That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
"Nothing is true and everything is possible " by Peter Pomerantsev is my recommendation.
The thing about the right wing interest in Putin is that can be interpreted as a response to the excesses of the woke, who are also being manipulated in to more and more extreme positions by Russian propoganda. Everyone is being manipulated. The aim is just to destabilise and fracture the entire political discourse.
I do wonder what these people think would happen if they ever 'won'. By 'these people', I'm not just referring to Putin, or Russia. I also mean the lunatic right fringe in Europe, the 'Bible belt' loonies in the United States (who say that the US needs two things, Jesus and guns).
Russia has no domestic modern industrial production at all. Its stuck in the 1940s, making raw materials but has no electronics base.
If these people 'won', and imposed some sort of hard right Christian theocracy, they'd lose every technological advance since 1940. David Mitchell was completely right when he said (on Peep show) about capitalism - everyone hates it, but the world would be stuck in the dark ages without it.
The same is true of liberalism and freedom. If you don't want to be stuck in a hell hole where 1 in 10 people are drowned when they reach their teenage years because they're gay, where the vast majority of people live in 19th century serfdom and the rich, whilst they have a good life, could be so much more; then I'm afraid Russia is going to have to accept its wrong about.... well... everything.
Most insightful thing said on Sunak I think was by @Gardenwalker
Being rich or wealthy isn't a problem per say, it's how Sunak wears it that is.
It was never a big issue for Cameron.
In fairness to Sunak, Cameron could pull off the upper-class noblesse-oblige thing because that's what he was IRL. Sunak is a dork with a taste for conspiracy theories and a very rich wife who gives money to Americans preparatory to moving there. With the best will in the world, he can't fit the lordly patrician niche and it's not in his interests to try.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
Isn't this part of Mark Harper's newly minted plan to Save the World by spending £20bn on new roads, along with digging up Stonehenge for £1.7bn (or has that gone as well to find money for tax cuts?) and another one I have forgotten.
If he really wants it they could use PFI, as they are at the half-built Silvertown tunnel.
Meanwhile the furthest east practical cycling crossing across the Thames is I think Tower Bridge, that is until the Rotherhithe Tunnel is taken off the road network in a few years.
My grandfather, a Co-op door-to-door insurance man in his latter years, had a territory which included Gravesend with South-East Thurrock. He used to take his bike on the old Tilbury Ferry.
THere's also the Woolwich Ferry extant today, and the tunnel from the Isle of Dogs, unless cycles are banned in the latter?
The Greenwich foot tunnel is ace. You're technically not allowed to actually cycle through, but you can take bikes through - and many people do. Ditto the Woolwich tunnel. It seems a reasonable compromise, given the nature of the tunnels.
I think the stupid cable car can also take bikes.
The Greenwich Foot Tunnel will suffer from Lutfur Rahman running Tower Hamlets. And it is only 2 metres wide, which does not meet minimum spec for shared cycling / walking paths, which is 3m. And it is not accessible 24/7, even to pedestrians, as the lifts are only part time. I'd say that will never be suitable for mass transit, which is the need.
Very effective low volume schemes were used for some time with Red and Green lights indicating when cycling was allowed.
There have been talks about putting unlawful barriers in it, which would also block some wheelchairs and other mobility aids. If they try that game, they will get an EA2010 legal action so fast Lutfur will leave his pop-socks behind.
Yes the cable car takes cycles free before 9:30am, at the cost of a wait in the queue, and a £6 fair after that time. Not exactly practical.
The point is getting off your bike and pushing it for a few minutes is rather more practical than cycling all the way to central London to cross the river, then head back again!
Don't led the perfect be the enemy of the good...
It isn't good, though. It is a horrible, substandard bodge.
I would put a repurposed Rotherhithe Tunnel as "good", and about 4-6 active travel bridges throughout East London as "perfect".
Perfect will happen - perhaps in 3 or 4 decades, and will depend on demand.
How very dare you! The Greenwich foot tunnel is sublime (and sub-river...)
I expect your vision of the Rotherhithe Tunnel would have two cycle lanes through them, for cyclist to zoom through at 1,000 MPH, whilst pedestrians have to dig a new bore alongside with spoons...
Because a cyclist's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to a pedestrian. And a driver's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to cyclists; etc, etc.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
I'm very negative about the future of the world this morning. Tiny wedge issues are being used to drive massive gaps into western liberalism, and the winners will be tyrants and dictators.
Even this country is not immune: we came near to a Corbyn government, and we know what position he would have taken on issues such as Ukraine. The "It's our fault!" approach to defeating fascism.
Erm, did not Corbyn call for Russian withdrawal and demand further sanctions on Russia? But then he was not leading a party floating on a tide of Russian money, nor had he ennobled scions of the KGB.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Its total bollocks.
I can use both pages to expand if required, but that sums it up.
Brexit happened because a majority of the country wanted it, including a not-inconsiderable proportion of Tory MPs who never let the issue go either.
Farage never represented a majority of this country, 'silent' or otherwise.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Not only that, he isn't obliged to appear on the Kuennssberg Show explaining what he's going to do next.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Its total bollocks.
I can use both pages to expand if required, but that sums it up.
Brexit happened because a majority of the country wanted it, including a not-inconsiderable proportion of Tory MPs who never let the issue go either.
Farage never represented a majority of this country, 'silent' or otherwise.
I don’t disagree with you about Farage, but I think it’s simplistic to understand the history of Brexit purely as people wanted it. A political and media discourse created a narrative about Brexit that persuaded people to vote for the proposition, frequently on false grounds.
Politicians don’t merely follow the whims of voters. Influential politicians, including Farage, change voters’ views.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
What gives you the idea that the Tories haven't given Farrage much of a gap on the right?
Immigration at >500k net, mostly on government visas to hold down wages in low paid sectors. Forget the small boats, this is the real scandal.
Tax burden at 38% of GDP, the highest since WW2.
Forced nannying of everything, particularly with policies like ULEZ and net zero where costs are mostly falling those in the moderately poor to middle classes, and the benefits are rather nebulous at best.
We've Brexited and barely cut any EU regulations (see the saga over planning and the habit directive). Time for some Brexit Benefits.
Lots of easily identifiable government spending on fluff like diversity, whilst services which are actually needed are falling to bits.
If you were in Farrage's shoes, popping up with an actual Conservative party and stealing 10%+ of the vote off the Tories from the right using some of this list should be a walk in the park. The fact that Reform is hovering around 7% in the polls whilst completely invisible in the public debate is a good clue.
I don't buy it. Farage will wait until after the GE, hoping the Tories get eviscerated, then step in.
I think the 7% Reform number will split 2% Tory, 3% abstain, 2% Reform, come the election.
The Green's 7% will split about 4% Lab/LD, 2% Green, 1% abstain.
PS Tax burden it *not* the highest since WW2.
I looked back at the election squeeze effect on these two blocs in real elections and was rather surprised. I am now revising my views. Maybe both parties will cling on to more than we think.
Before 2019 election BXP was averaging 3-4% and got 2.1% in the real thing. Green averaged 2-3% and ended up with 2.8%.
But 2019 was unusual: it was a Brexit election, Boris had already rendered BXP surplus to requirements and Corbyn had rendered the watermelon bit of the greens surplus to requirements. 2017 also had the Brexit and Corbyn effects.
