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Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days.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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
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.
Of course I don't want any space taken away from drivers.
I want space taken away from the countryside and used for infrastructure and new towns.
Why the hell would would we take space away from our already limited infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure?
What you call "tearing up the countryside" is what you need to do to build new towns and cities which the country desperately needs.
How would you put a tram into the centre of Liverpool then?
Putting 250 commuters into a tram is giving more room to drivers, not less. If you removed all public transport from the roads, what would happen do you think?
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
"Whom the God's would destroy, they first make mad"
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
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.
Of course I don't want any space taken away from drivers.
I want space taken away from the countryside and used for infrastructure and new towns.
Why the hell would would we take space away from our already limited infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure?
What you call "tearing up the countryside" is what you need to do to build new towns and cities which the country desperately needs.
How would you put a tram into the centre of Liverpool then?
For most of Liverpool you could replace the Central Reservation on a lot of A-Roads with Tram Lines.
Melbourne roads don't have Central Reservations as the Tram Lines take the space we use for reservations here.
It would harm the environment a bit as you'd be cutting down trees to boost public transport infrastructure, but that's probably a price worth paying for boosting infrastructure.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
Incidentally replacing the central reservation with tramlines is a suggestion if you want dedicated tram lines. Plenty of roads in Liverpool like Queens Drive or the A580 would be wide enough to do that.
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
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.
Of course I don't want any space taken away from drivers.
I want space taken away from the countryside and used for infrastructure and new towns.
Why the hell would would we take space away from our already limited infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure?
What you call "tearing up the countryside" is what you need to do to build new towns and cities which the country desperately needs.
How would you put a tram into the centre of Liverpool then?
For most of Liverpool you could replace the Central Reservation on a lot of A-Roads with Tram Lines.
Melbourne roads don't have Central Reservations as the Tram Lines take the space we use for reservations here.
It would harm the environment a bit as you'd be cutting down trees to boost public transport infrastructure, but that's probably a price worth paying for boosting infrastructure.
Nonsense - the trams just run on the main carriageway, except on the really big roads where they have removed a car lane to put them in.
They are removing parking at the moment round me to put in segregated cycle lanes too
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
So it was a lying figure then. You do realise cars don't only have 1 person in them much of the time? And trams would not all be full all the time.
No trigger in seeing trams running down roads, if there is smart investment I'm all for that. Done smartly there'd be no loss of lane space for cars, it would be pure win/win, I'm all for that.
Incidentally replacing the central reservation with tramlines is a suggestion if you want dedicated tram lines. Plenty of roads in Liverpool like Queens Drive or the A580 would be wide enough to do that.
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
Haha, you've changed your tune all of a sudden.
I think the epiphany is that roads predate cars by several thousand years. No reason why they should be exclusively for their use.
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.
Of course I don't want any space taken away from drivers.
I want space taken away from the countryside and used for infrastructure and new towns.
Why the hell would would we take space away from our already limited infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure?
What you call "tearing up the countryside" is what you need to do to build new towns and cities which the country desperately needs.
How would you put a tram into the centre of Liverpool then?
For most of Liverpool you could replace the Central Reservation on a lot of A-Roads with Tram Lines.
Melbourne roads don't have Central Reservations as the Tram Lines take the space we use for reservations here.
It would harm the environment a bit as you'd be cutting down trees to boost public transport infrastructure, but that's probably a price worth paying for boosting infrastructure.
Nonsense - the trams just run on the main carriageway, except on the really big roads where they have removed a car lane to put them in.
They are removing parking at the moment round me to put in segregated cycle lanes too
On the main carriageway alongside cars? Absolutely no qualms with that.
If you remove the central reservations you could have dedicated tramlines which are useful in some places as then if there's any congestion the trams don't get stuck behind it.
But if you only want to share the space, I've got no objections to that at all, why would I?
Incidentally replacing the central reservation with tramlines is a suggestion if you want dedicated tram lines. Plenty of roads in Liverpool like Queens Drive or the A580 would be wide enough to do that.
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
Haha, you've changed your tune all of a sudden.
I think the epiphany is that roads predate cars by several thousand years. No reason why they should be exclusively for their use.
I've never said they should be exclusively for cars.
I think having dedicated cycle paths that are exclusively for bicycles, is a good idea, because that makes cycling safer, not because of the roads.
But since you seem to have missed it, I've been advocating trams for quite a while. I grew up in Melbourne, I love trams.
Its not either/or though again, like bikes. We need to invest in infrastructure. Which yes, means investing in tramlines, and cyclepaths ... and roads.
And new roads can have either dedicated or shared tramlines along them. In Melbourne on the busiest roads the tramlines tend to be dedicated but there's still road space, that's not for the driver's sake, its so if there is any car congestion then trams can get past it without being held up. In Liverpool on the likes of Queens Drive there's no reason you couldn't do that and everyone wins.
What we need is investment in our infrastructure though and this costs money.
Your problem is you don't actually listen to what others, like myself, actually say. You have this monomania obsession with shutting down anyone who suggests investment in roads, even if they're suggesting it alongside investment in public transport and cycling.
Incidentally replacing the central reservation with tramlines is a suggestion if you want dedicated tram lines. Plenty of roads in Liverpool like Queens Drive or the A580 would be wide enough to do that.
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
Haha, you've changed your tune all of a sudden.
I think the epiphany is that roads predate cars by several thousand years. No reason why they should be exclusively for their use.
I've never said they should be exclusively for cars.
I think having dedicated cycle paths that are exclusively for bicycles, is a good idea, because that makes cycling safer, not because of the roads.
But since you seem to have missed it, I've been advocating trams for quite a while. I grew up in Melbourne, I love trams.
Its not either/or though again, like bikes. We need to invest in infrastructure. Which yes, means investing in tramlines, and cyclepaths ... and roads.
And new roads can have either dedicated or shared tramlines along them. In Melbourne on the busiest roads the tramlines tend to be dedicated but there's still road space, that's not for the driver's sake, its so if there is any car congestion then trams can get past it without being held up. In Liverpool on the likes of Queens Drive there's no reason you couldn't do that and everyone wins.
What we need is investment in our infrastructure though and this costs money.
Your problem is you don't actually listen to what others, like myself, actually say. You have this monomania obsession with shutting down anyone who suggests investment in roads, even if they're suggesting it alongside investment in public transport and cycling.
You're only interested in trams and cycle lanes on *new roads*.
