It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
Just like the oil permits they will not commit to reversing it as it upsets planning for industry. What they will likely commit to is reviewing the decision in light of the circumstances when they come into power.
This is not only a sensible response it is also a typical politicians cop out. Handy when by chance the sensible response also coincides with the politicians response. That coincidence doesn't happen often enough sadly.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Won’t that depend on the makeup of the parliamentary Conservative party after the next election?
If anything the parliamentary Conservative Party will be more southern and less redwall after the next general election given the latter are the marginal seats. Albeit a few bluewall seats will also likely go LD
Exactly how many Home county seats are currently in Labour hands that this policy could transfer into Tory hands.
I don't think you've realised but you've just said the Tory party only has core votes left and is now desperately trying to keep even those.
While trashing our international reputation for vague Governing Competency.
Yeah, in the same way that I am "considering" going pony trekking with Mamamoo.
Why wouldn't Street quit?
He might stick around to argue the West Midlands' case at the top table. But if Birmingham–Manchester is cancelled despite his entreaties, that clearly counts for nothing.
He might stick around to get re-elected. Nope. The Conservatives have cratered so much that Street has a better chance of being re-elected as an independent.
He might stick around in the hope of a Westminster career. Also nope. A Braverman-led Tory party after the next election is not going to be a welcoming place for the likes of Street.
He might stick around to be the Conservative "king over the water" like Andy Burnham during the Corbyn years. That one's almost plausible. Except that Burnham never became king.
I reckon he'll quit. At which point we'll see what the floor of the Conservative vote actually is.
Is it too late for Burnham? Starmer is going to face such massive problems when he becomes PM that, for all that I want him to succeed (in so far as I want any PM to succeed) I don't think he can help but be a disappointment in the medium term. In that case someone like Burnham might be a prospect in 2029 or 2034. Bear in mind he is only 53.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Won’t that depend on the makeup of the parliamentary Conservative party after the next election?
If anything the parliamentary Conservative Party will be more southern and less redwall after the next general election given the latter are the marginal seats. Albeit a few bluewall seats will also likely go LD.
If Tory members alone had the final say then Badenoch or Braverman would be favourite to lead the Conservatives in Opposition but they don't, Tory MPs choose the final 2 and the likes Barclay and Tugendhat therefore have much better chances of reaching that last 2 and becoming leader
Would there be enough moderates to prevent one loon making it to the run-off? Seems a big ask.
And if there is a loon on the ballot, as you say, the loon wins.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
I guess the goal is to sell “tax and spend Labour” to low-information voters who don’t necessarily understand this distinction.
If you can handwave “The conservative party saved £Xbillion by cutting HS2, Labour wants to put your taxes up to pay for it” then it could work. Mix in a little “that money could be spent on the NHS instead” (Cummings absolutely favourite line - he’s used it in every UK campaign he’s ever been anywhere near) and you could see how they might think this approach could work for them.
The trouble is, that all relies on said low information voter forgetting all the times the Conservative made these kind of promises in the recent past. Sunak is hoping to sell himself as a ““change candidate” in opposition to the last 13 years of Conservative government in order to square that particular circle.
I can’t see it working myself, but maybe? With the press behind him & a really effective social media campaign it could work? Personally I think it will crash and burn; the people are fed up with the Cons & just aren’t in the mood to listen in the first place, which is a problem if your entire strategy relies on getting your “change” message across to them.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Won’t that depend on the makeup of the parliamentary Conservative party after the next election?
If anything the parliamentary Conservative Party will be more southern and less redwall after the next general election given the latter are the marginal seats. Albeit a few bluewall seats will also likely go LD.
If Tory members alone had the final say then Badenoch or Braverman would be favourite to lead the Conservatives in Opposition but they don't, Tory MPs choose the final 2 and the likes Barclay and Tugendhat therefore have much better chances of reaching that last 2 and becoming leader
Would there be enough moderates to prevent one loon making it to the run-off? Seems a big ask.
And if there is a loon on the ballot, as you say, the loon wins.
I like discussions like this. Good posts by either side of the debate.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Won’t that depend on the makeup of the parliamentary Conservative party after the next election?
If anything the parliamentary Conservative Party will be more southern and less redwall after the next general election given the latter are the marginal seats. Albeit a few bluewall seats will also likely go LD.
If Tory members alone had the final say then Badenoch or Braverman would be favourite to lead the Conservatives in Opposition but they don't, Tory MPs choose the final 2 and the likes Barclay and Tugendhat therefore have much better chances of reaching that last 2 and becoming leader
Would there be enough moderates to prevent one loon making it to the run-off? Seems a big ask.
And if there is a loon on the ballot, as you say, the loon wins.
It would be a good idea for the Conservatives to change their rules on how party leaders are appointed. An exodus of the frothers from the membership rolls would be a good thing for the country.
Of course, I know this won't happen. But it's a nice dream.
And before some wag comes in and quotes Brecht at me: yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It would be simpler for the [party] To dissolve the [membership] And elect another
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
FPT - the economic premise of HS2 is to give the North and northerners a taste of the highly globalised services sector that London and the SE enjoy, and are thus much wealthier as a result. So it delivers levelling up through that mechanism.
That's why it taps in all the key northern cities into Heathrow and London, or should have done: the connectivity* opens up far more options for them for global trade.
(*forget all the economically moronic bullshit you hear about sucking in even more investment and workers into London - the exact opposite is true - and you can test it through the counter-argument that on that basis you'd tear up the M40, M6, M1 and WCML, which I think we'd all agree would be insane)
In which case HS2 should have been built from the north southwards.
I pointed this out on this site a decade ago and speculated that it would be cancelled once the London-Birmingham commuter line had been completed.
Though I didn't expect the greed and incompetence in HS2 to reach the level it has.
And having a focus on northern cities will seldom impress people in northern towns.
Northerners might resent London but what they really tend to dislike is the place 20 miles away doing better than they are.
I believe Cameron once said "I knew Yorkshiremen hated the rest of the world but I didn't realise they hated each other even more."
Yes, this is a popular one (why not turn it on its head?) but it doesn't really work.
Railways are highly interconnected systems and the WCML is like a congested funnel. The main capacity constraint is coming out of London. So if you did this you'd either have an extremely expensive and overspecced high speed shuttle from Manchester to Birmingham, where those same trains would have to trickle onto the existing network, already at/near capacity, and run very slowly, or people would have to change trains to go further on the conventional network. The alternative would be to down spec it but then it wouldn't be big enough to take the frequency/size of trains desired once the southern route was complete and all the trains decanted onto the full high speed line across the whole route.
It's logical to build it in the sequence they have, even if politically it doesn't look ideal.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Braverman is doing an excellent job of rolling the pitch for her and her brand of " radical conservatism". Her speech yesterday may have been untruthful conspiratorial gibberish but it was presented beautifully.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Braverman is doing an excellent job of rolling the pitch for her and her brand of " radical conservatism". Her speech yesterday may have been untruthful conspiratorial gibberish but it was presented beautifully.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
Andrew Boff is a very left-wing Tory, and a plant botherer.
To provide extra capacity for commuter services*, and perhaps freight, on the existing lines radiating northwards out of London (from The Cross, St Pancras and Euston), the idea was to funnel most of the inter-city services currently using those lines onto a new, dedicated line into London.
So the question is, with the shrunken HS2, which services will actually use it, and which will just stick with the existing routes? I'm assuming that this has been thought through, but with this shower of shite in charge, who knows?