2015 feels more similar. UKIP was polling 11-13% with some outliers at up to 16%. They got 12.9% in the election. Remarkable thinking back that Cameron managed a majority with all those lost right wing votes. Green was polling 3-6% with a couple of higher outliers, and got 3.8% in the real thing.
And a year before the election both parties were polling pretty similar, so no real earlier squeeze effect either. Lesson to me: don’t assume, check.
Same pattern. Pollsters fairly accurate.
It's every bit as naive to assume that all UKIP/Reform voters are 'right wing' as it is to believe all Lib Dem voters are 'left wing'.
A great many UKIP/Brexit/Reform voters are ex Labour voters disenchanted with Labour but wouldn't be seen dead voting Tory.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
There are reasons for pessimism too. See US shutdown vote yesterday where Ukraine was offered up as the sacrificial lamb, and the Slovakian election result. Russia still has enough useful idiots dotted around the West to undermine opposition.
Russian propaganda is not totally inept. They’ve managed to persuade much of the US Right (and European counterparts) that they are the last bastion of white, Christian civilisation, despite having very low church attendance, a huge Muslim population, high rates of divorce and abortion. It’s enough that Putin persecuted gays.
I think the emphasis on the last bastion of 'white..civilisation' given the low immigration rates into Russia and Eastern Europe is the real reason.
Percentage wise Africa has a higher rate of church attendance than Russia now
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
Interesting what he chooses to highlight in his tweets, but also interesting what he leaves out. Nothing on:
- Environment, either macro (net zero) or micro (sewage). Leaving that to the Lib Dems - Inflation and cost of living - HS2 and infrastructure investment - genuinely surprised at that
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
This country is run by people who went to Oxford and there's no good route, road or rail, between there and Cambridge.
This is not an accident.
The Oxford-Cambridge railway line, known as the Varsity Line, was never planned to be closed under Beeching. Indeed, it was meant to be upgraded for freight (hence things like the Bletchley flyover). But the wonderful government decided to close it anyway, and Beeching gets the blame to this day.
Fortunately that mistake is being fixed, with the line being reopened in parts: lots of work is currently being donw on the mothballed Bicester to Bletchley section. The old route from Bedford to Cambridge was winding and slow, and much has been built on (not the least by radio telescopes!), so a new northerly route is proposed.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Its total bollocks.
I can use both pages to expand if required, but that sums it up.
Brexit happened because a majority of the country wanted it, including a not-inconsiderable proportion of Tory MPs who never let the issue go either.
Farage never represented a majority of this country, 'silent' or otherwise.
You could argue that indeed makes him a successful politician.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
Isolationist = Let China and Russia expand their power and influence.
South & East Rail Group SERG 🇺🇦 @SouthEastRailGp Feedback from Fridays lunch with friends from DfT/Treasury/Cabinet Office. 1/5. Ok yes we did spend time on HS2. The whole lunch was somewhat surreal. Officials frankly have absolutely no idea what the PM is going to do. He appears to running this whole policy thrust himself.
South & East Rail Group SERG 🇺🇦 @SouthEastRailGp · 15h 4/5. Frankly everyone at lunch is of the opinion that HS2 and rail in general is, to use a technical term, potentially being totally screwed over by the PM.
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
Is this the same Farage who instinctively backs every fash or fash-flavoured politician going? Trump, AfD, Le Pen, Putin, etc?
Farage has been a full-bore nutjob his whole life...
...and he won.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
Its total bollocks.
I can use both pages to expand if required, but that sums it up.
Brexit happened because a majority of the country wanted it, including a not-inconsiderable proportion of Tory MPs who never let the issue go either.
Farage never represented a majority of this country, 'silent' or otherwise.
I don’t disagree with you about Farage, but I think it’s simplistic to understand the history of Brexit purely as people wanted it. A political and media discourse created a narrative about Brexit that persuaded people to vote for the proposition, frequently on false grounds.
Politicians don’t merely follow the whims of voters. Influential politicians, including Farage, change voters’ views.
Yes, politicians wouldn't have spent such time and energy on campaigning if it was all pointless. It's a truth universally acknowledged that the Remain campaign was piss poor. Probably made the difference between winning and losing.
And before some smart-arse says it, no, it's not that there was no good campaign possible because the proposition itself was so flawed. It was a poor, poor effort.
It’s not just about the referendum campaign. It’s about the decade plus beforehand, years of the right-wing media blaming everything on immigration, Boris writing those fabricated columns about the EU wanting to ban things, etc.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
I not joking when I say Sunak may prove to be less fit for the job than Truss. The potential for Sunak to be the worst PM in living memory is definitely there.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
To be fair, a dual carriageway (missing the hard shoulders of a motorway, I guess) is being built most of the way between Oxford and Cambridge at vast expense. It'll be single carriageway only between Evenley and Finmere, and Tingewick and western MK, which is 14 miles out of the 83-mile route.
This will be the third east-west dual carriageway across the South Midlands I can remember being built (after the A14 and the A43).
Compare that to the efforts to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge railway line, which has been promoted for at least as long, and which right now has no certainty of getting any further than Bedford.
(FWIW, even I think it's bloody silly not to be dualling those stretches of the A421, though I'd do it in-place rather than the massive offline rebuilds that National Highways love so much.)
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
An element of Trumpian is isolationist, but there’s more going on here, with some on the right in the US actively lauding Putin for being anti-woke, pro-Christian, racist, etc. They’re not just saying the US has no interest in world affairs: they’re saying Putin is positive role model. Look at Tucker Carlson and his new show show for Russian state TV.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
To be fair, a dual carriageway (missing the hard shoulders of a motorway, I guess) is being built most of the way between Oxford and Cambridge at vast expense. It'll be single carriageway only between Evenley and Finmere, and Tingewick and western MK, which is 14 miles out of the 83-mile route.
This will be the third east-west dual carriageway across the South Midlands I can remember being built (after the A14 and the A43).
Compare that to the efforts to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge railway line, which has been promoted for at least as long, and which right now has no certainty of getting any further than Bedford.
(FWIW, even I think it's bloody silly not to be dualling those stretches of the A421, though I'd do it in-place rather than the massive offline rebuilds that National Highways love so much.)
Making local roads dual carriageways improves transport a bit but is no alternative to a proper motorway.
A motorway is built in addition to the local roads and means the local roads can be used for actual local traffic.
The M1 is not built over the A1, its in addition to the A1.
An M14 or M43 (don't know if either exist elsewhere, renumber if they do) parallel to the A14 and A43 should be built. Just as I want an M580 built up here parallel to the A580.
Plus of course motorways don't have red lights, dual carriageways typically do.
South & East Rail Group SERG 🇺🇦 @SouthEastRailGp Feedback from Fridays lunch with friends from DfT/Treasury/Cabinet Office. 1/5. Ok yes we did spend time on HS2. The whole lunch was somewhat surreal. Officials frankly have absolutely no idea what the PM is going to do. He appears to running this whole policy thrust himself.
South & East Rail Group SERG 🇺🇦 @SouthEastRailGp · 15h 4/5. Frankly everyone at lunch is of the opinion that HS2 and rail in general is, to use a technical term, potentially being totally screwed over by the PM.
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
How long did it take Truss and Johnson?