In 2018, Donald Trump thought he was having a private phone call with Sen. Bob Menendez. It was actually a prank call by comedian @stutteringjohnm .During the call, Trump congratulated Menendez on beating his then-corruption charges. Trump told him, "We're proud of you. Congratulations. Great job. You went through a tough, tough situation. I don't think a very fair situation." https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1706087650568872420
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
Would a Conversion Therapy Ban have included "Transing Away The Gay"?
Or would that have been allowed as chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children are marketed as "Gender Affirming Care"?
I don't mind if Catholics genuinely believe that the body and blood of christ are literally present in the bread and wine at communion - but I don't share that belief.
Not sharing that belief does not make me Catholicphobic, a hater of Catholics or wishing a genocide of Catholics. Similarly I don't believe Catholics have the right to enter a Synagogue or Mosque, uninvited.
The fact that such charges are leveled at people who don't believe that you can "change your sex" (an impossibility) or refuse to repeat the religious mantra that "trans women are women" shows why the TRAs & Stonewall demanded "No Debate" - they knew the whole house of cards would come tumbling down when people refused to be coerced into believing nonsense.
Sadly trans people have been badly served by Stonewall et al as the recent survey shows. The Emperor has no clothes.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
That's probably a sign that trams were the wrong decision and a higher capacity underground line would have been more appropriate.
More of a shock to see Trump lead Biden 52/42% in the latest ABC poll.
Outlier poll, I suspect. If another shows the same thing, then yes.
It also showed more support for impeaching Biden than those who said impeaching Trump was justified, which suggests a possible oversampling of Republicans. Which is odd, since there's literally no evidence against Biden.
15% fash seems to be standard in pretty much any human population. Depending on the way rest of the vote splits it'll sometimes be enough for second place.
More of a shock to see Trump lead Biden 52/42% in the latest ABC poll.
Outlier poll, I suspect. If another shows the same thing, then yes.
It also showed more support for impeaching Biden than those who said impeaching Trump was justified, which suggests a possible oversampling of Republicans. Which is odd, since there's literally no evidence against Biden.
We'll see.
Just like Obama, we really need to see Biden's birth certificate. There are rumours circulating that he is guilty of being very old.
More of a shock to see Trump lead Biden 52/42% in the latest ABC poll.
Outlier poll, I suspect. If another shows the same thing, then yes.
It also showed more support for impeaching Biden than those who said impeaching Trump was justified, which suggests a possible oversampling of Republicans. Which is odd, since there's literally no evidence against Biden.
We'll see.
Just like Obama, we really need to see Biden's birth certificate. There are rumours circulating that he is guilty of being very old.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
Wow. A tram in Edinburgh. Amazing given how inept the delivery of the trams in Leith has been.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
However, the tram frequency can be boosted. AIUI there are places in Edinburgh where trams run every three minutes at some times.
That will need to wait until somebody appoints professional managers, and the Edinburgh Council is run by competent people. They ignored the people who knew about trams when they built it, have had injury complaints from hundreds, and paid out a lot of compensation for injuries, and now Edinburgh will have to live with that situation.
From what I see, trams seem to be forever jammed by antisocial parkers blocking pavements and tramlines, and delivery men demanding they have to block everything illegally because "I have to do my job. Innit."
And the Council and Police Scotland do precisely nothing.
There was one last Friday where some numpty had managed to overturn his BMW Mini in a 20mph zone (how the blazes do you do that?), and mowed down a dad and his child on the pavement. Who are both now in hospital.
Shared roads between trams and private vehicles are a very poor second to keeping them apart, perhaps only appropriate in low volume traffic so trams do not get blocked.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
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.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
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 thought it was also because they’re in the EU?
Well that helps too, but it’s not so important - Switzerland isn’t.
But all significant HQ functions are within and hour of Dublin airport. Those in Cork are factories.
But what would I know? It’s only fucking job to help multinationals decide where to put headquarters. That makes me part oh thx woke elite I suppose.
Interesting point about police fire arms officers, and a legitimate beef which needs addressing. Any investigation is likely to take years, placing serious burdens on officers who are - as most are - eventually cleared.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
While I was quietly confident about Wales chances v Australia, never in my wildest dreams did I expect that result. Not just the result but more importantly the performance. We were clinical and efficient - and error free. If we can repeat that performance we can beat anyone.
We will play Argentina or Samoa in QF - with the benefit of three weeks rest for most of the team (the draw has been extremely kind to Wales) and should push past them into the SF. In the SF anything can happen.....
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
No one needs HS2 to Yorkshire when helicopters are so much better at getting from London to Richmond.
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 thought it was also because they’re in the EU?
Well that helps too, but it’s not so important - Switzerland isn’t.
But all significant HQ functions are within and hour of Dublin airport. Those in Cork are factories.
But what would I know? It’s only fucking job to help multinationals decide where to put headquarters. That makes me part oh thx woke elite I suppose.
Doesn't your logic suggest that we'd be better off trying to turn a non-London airport into a more significant hub?
Story in the Mail today about BT making staff, predominantly white, redundant in Ipswich and moving to/creating jobs in more ethnically diverse areas which will help hit diversity targets.
Can’t see how this is helpful, if it is true as written, and it simply feeds in to some far right conspiracy theories.
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 thought it was also because they’re in the EU?
Well that helps too, but it’s not so important - Switzerland isn’t.
But all significant HQ functions are within and hour of Dublin airport. Those in Cork are factories.
But what would I know? It’s only fucking job to help multinationals decide where to put headquarters. That makes me part oh thx woke elite I suppose.
If we'd spent £25bn on a new Liverpool to Hull line, and a couple of billion on upgrading Manchester airport...
Interesting point about police fire arms officers, and a legitimate beef which needs addressing. Any investigation is likely to take years, placing serious burdens on officers who are - as most are - eventually cleared.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
What’s your data saying more offices are eventually cleared? Prosecutions are incredibly rare.
IPCC investigations are automatic whenever a death has occurred and those do mostly clear officers, but they’re quite different from a prosecution.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
It is, it is just a meaningless phrase now. The regions will have to do things for themselves to grow the local economies in spite of central govt.
In the North East we had to run the metro rolling stock and Northern rail rolling stock (basically a bus mounted on bogies) way after the time they should have been decommissioned and replaced. It is only relatively recently we got new rolling stock for the northern line. For the metro it is on its way too.
