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.
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.
High house prices can be an indication of speculation. You need to think about affordability ratios, which currently sit at around 8 in England. 25 years ago they were under four, twice as affordable.
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.
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
You did have a choice. You could have stayed put and been unemployed. You could have moved somewhere else and found a different 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.
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.
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
You did have a choice. You could have stayed put and been unemployed. You could have moved somewhere else and found a different job.
Don't be pathetic remaining unemployed is not an option its like telling a starving person he doesn't have to be hungry he can eat grass. As to moving somewhere else it would have still been a large town or city which would have been equally shitty. The only worse option would have been having to live actually in London
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.
Can't you just, err, try a bit harder? We can't afford to offer a pay rise but will give you the clap.
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
You did have a choice. You could have stayed put and been unemployed. You could have moved somewhere else and found a different job.
Don't be pathetic remaining unemployed is not an option its like telling a starving person he doesn't have to be hungry he can eat grass. As to moving somewhere else it would have still been a large town or city which would have been equally shitty. The only worse option would have been having to live actually in London
There are, believe it or not, some people who prefer to be unemployed. So it absolutely is an option. Just because it's not your preference doesn't mean the option didn't exist. You chose, you weren't forced. You probably chose well. But you still expressed a preference.
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.
The latter is "richer" in my eyes.
I'm more interested in the country getting richer by people doing jobs that add lots of value.
And in practice, that seems to work better if those jobs are concentrated in cities, and those cities seem to work better if people aren't getting there by car.
So yes, build more houses. But build them with easy rail access to big cities and easy walking access to the amenities that make life good.
That doesn't mean banning cars, but it probably does mean keeping them in their place- as a sometimes useful servant, not a one for all multi tool and certainly not as a master defining the layout for us.
"Active Travel" is another one of those wanky phrases that we don't need.
I'd say it's a useful phrase - ambiguous enough to cover what it needs to cover (and importantly preventing wheelchair users and similar pedestrians being forgotten by people who can use eg kissing gates or chicanes without a problem), and includes "Active" to remind us that getting off our butts is a good thing.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
LibDem policy is generally extremely well thought through, but without much specific electoral appeal. So they do also need to find ways to overcome the handicap of the unfair voting system and get elected in order to have some chance of bringing it about.
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
You did have a choice. You could have stayed put and been unemployed. You could have moved somewhere else and found a different job.
Don't be pathetic remaining unemployed is not an option its like telling a starving person he doesn't have to be hungry he can eat grass. As to moving somewhere else it would have still been a large town or city which would have been equally shitty. The only worse option would have been having to live actually in London
There are, believe it or not, some people who prefer to be unemployed. So it absolutely is an option. Just because it's not your preference doesn't mean the option didn't exist. You chose, you weren't forced. You probably chose well. But you still expressed a preference.
A choice very much would you rather have your head cut off or all your limbs. Just because you have two shitty options to select from doesn't make it a preference in my mind. Preference implies you select a good option. I preferred neither. Nor was unemployment an option either as my claim was denied on the grounds I was only looking for seasonal work....well no shit in a place where the main industry is tourism
"Active Travel" is another one of those wanky phrases that we don't need.
I do wonder why neither those demanding more cyclepaths, nor those demanding more roads, don't make better use of teleportation. Luddites.
A few years back, there was a funny debate on here where posters called for HS2 to be scrapped, and instead for a Gatwick to Heathrow Hyperloop to be built.
This was rather funny, as a LHR-LGW hyperloop failed to address the same demand as HS2.
Needless to say, Musk's Wizard Wheeze to kill-off Californian High-Speed Rail has disappeared without a trace. Which is not a surprise, as it was always a dumb idea to anyone with half a brain.
They might as well have said: "But we may sort out teleportation!"
The same reason we should be getting on with building nuclear reactors, rather than waiting on fusion.
"Active Travel" is another one of those wanky phrases that we don't need.
I'd say it's a useful phrase - ambiguous enough to cover what it needs to cover (and importantly preventing wheelchair users and similar pedestrians being forgotten by people who can use eg kissing gates or chicanes without a problem), and includes "Active" to remind us that getting off our butts is a good thing.
For example, being ferried to some wanky hotel and getting drunk while surfing the internet for something interesting to say about your location isn’t really travel, in an active sense.