Sunak's line this morning,
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
Of course you'll be unsurprised to know I totally disagree with the Tory MP saying new housing should be halted until the roads are improved, we need to do both.
Investment is needed in transportation. Just as I've said.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
How did that work out for them?
I imagine even then there was bleating on the right along the lines of how dare you try to shut down debate by portraying Nazi-saluting, Hitler-admiring, antisemitic Lindbergh as a Nazi.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
Of course you'll be unsurprised to know I totally disagree with the Tory MP saying new housing should be halted until the roads are improved, we need to do both.
Investment is needed in transportation. Just as I've said.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
An element of Trumpian is isolationist, but there’s more going on here, with some on the right in the US actively lauding Putin for being anti-woke, pro-Christian, racist, etc. They’re not just saying the US has no interest in world affairs: they’re saying Putin is positive role model. Look at Tucker Carlson and his new show show for Russian state TV.
I may be misremembering but isn’t there a big fan of Tucker on PB?
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
Of course you'll be unsurprised to know I totally disagree with the Tory MP saying new housing should be halted until the roads are improved, we need to do both.
Investment is needed in transportation. Just as I've said.
They will rise up against the tyranny of the car.
You're just a fanatic aren't you? Either that or trolling, I'm not sure.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
Isolationist = Let China and Russia expand their power and influence.
It is not being neutral.
No but generally even the US hard right are hostile to China who they see as Communist and a challenge to their superpower status and pro Taiwan.
Putin however they see as a socially conservative nationalist like them and containing Russia as a European issue mainly rather than one the US should lead on
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
How did that work out for them?
Wendell Wilkie ended up the GOP nominee in 1940 and was much more anti Nazi than Lindbergh, though FDR was re elected anyway.
If say Pence or Haley or Christie ended up GOP nominee next year they would take a much tougher line on Putin than Trump, DeSantis or Ramaswamy
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
I not joking when I say Sunak may prove to be less fit for the job than Truss. The potential for Sunak to be the worst PM in living memory is definitely there.
Все счастливые семьи похожи друг на друга, каждая несчастливая семья несчастлива по-своему.
… is the famous opening sentence of “Anna Karenina”. Or, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. And the same applies to good and bad PMs.
Bad PMs are each bad in their own way. May couldn’t resolve the Brexit splits in the Conservative Party and botched the 2017 election. Johnson was a better campaigner, but struggled with truth and handed over power to Dominic Cummings, a nihilistic revolutionary, as he wasn’t that interested in policy. Truss was another revolutionary, more like Cummings than Johnson. Sunak is not as dishonest as Johnson, not as nihilistic as Cummings, not as bad at handling the party as May, not as impatient as Truss. But he lacks Johnson’s campaigning abilities; he possibly agrees with Truss on many things, but offers no vision; and he seems bereft of ideas. He keeps the party together better than May, but at the cost of tolerating Braverman’s extremism and being wishy-washy about whether he agrees with it. He’s less damaging to the constitution than Johnson, less damaging to the economy than Truss, but maybe he’ll be worse for the party’s election prospects than May.
JUST IN: Sunak’s question and answer session with Tory members this afternoon will be behind closed doors in the main conference hall. Comments at the top will be broadcast but no Press…
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
Of course you'll be unsurprised to know I totally disagree with the Tory MP saying new housing should be halted until the roads are improved, we need to do both.
Investment is needed in transportation. Just as I've said.
They will rise up against the tyranny of the car.
You're just a fanatic aren't you? Either that or trolling, I'm not sure.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
To be fair, a dual carriageway (missing the hard shoulders of a motorway, I guess) is being built most of the way between Oxford and Cambridge at vast expense. It'll be single carriageway only between Evenley and Finmere, and Tingewick and western MK, which is 14 miles out of the 83-mile route.
This will be the third east-west dual carriageway across the South Midlands I can remember being built (after the A14 and the A43).
Compare that to the efforts to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge railway line, which has been promoted for at least as long, and which right now has no certainty of getting any further than Bedford.
(FWIW, even I think it's bloody silly not to be dualling those stretches of the A421, though I'd do it in-place rather than the massive offline rebuilds that National Highways love so much.)
Making local roads dual carriageways improves transport a bit but is no alternative to a proper motorway.
A motorway is built in addition to the local roads and means the local roads can be used for actual local traffic.
The M1 is not built over the A1, its in addition to the A1.
An M14 or M43 (don't know if either exist elsewhere, renumber if they do) parallel to the A14 and A43 should be built. Just as I want an M580 built up here parallel to the A580.
Plus of course motorways don't have red lights, dual carriageways typically do.
It’s interestingly pretty much the same argument as for HS2: widening and speeding up an existing line helps a bit but you still don’t get the capacity benefits of separating slower local traffic from faster long distance traffic.
Of course a whole new route is a load more pain in terms of planning, land ownership, earthworks etc but sometimes there’s no substitute.
In France they just have a rolling national programme of upgrades to most modes of travel, including high speed rail and roads. They’ve just dualled the main road from Macon to Moulins which makes a big difference getting from us to Geneva and the Alps.
Their big blind spot is suburban and commuter rail, which is limited and poorly timetabled.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
To be fair, a dual carriageway (missing the hard shoulders of a motorway, I guess) is being built most of the way between Oxford and Cambridge at vast expense. It'll be single carriageway only between Evenley and Finmere, and Tingewick and western MK, which is 14 miles out of the 83-mile route.
This will be the third east-west dual carriageway across the South Midlands I can remember being built (after the A14 and the A43).
Compare that to the efforts to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge railway line, which has been promoted for at least as long, and which right now has no certainty of getting any further than Bedford.
(FWIW, even I think it's bloody silly not to be dualling those stretches of the A421, though I'd do it in-place rather than the massive offline rebuilds that National Highways love so much.)
Making local roads dual carriageways improves transport a bit but is no alternative to a proper motorway.
A motorway is built in addition to the local roads and means the local roads can be used for actual local traffic.
The M1 is not built over the A1, its in addition to the A1.
An M14 or M43 (don't know if either exist elsewhere, renumber if they do) parallel to the A14 and A43 should be built. Just as I want an M580 built up here parallel to the A580.
Plus of course motorways don't have red lights, dual carriageways typically do.
It’s interestingly pretty much the same argument as for HS2: widening and speeding up an existing line helps a bit but you still don’t get the capacity benefits of separating slower local traffic from faster long distance traffic.
Of course a whole new route is a load more pain in terms of planning, land ownership, earthworks etc but sometimes there’s no substitute.
In France they just have a rolling national programme of upgrades to most modes of travel, including high speed rail and roads. They’ve just dualled the main road from Macon to Moulins which makes a big difference getting from us to Geneva and the Alps.
Their big blind spot is suburban and commuter rail, which is limited and poorly timetabled.
Absolutely, the arguments and principles are pretty much the same.
But its remarkable how many people who understand one despise the other or vice-versa.
Which shows they don't actually believe the arguments they're saying, they're just fanatics.
Investing in our transportation infrastructure aids everyone and encourages growth. Cutting capex investment to spend on day to day expenditure instead is no way to run a country.
As 31C (88F) was forecast in south-west France on Sunday and 28C in Paris, the French weather authority, Météo-France, said September’s average temperature was 21.5C, between 3.5C and 3.6C above the norm for the 1991-2020 reference period.
