant.
Far too often in the public sector you see people knowingly under-estimating the costs of a project, then when they win it, and start work, they submit higher and higher costs knowing that the politicians will just increase the cost rather than take political flack for cancelling it, and if the worst comes to the worst they can usually blame the previous government somehow.
You saw it with the Olympics - the original estimate was £3 billion and the final cost was between £12 and £24 billion depending on who you ask. It's common, almost routine in defence procurement. The only difference with HS2 is that the total cost is an order of magnitude or two higher than most public sector procurement disasters.
Cancelling HS2 would be a strong signal that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated any more, and projects need to deliver what they promised when they promised or be cancelled.
Australia are, deservedly, going home straight from the first round. Terroyable
Are they Chile in disguise?
Possibly worse. I've never seen an Australian side so devoid of spark and ideas
The worry is that they are in secular decline, and they have the next World Cup. It should have gone to Ireland, or the Celtic nations as a group. or the USA, or S America - Argentina/Uruguay/Chile
Rugby Union in Australia is in a terrible state at all levels. Reports of some Brumbies players on Aus $20k a year. Private schools used to provide the Wallabies. Now they are all headed to NRL. TV deal won't be good.
I know you love League, but this is an anomaly. Elsewhere union is entirely dominant, and will inevitably win out
Then it is just a case of waiting for Oz to fall into line with the basic economics
Also Pacific island players will stop going to Australia if they can't play union, because then they lose the chance to play for their islands and real glory
In the end it is games like THIS that you remember as a player. Watched by your entire nation, in a World Cup
Are you aware of the number of Pacific Islanders in the NRL? Union people have been nonchalantly asserting the inevitable death of League since 1995. It isn't dead yet. And in Oz it's strangling Union.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
Sounds like a good red wall policy then. The more those assorted ghouls and grifters are getting their corpulent jowls in a flap the better the policy is likely to be.
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
What is the effing point in that?
Euston to Brum, 3 minutes quicker
Don't get me wrong, HS2 was always stupid, we are a small, compact, often dynamic nation, we don't need high speed rail like bigger countries with greater distances to deal with, this is an advantage. Unfortunately rail geeks got a hold of the correct idea that we need more capacity by loudly saying WE NEED HIGH SPEED - no we don't. 100mph (which we can do now) is entirely enough for Manc - Brum - London. Just increase capacity but knit the northern cities together with Crossrail and Metros
Anyway now tiz done. Yes they really have dug the holes. Just finish it
100mph? That's already barely faster than the slow trains on the WCML. Fast trains do 125, and were meant to do 140.
Whether it needed to be 200mph is a different question but a target of 180 would have been reasonable.
The HS2 question is whether the prospective benefits exceed the costs to be incurred from here on. The resources used hitherto are irrelevant to this decision
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
Australia are, deservedly, going home straight from the first round. Terroyable
Are they Chile in disguise?
Possibly worse. I've never seen an Australian side so devoid of spark and ideas
The worry is that they are in secular decline, and they have the next World Cup. It should have gone to Ireland, or the Celtic nations as a group. or the USA, or S America - Argentina/Uruguay/Chile
Rugby Union in Australia is in a terrible state at all levels. Reports of some Brumbies players on Aus $20k a year. Private schools used to provide the Wallabies. Now they are all headed to NRL. TV deal won't be good.
I know you love League, but this is an anomaly. Elsewhere union is entirely dominant, and will inevitably win out
Then it is just a case of waiting for Oz to fall into line with the basic economics
Also Pacific island players will stop going to Australia if they can't play union, because then they lose the chance to play for their islands and real glory
In the end it is games like THIS that you remember as a player. Watched by your entire nation, in a World Cup
Are you aware of the number of Pacific Islanders in the NRL? Union people have been nonchalantly asserting the inevitable death of League since 1995. It isn't dead yet. And in Oz it's strangling Union.
Yes, I am aware, that's why I mentioned Pacific Islanders
If you can make the same money in union by going to France or the UK/Ireland AND then ALSO get the glory of playing for Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, etc, in a proper union World Cup, then you will play union, not league
I expect this to happen more often, these players will withdraw from NRL and go for northen hemisphere union
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
No because of the signal it sends out to the contractors and consultants and other parasites who've landed us with this massive white elephant.