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.
The new-build roads from Milton Keynes to Bedford to St Neots to Cambourne to Cambridge have been built in addition to the former A roads. Honestly. I don't know if you've ever driven them or seen the construction works, but they're entirely new courses and you can still drive the old road if you want.
The only substantive difference east of MK between the A421 and a new-build motorway is that the signs are green and there's no hard shoulder. Otherwise it's all grade separation and high design speed. There are plenty of blue-signed motorways in Britain built to a lower standard.
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.
Yes but both Republicans and Democrats agree China needs to be contained, it is only Russia hardliners on the US right are less interested in containing
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
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.
The latter is "richer" in my eyes.
I'm more interested in the country getting richer by people doing jobs that add lots of value.
And in practice, that seems to work better if those jobs are concentrated in cities, and those cities seem to work better if people aren't getting there by car.
So yes, build more houses. But build them with easy rail access to big cities and easy walking access to the amenities that make life good.
That doesn't mean banning cars, but it probably does mean keeping them in their place- as a sometimes useful servant, not a one for all multi tool and certainly not as a master defining the layout for us.
Jobs that add lots of value for whose benefit and why?
If the jobs add lots of value for the workers benefit so they can afford to buy their own home, then fantastic. As happened in the 80s and 90s, that is absolutely great.
If its adding value so they can afford to pay rent to others while not affording their own home, that's a dismal failure.
In practice currently that is working better in our towns than our cities. Currently our cities are on the failure side of the spectrum and that failure is rising fast. That needs fixing, not compounding with more failure.
"Active Travel" is another one of those wanky phrases that we don't need.
I'd say it's a useful phrase - ambiguous enough to cover what it needs to cover (and importantly preventing wheelchair users and similar pedestrians being forgotten by people who can use eg kissing gates or chicanes without a problem), and includes "Active" to remind us that getting off our butts is a good thing.
For example, being ferried to some wanky hotel and getting drunk while surfing the internet for something interesting to say about your location isn’t really travel, in an active sense.
"Ferried" does not come within the definition
Unless you write for the Speckled Tater, which is currently beyond redemption.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
Back to letting perfect being the enemy of good.
Touché.
But that's the problem with dishonesty, you lose credibility and people stop believing you.
If you say simultaneously to decrease income taxes and have LVT instead as that site does, and elsewhere say to increase income taxes, then if people stop to believe you its because you're being dishonest to someone.
Are you lying to those who want higher income taxes that you're saying you'll put in place? Or lying to me? Are you lying to those who want NIMBYism? Or lying to me?
If you lie to someone, you could be lying to anyone. And that's the Lib Dems greatest problem. Try to be all things to all people, and you end up nothing to anybody.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
Back to letting perfect being the enemy of good.
Touché.
But that's the problem with dishonesty, you lose credibility and people stop believing you.
If you say simultaneously to decrease income taxes and have LVT instead as that site does, and elsewhere say to increase income taxes, then if people stop to believe you its because you're being dishonest to someone.
Are you lying to those who want higher income taxes that you're saying you'll put in place? Or lying to me? Are you lying to those who want NIMBYism? Or lying to me?
If you lie to someone, you could be lying to anyone. And that's the Lib Dems greatest problem. Try to be all things to all people, and you end up nothing to anybody.
It's an internal party policy debate that is happening in public. As LDs tend to attract people interested in the minutiae of policy this tendency is more visible than in other parties.
In order to have a constructive conversation you need to show show good faith rather than hurl accusations.
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?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
is blooming scary.
Sunak has a mandate to change his rail policy if he wishes, and perhaps officials should engage in some self-reflection about why he might be reluctant to take them into his confidence.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
Back to letting perfect being the enemy of good.
Touché.
But that's the problem with dishonesty, you lose credibility and people stop believing you.
If you say simultaneously to decrease income taxes and have LVT instead as that site does, and elsewhere say to increase income taxes, then if people stop to believe you its because you're being dishonest to someone.
Are you lying to those who want higher income taxes that you're saying you'll put in place? Or lying to me? Are you lying to those who want NIMBYism? Or lying to me?
If you lie to someone, you could be lying to anyone. And that's the Lib Dems greatest problem. Try to be all things to all people, and you end up nothing to anybody.