That made it the hottest September – by more than 1C – since records began in 1900, the meteorologist Christine Berne said, adding that in several regions, the deviation from the September average of the past three decades had exceeded 4C, sometimes 6C.
“A great many” monthly records had been broken across the country during an “exceptional” month, Météo-France said, with the temperature average higher than in July and August, and heatwave alerts issued in September for the first time….
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Part of the problem is people are paying for London property because they believe the government will protect the property bubble......
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
Much better! 👍
East Renfrewshire is basically Glasgow suburbs. Greenock however is in the Inverclyde council area.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
Isolationist = Let China and Russia expand their power and influence.
It is not being neutral.
No but generally even the US hard right are hostile to China who they see as Communist and a challenge to their superpower status and pro Taiwan.
Putin however they see as a socially conservative nationalist like them and containing Russia as a European issue mainly rather than one the US should lead on
I think it is simpler than that. The Republican right are anti-Ukranian more than anything, because they see Biden and Ukraine as so closely linked. Therefore the Ukranians must be the baddies.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
Events in the US clearly show that among Republicans, Putin’s reputation has not been destroyed. He only needs to hold on and the GOP could well deliver him from defeat.
One interesting thing about a later UK election is that it would be held at the same time as the US presidential election. Tory links to the Republican party could start getting a lot more attention. Liz Truss has been very clear she wants the GOP back in the White House, despite its majority position on Ukraine running entirely contrary to UK interests.
Even the hardest right of the GOP aren't proposing to fund Putin, just stop new funding for Zelensky.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
As they should, as should the right of the GOP.
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
It is rather extraordinary how the right of the Republicans have gone in pretty much a single generation from being the hawks on Russia to being their staunchest supporters.
The Republicans have been isolationist in the past, notably Charles Lindbergh was at one stage a potential Republican candidate in 1940 on an isolationist ticket
Isolationist = Let China and Russia expand their power and influence.
It is not being neutral.
No but generally even the US hard right are hostile to China who they see as Communist and a challenge to their superpower status and pro Taiwan.
Putin however they see as a socially conservative nationalist like them and containing Russia as a European issue mainly rather than one the US should lead on
Being hostile doesnt change the reality that if the US withdraws from the scene, China and Russia will take advantage and there is no-one else to stop them, especially China.
So hostile but not active internationally, aids China, and weakens US allies like Japan and Australia.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Sorry have to disagree with you there, people living somewhere cannot be ascribed to a preference automatically. I moved to the south east from cornwall in my early 20's not because I preferred to live there, I didn't I hated the place....I moved because I needed a job.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
Much better! 👍
East Renfrewshire is basically Glasgow suburbs. Greenock however is in the Inverclyde council area.
So people living in Glasgow's suburban sprawl are twice as likely to afford their own home as those in the city its sprawled from?
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
As I have often pointed out, the root cause of poor NHS productivity is lack of investment in facilities and staff education. The same is true across much of the rest of the economy.
Low growth is due to low productivity is due to low capital investment.
Are you sure? What if we lose our best doctors and nurses, don't replace them, let the buildings they work in crumble and leave fancy new technology to other countries? Can't we make that work if we try a little harder?
It would make Rishi's spreadsheet look so much neater.
Nothing to do with the doctors refusal to work a 7 day shift pattern to optimise the use of the facilities
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
🤦♂️
Build more flats = fewer serfs
If that chart showed home ownership rates it'd be relevant to what we're saying.
It doesn't.
Try again.
Absolutely flat ownership if that's what people want is home ownership just as much as house ownership is, but almost consistently more flats = more tenants, not more owners.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
Much better! 👍
East Renfrewshire is basically Glasgow suburbs. Greenock however is in the Inverclyde council area.
So people living in Glasgow's suburban sprawl are twice as likely to afford their own home as those in the city its sprawled from?
+1 argument for more suburban sprawl then.
Not really, just a bizarre reflection of the fact the boundaries of Glasgow city are drawn in a way that shows Giffnock is outside the city and Easterhouse is inside.
We might not all agree (I don’t) but scrapping HS2 is a vote winning in the polling isn’t it? Even more so if you, say, “spend £100Bn on our NHS instead” making any HS2 supporter explain what else they would cut.
So why doesn’t he just go for it? Is it I n his speech, alongside the things he will fund “instead”? Is is linked to tax cuts at the autumn statement?
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Sorry have to disagree with you there, people living somewhere cannot be ascribed to a preference automatically. I moved to the south east from cornwall in my early 20's not because I preferred to live there, I didn't I hated the place....I moved because I needed a job.
“Preferred” here means the economists definition of preferred.
You lived in the SE because it meant you had a job. That, to you, was preferable to living elsewhere without a job. You preferred it to other choices.
People often don’t like the preferences revealed by their actions, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t real.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
Greenock is perhaps the most successful part of Scotland. You can buy a whole tenement for £10k.
I don't know Scotland well or Greenock at all, but from data from Google it seems East Renfrewshire as a whole seems to have 82% home ownership rates, compared to neighbouring Glasgow 42%.
Much better! 👍
East Renfrewshire is basically Glasgow suburbs. Greenock however is in the Inverclyde council area.
I think I recall one PBer claiming that the SNP had awarded the much mentioned ferries to Fergusons in Port Glasgow as a bribe to voters in Glasgow. You can’t buy that kind of expertise.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
Are you arguing against buy-to-let?
It depends.
I want to see construction of such a massive scale that buy to let properties can be left empty and the owner paying their own mortgage instead of a serf paying it for them because the serf has no alternative as there's no other houses available.
In most countries in Europe more than 10% of houses are empty at any one time, in the UK the figure is below 1% which is unhealthy.
If people want to invest in property there's nothing wrong with that, so long as other property is available and they're prepared to be holding unlet empty properties and liable for all costs that incurs.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
Are you arguing against buy-to-let?
It depends.
I want to see construction of such a massive scale that buy to let properties can be left empty and the owner paying their own mortgage instead of a serf paying it for them because the serf has no alternative as there's no other houses available.
If people want to invest in property there's nothing wrong with that, so long as other property is available and they're prepared to be holding unlet empty properties and liable for all costs that incurs.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
It shows housing is badly managed, sure.
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
Except you ignore the fact that the modern sprawl estates are seeing population growth though.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
I'm a flat owner and don't consider myself a serf.
🤦♂️
Build more flats = fewer serfs
If that chart showed home ownership rates it'd be relevant to what we're saying.
It doesn't.
Try again.
Absolutely flat ownership if that's what people want is home ownership just as much as house ownership is, but almost consistently more flats = more tenants, not more owners.
The other thing is that houses can be built by individuals, and usually are in continental Europe, so are more likely to be high spec places people actually want to live in, rather than blocks of flats which pretty much have to be built by building companies that don't care if they fall apart tomorrow, as long as they can sell them at a profit and not be liable thereafter.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
You think high house prices is a sign of success, not failure?
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
High house prices are a clear sign of economic success, but market failure.
Economic success, because without an incredibly productive local economy the wages wouldn’t exist to pay those housing costs (whether via mortgage payment or rent). Market failure because it suggests that the natural response to high prices - an increase in supply - is being prevented somehow.