Of course, in the post-Covid WFH, flexi-working world, do we still need this extra capacity?
Owning an XL Bully should be treated like owning a firearm without a license.
Agree.
Our dog is as daft as they come. Over the top affectionate, very bright and knows lots of commands. A Sproodle, Springer/Poodle cross. However the other day he found a deer skull and spine and the commands went out of the window and he was difficult to call to heel as he didn't want to give up his prize.
At 14 kg and a dog who only wants to play he is of little threat to anyone and could easily be overpowered if for some bizarre reason anything did happen, but I still wouldn't leave him with a baby and we are very cautious around frail people in case he jumps up at them even in joy.
An XL is a threat to everyone, including the owner at anytime.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
The Trans Pennine rail link for a start. More northern connectivity and capacity. The way to get growth in the North is to treat it as a single direct competitor to London not a suburb.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
The Trans Pennine rail link for a start. More northern connectivity and capacity. The way to get growth in the North is to treat it as a single direct competitor to London not a suburb.
But, to do that it needs to be linked into the global hub that London represents, its main airport and business districts. It's not about recognising them as a suburb of London it's about tapping them into the hub.
We need both. And we should deliver a 3rd runway for Heathrow too - urgently.
To provide extra capacity for commuter services*, and perhaps freight, on the existing lines radiating northwards out of London (from The Cross, St Pancras and Euston), the idea was to funnel most of the inter-city services currently using those lines onto a new, dedicated line into London.
So the question is, with the shrunken HS2, which services will actually use it, and which will just stick with the existing routes? I'm assuming that this has been thought through, but with this shower of shite in charge, who knows?
Of course, in the post-Covid WFH, flexi-working world, do we still need this extra capacity?
Yep - non commute travel is up 130% on 2019 (pre Covid figures).
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Braverman is doing an excellent job of rolling the pitch for her and her brand of " radical conservatism". Her speech yesterday may have been untruthful conspiratorial gibberish but it was presented beautifully.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
Andrew Boff is a very left-wing Tory, and a plant botherer.
It'd be like me bigging up Kate Hoey.
No, Andrew Boff is a one nation Tory. One nation Tories from the Chamberlains through McMillan, Home, Butler and Heath to Clarke and Heseltine once ran the Conservative Party.
Kate Hoey never really fitted into any iteration of Labour, New or radical. In her more enlightened moments she would have been a better fit for the UUP, in her least, a radical DUPer.
One reason why HS2 at Euston is now so expensive is that the Underground station needs major improvements before more people can use it.
That cost was original in CrossRail 2's budget but with that delayed / cancelled the cost is now in HS2's budget because it's still required.
Euston station badly needs to be renovated anyway, regardless of HS2. Also there are plans to build a tunnel/walkway between Euston and Euston Square, which would be very useful.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
“Jobs at risk as new train orders hit the buffers.
Britain’s four rolling stock companies are set to be left with little or no work by the end of next year because of the government’s failure to order any new main line trains for almost four years.”
FPT - the economic premise of HS2 is to give the North and northerners a taste of the highly globalised services sector that London and the SE enjoy, and are thus much wealthier as a result. So it delivers levelling up through that mechanism.
That's why it taps in all the key northern cities into Heathrow and London, or should have done: the connectivity* opens up far more options for them for global trade.
(*forget all the economically moronic bullshit you hear about sucking in even more investment and workers into London - the exact opposite is true - and you can test it through the counter-argument that on that basis you'd tear up the M40, M6, M1 and WCML, which I think we'd all agree would be insane)
In which case HS2 should have been built from the north southwards.
I pointed this out on this site a decade ago and speculated that it would be cancelled once the London-Birmingham commuter line had been completed.
Though I didn't expect the greed and incompetence in HS2 to reach the level it has.
And having a focus on northern cities will seldom impress people in northern towns.
Northerners might resent London but what they really tend to dislike is the place 20 miles away doing better than they are.
I believe Cameron once said "I knew Yorkshiremen hated the rest of the world but I didn't realise they hated each other even more."
Yes, this is a popular one (why not turn it on its head?) but it doesn't really work.
Railways are highly interconnected systems and the WCML is like a congested funnel. The main capacity constraint is coming out of London. So if you did this you'd either have an extremely expensive and overspecced high speed shuttle from Manchester to Birmingham, where those same trains would have to trickle onto the existing network, already at/near capacity, and run very slowly, or people would have to change trains to go further on the conventional network. The alternative would be to down spec it but then it wouldn't be big enough to take the frequency/size of trains desired once the southern route was complete and all the trains decanted onto the full high speed line across the whole route.
It's logical to build it in the sequence they have, even if politically it doesn't look ideal.
My big idea was to build a MagLev along the side of the motorways, so M40, M6, M5, M6 from London to B'ham. Not the most direct route but the speed of it would make up for that.
One reason why HS2 at Euston is now so expensive is that the Underground station needs major improvements before more people can use it.
That cost was original in CrossRail 2's budget but with that delayed / cancelled the cost is now in HS2's budget because it's still required.
Euston station badly needs to be renovated anyway, regardless of HS2. Also there are plans to build a tunnel/walkway between Euston and Euston Square, which would be very useful.
But not exactly cheap - and it's all attached to the HS2 budget because that is the reason why it's required.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
The Trans Pennine rail link for a start. More northern connectivity and capacity. The way to get growth in the North is to treat it as a single direct competitor to London not a suburb.
The two need not be mutually exclusive. Osaka very much sees itself as a competitor to Tokyo, as are a number of cities strung along the 2 hour Shinkansen line between the two (Yokohama, Kyoto, Nagoya etc), and because of the Shinkansen you are close enough to the rest of the world, and the rest of Japan, from any of those cities that you can take your pick as to where to put your HQ or factories. The whole Tokyo-Osaka corridor is essentially one economic zone. England is small enough that this should be true here too.
From Chris Mason on the BBC An entirely trivial but colourful little moment just now here.
On a morning of a big speech from the prime minister, and a briefing for senior ministers beforehand, a cabinet minister hurtles into the breakfast room of the Midland Hotel.
On her plate? An eclectic selection: A fried egg, two slices of pineapple and a hash brown.
Thirty seconds later, they're all gone - and so was the minister.
...... I wonder what Mr Eagles would make of that!
One reason why HS2 at Euston is now so expensive is that the Underground station needs major improvements before more people can use it.
That cost was original in CrossRail 2's budget but with that delayed / cancelled the cost is now in HS2's budget because it's still required.
Euston station badly needs to be renovated anyway, regardless of HS2. Also there are plans to build a tunnel/walkway between Euston and Euston Square, which would be very useful.
It would be useful to dig tunnels from the platforms direct to the underground station so people arriving in droves don't have to thread their way across a crowded concourse full of waiting passengers.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It should be fully upgraded to motorway standards along the whole length.
Preferably without traffic lights on the main carriageway as we had at one point during the summer (Went bridge repair).
FPT - the economic premise of HS2 is to give the North and northerners a taste of the highly globalised services sector that London and the SE enjoy, and are thus much wealthier as a result. So it delivers levelling up through that mechanism.
That's why it taps in all the key northern cities into Heathrow and London, or should have done: the connectivity* opens up far more options for them for global trade.
(*forget all the economically moronic bullshit you hear about sucking in even more investment and workers into London - the exact opposite is true - and you can test it through the counter-argument that on that basis you'd tear up the M40, M6, M1 and WCML, which I think we'd all agree would be insane)
In which case HS2 should have been built from the north southwards.