Far too often in the public sector you see people knowingly under-estimating the costs of a project, then when they win it, and start work, they submit higher and higher costs knowing that the politicians will just increase the cost rather than take political flack for cancelling it, and if the worst comes to the worst they can usually blame the previous government somehow.
You saw it with the Olympics - the original estimate was £3 billion and the final cost was between £12 and £24 billion depending on who you ask. It's common, almost routine in defence procurement. The only difference with HS2 is that the total cost is an order of magnitude or two higher than most public sector procurement disasters.
Cancelling HS2 would be a strong signal that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated any more, and projects need to deliver what they promised when they promised or be cancelled.
But isn't that exactly what hasn't happened with HS2 (for phase 1 anyway) - and, indeed, is one of the problems?
My understanding is that the contractors were required to cover 100% of the project risk - and therefore all of the submitted bids were much higher than expected in order to cover the cost of any potential overruns. It's one of the main reasons why the cost ballooned so much so early in the project's life.
I believe that things were intended to be a bit different with phase 2, with a more traditional risk management approach. But much of that's been cancelled already anyway, so we won't be seeing any benefits there.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
Have you seen the latest polls? Sunak is well heading towards Truss levels of unpopularity.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
Only 20% behind in the polls! Prices only 18% higher than they were two years ago! All praise the mighty Sunak!
Nick Tyrone @NicholasTyrone · 4h This week has left me wondering if Rishi Sunak’s overt goal is to be remembered as the worst British prime minister ever. He’s got Truss, Johnson and May to overcome, all stiff competition, but the last few days have given him legs.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Tory MP Steve Brine suggests on Westminster Hour that Jeremy Hunt wants to find a way to make HS2 go ahead and it would be "odd" if they canned the Manchester leg just days before party conference in Manchester. Could a fudge could be on the cards?
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Wales have been awesome - I didnt see that scoreline coming. This should see a Wales v Arg/Sam QF and Eng v Fiji in the other
Excellent win for you well done.
I expect England to beat Samoa so indeed Fiji almost certainly in the QF
England will beat Fiji, Wales will surely beat the Argies
Both teams in the semis, I reckon
So one of Ireland, Saffers and the French to miss out?
Isn't that the logic of the draw? I believe so
The best 4 ranked nations (SA, NZ, France and Ireland) are in one half of the draw to the semis. So. Only two of them can make the semis. I confidently expect the two who do will go on to contest the final.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
Only 20% behind in the polls! Prices only 18% higher than they were two years ago! All praise the mighty Sunak!
Let me know when he has Stopped the Boats.
The Tories were 30% behind in the polls under Truss, inflation almost halved from the level Truss left too
The worry is that rugby dominated by a few northern hemisphere teams will completely destroy rugby (league or union) in the SH
It was always a possibility
Aussie rules is bigger in Australia than rugby of either code
That's a very controversial opinion.
In terms of attendance at matches and TV viewers it is
Attendance is. TV viewers not so. More hours of AFL are watched. But each game is 50% longer. Both AFL and League are the utterly dominant winter sport in their respective halves of Australia. Nothing else comes close.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Depends on the economy. If we follow the pattern of the 18 year Conservative government of 1979-1997, the 13 year Labour government of 1997-2010 and the 13 year current Tory government then the next Tory PM won't be in government yet.
Blair wasn't elected until 1983, Cameron wasn't elected until 2001 and Starmer wasn't elected until 2015.
However in 1945 and 1964 the Tories were only out for 6 years and in 1974 only out for 5 years (and Labour was only out for 4 years after 1970)
Wales have been awesome - I didnt see that scoreline coming. This should see a Wales v Arg/Sam QF and Eng v Fiji in the other
Excellent win for you well done.
I expect England to beat Samoa so indeed Fiji almost certainly in the QF
England will beat Fiji, Wales will surely beat the Argies
Both teams in the semis, I reckon
So one of Ireland, Saffers and the French to miss out?