When President George W. Bush announced the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in his 2003 State of the Union address, and the U.S. Congress quickly followed by passing the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 in strong bipartisan fashion, it fundamentally changed the course of public health history. Since then, the U.S. government, with the strong unwavering support of the U.S. Congress, has proudly invested nearly $100 billion in the global AIDS response through PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). On World AIDS Day 2022, President Biden announced that the U.S. government, through PEPFAR, saved more than 25 million lives, ensured that 5.5 million babies were born HIV-free, and enabled more than a dozen countries to control the spread of HIV or reach the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 95-95-95 HIV treatment targets, even without a vaccine or a cure.
You can find a link to the appendices, and to previous reports, here.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
The housing crisis in Ireland is even worse than in Britain, but the numbers are skewed because there's a much greater cultural willingness to emigrate to escape problems in Ireland.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
Are you arguing against buy-to-let?
It depends.
I want to see construction of such a massive scale that buy to let properties can be left empty and the owner paying their own mortgage instead of a serf paying it for them because the serf has no alternative as there's no other houses available.
If people want to invest in property there's nothing wrong with that, so long as other property is available and they're prepared to be holding unlet empty properties and liable for all costs that incurs.
Suddenly not so enthusiastic, are we.
What do you mean?
I'm consistent.
Build, build, build and allow people a choice.
If people want to choose to buy a sprawl home with a garden, that should be an option. If people want to choose to buy a city centre apartment, that should be an option. If people want to let a home with a garden, that should be an option. If people want to let a city centre apartment, that should be an option.
What shouldn't be an option is NIMBYs telling other people what to do with their land, forcing a housing shortage that fuels people going into their only option because TINA applies.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Sorry have to disagree with you there, people living somewhere cannot be ascribed to a preference automatically. I moved to the south east from cornwall in my early 20's not because I preferred to live there, I didn't I hated the place....I moved because I needed a job.
But that's the point. People move to where the opportunities are.
It's much easier to create jobs in cities where there's a business ecosystem already. Trying to disperse them into small towns doesn't work as well.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Sorry have to disagree with you there, people living somewhere cannot be ascribed to a preference automatically. I moved to the south east from cornwall in my early 20's not because I preferred to live there, I didn't I hated the place....I moved because I needed a job.
But that's the point. People move to where the opportunities are.
It's much easier to create jobs in cities where there's a business ecosystem already. Trying to disperse them into small towns doesn't work as well.
Do we want the country to be richer or not?
Define "richer".
Do you mean more people in a vicious circle of working to pay rent with no escape from that doom loop and working in poverty?
Or do you mean people able to buy a home of their own and having a hope of paying off the mortgage.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
This country is run by people who went to Oxford and there's no good route, road or rail, between there and Cambridge.
This is not an accident.
The Oxford-Cambridge railway line, known as the Varsity Line, was never planned to be closed under Beeching. Indeed, it was meant to be upgraded for freight (hence things like the Bletchley flyover). But the wonderful government decided to close it anyway, and Beeching gets the blame to this day.
Fortunately that mistake is being fixed, with the line being reopened in parts: lots of work is currently being donw on the mothballed Bicester to Bletchley section. The old route from Bedford to Cambridge was winding and slow, and much has been built on (not the least by radio telescopes!), so a new northerly route is proposed.
That journey is a nightmare; I only did it once (well, twice with the journey back) on the way to earn my quarter-blue for the Cambridge University Pétanque team at an away match.
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
I not joking when I say Sunak may prove to be less fit for the job than Truss. The potential for Sunak to be the worst PM in living memory is definitely there.
Nah, Johnson and Truss provide a lot of insurance.
Annoying thing with a "rich" meme is that it's not the rich who actually get hit when it takes traction.
It will be people earning between £50-£150k regardless of how they started off in life or how few assets they have.
It's your party that is far keener on taxing people based on their income rather than their assets.
I fully expect Labour to raise taxes on that group.
I'm not saying this to crow, btw; I'm genuinely concerned.
I don't think Starmer will deliver for his base, any more than Sunak can for his, and I'm gravely worried at what that might do for democracy in this country.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
The paucity of Thames crossings in the eastern half of London is a real problem. When there are problems with the Blackwall Tunnel, as there have been this weekend, traffic right across SE London becomes snarled up completely, it is really quite remarkable how widespread an impact it has.
Especially since the main complaint presented in the article about the new tunnel is that it "would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing, which would still remain overcapacity".
So, er, how will cancelling the tunnel increase capacity at the Dartford Crossing?
If cross-Thames capacity is the problem, campaign for more - not less. It smells like yet another instance of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
What, though, would be the comparative economic return on £10bn spent on NPR ?
Why not do both?
Seriously, though: infrastructure investment is, in the medium and long term, some of the best investment that governments can make. Short-term pain for long-term gain. With the railways, we are mostly relying on infrastructure first built between 200 and 150 years ago (though obviously much updated). With motorways, built mostly between 60 and 30 years ago.
Governments, perhaps due to treasury pressure, have utterly forgotten this - and it is harming the country. Kudos the the Scottish (and to a lesser extent Welsh) governments who have led the way in reopening railways, as an example.
Agreed 100%
If we'd continued building motorways at the rate we were 30-60 years ago for the past 30 years then how much more productive would our economy be now?
And what's worse is that 30-60 years ago the population was stable, but we saw rapid GDP per capita growth from all this investment. For the past 30 years we've seen rapid population growth, but negligible investment and wonder why our productivity has stalled.
There were 1,000 miles of motorway built in the 1960s. That would imply there should be about 7,000 miles now. Adjusted for population change, 8,000 miles?
There are currently 2,300 miles of motorway, so you're talking nearly quadrupling the number.
Yes, absolutely! That's what should have happened.
Which would boost GDP per capita tremendously and relieve local roads to serve only local traffic and not through traffic, which would enable local roads to be used by much fewer cars (since they'd be on the motorways for all but the last few miles) and have more cycling and public transport.
What a bloody tragedy that hasn't happened.
You're 44 years out of date.
There's more to this country than London and Edinburgh. 🤦♂️
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Incidentally, I've developed a "Freedom Index", looking at the ratio of car ownership to the proportion of people using them to commute.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Ealing: 46% own their own home, with a further 2% owning via shared ownership.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
I think it's probably because they have excellent public transport connections.
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
Yes there's a good bus network, no there's no trams. StateCo bus network like RochdalePioneers often suggests as the solution too, "Warrington's Own Buses" - but most choose by preference not to use it, since the roads are usable instead.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
As you keep seeming to miss, I'm in favour of investment in public transport.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
The people of Warrington have spoken.
As have the people of Ealing etc.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Sorry have to disagree with you there, people living somewhere cannot be ascribed to a preference automatically. I moved to the south east from cornwall in my early 20's not because I preferred to live there, I didn't I hated the place....I moved because I needed a job.
But that's the point. People move to where the opportunities are.
It's much easier to create jobs in cities where there's a business ecosystem already. Trying to disperse them into small towns doesn't work as well.
Do we want the country to be richer or not?
A large portion of jobs in this country are perfectly adaptable to a wfh model. Something I have argued for years should be encouraged by government policy.
1) I reduces congestion on road and rails with less people needing to commute 2) It spreads jobs and wealth around the country more evenly so people will no longer need to leave their home town to find work 3) It builds more cohesive communities when you continue to live among family and friends you grew up with 4) It prevents the ghost town phenomenon where all the able up and leave because they can't get a job
I also do not agree with the economist definition of preferred by that argument someone living in a cramped flat with black mould on the walls prefer it to living in a 6 bedroom country mansion with a heated pool and tennis courts.