I pointed this out on this site a decade ago and speculated that it would be cancelled once the London-Birmingham commuter line had been completed.
Though I didn't expect the greed and incompetence in HS2 to reach the level it has.
And having a focus on northern cities will seldom impress people in northern towns.
Northerners might resent London but what they really tend to dislike is the place 20 miles away doing better than they are.
I believe Cameron once said "I knew Yorkshiremen hated the rest of the world but I didn't realise they hated each other even more."
Yes, this is a popular one (why not turn it on its head?) but it doesn't really work.
Railways are highly interconnected systems and the WCML is like a congested funnel. The main capacity constraint is coming out of London. So if you did this you'd either have an extremely expensive and overspecced high speed shuttle from Manchester to Birmingham, where those same trains would have to trickle onto the existing network, already at/near capacity, and run very slowly, or people would have to change trains to go further on the conventional network. The alternative would be to down spec it but then it wouldn't be big enough to take the frequency/size of trains desired once the southern route was complete and all the trains decanted onto the full high speed line across the whole route.
It's logical to build it in the sequence they have, even if politically it doesn't look ideal.
My big idea was to build a MagLev along the side of the motorways, so M40, M6, M5, M6 from London to B'ham. Not the most direct route but the speed of it would make up for that.
That'd bugger up every mobile phone and laptop on board, surely? In any case the back to the past vibe from the Tories absolutely demands a Bennie Railplane:
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It's such a hard drive, similar to the A9. I hate it when roads switch between dual and single carriageway.
One reason why HS2 at Euston is now so expensive is that the Underground station needs major improvements before more people can use it.
That cost was original in CrossRail 2's budget but with that delayed / cancelled the cost is now in HS2's budget because it's still required.
Euston station badly needs to be renovated anyway, regardless of HS2. Also there are plans to build a tunnel/walkway between Euston and Euston Square, which would be very useful.
It would be useful to dig tunnels from the platforms direct to the underground station so people arriving in droves don't have to thread their way across a crowded concourse full of waiting passengers.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Braverman is doing an excellent job of rolling the pitch for her and her brand of " radical conservatism". Her speech yesterday may have been untruthful conspiratorial gibberish but it was presented beautifully.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
Andrew Boff is a very left-wing Tory, and a plant botherer.
It'd be like me bigging up Kate Hoey.
No, Andrew Boff is a one nation Tory. One nation Tories from the Chamberlains through McMillan, Home, Butler and Heath to Clarke and Heseltine once ran the Conservative Party.
Kate Hoey never really fitted into any iteration of Labour, New or radical. In her more enlightened moments she would have been a better fit for the UUP, in her least, a radical DUPer.
Aren’t one nation Tories the sort of Tories that more people would vote for?
Last 8 greater manchester tory seats gone I reckon.
I doubt most of the redwall Gter Manchester seats are bothered either way by HS2, they want inflation down further and better bus routes and local train stations not a quicker journey to London which they rarely go to anyway
My point is it is two fingers to people from Manchester by Sunak. Doesn't matter whether it is HS2 or whatever. It is London elite telling the north that they are happy to spend billions on a high speed line out of london but manchester can go and do one.
The Tories have a seat in Birmingham, the Tories have 0 seats in Manchester
No seats in the City of Manchester, but, what, nine in Greater Manchester? Many won on the premise of Levelling Up. "Sorry Greater Manchester, we spent all our money on transport schemes in the south so can't afford to give you the £6bn we promised. But we'll repair some potholes and give you a new bus". Not likely to go down well.
Surely, surely you can see how badly this is going down?
Voters in redwall Greater Manchester seats do NOT live in Manchester city itself and rarely go on the train to London.
They would much rather have new buses and potholes repaired than HS2
*bangs head against brick wall*
Really? "£6bn of rail investment in GM? Or repair some potholes?" "We're just simple people here, the pothole option seems much more up our street."
What voters in redwall Greater Manchester want is what they were promised - i.e. levelling up - i.e. finally, some of the money that was always spent in London being spent in Greater Manchester. Because that brings about jobs and investment and growth. WHICH IS THE POINT OF HS2.
Now, a secret: more even than HS2, we'd like NPR. That does even more: more access to jobs, more relief of suburban routes, more connectivity, more investement. But the middle section of NPR is delivered by HS2: we can't do NPR until HS2 Phase 2b puts in place the Manchester Airport to Manchester section, plus the high speed stations at Manchesters Piccadilly and Airport.
(In fact, ALL of Phase 2b technically supports NPR, because there are two proposed NPR services an hour running Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham. But weirdly no-one really talks about them.)
Voters in redwall seats hardly ever go to London. Why would they therefore want a faster rail ink from Manchester city centre to London they would hardly ever use which could be used for bus routes they would use or repairing potholes in their area?
Better bus routes is more levelling up for them and the working class Leave voters and pensioners than posh Remain voting commuters and students getting a faster commute to and from London.
Even adding NPR routes to Leeds and Bradford wouldn't benefit them much either compared to better bus routes and local roads
Why would they want a faster rail link from Manchester to London? Well, as I keep saying, because it would bring investment and jobs to Greater Manchester far in excess of what improvements to bus services would bring.
Levelling up is not sitting and wondering why all the investment continues to go to the south east.
If Turin and Lyon can be linked via a 57km tunnel, why can't we also have a Pennine Base Tunnel? A star shaped layout between Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.
Just sink the whole sodding thing below ground and avoid the planning nightmares.
Note that it seems to be costing about 1/4 of HS2...
65 miles of HS2 tunnel for the south. You'd want at least the same for the north.
If Levelling Up is a thing - and you accept that connectivity is greater in the south east than in the north - you need to be spending more on connectivity in the north than in the south (assuming your investments are sensible - but really, so onerous is the process of getting investment in transport that generally, they are). However, since Levelling Up was announced as a policy, the reverse has been true. The gap is therefore widening.
Tis is why HS2 was such a stupid project when it came to levelling up. What we wnat is inversment 'in' the North not investment 'to' the North. There are so many ways in which the transport and communications systems could be transformed north of the Trent but which have been sacrificed on the altar of the HS2 white elephant.
If SUnak had had any sense (he doesn't of course) he would have done some proper planning for this over the last year or so and come to this point able to say HS2 from Birmingham north - both to Manchester and Leeds - was going to cost (for example) £100 billion. So to prove our commitment to the North here are a seies of projects IN the north which we will commit to and which will cost, in total, £100 billion.
You could do a hell of a lot for transport and communications within the north of England with £100 billion.
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester. I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands. Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
It would be nice if Sunak announced that Trans-Pennine have been instructed to reinstate all of the services they plan to cut in December, and retain the Mark5 coaches.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
The only bit that is not dualled is the section in Northumbria and round the corner to Edinburgh.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It's such a hard drive, similar to the A9. I hate it when roads switch between dual and single carriageway.
SG sorted it as far as Dunbar, then inquired if the UKG were going to do it north past Berwick to Lamberton. No, piss off, said London. So no sense in bothering with the little bit to Lamberton (which requires some fairly heavy engineering, such as the Pease Burn and Eye Water bridges and the Cockburnspath-Reston glacial overspill trough - some of the latter dual already anyway). And that's why it is the way it is.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
The Trans Pennine rail link for a start. More northern connectivity and capacity. The way to get growth in the North is to treat it as a single direct competitor to London not a suburb.