Isn't that the logic of the draw? I believe so
The best 4 ranked nations (SA, NZ, France and Ireland) are in one half of the draw to the semis. So. Only two of them can make the semis. I confidently expect the two who do will go on to contest the final.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
In fairness the overall speed *is* important in market share - especially capturing from air. And part of that is train speed, sure, but also in line design - straightish, no Stephenson bottlenecks, etc. And capacity. No commuter trains. Or trains laden with Sainsburys stock for Inverness.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
Wales have been awesome - I didnt see that scoreline coming. This should see a Wales v Arg/Sam QF and Eng v Fiji in the other
Excellent win for you well done.
I expect England to beat Samoa so indeed Fiji almost certainly in the QF
England will beat Fiji, Wales will surely beat the Argies
Both teams in the semis, I reckon
So one of Ireland, Saffers and the French to miss out?
Isn't that the logic of the draw? I believe so
The best 4 ranked nations (SA, NZ, France and Ireland) are in one half of the draw to the semis. So. Only two of them can make the semis. I confidently expect the two who do will go on to contest the final.
Yes, probably right
How the bloody hell did they get such unbalanced seeding? ISTR this has been an issue at previous tournaments, with the draw made ridiculously early on rankings in place at the time.
Wales have been awesome - I didnt see that scoreline coming. This should see a Wales v Arg/Sam QF and Eng v Fiji in the other
Excellent win for you well done.
I expect England to beat Samoa so indeed Fiji almost certainly in the QF
England will beat Fiji, Wales will surely beat the Argies
Both teams in the semis, I reckon
So one of Ireland, Saffers and the French to miss out?
Isn't that the logic of the draw? I believe so
The best 4 ranked nations (SA, NZ, France and Ireland) are in one half of the draw to the semis. So. Only two of them can make the semis. I confidently expect the two who do will go on to contest the final.
Alternatively. They may beat each other to a pulp in the quarters. And it could be Fiji v Argentina in the final.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
Don't bring logic and reason into it when there are tabloid populist votes to be won by scrapping stuff that actually builds a future for the country and spending the money on hated IHT cuts.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Cameron didn't first get elected until 2001, four years after the 1997 debacle.
Tory MP Steve Brine suggests on Westminster Hour that Jeremy Hunt wants to find a way to make HS2 go ahead and it would be "odd" if they canned the Manchester leg just days before party conference in Manchester. Could a fudge could be on the cards?
Report in iirc Spectator saying Hunt was keener on HS2 than Rishi (who seems to have hated the idea since day one - possibly because it is not a helicopter).
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
An important point about international investors here.
Likewise, we really need Manchester Airport, which has half-decent connections, as a central hub for the whole northern cluster from Deeside to Hull.
What an embarrassment. And to not even have the connection to Euston. Labour really should commit to finishing HS2 but I fear they won’t .
At what cost and instead of what other capital projects?
Are there other capital projects in the pipeline ? By the time Sunak has tried to bribe the country into voting for him I doubt they’ll be much left to fill a few pot holes .
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Cameron didn't first get elected until 2001, four years after the 1997 debacle.
Keir Starmer was first elected in 2015, five years after Labour's 2010 defeat. Tony Blair was first elected in 1983, four years after Labour's defeat in 1979. So it's getting to be a bit of a pattern that the next PM for the "out" party is someone who becomes an MP the election after the party's defeat.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
You're absolutely spot on about the last. Wigan to Leeds is a laughable journey by public transport. And they are both on the main stems. Make it Burnley to Barnsley and it becomes untenable.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
We had this debate in 2009/10 and now there are literally tunnelling machines boring through earth.
It has been decided by a previous generation of politicians and should be bloody finished.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
We had this debate in 2009/10 and now there are literally tunnelling machines boring through earth.
It has been decided by a previous generation of politicians and should be bloody finished.
I see the stain on humanity has been busy interfering with a live criminal case and is effectively saying police should be able to shoot anyone they like . She’s busy burnishing her right wing credentials. One can only imagine what her conference speech will look like. I expect an anti ECHR tirade with a side order of migrant bashing topped off with a return to the death penalty . This should though be manna from heaven for the baying mob of Tory party members who will lap up the hate fest !
What an embarrassment. And to not even have the connection to Euston. Labour really should commit to finishing HS2 but I fear they won’t .
At what cost and instead of what other capital projects?
Are there other capital projects in the pipeline ? By the time Sunak has tried to bribe the country into voting for him I doubt they’ll be much left to fill a few pot holes .
Exactly.