Our rail is a shambles. Trans Pennine is awful. Never on time when they run from York to Newcastle. It would not be tolerated in the south east. So why up here.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
No one needs HS2 to Yorkshire when helicopters are so much better at getting from London to Richmond.
Got to wonder how much the rest of government has been involved in the recent flurry of stuff, or whether it's all Rishi and his No 10 team.
If it's the latter (and that's consistent with the Rishi's Personal Prejudices feel of it all, and the shambolic environment announcement) then a fair bit risks collapsing on contract with the rest of the world.
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 thought it was also because they’re in the EU?
Well that helps too, but it’s not so important - Switzerland isn’t.
But all significant HQ functions are within and hour of Dublin airport. Those in Cork are factories.
But what would I know? It’s only fucking job to help multinationals decide where to put headquarters. That makes me part oh thx woke elite I suppose.
Doesn't your logic suggest that we'd be better off trying to turn a non-London airport into a more significant hub?
We have a two-runway airport at Manchester that works well below theoretical capacity. No serious airlines want to fly anywhere except London, as I well remember from my time working on airport capacity issues. Same with airports in the south of Scotland. Also we'd have to trash the Net Zero idiocy once and for all - an excellent idea in itself, but I can't see it happening for this.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
However, the tram frequency can be boosted. AIUI there are places in Edinburgh where trams run every three minutes at some times.
That will need to wait until somebody appoints professional managers, and the Edinburgh Council is run by competent people. They ignored the people who knew about trams when they built it, have had injury complaints from hundreds, and paid out a lot of compensation for injuries, and now Edinburgh will have to live with that situation.
From what I see, trams seem to be forever jammed by antisocial parkers blocking pavements and tramlines, and delivery men demanding they have to block everything illegally because "I have to do my job. Innit."
And the Council and Police Scotland do precisely nothing.
There was one last Friday where some numpty had managed to overturn his BMW Mini in a 20mph zone (how the blazes do you do that?), and mowed down a dad and his child on the pavement. Who are both now in hospital.
Shared roads between trams and private vehicles are a very poor second to keeping them apart, perhaps only appropriate in low volume traffic so trams do not get blocked.
The big mistake they made was not banning private vehicles on Leith Walk (like Princes Street). Should've been two-lane segregated cycle lane, buses and lots of trees.
There are lots of small businesses however, so you want to set it up like Europe with early morning/late night loading when the trams aren't running.
Interesting point about police fire arms officers, and a legitimate beef which needs addressing. Any investigation is likely to take years, placing serious burdens on officers who are - as most are - eventually cleared.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
What’s your data saying more offices are eventually cleared? Prosecutions are incredibly rare.
IPCC investigations are automatic whenever a death has occurred and those do mostly clear officers, but they’re quite different from a prosecution.
Of course they're not the same thing.
But the burden of uncertainty is not so different, which was the point I was making - and the fact that actual prosecutions are incredibly rare reinforces my point.
If investigations, including referrals to the CPS, were swiftly resolved, I don't think there would be the same reaction to a fire arms officer being held to account for an alleged murder.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
No one needs HS2 to Yorkshire when helicopters are so much better at getting from London to Richmond.
Got to wonder how much the rest of government has been involved in the recent flurry of stuff, or whether it's all Rishi and his No 10 team.
If it's the latter (and that's consistent with the Rishi's Personal Prejudices feel of it all, and the shambolic environment announcement) then a fair bit risks collapsing on contract with the rest of the world.
The random policies being frenetically produced then denied certainly doesn't like competent cabinet government. I think it is Rishi and a few SPADS.
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.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
An unnamed donor ! Be more interesting if someone was prepared to be named.
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
I don't think there's much doubt about the veracity of the various sources quoted the last couple of days - and there are plenty of senior Tories who've gone on the record.
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
No one needs HS2 to Yorkshire when helicopters are so much better at getting from London to Richmond.
Got to wonder how much the rest of government has been involved in the recent flurry of stuff, or whether it's all Rishi and his No 10 team.
If it's the latter (and that's consistent with the Rishi's Personal Prejudices feel of it all, and the shambolic environment announcement) then a fair bit risks collapsing on contract with the rest of the world.
I'm wondering how this will play in Notts - except for the Nottingham 3 seats the county is completely Tory at present.
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.
That smells like bullshit, where did you get that figure from?
Edinburgh.
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
[Citation needed]
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
It's the max capacity and at rush hour I can never get on the damn things
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
However, the tram frequency can be boosted. AIUI there are places in Edinburgh where trams run every three minutes at some times.
That will need to wait until somebody appoints professional managers, and the Edinburgh Council is run by competent people. They ignored the people who knew about trams when they built it, have had injury complaints from hundreds, and paid out a lot of compensation for injuries, and now Edinburgh will have to live with that situation.
From what I see, trams seem to be forever jammed by antisocial parkers blocking pavements and tramlines, and delivery men demanding they have to block everything illegally because "I have to do my job. Innit."
And the Council and Police Scotland do precisely nothing.
There was one last Friday where some numpty had managed to overturn his BMW Mini in a 20mph zone (how the blazes do you do that?), and mowed down a dad and his child on the pavement. Who are both now in hospital.
Shared roads between trams and private vehicles are a very poor second to keeping them apart, perhaps only appropriate in low volume traffic so trams do not get blocked.
The big mistake they made was not banning private vehicles on Leith Walk (like Princes Street). Should've been two-lane segregated cycle lane, buses and lots of trees.
There are lots of small businesses however, so you want to set it up like Europe with early morning/late night loading when the trams aren't running.
Absolutely, but if Edinburgh CC and Police Scotland can't deal with vehicles physically blocking the tram tracks at 10:30 in the morning, how are they going to deal with different regimes at different times of day? It must seem very complicated to them.
Interesting point about police fire arms officers, and a legitimate beef which needs addressing. Any investigation is likely to take years, placing serious burdens on officers who are - as most are - eventually cleared.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
What’s your data saying more offices are eventually cleared? Prosecutions are incredibly rare.
IPCC investigations are automatic whenever a death has occurred and those do mostly clear officers, but they’re quite different from a prosecution.
Of course they're not the same thing.
But the burden of uncertainty is not so different, which was the point I was making - and the fact that actual prosecutions are incredibly rare reinforces my point.
If investigations, including referrals to the CPS, were swiftly resolved, I don't think there would be the same reaction to a fire arms officer being held to account for an alleged murder.