The two need not be mutually exclusive. Osaka very much sees itself as a competitor to Tokyo, as are a number of cities strung along the 2 hour Shinkansen line between the two (Yokohama, Kyoto, Nagoya etc), and because of the Shinkansen you are close enough to the rest of the world, and the rest of Japan, from any of those cities that you can take your pick as to where to put your HQ or factories. The whole Tokyo-Osaka corridor is essentially one economic zone. England is small enough that this should be true here too.
Exactly this. The English core, from London to Leeds/Manchester, should be an economic powerhouse, generating prosperity for the whole country. Instead we've cut ourselves off from our major market and failed to integrate the region internally. I sometimes think we have a deathwish, or to put it less dramatically we enjoy being loads poorer than we should be.
Nigel Farage joins the Tories before they lose the election. Suella Braverman becomes leader after. A few think it's their dream come true. Millions will look for a new home.
Braverman might win the Conservative membership vote but would be unlikely to get enough Conservative MPs votes to make the final 2. When she stood for the leadership last year she didn't even make the final 5 with Tory MPs let alone the final 2
Braverman is doing an excellent job of rolling the pitch for her and her brand of " radical conservatism". Her speech yesterday may have been untruthful conspiratorial gibberish but it was presented beautifully.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
Andrew Boff is a very left-wing Tory, and a plant botherer.
It'd be like me bigging up Kate Hoey.
The hunt for the ideological impure used to be a left-wing pastime. Depressing to see right-wingers like you and HYUFD indulge in it too.
It would be nice if Sunak announced that Trans-Pennine have been instructed to reinstate all of the services they plan to cut in December, and retain the Mark5 coaches.
A bit of wishcasting from me!
Sunak is more likely to announce the return of Pacers, as being the best that the North deserves.
Last 8 greater manchester tory seats gone I reckon.
I doubt most of the redwall Gter Manchester seats are bothered either way by HS2, they want inflation down further and better bus routes and local train stations not a quicker journey to London which they rarely go to anyway
My point is it is two fingers to people from Manchester by Sunak. Doesn't matter whether it is HS2 or whatever. It is London elite telling the north that they are happy to spend billions on a high speed line out of london but manchester can go and do one.
The Tories have a seat in Birmingham, the Tories have 0 seats in Manchester
No seats in the City of Manchester, but, what, nine in Greater Manchester? Many won on the premise of Levelling Up. "Sorry Greater Manchester, we spent all our money on transport schemes in the south so can't afford to give you the £6bn we promised. But we'll repair some potholes and give you a new bus". Not likely to go down well.
Surely, surely you can see how badly this is going down?
Voters in redwall Greater Manchester seats do NOT live in Manchester city itself and rarely go on the train to London.
They would much rather have new buses and potholes repaired than HS2
*bangs head against brick wall*
Really? "£6bn of rail investment in GM? Or repair some potholes?" "We're just simple people here, the pothole option seems much more up our street."
What voters in redwall Greater Manchester want is what they were promised - i.e. levelling up - i.e. finally, some of the money that was always spent in London being spent in Greater Manchester. Because that brings about jobs and investment and growth. WHICH IS THE POINT OF HS2.
Now, a secret: more even than HS2, we'd like NPR. That does even more: more access to jobs, more relief of suburban routes, more connectivity, more investement. But the middle section of NPR is delivered by HS2: we can't do NPR until HS2 Phase 2b puts in place the Manchester Airport to Manchester section, plus the high speed stations at Manchesters Piccadilly and Airport.
(In fact, ALL of Phase 2b technically supports NPR, because there are two proposed NPR services an hour running Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham. But weirdly no-one really talks about them.)
Voters in redwall seats hardly ever go to London. Why would they therefore want a faster rail ink from Manchester city centre to London they would hardly ever use which could be used for bus routes they would use or repairing potholes in their area?
Better bus routes is more levelling up for them and the working class Leave voters and pensioners than posh Remain voting commuters and students getting a faster commute to and from London.
Even adding NPR routes to Leeds and Bradford wouldn't benefit them much either compared to better bus routes and local roads
Why would they want a faster rail link from Manchester to London? Well, as I keep saying, because it would bring investment and jobs to Greater Manchester far in excess of what improvements to bus services would bring.
Levelling up is not sitting and wondering why all the investment continues to go to the south east.
If Turin and Lyon can be linked via a 57km tunnel, why can't we also have a Pennine Base Tunnel? A star shaped layout between Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.
Just sink the whole sodding thing below ground and avoid the planning nightmares.
Note that it seems to be costing about 1/4 of HS2...
65 miles of HS2 tunnel for the south. You'd want at least the same for the north.
If Levelling Up is a thing - and you accept that connectivity is greater in the south east than in the north - you need to be spending more on connectivity in the north than in the south (assuming your investments are sensible - but really, so onerous is the process of getting investment in transport that generally, they are). However, since Levelling Up was announced as a policy, the reverse has been true. The gap is therefore widening.
Tis is why HS2 was such a stupid project when it came to levelling up. What we wnat is inversment 'in' the North not investment 'to' the North. There are so many ways in which the transport and communications systems could be transformed north of the Trent but which have been sacrificed on the altar of the HS2 white elephant.
If SUnak had had any sense (he doesn't of course) he would have done some proper planning for this over the last year or so and come to this point able to say HS2 from Birmingham north - both to Manchester and Leeds - was going to cost (for example) £100 billion. So to prove our commitment to the North here are a seies of projects IN the north which we will commit to and which will cost, in total, £100 billion.
You could do a hell of a lot for transport and communications within the north of England with £100 billion.
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester. I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands. Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
Indeed. My argument is not against spending the money. I absolutely get the argument about capital expenditure. My argument is that there have always been so many other, somewhat less glamerous but much needed projects on which this money could be spent which would actually do far more to improve the economy of the Midlands and North. This was the case when it was going to cost £56 billion and is even more the case now they are mooting an overall cost of £180 billion.
FPT - the economic premise of HS2 is to give the North and northerners a taste of the highly globalised services sector that London and the SE enjoy, and are thus much wealthier as a result. So it delivers levelling up through that mechanism.
That's why it taps in all the key northern cities into Heathrow and London, or should have done: the connectivity* opens up far more options for them for global trade.
(*forget all the economically moronic bullshit you hear about sucking in even more investment and workers into London - the exact opposite is true - and you can test it through the counter-argument that on that basis you'd tear up the M40, M6, M1 and WCML, which I think we'd all agree would be insane)
In which case HS2 should have been built from the north southwards.
I pointed this out on this site a decade ago and speculated that it would be cancelled once the London-Birmingham commuter line had been completed.
Though I didn't expect the greed and incompetence in HS2 to reach the level it has.
And having a focus on northern cities will seldom impress people in northern towns.
Northerners might resent London but what they really tend to dislike is the place 20 miles away doing better than they are.
I believe Cameron once said "I knew Yorkshiremen hated the rest of the world but I didn't realise they hated each other even more."
Yes, this is a popular one (why not turn it on its head?) but it doesn't really work.
Railways are highly interconnected systems and the WCML is like a congested funnel. The main capacity constraint is coming out of London. So if you did this you'd either have an extremely expensive and overspecced high speed shuttle from Manchester to Birmingham, where those same trains would have to trickle onto the existing network, already at/near capacity, and run very slowly, or people would have to change trains to go further on the conventional network. The alternative would be to down spec it but then it wouldn't be big enough to take the frequency/size of trains desired once the southern route was complete and all the trains decanted onto the full high speed line across the whole route.