He seems to think scrapping Manchester leg of HS2 gives him money to spend on tax cuts.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4h Who in their right mind would say “let’s float we’re thinking of axing HS2 a week before our conference in Manchester, leave it hanging so it sits over everything like a wet blanket, and do it while spinning Rishi’s taking hard choices and levelling with the voters”.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Cameron didn't first get elected until 2001, four years after the 1997 debacle.
Keir Starmer was first elected in 2015, five years after Labour's 2010 defeat. Tony Blair was first elected in 1983, four years after Labour's defeat in 1979. So it's getting to be a bit of a pattern that the next PM for the "out" party is someone who becomes an MP the election after the party's defeat.
It wasn't before though, Churchill was elected first in 1900 and became PM in 1940, lost in 1945 and returned to power in 1951. Attlee was first elected in 1922, led Labour to defeat in 1935 and led Labour back to power in 1945. Wilson was first elected in 1945, Labour lost power in 1951 and he first became PM in 1964.
Heath was first elected in 1950, the Tories lost power in 1964 and he became PM in 1970.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
An important point about international investors here.
Likewise, we really need Manchester Airport, which has half-decent connections, as a central hub for the whole northern cluster from Deeside to Hull.
Yes. You can catch a direct train from Newcastle to Manchester Airport.
I reckon Sir Graham Brady is going to get some letters in the post this week. I honestly think a few MPs will come to the conclusion that (as ridiculous it will be have to have a fourth PM this parliament) getting rid of Sunak and having a sudden election with Mordaunt or Cleverley might their best option. Maybe, just maybe they'd benefit from some kind of new PM bounce and catch Labour off guard enough to prevent SKS getting a majority if they got lucky. Sunak seems to have gone as mad as Truss and will lead them to a landslide defeat if he remains in charge.
No he hasn't, he has cut inflation, grown the economy and increased the Tory poll rating compared to what Truss left.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
But when Sunak falls you will hail (as you did when Boris fell to Truss) "the King is dead, long live the Queen", be that Mordaunt, Badenoch, Braverman or Gove.
In Opposition maybe (albeit I never really hailed Truss), Barclay will also be a contender as will Tugendhat, maybe even Mogg.
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
I suspect the next Conservative PM is not yet in parliament.
Cameron didn't first get elected until 2001, four years after the 1997 debacle.
Keir Starmer was first elected in 2015, five years after Labour's 2010 defeat. Tony Blair was first elected in 1983, four years after Labour's defeat in 1979. So it's getting to be a bit of a pattern that the next PM for the "out" party is someone who becomes an MP the election after the party's defeat.
It wasn't before though, Churchill was elected first in 1900 and became PM in 1940, lost in 1945 and returned to power in 1951. Attlee was first elected in 1922, led Labour to defeat in 1935 and led Labour back to power in 1945. Wilson was first elected in 1945, Labour lost power in 1951 and he first became PM in 1964.
Heath was first elected in 1950, the Tories lost power in 1964 and he became PM in 1970.
Yes, it wasn't a pattern before it became a pattern. Thanks for pointing that out.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
Don't bring logic and reason into it when there are tabloid populist votes to be won by scrapping stuff that actually builds a future for the country and spending the money on hated IHT cuts.
Thankfully he hasn't brought logic or reason into it. Ireland does way better than the UK at attracting inward investment, and it's because they keep CT low, not because they have 200bn worth of shitty white elephant rail that someone decided would be a good idea for the EEC back in the 1950's.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
We absolutely do need more capacity on the north/south lines. I'm sick of having to stand up all the way from London to B'ham or Manchester, which has happened a number of times this year.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
An important point about international investors here.
Likewise, we really need Manchester Airport, which has half-decent connections, as a central hub for the whole northern cluster from Deeside to Hull.
Yes. You can catch a direct train from Newcastle to Manchester Airport.
On the odd occasion it isn’t cancelled or starts at York
Osborne is poisonously wrong about precisely everything. A foul odour of greasy self-interest under a surface varnish of whatever the latest wokey crap is going permeates everything he says.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle Fun point about abolishing inheritance tax is that it could crash the alternative investment market (AIM) - the £90bn UK market for smaller/growth stocks
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 14h The completely predictable result is that people have piled into AIM shares to avoid inheritance tax.