We should certainly seek to better fund the criminal justice system so that all investigations are resolved in a timely manner.
Given IPCC investigations are automatic in the event of a death, expectations around them, the burden of uncertainty, is very different.
Given actual prosecutions are rare, maybe the armed police should accept that something unusual happened in this case that warrants investigation instead of rushing to complain.
Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?
'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.
I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?
Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.
I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).
Interesting point about police fire arms officers, and a legitimate beef which needs addressing. Any investigation is likely to take years, placing serious burdens on officers who are - as most are - eventually cleared.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
What’s your data saying more offices are eventually cleared? Prosecutions are incredibly rare.
IPCC investigations are automatic whenever a death has occurred and those do mostly clear officers, but they’re quite different from a prosecution.
Of course they're not the same thing.
But the burden of uncertainty is not so different, which was the point I was making - and the fact that actual prosecutions are incredibly rare reinforces my point.
If investigations, including referrals to the CPS, were swiftly resolved, I don't think there would be the same reaction to a fire arms officer being held to account for an alleged murder.
We should certainly seek to better fund the criminal justice system so that all investigations are resolved in a timely manner.
Given IPCC investigations are automatic in the event of a death, expectations around them, the burden of uncertainty, is very different.
Given actual prosecutions are rare, maybe the armed police should accept that something unusual happened in this case that warrants investigation instead of rushing to complain.
Is is perhaps in the public interest for the trial to be expedited as far as compatible with justice.
Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?
'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.
I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?
Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.
I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).
It wouldn't be the first time that legislation was passed to please voters who really didn't understand its implications.
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.
So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.
That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Except that its debt:GDP ratio is the second lowest in the G7, its demographic prospects better than most, and it retains monetary sovereignty - indeed its currency still has minor reserve status.
Quite simply, what is missing is imagination and leadership.
The reaction of the markets to the Truss plan for unfunded tax cuts would be repeated were a different government to attempt to borrow money for infrastructure spending. The fiscal room for manoeuvre has run out.
While I was quietly confident about Wales chances v Australia, never in my wildest dreams did I expect that result. Not just the result but more importantly the performance. We were clinical and efficient - and error free. If we can repeat that performance we can beat anyone.
We will play Argentina or Samoa in QF - with the benefit of three weeks rest for most of the team (the draw has been extremely kind to Wales) and should push past them into the SF. In the SF anything can happen.....
It was very good, Penddu. Australia were awful but you can only beat what's in front of you. Sometimes poor opposition drags you down to their level, but it was the opposite here. Wales were clinical and composed. Not words that are always said of the National side!
The semi-final beckons. Who is it likely to be? Obviously they would be second favorites, whoever it is, but I think they would have a bit of a squeak against France. It's a 6-Nations side that they know well, and they wouldn't be overawed. NZ & SA probably have too much muscle and a flintier style.
Wales would beat England, I think, but it would be close...and fun!
Enjoy, whoever it is.
Edit: Btw I looked at the odds just before kick-off and was tempted to back Wales at evens, but kept the powder dry. What a mistake!
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Except that its debt:GDP ratio is the second lowest in the G7, its demographic prospects better than most, and it retains monetary sovereignty - indeed its currency still has minor reserve status.
Quite simply, what is missing is imagination and leadership.
The reaction of the markets to the Truss plan for unfunded tax cuts would be repeated were a different government to attempt to borrow money for infrastructure spending. The fiscal room for manoeuvre has run out.
I disagree. Markets dislike their money being hosed against the wall being left to slide off into certain people's pockets. Invested into long term infrastructure? Thats different.
Incidentally replacing the central reservation with tramlines is a suggestion if you want dedicated tram lines. Plenty of roads in Liverpool like Queens Drive or the A580 would be wide enough to do that.
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
Haha, you've changed your tune all of a sudden.
I think the epiphany is that roads predate cars by several thousand years. No reason why they should be exclusively for their use.
I've never said they should be exclusively for cars.
I think having dedicated cycle paths that are exclusively for bicycles, is a good idea, because that makes cycling safer, not because of the roads.
But since you seem to have missed it, I've been advocating trams for quite a while. I grew up in Melbourne, I love trams.
Its not either/or though again, like bikes. We need to invest in infrastructure. Which yes, means investing in tramlines, and cyclepaths ... and roads.
And new roads can have either dedicated or shared tramlines along them. In Melbourne on the busiest roads the tramlines tend to be dedicated but there's still road space, that's not for the driver's sake, its so if there is any car congestion then trams can get past it without being held up. In Liverpool on the likes of Queens Drive there's no reason you couldn't do that and everyone wins.
What we need is investment in our infrastructure though and this costs money.
Your problem is you don't actually listen to what others, like myself, actually say. You have this monomania obsession with shutting down anyone who suggests investment in roads, even if they're suggesting it alongside investment in public transport and cycling.
You're only interested in trams and cycle lanes on *new roads*.
That's very odd.
NO I AM NOT!
That's literally the opposite of what I've said. In fact last night I literally named multiple existing roads in Liverpool I would build tram lines down!
If segregated cycle paths can be built without removing any car lanes, eg in the grass alongside the road, then go for it. If segregated cycle paths can be built without removing any car lanes on the road, eg by encouraging off road rather than on road parking, then go for it. If dedicated tram lanes built without removing any car lanes, eg I suggested Queens Drive in Liverpool seems to me you could replace the Central Reservation with dedicated tram lines, then go for it.
Building tram lanes into existing roads so the road is shared between cars and trams? Then go for it, no qualms whatsoever.
Want to remove a lane away from cars (eg 2 down to 1) to create a segregated cycle path? Then build an alternative new road to relieve the traffic and then convert the old road into a low traffic road as soon as the alternative route opens.
I've literally provided many, many practical solutions. Which are more practical than "just build it" without saying how.
But we have a chronic housing and infrastructure shortage in this country. We shouldn't just be cramming people into existing overcrowded cities, we should be expanding towns and creating new towns too - and all that entails new infrastructure. Which should be smartly designed from day one to facilitate cars, bikes and public transportation in harmony.
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Asked if cancelling the Manchester leg of HS2 but delivering Euston station connection would be a good compromise Lord Heseltine tells @TimesRadio that would be "ridiculous" ... "the whole thing is about Manchester" he adds.
Story in the Mail today about BT making staff, predominantly white, redundant in Ipswich and moving to/creating jobs in more ethnically diverse areas which will help hit diversity targets.