When you have no choice it is a strange definition to call it preferred
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
It's a fair point, though, that some choices will have to be made. The cost/benefit case for the Thames tunnel is very poor, and it has yet to start.
What is needed - and there's no great likelihood that Labour will be massively better, though they certainly can't be as bad - is a government which can work out what is effective investment and what isn't.
I am not an expert on the cost/benefit of such projects but do know that without it drivers in Kent and Essex shall be limited to 20mph at rush hours for decades to come, and that is egregiously against long established British values.
Isn't this part of Mark Harper's newly minted plan to Save the World by spending £20bn on new roads, along with digging up Stonehenge for £1.7bn (or has that gone as well to find money for tax cuts?) and another one I have forgotten.
If he really wants it they could use PFI, as they are at the half-built Silvertown tunnel.
Meanwhile the furthest east practical cycling crossing across the Thames is I think Tower Bridge, that is until the Rotherhithe Tunnel is taken off the road network in a few years.
My grandfather, a Co-op door-to-door insurance man in his latter years, had a territory which included Gravesend with South-East Thurrock. He used to take his bike on the old Tilbury Ferry.
THere's also the Woolwich Ferry extant today, and the tunnel from the Isle of Dogs, unless cycles are banned in the latter?
The Greenwich foot tunnel is ace. You're technically not allowed to actually cycle through, but you can take bikes through - and many people do. Ditto the Woolwich tunnel. It seems a reasonable compromise, given the nature of the tunnels.
I think the stupid cable car can also take bikes.
The Greenwich Foot Tunnel will suffer from Lutfur Rahman running Tower Hamlets. And it is only 2 metres wide, which does not meet minimum spec for shared cycling / walking paths, which is 3m. And it is not accessible 24/7, even to pedestrians, as the lifts are only part time. I'd say that will never be suitable for mass transit, which is the need.
Very effective low volume schemes were used for some time with Red and Green lights indicating when cycling was allowed.
There have been talks about putting unlawful barriers in it, which would also block some wheelchairs and other mobility aids. If they try that game, they will get an EA2010 legal action so fast Lutfur will leave his pop-socks behind.
Yes the cable car takes cycles free before 9:30am, at the cost of a wait in the queue, and a £6 fair after that time. Not exactly practical.
The point is getting off your bike and pushing it for a few minutes is rather more practical than cycling all the way to central London to cross the river, then head back again!
Don't led the perfect be the enemy of the good...
It isn't good, though. It is a horrible, substandard bodge.
I would put a repurposed Rotherhithe Tunnel as "good", and about 4-6 active travel bridges throughout East London as "perfect".
Perfect will happen - perhaps in 3 or 4 decades, and will depend on demand.
How very dare you! The Greenwich foot tunnel is sublime (and sub-river...)
I expect your vision of the Rotherhithe Tunnel would have two cycle lanes through them, for cyclist to zoom through at 1,000 MPH, whilst pedestrians have to dig a new bore alongside with spoons...
Because a cyclist's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to a pedestrian. And a driver's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to cyclists; etc, etc.
Actually, no - Rotherhithe Tunnel inside is ~7.5m wide, currently with a 4.8m carriageway and 2x 1.2-1,5m footways. My dominant interest is "Active Travel", not "Cycling" - which incorporates walkling / wheeling.
I would make it a 4-4.25m wide cycle track or as I call them mobility tracks, which is national guideline spec for >1000 cycles in peak hour.
And a 3-3.25m wide footway.
Even the footway is wide enough for the widest mobility aids to pass each other comfortably or to wheel side by side, and the cycle track is wide enough for 2 pairs of people on bikes to pass if they are eg parent and child or a couple or friends. In this country we have not yet embraced social cycling in new mobility track design, and they are often too narrow.
Type III mobility scooters which can go on the roads could either go on the ped side in 4mph pavement mode, or the 'cycle' side in 8mph carriageway mode. Ditto all terrain wheelchairs, which are becoming more popular.
Both sides also have sufficient width for adapted mobility aids to be used eg side by side tandem wheelchairs, or side by side tricycles.
It's an opportunity for some good, future-proof infrastructure. Speed - I'd say cycles would perhaps do up to 15mph or some a little more depending on conditions. So I'd consider a hard division between the two sides with emergency circs gaps every 50-100m. Both sides are wide enough for diversions to have sufficient space to work eg if resurfacing is needed.
The proposal works because Silvertown is adding something like 80k a day vehicle capacity, whilst Rotherhithe currently takes 35k a day. It would also save £300-350m that was due to be spent on the walking-cycling bridge; that could now be spent on other Active Travel projects.
The final advantage at Rotherhithe is that cycling and pedestrian entrances can be separated, as there are pedestrian entry portals (needing restoration) to the river to give a shorter crossing - cycles would need to do 1.4km in the tunnel.
That would be rather more justifiable than crippling HS2.
There is only way to end the low growth econony. Cull all investment and panic. It is the only way.
As I have often pointed out, the root cause of poor NHS productivity is lack of investment in facilities and staff education. The same is true across much of the rest of the economy.
Low growth is due to low productivity is due to low capital investment.
Are you sure? What if we lose our best doctors and nurses, don't replace them, let the buildings they work in crumble and leave fancy new technology to other countries? Can't we make that work if we try a little harder?
It would make Rishi's spreadsheet look so much neater.
Nothing to do with the doctors refusal to work a 7 day shift pattern to optimise the use of the facilities
Nope, we have always worked weekends.
A bit of a problem to increase the working week from 5 to 7 days without a 40% increase in staff obviously.
Comments
Perhaps you could advise me which motorway to take currently to get eg from Oxford to Cambridge as one example? And how that is an efficient route?
Besides. 90% of passenger miles and 95% of freight miles already happen by road, so what would have changed with those motorways if they'd been built? Either local roads would be quieter (and hence could take cycling etc) or if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand then where would that induced demand have come from? The 5% of freight miles or 10% of passenger miles that aren't already on the road? Or journeys that don't currently exist?
If the latter, there's a word for that: growth.
Russia has no domestic modern industrial production at all. Its stuck in the 1940s, making raw materials but has no electronics base.
If these people 'won', and imposed some sort of hard right Christian theocracy, they'd lose every technological advance since 1940. David Mitchell was completely right when he said (on Peep show) about capitalism - everyone hates it, but the world would be stuck in the dark ages without it.
The same is true of liberalism and freedom.
If you don't want to be stuck in a hell hole where 1 in 10 people are drowned when they reach their teenage years because they're gay, where the vast majority of people live in 19th century serfdom and the rich, whilst they have a good life, could be so much more; then I'm afraid Russia is going to have to accept its wrong about.... well... everything.
I expect your vision of the Rotherhithe Tunnel would have two cycle lanes through them, for cyclist to zoom through at 1,000 MPH, whilst pedestrians have to dig a new bore alongside with spoons...
Because a cyclist's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to a pedestrian. And a driver's vision of 'perfect' is distinctly imperfect to cyclists; etc, etc.
For example, Ealing has roughly the same rate of car ownership as Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, but double the proportion of people using public transport.