One estimate is that *ONE THIRD* of all AIM shares are held for tax reasons. That's £30bn.
A cursory glance at the Osborne/Heseltine piece and it looks like sheer drivel. Talk of abandoning the north??????
Isn't it this kind of attitude that so grates with people. That the midlands/north lives off the beneficence of the south. If you can't get to London in an hour fifteen you have no economic future. What other country would think in such stupid terms. All the evidence on HS2 was that the prime beneficiary would be London.
Just bloody finish HS2 and stop faffing around. And build a spur to LHR sharpish.
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
Don't bring logic and reason into it when there are tabloid populist votes to be won by scrapping stuff that actually builds a future for the country and spending the money on hated IHT cuts.
Thankfully he hasn't brought logic or reason into it. Ireland does way better than the UK at attracting inward investment, and it's because they keep CT low, not because they have 200bn worth of shitty white elephant rail that someone decided would be a good idea for the EEC back in the 1950's.
Belfast will probably get High Speed Rail within the next few years. The line links Belfast to Cork via Dublin.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
That's what I suggested earlier today, build new roads with trams (and cycle routes I said) linking towns and cities and incorporating new towns and cities with roads, cycles and trams designed from day one of the new town.
You seemed to object to that this morning, but if you've come around to the idea that's great.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
Sounds like a good red wall policy then. The more those assorted ghouls and grifters are getting their corpulent jowls in a flap the better the policy is likely to be.
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
What is the effing point in that?
Euston to Brum, 3 minutes quicker
Don't get me wrong, HS2 was always stupid, we are a small, compact, often dynamic nation, we don't need high speed rail like bigger countries with greater distances to deal with, this is an advantage. Unfortunately rail geeks got a hold of the correct idea that we need more capacity by loudly saying WE NEED HIGH SPEED - no we don't. 100mph (which we can do now) is entirely enough for Manc - Brum - London. Just increase capacity but knit the northern cities together with Crossrail and Metros
Anyway now tiz done. Yes they really have dug the holes. Just finish it
There's very little point in it, but at least it would go from somewhere to somewhere, and be slightly less of a f***ing embarrassment. I'm between that and the 'just down tools and everyone fuck off' option. Fast forward the inevitable and make it into a cycle route.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
Do both.
Why is this all so frigging difficult?
That would be good too!
Glasgow, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford/Leeds are the obvious candidates for massive tram systems given the number of car-dependent satellite towns.
But once you get going, you shouldn't stop. That's what's so infuriating - we build one new line (Edinburgh) and then fail to retain the expertise, or provide business certainty, by dawdling for a few years.
Tory MP Steve Brine suggests on Westminster Hour that Jeremy Hunt wants to find a way to make HS2 go ahead and it would be "odd" if they canned the Manchester leg just days before party conference in Manchester. Could a fudge could be on the cards?
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
That's what I suggested earlier today, build new roads with trams (and cycle routes I said) linking towns and cities and incorporating new towns and cities with roads, cycles and trams designed from day one of the new town.
You seemed to object to that this morning, but if you've come around to the idea that's great.
The benefit of a tram network is you don't need to knock buildings down and tear up countryside to deliver it.
Just use the existing road network and save billions.
Your "new roads" tram network wouldn't actually go anywhere, just trundle round a low density estate on the outskirts of Warrington.
Just be honest - you don't want any space taken away from drivers. Stop this weird charade.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?
Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB
Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes
Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes
No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.
Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours
Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience
I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
The business case is shot for two reasons:
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.
It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
That's what I suggested earlier today, build new roads with trams (and cycle routes I said) linking towns and cities and incorporating new towns and cities with roads, cycles and trams designed from day one of the new town.
You seemed to object to that this morning, but if you've come around to the idea that's great.
The benefit of a tram network is you don't need to knock buildings down and tear up countryside to deliver it.
Just use the existing road network and save billions.
Your "new roads" tram network wouldn't actually go anywhere, just trundle round a low density estate on the outskirts of Warrington.
Just be honest - you don't want any space taken away from drivers. Stop this weird charade.
In fact, given a tram takes 250 cars off the road every 5 minutes, it massively increases road capacity.
Comments
Edit: Plainly the setup is a historical relic, but that's about as relevant to today as claiming that HYUFD is arboreal simply because his ancestors had a long tail for climbing in trees with.