Can’t see how this is helpful, if it is true as written, and it simply feeds in to some far right conspiracy theories.
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.
So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.
That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...
Printing money is not an ideal solution. And that boat sailed two years ago, its maxed out already.
The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.
The calamitous mismanagement by the Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.
Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…
The ISW don't name names, but they do cover that:
"These efforts likely intend to erode support and trust in Ukrainian forces in Ukraine and the West. Putin may have ordered the Russian military command to hold all Russia’s initial defensive positions to create the illusion that Ukrainian counteroffensives have not achieved any tactical or operational effects despite substantial Western support."
If the ISW are right then Russia created a defence in depth and then expended all their combat power defending only the forward line. Dictators, eh, what are they like?
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Here you go. It features ideas like reaching net zero with lab-grown meat.
Story in the Mail today about BT making staff, predominantly white, redundant in Ipswich and moving to/creating jobs in more ethnically diverse areas which will help hit diversity targets.
Can’t see how this is helpful, if it is true as written, and it simply feeds in to some far right conspiracy theories.
Looking around at other stories: * BT have been saying they're planning major job cuts for six months now (tens of thousands by 2030) * a story from August (which has the 1000 jobs to go figure) quotes a BT bod as saying the Martlesham site is "difficult to modernise" and that they're looking to consolidate into fewer buildings UK wide
My guess is that they're cutting a lot of jobs and thus looking at which of their various locations they should close or shrink, and which to keep. Cutting a third of jobs at Martlesham would be about in line with their general plans nationally I guess. Diversity targets are unlikely to be a major driver compared to ease of recruitment and quality of the buildings and facilities. It would not surprise me if some doofus in middle management stuck it on a powerpoint slide when they were casting around for justifications to fill up their list of bullet points, though.
(I had a summer job on the Martlesham site while I was in uni, decades ago. The tower is iconic and clearly visible from the major road that runs past it, but that building felt old and tired when I was there; no idea if they've done a refurb since.)
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.
So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.
That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...
Printing money is not an ideal solution. And that boat sailed two years ago, its maxed out already.
The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.
The calamitous mismanagement by the Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.
Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.
So bring the bank back under the control of Chancellors like Kwasi Kwarteng and Prime Ministers like Liz Truss if you like. You say it is selling money it printed at a loss - you mean the pound has fallen and it is exchanging pounds for dollars or euros?
The whole point is that we print pounds, we issue debt in pounds, we pay contracts in pounds, we recoup taxes in pounds. The relative exchange rates to other currencies ebb and flow - and if we didn't shag our economy so badly we would perform better. But otherwise if we owe £100m in bond payments then we pay £100m. That the value has risen or fallen slightly vs USD doesn't matter, as long as investors are willing to buy them.
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Here you go. It features ideas like reaching net zero with lab-grown meat.
Tony Blair Institute: A New National Purpose: Innovation Can Power the Future of Britain
When someone get the lab meat technology right they will make an absolute fortune. You may not want to eat it, but there are large parts of the world where viable sources of protein are scarce. You know how many bugs are eaten? A lab-made steak would be much more appealing.
Story in the Mail today about BT making staff, predominantly white, redundant in Ipswich and moving to/creating jobs in more ethnically diverse areas which will help hit diversity targets.
Can’t see how this is helpful, if it is true as written, and it simply feeds in to some far right conspiracy theories.
It probably is a factor and the fact it will save money is probably an ever bigger one.
BT hoovered regional development money in past iterations setting up numerous offices in much further flung places than Ipswich. Thurso and Oswestry were substantial ones at different points, iirc.
Asked if cancelling the Manchester leg of HS2 but delivering Euston station connection would be a good compromise Lord Heseltine tells @TimesRadio that would be "ridiculous" ... "the whole thing is about Manchester" he adds.
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Here you go. It features ideas like reaching net zero with lab-grown meat.
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Here you go. It features ideas like reaching net zero with lab-grown meat.
Tony Blair Institute: A New National Purpose: Innovation Can Power the Future of Britain
When someone get the lab meat technology right they will make an absolute fortune. You may not want to eat it, but there are large parts of the world where viable sources of protein are scarce. You know how many bugs are eaten? A lab-made steak would be much more appealing.
Far more likely, I think, that some of the newly engineered mycoproteins become mainstream, as the food companies work out how to give them better texture and taste. Actually growing meat cells in a vat - and getting them to have a similar structure to real meat - is always going to be quite expensive.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…
I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah
But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Except that its debt:GDP ratio is the second lowest in the G7, its demographic prospects better than most, and it retains monetary sovereignty - indeed its currency still has minor reserve status.
Quite simply, what is missing is imagination and leadership.
The reaction of the markets to the Truss plan for unfunded tax cuts would be repeated were a different government to attempt to borrow money for infrastructure spending. The fiscal room for manoeuvre has run out.
I disagree. Markets dislike their money being hosed against the wall being left to slide off into certain people's pockets. Invested into long term infrastructure? Thats different.
Markets want to see their money again. I don't think that permanently running a larger deficit to fund infrastructure spending creates confidence in the ability to service and repay debt.
It was the obvious absence of that part of the plan that sunk Truss and Kwarteng.
That's why I think you'd have to show where the extra tax revenue to fund the extra spending would come from, or the markets would be less confident about British debt.
Fundamentally, I don't think you can make a major change in how Britain is run (properly funding infrastructure spending for the first time in five or six decades, maybe longer?) without creating the political support for that change, such that you can increase taxes to pay for 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?
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.
So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.
That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...
Printing money is not an ideal solution. And that boat sailed two years ago, its maxed out already.
The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.
The calamitous mismanagement by the Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.
Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.
You are getting hung up on whether the BofE makes a profit or not. It’s irrelevant.
They created money. This was used to buy government bonds *direct from the government* to fund spending. This increased the money supply.
They are now selling the bonds *into the market* for less than they paid.
The loss doesn’t matter - it’s just an accounting entry. More meaningful is it means that the impact of the monetary expansion isn’t being completely sterilised (which was the Bank’s hope). But that’s kind of inevitable given the issues of the last few years.