Outside of London, and after excluding areas with very low population density, people in Preston, Cheshire and Nottingham have high levels of leaving their cars on the drive. On the other hand, Blackburn, Gosport and Warrington have the lowest rates of "freedom".
Which explains your views somewhat. I'll be a bit more charitable in the future - you're simply a product of your car-dominated environment.
Discuss, using both sides of the paper, the following proposition: "Nigel Farage is the most successful politician of his generation."
I can use both pages to expand if required, but that sums it up.
Brexit happened because a majority of the country wanted it, including a not-inconsiderable proportion of Tory MPs who never let the issue go either.
Farage never represented a majority of this country, 'silent' or otherwise.
However the rest of NATO would largely still fund the latter
The fact that you see the two as somehow equal or comparable speaks wonders.
We could end global warming by powering the planet by how fast Reagan is turning in his grave by how awful the GOP have become at appeasing Russia. He'd be ashamed. As would Maggie.
Politicians don’t merely follow the whims of voters. Influential politicians, including Farage, change voters’ views.
What an atrocious failure, not a success. An absolute majority don't have a home of their own, an absolute majority have to rent instead, what a disgrace.
I'd be curious if the tenants who aren't driving aren't doing so by preference, or because their roads are too congested to drive due to overcrowding (same reason they can't own a home of their own too).
Another advantage yet again of building motorways across the country is it allows new towns to thrive/expand/get built rather than slamming more and more people into overcrowded failing areas.
PS Ealing's catastrophic failure over the last decade is despite the fact its gotten older not younger over the past decade.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/E09000009/
Percentage wise Africa has a higher rate of church attendance than Russia now
Do you have a good tram and bus network in Warrington?
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1708386628467601437?s=46
Interesting what he chooses to highlight in his tweets, but also interesting what he leaves out. Nothing on:
- Environment, either macro (net zero) or micro (sewage). Leaving that to the Lib Dems
- Inflation and cost of living
- HS2 and infrastructure investment - genuinely surprised at that
Fortunately that mistake is being fixed, with the line being reopened in parts: lots of work is currently being donw on the mothballed Bicester to Bletchley section. The old route from Bedford to Cambridge was winding and slow, and much has been built on (not the least by radio telescopes!), so a new northerly route is proposed.
But the road network isn't overcrowded and nor is the town which has been rapidly sprawling and expanding its borders to concrete new build areas which is why it has one of the higher rates of home ownership, fantastically better than Ealing.
69.5% own their own home either fully or via shared ownership, versus a minority in Ealing. Only 30.5% have to rent versus an absolute majority in Ealing.
Not perfect, should be better, but much better than the alternative I'm sure we can all agree.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/E06000007/
It is not being neutral.
@SouthEastRailGp
Feedback from Fridays lunch with friends from DfT/Treasury/Cabinet Office. 1/5. Ok yes we did spend time on HS2. The whole lunch was somewhat surreal. Officials frankly have absolutely no idea what the PM is going to do. He appears to running this whole policy thrust himself.
South & East Rail Group SERG 🇺🇦
@SouthEastRailGp
·
15h
4/5. Frankly everyone at lunch is of the opinion that HS2 and rail in general is, to use a technical term, potentially being totally screwed over by the PM.
https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1708219232977039694
===
Sunak's gone bonkers. Amazing. Normally takes two terms not less than two years to send a PM into total bunker mode or 'i can do what I like, everyone else is wrong' mode.
The lack of public transport provision in Warrington is set to change:
https://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2023/09/04/residents-overwhelming-support-for-investment-in-public-transport/
The neighbours must love you.
Including (but not just) roads.
Its you that's not.
This will be the third east-west dual carriageway across the South Midlands I can remember being built (after the A14 and the A43).
Compare that to the efforts to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge railway line, which has been promoted for at least as long, and which right now has no certainty of getting any further than Bedford.
(FWIW, even I think it's bloody silly not to be dualling those stretches of the A421, though I'd do it in-place rather than the massive offline rebuilds that National Highways love so much.)
A motorway is built in addition to the local roads and means the local roads can be used for actual local traffic.
The M1 is not built over the A1, its in addition to the A1.
An M14 or M43 (don't know if either exist elsewhere, renumber if they do) parallel to the A14 and A43 should be built. Just as I want an M580 built up here parallel to the A580.
Plus of course motorways don't have red lights, dual carriageways typically do.
Sunak's line this morning,
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
is blooming scary.
They seem to have said exactly what I say, do they not? Do you detect a scintilla of difference?
Do you see the people of Warrington opposing new roads getting built?
Failing Grayling pledge a new link western link road to cross the Mersey and relieve traffic that is currently forced to go through the town centre back in 2019, with construction to begin in 2021: https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/government-confirms-warrington-link-road-cash/
Fast forward to 2023 still waiting for it to be built: https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/23580167.council-definitely-still-wants-build-western-link/
Of course you'll be unsurprised to know I totally disagree with the Tory MP saying new housing should be halted until the roads are improved, we need to do both.
Investment is needed in transportation. Just as I've said.
House prices in cities are higher than small towns because people mostly prefer to live in them. They like the opportunities.
Hardly anyone has ever said "I'm going to Gosport (or Warrington) to seek my fame and fortune" for obvious reasons.
If we actually want this country to be richer, that growth is way more likely to come in cities.
But, as we all know, there is a significant vote that doesn't give a stuff about the country becoming richer, as long as genteel decline is slow enough to keep the country going until their personal demise.
Putin however they see as a socially conservative nationalist like them and containing Russia as a European issue mainly rather than one the US should lead on
If say Pence or Haley or Christie ended up GOP nominee next year they would take a much tougher line on Putin than Trump, DeSantis or Ramaswamy
Interesting.
Less than half of Ealing own their own home, almost 70% of Warrington does. If we actually want this country to be richer, we need to stop piling serfs high to pay rent to their Lords and Masters and get people able to afford homes of their own instead.
… is the famous opening sentence of “Anna Karenina”. Or, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. And the same applies to good and bad PMs.
Bad PMs are each bad in their own way. May couldn’t resolve the Brexit splits in the Conservative Party and botched the 2017 election. Johnson was a better campaigner, but struggled with truth and handed over power to Dominic Cummings, a nihilistic revolutionary, as he wasn’t that interested in policy. Truss was another revolutionary, more like Cummings than Johnson. Sunak is not as dishonest as Johnson, not as nihilistic as Cummings, not as bad at handling the party as May, not as impatient as Truss. But he lacks Johnson’s campaigning abilities; he possibly agrees with Truss on many things, but offers no vision; and he seems bereft of ideas. He keeps the party together better than May, but at the cost of tolerating Braverman’s extremism and being wishy-washy about whether he agrees with it. He’s less damaging to the constitution than Johnson, less damaging to the economy than Truss, but maybe he’ll be worse for the party’s election prospects than May.
@MrHarryCole
JUST IN: Sunak’s question and answer session with Tory members this afternoon will be behind closed doors in the main conference hall. Comments at the top will be broadcast but no Press…
Of course a whole new route is a load more pain in terms of planning, land ownership, earthworks etc but sometimes there’s no substitute.
In France they just have a rolling national programme of upgrades to most modes of travel, including high speed rail and roads. They’ve just dualled the main road from Macon to Moulins which makes a big difference getting from us to Geneva and the Alps.