It's logical to build it in the sequence they have, even if politically it doesn't look ideal.
My big idea was to build a MagLev along the side of the motorways, so M40, M6, M5, M6 from London to B'ham. Not the most direct route but the speed of it would make up for that.
Firstly, maglevs are a dead technology, which is why virtually everyone has abandoned them. They're cool and sexy, but if they're such an easy answer, why aren't people building them? Prof Laithwaite came up with the main concept fifty years ago, and there is only one track in public service - in China. And China are not expanding their network.
Secondly, this 'running alongside an existing motorway' is not as cheap, or as good an idea, as it seems, for many reasons. Lots of motorways have developments around or near them, which means the corridor is unprotected. Road alignments are designed for a maximum of 70MPH, whilst anything travelling at speed needs more gentle curves. Then there are the road junctions, which can really complicate matters.
Sunak: “Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”
Whereas, he says, "The Labour Party have set out their stall: to do and say as little as possible and hope no one notices. It is about power for the sake of power."
So, OK, some good messages here that could work... It just seems odd to pair messages about long-term planning over short term advantage at the same time as you cancel a long-term plan. It seems odd to criticise Labour as wanting to do and say as little as possible when you are doing and saying as little as possible.
I think it's too transparently obvious that when Sunak claims he's making a hard decision, he's really just trying to court popularity, and when he says he's focussed on the long term, the only thing he's really thinking about is the election next year.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It's such a hard drive, similar to the A9. I hate it when roads switch between dual and single carriageway.
SG sorted it as far as Dunbar, then inquired if the UKG were going to do it north past Berwick to Lamberton. No, piss off, said London. So no sense in bothering with the little bit to Lamberton (which requires some fairly heavy engineering, such as the Pease Burn and Eye Water bridges and the Cockburnspath-Reston glacial overspill trough - some of the latter dual already anyway). And that's why it is the way it is.
The A66 / M74 route to central Scotland is quicker than the A1 for anywhere south of Scotch Corner. The A66 is another route that desperately needs to be dual carriageway for the entire length.
I believe this is planned but whether it will be finished is another question...
Though having a proper link between Newcastle and Edinburgh would seem sane. I do go that way sometimes when bored or when it is snowing (stopping off at Lindisfarne just because).
Sunak: “Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”
Whereas, he says, "The Labour Party have set out their stall: to do and say as little as possible and hope no one notices. It is about power for the sake of power."
So, OK, some good messages here that could work... It just seems odd to pair messages about long-term planning over short term advantage at the same time as you cancel a long-term plan. It seems odd to criticise Labour as wanting to do and say as little as possible when you are doing and saying as little as possible.
I think it's too transparently obvious that when Sunak claims he's making a hard decision, he's really just trying to court popularity, and when he says he's focussed on the long term, the only thing he's really thinking about is the election next year.
For Sunak the election next year *is* long-term... just ask his predecessor!
Sunak: “Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”
Whereas, he says, "The Labour Party have set out their stall: to do and say as little as possible and hope no one notices. It is about power for the sake of power."
So, OK, some good messages here that could work... It just seems odd to pair messages about long-term planning over short term advantage at the same time as you cancel a long-term plan. It seems odd to criticise Labour as wanting to do and say as little as possible when you are doing and saying as little as possible.
I think it's too transparently obvious that when Sunak claims he's making a hard decision, he's really just trying to court popularity, and when he says he's focussed on the long term, the only thing he's really thinking about is the election next year.
More likely the 2028/9 election. I suspect the next one's down the pan already.
“Jobs at risk as new train orders hit the buffers.
Britain’s four rolling stock companies are set to be left with little or no work by the end of next year because of the government’s failure to order any new main line trains for almost four years.”
Railways have suffered a series of gluts and dearth of new train orders since 1948, and this continued into privatisation. There is only one 'native' builder left; the old BREL carriage works at Derby (now owned by Alstom). A couple more have opened in recent years; Hitachi in the northeast and Goole in the last few years. We probably now have too much train building capacity, after having a shortage.
And the blame for this lies firmly on the DfT, whose dead hand (also partly aided by the treasury) has zero long-term planning.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
I’ve read that “Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.” was one of the things that massively drove up the cost of the first half of HS2 from London -> Birmingham.
The Treasury insisted on the contractors shouldering all the risk, a potentially unlimited liability no public company would ever want to carry on their books. So the bidding contractors bought insurance on the open market to cover them for the long term liability & loaded that cost onto the bids, driving up the cost significantly. It would have been much cheaper for the government to bear the longer term risks of having to rebuild any bits of the line that did fail.
They reversed this approach for the contracts for the Birmingham<->Manchester stretch, but by then it was too late - the first half was already ludicrously expensive.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
Good luck finding a contractor prepared to take on a fixed-price EPC contract for a major project these days.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
It allows a tax cut, because it will be someone else's problem by the time the hole in the budget it creates needs to be filled.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
As an aside, and adjusted for inflation, the Limehouse Link Tunnel in London cost around £250,000 per metre. It opened in the early 1990s.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
The money is being spent to tunnel under Stonehenge.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It's such a hard drive, similar to the A9. I hate it when roads switch between dual and single carriageway.
SG sorted it as far as Dunbar, then inquired if the UKG were going to do it north past Berwick to Lamberton. No, piss off, said London. So no sense in bothering with the little bit to Lamberton (which requires some fairly heavy engineering, such as the Pease Burn and Eye Water bridges and the Cockburnspath-Reston glacial overspill trough - some of the latter dual already anyway). And that's why it is the way it is.
The A66 / M74 route to central Scotland is quicker than the A1 for anywhere south of Scotch Corner. The A66 is another route that desperately needs to be dual carriageway for the entire length.
I believe this is planned but whether it will be finished is another question...
Though having a proper link between Newcastle and Edinburgh would seem sane. I do go that way sometimes when bored or when it is snowing (stopping off at Lindisfarne just because).
I checked the Highways Agency website out of interest.
Last 8 greater manchester tory seats gone I reckon.
I doubt most of the redwall Gter Manchester seats are bothered either way by HS2, they want inflation down further and better bus routes and local train stations not a quicker journey to London which they rarely go to anyway
My point is it is two fingers to people from Manchester by Sunak. Doesn't matter whether it is HS2 or whatever. It is London elite telling the north that they are happy to spend billions on a high speed line out of london but manchester can go and do one.
The Tories have a seat in Birmingham, the Tories have 0 seats in Manchester
No seats in the City of Manchester, but, what, nine in Greater Manchester? Many won on the premise of Levelling Up. "Sorry Greater Manchester, we spent all our money on transport schemes in the south so can't afford to give you the £6bn we promised. But we'll repair some potholes and give you a new bus". Not likely to go down well.
Surely, surely you can see how badly this is going down?
Voters in redwall Greater Manchester seats do NOT live in Manchester city itself and rarely go on the train to London.
They would much rather have new buses and potholes repaired than HS2
*bangs head against brick wall*
Really? "£6bn of rail investment in GM? Or repair some potholes?" "We're just simple people here, the pothole option seems much more up our street."
What voters in redwall Greater Manchester want is what they were promised - i.e. levelling up - i.e. finally, some of the money that was always spent in London being spent in Greater Manchester. Because that brings about jobs and investment and growth. WHICH IS THE POINT OF HS2.