What I think your alternative is - holding the bonds to maturity - means that there is no accounting loss, but it also means that the monetary expansion is not reversed which will tend to put upwards pressure on asset price inflation (more money chasing the same amount of goods)
The bank is doing the right thing. It’s purpose is to execute on monetary policy not to make a profit.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…
The ISW don't name names, but they do cover that:
"These efforts likely intend to erode support and trust in Ukrainian forces in Ukraine and the West. Putin may have ordered the Russian military command to hold all Russia’s initial defensive positions to create the illusion that Ukrainian counteroffensives have not achieved any tactical or operational effects despite substantial Western support."
If the ISW are right then Russia created a defence in depth and then expended all their combat power defending only the forward line. Dictators, eh, what are they like?
Thank you. I’m well aware of Putin’s tactics and use of informational warfare. It’s disappointing how many on here fall for his lines in the name of “reasonable doubt”. It’s much more invidious than our Saturday morning visitors - and I suspect they are intended as a distraction to make us complacent.
Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?
'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.
I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?
Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.
I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).
It's a policy that would play to the gallery. The more emotive they make their justification, Lucy Letby, Ian Huntley, Ian Watkins and maybe Gary Glitter the easier the sell. "Keir Starmer is so weak on criminality he supports Lucy Letby's murderous campaign against innocent babies". Might as well hang Starmer too, for his facilitation of criminality whilst DPP and his wokery.
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?
As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.
We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.
Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.
And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.
Except that its debt:GDP ratio is the second lowest in the G7, its demographic prospects better than most, and it retains monetary sovereignty - indeed its currency still has minor reserve status.
Quite simply, what is missing is imagination and leadership.
The reaction of the markets to the Truss plan for unfunded tax cuts would be repeated were a different government to attempt to borrow money for infrastructure spending. The fiscal room for manoeuvre has run out.
Not necessarily.
Let's say HS2 costs £100 billion. That's a lot, but it's spread over 30ish years and the country ends up with a high speed railway.
Truss's tax cuts were estimated at £30 billion+ a year. Whilst some of that may have come back via the Laffer Curve, it doesn't take long for the total to exceed the cost of HS2. And you don't have a thing at the end.
Power of "per". In this case, "per year". You can't compare a one off total with an annual rate. Well, you can, but you have to be careful how you do it.
(Same with the cost of COVID. Huge and hideous, but hopefully once a generation.)
Anyway, HS2 aside, non-commuter rail travel is up 30% vs pre-Covid levels. Increasingly we have rail routes that are at crush capacity despite the fares being jacked up, and no solution in sight because this is capacity not ownership to blame.
So, Ian's national traction plan. Negotiate a mega deal with Hitachi (which keeps the factory open). Build a large new fleet of tri-mode 800-series trains. With seating and layout designed for passengers rather than DfT bean counters. Issue them to operators as a requirement of their management contracts. Done. Existing 800-series trains can be refitted to replace the seats, add luggage racks and thus make them fit for purpose.
Similar contracts awarded to Bombardier and CAF to keep churning out designs they are already making. "Eugh, but how do we pay for them" - simple. Trains are usually owned by foreign banks.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…
I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah
But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”
Let’s see
ISW is quite conservative in its assessments
It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
You are quite the naive dope when it comes to your own side aren't you. Raging about Tory corruption but wanting to give Tony's shonky outfit a place in Government.
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
You are quite the naive dope when it comes to your own side aren't you. Raging about Tory corruption but wanting to give Tony's shonky outfit a place in Government.
The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…
I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah
But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”
Let’s see
ISW is quite conservative in its assessments
It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well
I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine
I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”
It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)
But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting
But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative
Tony Blair has a non-profit institute which is pushing ideas on a global scale. Never mind the rest of the world, how about doing it here?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
You are quite the naive dope when it comes to your own side aren't you. Raging about Tory corruption but wanting to give Tony's shonky outfit a place in Government.
If not him, then whom?
The Elizabeth Truss Institute for Economic Affairs.
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.
The Edinburgh tram system achieved one spectacular success.
It succeeded in convincing a generation of politicians that a tram project is political graveyard.
Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?
'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.
I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?
Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.
I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).
It's a policy that would play to the gallery. The more emotive they make their justification, Lucy Letby, Ian Huntley, Ian Watkins and maybe Gary Glitter the easier the sell. "Keir Starmer is so weak on criminality he supports Lucy Letby's murderous campaign against innocent babies". Might as well hang Starmer too, for his facilitation of criminality whilst DPP and his wokery.
It's coming! "Let him have it Chris!"
Good morning one and all.
If IRC ‘Chris’ was eventually released and became a plumber somewhere in the northern Home Counties. In other words, a useful citizen.
Comments
Putting 250 commuters into a tram is giving more room to drivers, not less. If you removed all public transport from the roads, what would happen do you think?
Trigger warning: here a tram running down a street built in 1770.
Melbourne roads don't have Central Reservations as the Tram Lines take the space we use for reservations here.
It would harm the environment a bit as you'd be cutting down trees to boost public transport infrastructure, but that's probably a price worth paying for boosting infrastructure.
Trams are a good thing, but where does the 250 figure come from?
Trigger warning 2: tram running down 1,700 year old road:
An advantage of trams though, like buses, is they can share the road with cars too on non-dedicated lines, in which case there's no problem sharing the roads where space is more restricted.
They are removing parking at the moment round me to put in segregated cycle lanes too
No trigger in seeing trams running down roads, if there is smart investment I'm all for that. Done smartly there'd be no loss of lane space for cars, it would be pure win/win, I'm all for that.
I think the epiphany is that roads predate cars by several thousand years. No reason why they should be exclusively for their use.
If you remove the central reservations you could have dedicated tramlines which are useful in some places as then if there's any congestion the trams don't get stuck behind it.
But if you only want to share the space, I've got no objections to that at all, why would I?
I think having dedicated cycle paths that are exclusively for bicycles, is a good idea, because that makes cycling safer, not because of the roads.
But since you seem to have missed it, I've been advocating trams for quite a while. I grew up in Melbourne, I love trams.
Its not either/or though again, like bikes. We need to invest in infrastructure. Which yes, means investing in tramlines, and cyclepaths ... and roads.
And new roads can have either dedicated or shared tramlines along them. In Melbourne on the busiest roads the tramlines tend to be dedicated but there's still road space, that's not for the driver's sake, its so if there is any car congestion then trams can get past it without being held up. In Liverpool on the likes of Queens Drive there's no reason you couldn't do that and everyone wins.
What we need is investment in our infrastructure though and this costs money.