It's an internal party policy debate that is happening in public. As LDs tend to attract people interested in the minutiae of policy this tendency is more visible than in other parties.
In order to have a constructive conversation you need to show show good faith rather than hurl accusations.
Indeed it is, just as there's different wings of the Tories and Labour too.
Unfortunately the pro-construction, low-income tax wing of the Lib Dems have lost that debate for decades, which is unappealing.
I take as cautiously optimistic the fact that the leadership were defeated recently on some measures at Conference, but I don't put much faith in that since its ultimately the leadership that decide and implement policy if elected.
I'll be curious to see forthcoming policies at the General Election and by-elections to see how credible they are, but my vote is available to whoever has the best policies.
Comments
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
This is not a trend that indicates success.
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.
You chose, you weren't forced. You probably chose well. But you still expressed a preference.
And in practice, that seems to work better if those jobs are concentrated in cities, and those cities seem to work better if people aren't getting there by car.
So yes, build more houses. But build them with easy rail access to big cities and easy walking access to the amenities that make life good.
That doesn't mean banning cars, but it probably does mean keeping them in their place- as a sometimes useful servant, not a one for all multi tool and certainly not as a master defining the layout for us.
My problem with the Lib Dems to date is they tend to say what everyone wants to hear. So they say things like this which I'd agree with, and that we should build houses.
But then they also say other things too, like support NIMBYism and that Income Tax should go up.
And since appealing to the lowest form of NIMBY scum is attractive electorally, and increasing Income Tax is an easier change than reforming to an LVT, then I have no faith in them when they say what I want to hear, because I can also hear them saying the exact opposite.
I believe they've just dropped their policy of increasing Income Taxes, which is a step in the right direction. As too is the Conference voting for more houses, but the leadership opposed that. If they move wholeheartedly and consistently in a pro-construction and pro-tax reform instead of just taxing incomes then I would be quite pleased with that. But I'm not holding my breath.
This was rather funny, as a LHR-LGW hyperloop failed to address the same demand as HS2.
Needless to say, Musk's Wizard Wheeze to kill-off Californian High-Speed Rail has disappeared without a trace. Which is not a surprise, as it was always a dumb idea to anyone with half a brain.
They might as well have said: "But we may sort out teleportation!"
The same reason we should be getting on with building nuclear reactors, rather than waiting on fusion.
The only substantive difference east of MK between the A421 and a new-build motorway is that the signs are green and there's no hard shoulder. Otherwise it's all grade separation and high design speed. There are plenty of blue-signed motorways in Britain built to a lower standard.
If the jobs add lots of value for the workers benefit so they can afford to buy their own home, then fantastic. As happened in the 80s and 90s, that is absolutely great.
If its adding value so they can afford to pay rent to others while not affording their own home, that's a dismal failure.
In practice currently that is working better in our towns than our cities. Currently our cities are on the failure side of the spectrum and that failure is rising fast. That needs fixing, not compounding with more failure.
Unless you write for the Speckled Tater, which is currently beyond redemption.
But that's the problem with dishonesty, you lose credibility and people stop believing you.
If you say simultaneously to decrease income taxes and have LVT instead as that site does, and elsewhere say to increase income taxes, then if people stop to believe you its because you're being dishonest to someone.
Are you lying to those who want higher income taxes that you're saying you'll put in place? Or lying to me?
Are you lying to those who want NIMBYism? Or lying to me?
If you lie to someone, you could be lying to anyone. And that's the Lib Dems greatest problem. Try to be all things to all people, and you end up nothing to anybody.
As is the inane retort which accompanies most of the active travel guff I get to see on twitter ‘what’s not to like’
In order to have a constructive conversation you need to show show good faith rather than hurl accusations.
Unfortunately the pro-construction, low-income tax wing of the Lib Dems have lost that debate for decades, which is unappealing.
I take as cautiously optimistic the fact that the leadership were defeated recently on some measures at Conference, but I don't put much faith in that since its ultimately the leadership that decide and implement policy if elected.
I'll be curious to see forthcoming policies at the General Election and by-elections to see how credible they are, but my vote is available to whoever has the best policies.
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1708449909144232123?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
It's an invitation to come up with a coherent critique of my suggested scheme, which .. er .. you haven't !