Now, a secret: more even than HS2, we'd like NPR. That does even more: more access to jobs, more relief of suburban routes, more connectivity, more investement. But the middle section of NPR is delivered by HS2: we can't do NPR until HS2 Phase 2b puts in place the Manchester Airport to Manchester section, plus the high speed stations at Manchesters Piccadilly and Airport.
(In fact, ALL of Phase 2b technically supports NPR, because there are two proposed NPR services an hour running Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham. But weirdly no-one really talks about them.)
Voters in redwall seats hardly ever go to London. Why would they therefore want a faster rail ink from Manchester city centre to London they would hardly ever use which could be used for bus routes they would use or repairing potholes in their area?
Better bus routes is more levelling up for them and the working class Leave voters and pensioners than posh Remain voting commuters and students getting a faster commute to and from London.
Even adding NPR routes to Leeds and Bradford wouldn't benefit them much either compared to better bus routes and local roads
Why would they want a faster rail link from Manchester to London? Well, as I keep saying, because it would bring investment and jobs to Greater Manchester far in excess of what improvements to bus services would bring.
Levelling up is not sitting and wondering why all the investment continues to go to the south east.
If Turin and Lyon can be linked via a 57km tunnel, why can't we also have a Pennine Base Tunnel? A star shaped layout between Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.
Just sink the whole sodding thing below ground and avoid the planning nightmares.
Note that it seems to be costing about 1/4 of HS2...
65 miles of HS2 tunnel for the south. You'd want at least the same for the north.
If Levelling Up is a thing - and you accept that connectivity is greater in the south east than in the north - you need to be spending more on connectivity in the north than in the south (assuming your investments are sensible - but really, so onerous is the process of getting investment in transport that generally, they are). However, since Levelling Up was announced as a policy, the reverse has been true. The gap is therefore widening.
Tis is why HS2 was such a stupid project when it came to levelling up. What we wnat is inversment 'in' the North not investment 'to' the North. There are so many ways in which the transport and communications systems could be transformed north of the Trent but which have been sacrificed on the altar of the HS2 white elephant.
If SUnak had had any sense (he doesn't of course) he would have done some proper planning for this over the last year or so and come to this point able to say HS2 from Birmingham north - both to Manchester and Leeds - was going to cost (for example) £100 billion. So to prove our commitment to the North here are a seies of projects IN the north which we will commit to and which will cost, in total, £100 billion.
You could do a hell of a lot for transport and communications within the north of England with £100 billion.
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester. I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands. Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
Indeed. My argument is not against spending the money. I absolutely get the argument about capital expenditure. My argument is that there have always been so many other, somewhat less glamerous but much needed projects on which this money could be spent which would actually do far more to improve the economy of the Midlands and North. This was the case when it was going to cost £56 billion and is even more the case now they are mooting an overall cost of £180 billion.
It’s completely reasonable to say that we should have done a laundry list of other things before HS2 & HS2 may not be the most effective thing to have spent a pile of £ on. But spending a pile of £ on half of HS2 and then killing it off, making the whole thing almost pointless: that takes a really determined insistence on wasting money
From Chris Mason on the BBC An entirely trivial but colourful little moment just now here.
On a morning of a big speech from the prime minister, and a briefing for senior ministers beforehand, a cabinet minister hurtles into the breakfast room of the Midland Hotel.
On her plate? An eclectic selection: A fried egg, two slices of pineapple and a hash brown.
Thirty seconds later, they're all gone - and so was the minister.
...... I wonder what Mr Eagles would make of that!
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
The only bit that is not dualled is the section in Northumbria and round the corner to Edinburgh.
To Dunbar; it's *now* dual thereafter to Edinburgh.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
It's such a hard drive, similar to the A9. I hate it when roads switch between dual and single carriageway.
SG sorted it as far as Dunbar, then inquired if the UKG were going to do it north past Berwick to Lamberton. No, piss off, said London. So no sense in bothering with the little bit to Lamberton (which requires some fairly heavy engineering, such as the Pease Burn and Eye Water bridges and the Cockburnspath-Reston glacial overspill trough - some of the latter dual already anyway). And that's why it is the way it is.
The A66 / M74 route to central Scotland is quicker than the A1 for anywhere south of Scotch Corner. The A66 is another route that desperately needs to be dual carriageway for the entire length.
I believe this is planned but whether it will be finished is another question...
Though having a proper link between Newcastle and Edinburgh would seem sane. I do go that way sometimes when bored or when it is snowing (stopping off at Lindisfarne just because).
Yep. My normal route when driving from the East Midlands to Aberdeen is A1/A66/M6/A-M74 to Glasgow. Then Stirling, Perth, Dundee and on to Aberdeen.
This used to take me about 8 hours but these days it is nearer 10 because the A1 and A66 are so busy.
The alternative over the top via Jedburgh is abot the same time but more prone to lorry/tractor delays.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced...
Good lord, no. It would take half a decade, cost £100m, and produce nothing useful.
Liking the cut of Mr Boff’s jib. Has there been any explanation why the police were involved in his expulsion? They even accompanied to two heavies who had him in a very firm grip well outside the conference centre.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
As an aside, and adjusted for inflation, the Limehouse Link Tunnel in London cost around £250,000 per metre. It opened in the early 1990s.
I remember having a day wandering around the Docklands c. 1993 to see what the oil money was being spent on, and the huge works going on there for that and the DLR and so on. It was a hell of a shock to see the differential in transport investment per head between the Docklands, never mind the rest of London, and the North. But that was a time when it was deemed impolite to point fingers at such regional discrepancies.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
Good luck finding a contractor prepared to take on a fixed-price EPC contract for a major project these days.
I don't know what the form of contract was for Heathrow terminal 5, but apparently that was completed on time and on budget. Could not that be repeated?
“Jobs at risk as new train orders hit the buffers.
Britain’s four rolling stock companies are set to be left with little or no work by the end of next year because of the government’s failure to order any new main line trains for almost four years.”
Railways have suffered a series of gluts and dearth of new train orders since 1948, and this continued into privatisation. There is only one 'native' builder left; the old BREL carriage works at Derby (now owned by Alstom). A couple more have opened in recent years; Hitachi in the northeast and Goole in the last few years. We probably now have too much train building capacity, after having a shortage.
And the blame for this lies firmly on the DfT, whose dead hand (also partly aided by the treasury) has zero long-term planning.
Serious question. How much of this can be blamed on the Government when the railways are privatised and buying new rolling stock should (I assume) be the responsibility of the private companies?
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
The only bit that is not dualled is the section in Northumbria and round the corner to Edinburgh.
To Dunbar; it's *now* dual thereafter to Edinburgh.
TBH the A120 now carries a lot of traffic for Harwich and it’s not dualled between Braintree and the A12. It’s getting more and more dangerous.
Last 8 greater manchester tory seats gone I reckon.
I doubt most of the redwall Gter Manchester seats are bothered either way by HS2, they want inflation down further and better bus routes and local train stations not a quicker journey to London which they rarely go to anyway
My point is it is two fingers to people from Manchester by Sunak. Doesn't matter whether it is HS2 or whatever. It is London elite telling the north that they are happy to spend billions on a high speed line out of london but manchester can go and do one.