I reckon we will. They edged us last time. but we will surely have learned. I suspect we beat them, and progress to the semis
My own thought is that it should go to Euston (if they've dug half of it up already) and stop at Birmingham.
Unless it goes to at least Handsacre and more probably Crewe it will be as useless as Amanda Spielman.
And unless it goes to Manchester and Leeds (and from Manchester on to a link with the WCML) it will be barely more useful than Nick Gibb anyway.
Two extreme scenarios from here:
First is to bin the project. That will have a cost X (unless we plan to leave a blooming great hole in Euston and so on), and leave us with no railway at all, or a railway that does nothing useful (Acton to Aston). So there will be the cost of any patches needed to solve some of the secondary problems HS2 was meant to unclog (suburban capacity around London, Birmingham and Manchester f'rexample).
Second is to carry on. That will have a cost Y from here. The money already spent has been spent and ain't coming back.
So the question is whether the benefits of doing HS2 properly (for some value of "properly"... to Euston? to Manchester? to Leeds?) are worth the difference between X and Y.
It's possible that Rishi (or one of Rishi's minons) has done those sums, but it seems unlikely. It's equally possible that Rishibot-2023 has reached the "singing 'Daisy Daisy'" stage of decline.
After all, that's what the Treasury usually seems to negotiate in their infinite incompetence.
Euston to Brum, 3 minutes quicker
Don't get me wrong, HS2 was always stupid, we are a small, compact, often dynamic nation, we don't need high speed rail like bigger countries with greater distances to deal with, this is an advantage. Unfortunately rail geeks got a hold of the correct idea that we need more capacity by loudly saying WE NEED HIGH SPEED - no we don't. 100mph (which we can do now) is entirely enough for Manc - Brum - London. Just increase capacity but knit the northern cities together with Crossrail and Metros
Anyway now tiz done. Yes they really have dug the holes. Just finish it
But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.
Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.
Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?
@PippaCrerar
EXCL: Tory donor threatens to pull funding if Rishi Sunak scraps northern HS2 rail line - by
@breeallegretti
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1706050960450097386?s=20
So the question is not can the Country afford to scrap it, can the Tory Party afford to scrap it.
Far too often in the public sector you see people knowingly under-estimating the costs of a project, then when they win it, and start work, they submit higher and higher costs knowing that the politicians will just increase the cost rather than take political flack for cancelling it, and if the worst comes to the worst they can usually blame the previous government somehow.
You saw it with the Olympics - the original estimate was £3 billion and the final cost was between £12 and £24 billion depending on who you ask. It's common, almost routine in defence procurement. The only difference with HS2 is that the total cost is an order of magnitude or two higher than most public sector procurement disasters.
Cancelling HS2 would be a strong signal that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated any more, and projects need to deliver what they promised when they promised or be cancelled.
Union people have been nonchalantly asserting the inevitable death of League since 1995. It isn't dead yet. And in Oz it's strangling Union.
Whether it needed to be 200mph is a different question but a target of 180 would have been reasonable.
Mordaunt or Cleverly are also lightweights compared to Sunak and neither would get a coronation from Tory MPs, indeed you might even get the membership electing Braverman or Badenoch PM if they got to the last 2
If you can make the same money in union by going to France or the UK/Ireland AND then ALSO get the glory of playing for Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, etc, in a proper union World Cup, then you will play union, not league
I expect this to happen more often, these players will withdraw from NRL and go for northen hemisphere union
My understanding is that the contractors were required to cover 100% of the project risk - and therefore all of the submitted bids were much higher than expected in order to cover the cost of any potential overruns. It's one of the main reasons why the cost ballooned so much so early in the project's life.
I believe that things were intended to be a bit different with phase 2, with a more traditional risk management approach. But much of that's been cancelled already anyway, so we won't be seeing any benefits there.
Eddie Jones
It was always a possibility
However until then Sunak will almost certainly lead the Conservatives into the next general election now
Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.
Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.
Let me know when he has Stopped the Boats.
@NicholasTyrone
·
4h
This week has left me wondering if Rishi Sunak’s overt goal is to be remembered as the worst British prime minister ever. He’s got Truss, Johnson and May to overcome, all stiff competition, but the last few days have given him legs.