Your problem is you don't actually listen to what others, like myself, actually say. You have this monomania obsession with shutting down anyone who suggests investment in roads, even if they're suggesting it alongside investment in public transport and cycling.
That's very odd.
It was actually a prank call by comedian
@stutteringjohnm
.During the call, Trump congratulated Menendez on beating his then-corruption charges.
Trump told him, "We're proud of you. Congratulations. Great job. You went through a tough, tough situation. I don't think a very fair situation."
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1706087650568872420
It should also be noted that Trump pardoned Menendez's co-defendant in that first corruption trial.
https://www.justice.gov/media/1117521/dl?inline
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/24/tory-donor-threatens-pull-funding-sunak-scraps-northern-hs2-rail-line
...A leading donor to the party, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “Generations of my family have been proud to support what was the party of business. We’ve given year in, year out for decades and been active in the party.
“But I’ve spoken to other donors, and several of them feel – possibly for the first time ever – recent events seriously call into question the ability to continue to support people who don’t do what they say they’d do.”
It follows a similar move by the billionaire Phones4U founder, John Caudwell, who said he would stop donating to the Conservatives after the “madness” of Sunak’s U-turn on climate goals...
Or would that have been allowed as chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children are marketed as "Gender Affirming Care"?
I don't mind if Catholics genuinely believe that the body and blood of christ are literally present in the bread and wine at communion - but I don't share that belief.
Not sharing that belief does not make me Catholicphobic, a hater of Catholics or wishing a genocide of Catholics. Similarly I don't believe Catholics have the right to enter a Synagogue or Mosque, uninvited.
The fact that such charges are leveled at people who don't believe that you can "change your sex" (an impossibility) or refuse to repeat the religious mantra that "trans women are women" shows why the TRAs & Stonewall demanded "No Debate" - they knew the whole house of cards would come tumbling down when people refused to be coerced into believing nonsense.
Sadly trans people have been badly served by Stonewall et al as the recent survey shows. The Emperor has no clothes.
If another shows the same thing, then yes.
It also showed more support for impeaching Biden than those who said impeaching Trump was justified, which suggests a possible oversampling of Republicans.
Which is odd, since there's literally no evidence against Biden.
We'll see.
That will need to wait until somebody appoints professional managers, and the Edinburgh Council is run by competent people. They ignored the people who knew about trams when they built it, have had injury complaints from hundreds, and paid out a lot of compensation for injuries, and now Edinburgh will have to live with that situation.
From what I see, trams seem to be forever jammed by antisocial parkers blocking pavements and tramlines, and delivery men demanding they have to block everything illegally because "I have to do my job. Innit."
And the Council and Police Scotland do precisely nothing.
There was one last Friday where some numpty had managed to overturn his BMW Mini in a 20mph zone (how the blazes do you do that?), and mowed down a dad and his child on the pavement. Who are both now in hospital.
Shared roads between trams and private vehicles are a very poor second to keeping them apart, perhaps only appropriate in low volume traffic so trams do not get blocked.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-man-baby-taken-hospital-27773009
If only there was this same level of anger from the Manc obsessed media, Burnham, Street, et Al when they scrapped the leg from Manchester to Leeds. That didn’t matter and went through with barely a grumble.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023
Totally agree about the evisceration of the plans for rail across the north. The 'levelling up' agenda is an absolute joke.
But all significant HQ functions are within and hour of Dublin airport. Those in Cork are factories.
But what would I know? It’s only fucking job to help multinationals decide where to put headquarters. That makes me part oh thx woke elite I suppose.
Of course that's much the same problem faced by anyone who gets involved with our underfunded, run down criminal justice system.
There are reasons to hope that the balance is starting to tilt their way but the fog of war is particularly thick at the moment.
We will play Argentina or Samoa in QF - with the benefit of three weeks rest for most of the team (the draw has been extremely kind to Wales) and should push past them into the SF. In the SF anything can happen.....
Can’t see how this is helpful, if it is true as written, and it simply feeds in to some far right conspiracy theories.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553851/BT-executive-plans-cut-1-000-jobs-rural-areas-boost-workforce-diversity.html
IPCC investigations are automatic whenever a death has occurred and those do mostly clear officers, but they’re quite different from a prosecution.
In the North East we had to run the metro rolling stock and Northern rail rolling stock (basically a bus mounted on bogies) way after the time they should have been decommissioned and replaced. It is only relatively recently we got new rolling stock for the northern line. For the metro it is on its way too.
Our rail is a shambles. Trans Pennine is awful. Never on time when they run from York to Newcastle. It would not be tolerated in the south east. So why up here.
If it's the latter (and that's consistent with the Rishi's Personal Prejudices feel of it all, and the shambolic environment announcement) then a fair bit risks collapsing on contract with the rest of the world.
'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.
I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?
There are lots of small businesses however, so you want to set it up like Europe with early morning/late night loading when the trams aren't running.
But the burden of uncertainty is not so different, which was the point I was making - and the fact that actual prosecutions are incredibly rare reinforces my point.
If investigations, including referrals to the CPS, were swiftly resolved, I don't think there would be the same reaction to a fire arms officer being held to account for an alleged murder.
Given IPCC investigations are automatic in the event of a death, expectations around them, the burden of uncertainty, is very different.
Given actual prosecutions are rare, maybe the armed police should accept that something unusual happened in this case that warrants investigation instead of rushing to complain.
I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).
Now if it said O Calcutta.....!
Departmental charity bake off today. Dr Foxy's entry after being goaded by the nurses.
First cake that I have baked since primary school...
Old Oak Common is basically Wormwood Scrubs.
HS0.2 would be pretty much useless for travelling anywhere.
So we just line up the trains, stationary, along the track as a long linear prison.
Well behaved inmates get to be in the bits exposed to natural daylight.
#joinedupgovernment
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.
So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.
That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...
I give him 24 hours, then.
The semi-final beckons. Who is it likely to be? Obviously they would be second favorites, whoever it is, but I think they would have a bit of a squeak against France. It's a 6-Nations side that they know well, and they wouldn't be overawed. NZ & SA probably have too much muscle and a flintier style.
Wales would beat England, I think, but it would be close...and fun!
Enjoy, whoever it is.
Edit: Btw I looked at the odds just before kick-off and was tempted to back Wales at evens, but kept the powder dry. What a mistake!
That's literally the opposite of what I've said. In fact last night I literally named multiple existing roads in Liverpool I would build tram lines down!