The Tories have a seat in Birmingham, the Tories have 0 seats in Manchester
No seats in the City of Manchester, but, what, nine in Greater Manchester? Many won on the premise of Levelling Up. "Sorry Greater Manchester, we spent all our money on transport schemes in the south so can't afford to give you the £6bn we promised. But we'll repair some potholes and give you a new bus". Not likely to go down well.
Surely, surely you can see how badly this is going down?
Voters in redwall Greater Manchester seats do NOT live in Manchester city itself and rarely go on the train to London.
They would much rather have new buses and potholes repaired than HS2
*bangs head against brick wall*
Really? "£6bn of rail investment in GM? Or repair some potholes?" "We're just simple people here, the pothole option seems much more up our street."
What voters in redwall Greater Manchester want is what they were promised - i.e. levelling up - i.e. finally, some of the money that was always spent in London being spent in Greater Manchester. Because that brings about jobs and investment and growth. WHICH IS THE POINT OF HS2.
Now, a secret: more even than HS2, we'd like NPR. That does even more: more access to jobs, more relief of suburban routes, more connectivity, more investement. But the middle section of NPR is delivered by HS2: we can't do NPR until HS2 Phase 2b puts in place the Manchester Airport to Manchester section, plus the high speed stations at Manchesters Piccadilly and Airport.
(In fact, ALL of Phase 2b technically supports NPR, because there are two proposed NPR services an hour running Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham. But weirdly no-one really talks about them.)
Voters in redwall seats hardly ever go to London. Why would they therefore want a faster rail ink from Manchester city centre to London they would hardly ever use which could be used for bus routes they would use or repairing potholes in their area?
Better bus routes is more levelling up for them and the working class Leave voters and pensioners than posh Remain voting commuters and students getting a faster commute to and from London.
Even adding NPR routes to Leeds and Bradford wouldn't benefit them much either compared to better bus routes and local roads
Why would they want a faster rail link from Manchester to London? Well, as I keep saying, because it would bring investment and jobs to Greater Manchester far in excess of what improvements to bus services would bring.
Levelling up is not sitting and wondering why all the investment continues to go to the south east.
If Turin and Lyon can be linked via a 57km tunnel, why can't we also have a Pennine Base Tunnel? A star shaped layout between Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.
Just sink the whole sodding thing below ground and avoid the planning nightmares.
Note that it seems to be costing about 1/4 of HS2...
65 miles of HS2 tunnel for the south. You'd want at least the same for the north.
If Levelling Up is a thing - and you accept that connectivity is greater in the south east than in the north - you need to be spending more on connectivity in the north than in the south (assuming your investments are sensible - but really, so onerous is the process of getting investment in transport that generally, they are). However, since Levelling Up was announced as a policy, the reverse has been true. The gap is therefore widening.
Tis is why HS2 was such a stupid project when it came to levelling up. What we wnat is inversment 'in' the North not investment 'to' the North. There are so many ways in which the transport and communications systems could be transformed north of the Trent but which have been sacrificed on the altar of the HS2 white elephant.
If SUnak had had any sense (he doesn't of course) he would have done some proper planning for this over the last year or so and come to this point able to say HS2 from Birmingham north - both to Manchester and Leeds - was going to cost (for example) £100 billion. So to prove our commitment to the North here are a seies of projects IN the north which we will commit to and which will cost, in total, £100 billion.
You could do a hell of a lot for transport and communications within the north of England with £100 billion.
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester. I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands. Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
Indeed. My argument is not against spending the money. I absolutely get the argument about capital expenditure. My argument is that there have always been so many other, somewhat less glamerous but much needed projects on which this money could be spent which would actually do far more to improve the economy of the Midlands and North. This was the case when it was going to cost £56 billion and is even more the case now they are mooting an overall cost of £180 billion.
It’s completely reasonable to say that we should have done a laundry list of other things before HS2 & HS2 may not be the most effective thing to have spent a pile of £ on. But spending a pile of £ on half of HS2 and then killing it off, making the whole thing almost pointless: that takes a really determined insistence on wasting money
As I know absolutely nothing about HS2, in terms of work that has already been done which will now be redundant, are there parts or works that can be repurposed.
For example if there is a huge swathe of countryside that’s been cleared of trees and houses in preparation for the new tracks is it possible, desirable or useful to put in a dual carriageway along that length to increase road capacity?
If there are areas where a road is of no use or desire ability could these spaces be used to put in sympathetic housing developments where suitable?
Obviously not all areas can be adapted but it would be interesting to hear from those who know or live near these spaces if there is something useful that can be done with them at less cost than continuing with HS2 but beneficial to the area.
Last 8 greater manchester tory seats gone I reckon.
I doubt most of the redwall Gter Manchester seats are bothered either way by HS2, they want inflation down further and better bus routes and local train stations not a quicker journey to London which they rarely go to anyway
My point is it is two fingers to people from Manchester by Sunak. Doesn't matter whether it is HS2 or whatever. It is London elite telling the north that they are happy to spend billions on a high speed line out of london but manchester can go and do one.
The Tories have a seat in Birmingham, the Tories have 0 seats in Manchester
No seats in the City of Manchester, but, what, nine in Greater Manchester? Many won on the premise of Levelling Up. "Sorry Greater Manchester, we spent all our money on transport schemes in the south so can't afford to give you the £6bn we promised. But we'll repair some potholes and give you a new bus". Not likely to go down well.
Surely, surely you can see how badly this is going down?
Voters in redwall Greater Manchester seats do NOT live in Manchester city itself and rarely go on the train to London.
They would much rather have new buses and potholes repaired than HS2
*bangs head against brick wall*
Really? "£6bn of rail investment in GM? Or repair some potholes?" "We're just simple people here, the pothole option seems much more up our street."
What voters in redwall Greater Manchester want is what they were promised - i.e. levelling up - i.e. finally, some of the money that was always spent in London being spent in Greater Manchester. Because that brings about jobs and investment and growth. WHICH IS THE POINT OF HS2.
Now, a secret: more even than HS2, we'd like NPR. That does even more: more access to jobs, more relief of suburban routes, more connectivity, more investement. But the middle section of NPR is delivered by HS2: we can't do NPR until HS2 Phase 2b puts in place the Manchester Airport to Manchester section, plus the high speed stations at Manchesters Piccadilly and Airport.
(In fact, ALL of Phase 2b technically supports NPR, because there are two proposed NPR services an hour running Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham. But weirdly no-one really talks about them.)
Voters in redwall seats hardly ever go to London. Why would they therefore want a faster rail ink from Manchester city centre to London they would hardly ever use which could be used for bus routes they would use or repairing potholes in their area?
Better bus routes is more levelling up for them and the working class Leave voters and pensioners than posh Remain voting commuters and students getting a faster commute to and from London.
Even adding NPR routes to Leeds and Bradford wouldn't benefit them much either compared to better bus routes and local roads
Why would they want a faster rail link from Manchester to London? Well, as I keep saying, because it would bring investment and jobs to Greater Manchester far in excess of what improvements to bus services would bring.
Levelling up is not sitting and wondering why all the investment continues to go to the south east.
If Turin and Lyon can be linked via a 57km tunnel, why can't we also have a Pennine Base Tunnel? A star shaped layout between Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.
Just sink the whole sodding thing below ground and avoid the planning nightmares.
Note that it seems to be costing about 1/4 of HS2...
65 miles of HS2 tunnel for the south. You'd want at least the same for the north.