We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem
If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster
Tory MP Steve Brine suggests on Westminster Hour that Jeremy Hunt wants to find a way to make HS2 go ahead and it would be "odd" if they canned the Manchester leg just days before party conference in Manchester. Could a fudge could be on the cards?
So. Only two of them can make the semis. I confidently expect the two who do will go on to contest the final.
Bully XL owners of course are Brexiters...
https://x.com/BarneyDavisES/status/1705568870050750489?s=20
TV viewers not so.
More hours of AFL are watched.
But each game is 50% longer.
Both AFL and League are the utterly dominant winter sport in their respective halves of Australia.
Nothing else comes close.
Blair wasn't elected until 1983, Cameron wasn't elected until 2001 and Starmer wasn't elected until 2015.
However in 1945 and 1964 the Tories were only out for 6 years and in 1974 only out for 5 years (and Labour was only out for 4 years after 1970)
Foreign investors fly into Heathrow. They will never invest in large numbers in anything other than large industrial plants more than a couple of hours absolute max from the airport (in most cases no more than an hour). So at least the midlands and North West need a direct rail link from LHR. Or make Manchester airport significantly better connected on long haul.
Almost all multinationals with European headquarters in Switzerland are within an hour of Zurich or Geneva airport for the same reason.
ISTR this has been an issue at previous tournaments, with the draw made ridiculously early on rankings in place at the time.
And it could be Fiji v Argentina in the final.
I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country
What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink
All this to help them finance a tax cut bung to the children of wealthy parents.
Likewise, we really need Manchester Airport, which has half-decent connections, as a central hub for the whole northern cluster from Deeside to Hull.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1706063767744749987
Wigan to Leeds is a laughable journey by public transport. And they are both on the main stems.
Make it Burnley to Barnsley and it becomes untenable.
On HS1 in Kent it's 140 mph =224 kph.
It has been decided by a previous generation of politicians and should be bloody finished.
No other european country carries on like this.
United Kingdom of Dither.
He seems to think scrapping Manchester leg of HS2 gives him money to spend on tax cuts.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
4h
Who in their right mind would say “let’s float we’re thinking of axing HS2 a week before our conference in Manchester, leave it hanging so it sits over everything like a wet blanket, and do it while spinning Rishi’s taking hard choices and levelling with the voters”.
Heath was first elected in 1950, the Tories lost power in 1964 and he became PM in 1970.
You can catch a direct train from Newcastle to Manchester Airport.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
10m
MAIL: Rapists barred from early release #TomorrowsPapersToday
We have Luton and Bournemouth at home next.
"You were the adult in the room once."
New manager and signings are working out well for us in the Championship. Nice to see a winning team again.
@DanNeidle
Fun point about abolishing inheritance tax is that it could crash the alternative investment market (AIM) - the £90bn UK market for smaller/growth stocks
Dan Neidle
@DanNeidle
·
14h
The completely predictable result is that people have piled into AIM shares to avoid inheritance tax.
One estimate is that *ONE THIRD* of all AIM shares are held for tax reasons. That's £30bn.
Isn't it this kind of attitude that so grates with people. That the midlands/north lives off the beneficence of the south. If you can't get to London in an hour fifteen you have no economic future. What other country would think in such stupid terms. All the evidence on HS2 was that the prime beneficiary would be London.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41191171.html
These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.
You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.
Has he proposed building more to handle his crime crack down?
Devastating piece in Prospect the other week about the state of UK prisons.
Why is this all so frigging difficult?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12554797/XL-Bully-campaigner-attacked-dog.html
Is it because we are skint?
Reduced the 45p band to £125k.
Increased corporation tax.
Not saying getting rid of IHT is a good idea but it's best to see things in the round.
You seemed to object to that this morning, but if you've come around to the idea that's great.
Glasgow, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford/Leeds are the obvious candidates for massive tram systems given the number of car-dependent satellite towns.
But once you get going, you shouldn't stop. That's what's so infuriating - we build one new line (Edinburgh) and then fail to retain the expertise, or provide business certainty, by dawdling for a few years.
Just use the existing road network and save billions.
Your "new roads" tram network wouldn't actually go anywhere, just trundle round a low density estate on the outskirts of Warrington.
Just be honest - you don't want any space taken away from drivers. Stop this weird charade.