Their big blind spot is suburban and commuter rail, which is limited and poorly timetabled.
Much better! 👍
But there is something about London that people are willing to pay for, and they aren't seeing that something in modern sprawl estates.
The value people put on things is revealed by the price they're willing to pay and all that.
But its remarkable how many people who understand one despise the other or vice-versa.
Which shows they don't actually believe the arguments they're saying, they're just fanatics.
Investing in our transportation infrastructure aids everyone and encourages growth. Cutting capex investment to spend on day to day expenditure instead is no way to run a country.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/01/autumn-heat-continues-in-europe-after-record-breaking-september
Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland and Switzerland have all experienced their hottest Septembers on record, with unseasonably high temperatures set to continue into October, in a year likely to be the warmest in human history.
As 31C (88F) was forecast in south-west France on Sunday and 28C in Paris, the French weather authority, Météo-France, said September’s average temperature was 21.5C, between 3.5C and 3.6C above the norm for the 1991-2020 reference period.
That made it the hottest September – by more than 1C – since records began in 1900, the meteorologist Christine Berne said, adding that in several regions, the deviation from the September average of the past three decades had exceeded 4C, sometimes 6C.
“A great many” monthly records had been broken across the country during an “exceptional” month, Météo-France said, with the temperature average higher than in July and August, and heatwave alerts issued in September for the first time….
So hostile but not active internationally, aids China, and weakens US allies like Japan and Australia.
Its just that population growth doesn't see the same constraints on supply, so demand and supply are relatively in sync.
Not everything is sunshine and roses, there should be more investment in infrastructure and there should be more liberalisation as housing. But a higher percentage of the growing population can afford to live and have their own home and aren't serfs spending too much their heavily taxed salary funding someone else's relatively untaxed salary.
+1 argument for more suburban sprawl then.
🤦♂️
It doesn't.
Try again.
Absolutely flat ownership if that's what people want is home ownership just as much as house ownership is, but almost consistently more flats = more tenants, not more owners.
It will be people earning between £50-£150k regardless of how they started off in life or how few assets they have.
So why doesn’t he just go for it? Is it I n his speech, alongside the things he will fund “instead”? Is is linked to tax cuts at the autumn statement?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-high-speed-rail-hs2
You lived in the SE because it meant you had a job. That, to you, was preferable to living elsewhere without a job. You preferred it to other choices.
People often don’t like the preferences revealed by their actions, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t real.
Looks to me comparing this map and Eabhal's that Spain is doing apartments and ownership well. Other than Spain as an outlier, not seeing a positive relationship between apartments and ownership, if anything the inverse but not ran the numbers.
Would be interesting to see a UK version of both maps.
Ireland is doing better than us at ownership and has much fewer apartments.
That would significantly increase home ownership.
I want to see construction of such a massive scale that buy to let properties can be left empty and the owner paying their own mortgage instead of a serf paying it for them because the serf has no alternative as there's no other houses available.
In most countries in Europe more than 10% of houses are empty at any one time, in the UK the figure is below 1% which is unhealthy.
If people want to invest in property there's nothing wrong with that, so long as other property is available and they're prepared to be holding unlet empty properties and liable for all costs that incurs.
Economic success, because without an incredibly productive local economy the wages wouldn’t exist to pay those housing costs (whether via mortgage payment or rent). Market failure because it suggests that the natural response to high prices - an increase in supply - is being prevented somehow.
Here are the first two paragraphs of the annual PEPFAR report:
When President George W. Bush announced the creation of the President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in his 2003 State of the Union
address, and the U.S. Congress quickly followed by passing the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 in
strong bipartisan fashion, it fundamentally changed the course of public
health history.
Since then, the U.S. government, with the strong unwavering support of the
U.S. Congress, has proudly invested nearly $100 billion in the global AIDS
response through PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria (Global Fund). On World AIDS Day 2022, President Biden
announced that the U.S. government, through PEPFAR, saved more than 25
million lives, ensured that 5.5 million babies were born HIV-free, and
enabled more than a dozen countries to control the spread of HIV or reach
the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 95-95-95 HIV
treatment targets, even without a vaccine or a cure.
You can find a link to the appendices, and to previous reports, here.
I'm consistent.
Build, build, build and allow people a choice.
If people want to choose to buy a sprawl home with a garden, that should be an option.
If people want to choose to buy a city centre apartment, that should be an option.
If people want to let a home with a garden, that should be an option.
If people want to let a city centre apartment, that should be an option.
What shouldn't be an option is NIMBYs telling other people what to do with their land, forcing a housing shortage that fuels people going into their only option because TINA applies.
It's much easier to create jobs in cities where there's a business ecosystem already. Trying to disperse them into small towns doesn't work as well.
Do we want the country to be richer or not?
Do you mean more people in a vicious circle of working to pay rent with no escape from that doom loop and working in poverty?
Or do you mean people able to buy a home of their own and having a hope of paying off the mortgage.
The latter is "richer" in my eyes.
I'm not saying this to crow, btw; I'm genuinely concerned.
I don't think Starmer will deliver for his base, any more than Sunak can for his, and I'm gravely worried at what that might do for democracy in this country.
1) I reduces congestion on road and rails with less people needing to commute
2) It spreads jobs and wealth around the country more evenly so people will no longer need to leave their home town to find work
3) It builds more cohesive communities when you continue to live among family and friends you grew up with
4) It prevents the ghost town phenomenon where all the able up and leave because they can't get a job
I also do not agree with the economist definition of preferred by that argument someone living in a cramped flat with black mould on the walls prefer it to living in a 6 bedroom country mansion with a heated pool and tennis courts.
When you have no choice it is a strange definition to call it preferred
I would make it a 4-4.25m wide cycle track or as I call them mobility tracks, which is national guideline spec for >1000 cycles in peak hour.
And a 3-3.25m wide footway.
Even the footway is wide enough for the widest mobility aids to pass each other comfortably or to wheel side by side, and the cycle track is wide enough for 2 pairs of people on bikes to pass if they are eg parent and child or a couple or friends. In this country we have not yet embraced social cycling in new mobility track design, and they are often too narrow.
Type III mobility scooters which can go on the roads could either go on the ped side in 4mph pavement mode, or the 'cycle' side in 8mph carriageway mode. Ditto all terrain wheelchairs, which are becoming more popular.
Both sides also have sufficient width for adapted mobility aids to be used eg side by side tandem wheelchairs, or side by side tricycles.
It's an opportunity for some good, future-proof infrastructure. Speed - I'd say cycles would perhaps do up to 15mph or some a little more depending on conditions. So I'd consider a hard division between the two sides with emergency circs gaps every 50-100m. Both sides are wide enough for diversions to have sufficient space to work eg if resurfacing is needed.
The proposal works because Silvertown is adding something like 80k a day vehicle capacity, whilst Rotherhithe currently takes 35k a day. It would also save £300-350m that was due to be spent on the walking-cycling bridge; that could now be spent on other Active Travel projects.
The final advantage at Rotherhithe is that cycling and pedestrian entrances can be separated, as there are pedestrian entry portals (needing restoration) to the river to give a shorter crossing - cycles would need to do 1.4km in the tunnel.
What's not to like?
(Probably should have entered it directly, rather than relying on that link thingy.)
A bit of a problem to increase the working week from 5 to 7 days without a 40% increase in staff obviously.