If segregated cycle paths can be built without removing any car lanes, eg in the grass alongside the road, then go for it.
If segregated cycle paths can be built without removing any car lanes on the road, eg by encouraging off road rather than on road parking, then go for it.
If dedicated tram lanes built without removing any car lanes, eg I suggested Queens Drive in Liverpool seems to me you could replace the Central Reservation with dedicated tram lines, then go for it.
Building tram lanes into existing roads so the road is shared between cars and trams? Then go for it, no qualms whatsoever.
Want to remove a lane away from cars (eg 2 down to 1) to create a segregated cycle path? Then build an alternative new road to relieve the traffic and then convert the old road into a low traffic road as soon as the alternative route opens.
I've literally provided many, many practical solutions. Which are more practical than "just build it" without saying how.
But we have a chronic housing and infrastructure shortage in this country. We shouldn't just be cramming people into existing overcrowded cities, we should be expanding towns and creating new towns too - and all that entails new infrastructure. Which should be smartly designed from day one to facilitate cars, bikes and public transportation in harmony.
What's your objection to any of that?
We need several things: a national infrastructure plan to build the new cities and homes and things that we need, a national investment plan where we go All In on green tech and AI (the true commodities of the rest of the century), and a place in the world where we champion free trade and co-operation between nations (to combat the likes of China, Russia and America)
In short, a new political era where politicians largely agree on the big things (e.g. 45-70). Because here and now we're drifting along in the post Brexit phase with no clue who we are or what we are doing. Starmer has his five missions - which could be the core of a new national consensus - but he seems frit.
Blair isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he is Big Stage and we need some of that. Bring him into government in a role coordinating our national transformation. Many will disagree and that is fine, but if not him then whom? We can't go on like this...
Asked if cancelling the Manchester leg of HS2 but delivering Euston station connection would be a good compromise Lord Heseltine tells
@TimesRadio
that would be "ridiculous" ... "the whole thing is about Manchester" he adds.
The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.
The calamitous mismanagement by the Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.
Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOqBNmcFMBQ
"These efforts likely intend to erode support and trust in Ukrainian forces in Ukraine and the West. Putin may have ordered the Russian military command to hold all Russia’s initial defensive positions to create the illusion that Ukrainian counteroffensives have not achieved any tactical or operational effects despite substantial Western support."
If the ISW are right then Russia created a defence in depth and then expended all their combat power defending only the forward line. Dictators, eh, what are they like?
But the Ukrainians are using PBI who are less impacted by mud than vehicles
https://www.institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/new-national-purpose-innovation-can-power-future-britain
Tony Blair Institute: A New National Purpose: Innovation Can Power the Future of Britain
* BT have been saying they're planning major job cuts for six months now (tens of thousands by 2030)
* a story from August (which has the 1000 jobs to go figure) quotes a BT bod as saying the Martlesham site is "difficult to modernise" and that they're looking to consolidate into fewer buildings UK wide
My guess is that they're cutting a lot of jobs and thus looking at which of their various locations they should close or shrink, and which to keep. Cutting a third of jobs at Martlesham would be about in line with their general plans nationally I guess. Diversity targets are unlikely to be a major driver compared to ease of recruitment and quality of the buildings and facilities. It would not surprise me if some doofus in middle management stuck it on a powerpoint slide when they were casting around for justifications to fill up their list of bullet points, though.
(I had a summer job on the Martlesham site while I was in uni, decades ago. The tower is iconic and clearly visible from the major road that runs past it, but that building felt old and tired when I was there; no idea if they've done a refurb since.)
The whole point is that we print pounds, we issue debt in pounds, we pay contracts in pounds, we recoup taxes in pounds. The relative exchange rates to other currencies ebb and flow - and if we didn't shag our economy so badly we would perform better. But otherwise if we owe £100m in bond payments then we pay £100m. That the value has risen or fallen slightly vs USD doesn't matter, as long as investors are willing to buy them.
Bookmarked.
Actually growing meat cells in a vat - and getting them to have a similar structure to real meat - is always going to be quite expensive.
But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”
Let’s see
It was the obvious absence of that part of the plan that sunk Truss and Kwarteng.
That's why I think you'd have to show where the extra tax revenue to fund the extra spending would come from, or the markets would be less confident about British debt.
Fundamentally, I don't think you can make a major change in how Britain is run (properly funding infrastructure spending for the first time in five or six decades, maybe longer?) without creating the political support for that change, such that you can increase taxes to pay for it.
They created money. This was used to buy government bonds *direct from the government* to fund spending. This increased the money supply.
They are now selling the bonds *into the market* for less than they paid.
The loss doesn’t matter - it’s just an accounting entry. More meaningful is it means that the impact of the monetary expansion isn’t being completely sterilised (which was the Bank’s hope). But that’s kind of inevitable given the issues of the last few years.
What I think your alternative is - holding the bonds to maturity - means that there is no accounting loss, but it also means that the monetary expansion is not reversed which will tend to put upwards pressure on asset price inflation (more money chasing the same amount of goods)
The bank is doing the right thing. It’s purpose is to execute on monetary policy not to make a profit.
It's coming! "Let him have it Chris!"
Let's say HS2 costs £100 billion. That's a lot, but it's spread over 30ish years and the country ends up with a high speed railway.
Truss's tax cuts were estimated at £30 billion+ a year. Whilst some of that may have come back via the Laffer Curve, it doesn't take long for the total to exceed the cost of HS2. And you don't have a thing at the end.
Power of "per". In this case, "per year". You can't compare a one off total with an annual rate. Well, you can, but you have to be careful how you do it.
(Same with the cost of COVID. Huge and hideous, but hopefully once a generation.)
So, Ian's national traction plan. Negotiate a mega deal with Hitachi (which keeps the factory open). Build a large new fleet of tri-mode 800-series trains. With seating and layout designed for passengers rather than DfT bean counters. Issue them to operators as a requirement of their management contracts. Done. Existing 800-series trains can be refitted to replace the seats, add luggage racks and thus make them fit for purpose.
Similar contracts awarded to Bombardier and CAF to keep churning out designs they are already making. "Eugh, but how do we pay for them" - simple. Trains are usually owned by foreign banks.
It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well
I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”
It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)
But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting
But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative
It succeeded in convincing a generation of politicians that a tram project is political graveyard.
If IRC ‘Chris’ was eventually released and became a plumber somewhere in the northern Home Counties.
In other words, a useful citizen.