If Levelling Up is a thing - and you accept that connectivity is greater in the south east than in the north - you need to be spending more on connectivity in the north than in the south (assuming your investments are sensible - but really, so onerous is the process of getting investment in transport that generally, they are). However, since Levelling Up was announced as a policy, the reverse has been true. The gap is therefore widening.
Tis is why HS2 was such a stupid project when it came to levelling up. What we wnat is inversment 'in' the North not investment 'to' the North. There are so many ways in which the transport and communications systems could be transformed north of the Trent but which have been sacrificed on the altar of the HS2 white elephant.
If SUnak had had any sense (he doesn't of course) he would have done some proper planning for this over the last year or so and come to this point able to say HS2 from Birmingham north - both to Manchester and Leeds - was going to cost (for example) £100 billion. So to prove our commitment to the North here are a seies of projects IN the north which we will commit to and which will cost, in total, £100 billion.
You could do a hell of a lot for transport and communications within the north of England with £100 billion.
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester. I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands. Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
Indeed. My argument is not against spending the money. I absolutely get the argument about capital expenditure. My argument is that there have always been so many other, somewhat less glamerous but much needed projects on which this money could be spent which would actually do far more to improve the economy of the Midlands and North. This was the case when it was going to cost £56 billion and is even more the case now they are mooting an overall cost of £180 billion.
It’s completely reasonable to say that we should have done a laundry list of other things before HS2 & HS2 may not be the most effective thing to have spent a pile of £ on. But spending a pile of £ on half of HS2 and then killing it off, making the whole thing almost pointless: that takes a really determined insistence on wasting money
As I know absolutely nothing about HS2, in terms of work that has already been done which will now be redundant, are there parts or works that can be repurposed.
For example if there is a huge swathe of countryside that’s been cleared of trees and houses in preparation for the new tracks is it possible, desirable or useful to put in a dual carriageway along that length to increase road capacity?
If there are areas where a road is of no use or desire ability could these spaces be used to put in sympathetic housing developments where suitable?
Obviously not all areas can be adapted but it would be interesting to hear from those who know or live near these spaces if there is something useful that can be done with them at less cost than continuing with HS2 but beneficial to the area.
Best to leave fallow for a railway. That's what it was designed for and it will be needed for that. Make it into a cycle way temporarily.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
Good luck finding a contractor prepared to take on a fixed-price EPC contract for a major project these days.
I don't know what the form of contract was for Heathrow terminal 5, but apparently that was completed on time and on budget. Could not that be repeated?
Same with the Queensferry Crossing (2nd Forth Road Bridge), some weather aside. I think that was fixed price.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
I’ve read that “Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.” was one of the things that massively drove up the cost of the first half of HS2 from London -> Birmingham.
The Treasury insisted on the contractors shouldering all the risk, a potentially unlimited liability no public company would ever want to carry on their books. So the bidding contractors bought insurance on the open market to cover them for the long term liability & loaded that cost onto the bids, driving up the cost significantly. It would have been much cheaper for the government to bear the longer term risks of having to rebuild any bits of the line that did fail.
They reversed this approach for the contracts for the Birmingham<->Manchester stretch, but by then it was too late - the first half was already ludicrously expensive.
Otherwise, I agree with most of your points.
iirc thanks to the liability thing they also allocating fortunes in costs on 'over engineering' stuff like cuttings and bridges so they are at safety levels etc way about what is needed in reality.
It might be. It also creates a challenge for Labour. They basically have three options.
1. Commit to reverse the decision. In which case they're then committing to cutting all the extra spending/reversing all the tax cuts, that Sunak will promise the saved money will be used for.
2. Commit to reinstate HS2, without reversing the extra spending/tax cuts, in which case they can be attacked for extra borrowing or plans to increase taxes.
3. Do nothing. In which case, what is the point of them?
It's small beans compared to the hole the Tories have dug for themselves. They've spent thirteen years spending money on HS2, and *now* they're deciding to bin it?
HS2 is one off capital expenditure -how does that allow a tax cut beyond a very small one from the £x00m "in borrowing costs" saved
I'm getting to the point where all the Treasury needs to go on a basic finance course -
This is capital expenditure
This is ongoing monthly / annual income and expenditure.
Agreed. The savings should be redirected to other - far more needed - projects in the North. Maintain the capital spend but do something more useful with it.
HS3 is a large chunk of the cost of HS2 though. I guess they could reinstate the Picadilly expansion, which is (I believe) sorely needed but was cancelled in May.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
Number of people in work per mile of road, England:
East Midlands 101 East of England 104 London 407 North East 96 North West 126 South East 127 South West 74 West Midlands 110 Yorkshire and The Humber 109
Even more stark with Motorways. I think the NE might have an argument for some upgrades, but the north is hardly a road-less wilderness. Workers per mile of motorway:
East Midlands 15,747 East of England 15,260 London 99,943 North East 26,945 North West 7,054 South East 9,288 South West 11,222 West Midlands 8,193 Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
The full dualling of the A1 is the probably the most obvious road project in England. But the decision keeps being delayed. What more is there to look at !
The only bit that is not dualled is the section in Northumbria and round the corner to Edinburgh.
To Dunbar; it's *now* dual thereafter to Edinburgh.
TBH the A120 now carries a lot of traffic for Harwich and it’s not dualled between Braintree and the A12. It’s getting more and more dangerous.
Just a shame they didn't sort out the rail electrification gaps en route to Felixstowe. ISTR the freight chappies have been howling about this for years for their container cargoes to the distribution centres - ideal for trains.
HS2 is being announced now, early this morning, so it clears the airwaves for other stuff when Sunak makes his speech later today.
So something is coming.
Free chess set for every house?
We've already had a preview.
...We’ve already had a sneak preview of some of the things Rishi Sunak will say in his speech later, and in it he’ll reflect on his first year as prime minister.
He will say that “politics doesn’t work the way it should”, before setting out how he wants to change the way our political system works and end the 30-year political status quo.
“We’ve had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one” he will tell the Conservative Party Conference.
“Our political system is too focused on short term advantage, not long-term success. Our mission is to fundamentally change our country.”..
Sorry HS2 and NPR built in full is the right long term decision - the easy political decision to save a few quid now is to cancel HS2 because if you don't understand the difference between day to day expenditure and one off investment spending it looks like it provides a few pounds to be spent elsewhere.
A few quid? This is a railway costing in the ball park of £500m per mile. A cost of £100,000 PER FOOT. Even one millimetre of HS2 is costing very roughly £3,000. Offer each one of say 80 UK cities and towns the choice of £500m of public investment directly in their area compared to the continuation of HS2 to Manchester. What do you think their choice would be?
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
There should be an independent enquiry to examine the reasons that public capital expenditure projects are so expensive and get them reduced. For starters, no changes after orders are placed, fixed price contracts, no civil service or politician interference once orders are placed. Make the contractor take the risk, not the taxpayer.
Good luck finding a contractor prepared to take on a fixed-price EPC contract for a major project these days.
I don't know what the form of contract was for Heathrow terminal 5, but apparently that was completed on time and on budget. Could not that be repeated?
Same with the Queensferry Crossing (2nd Forth Road Bridge), some weather aside. I think that was fixed price.
Ditto the recent A14 upgrade between the A1 and Cambridge. That actually opened (in part) six months early, despite Covid.
Penny Mordaunt claiming Labour will take the nation back to the disaster of the 1980s. I know it is claimed she is lazy, but a quick Google would have enlightened her as to who was in government for that entire decade.
Penny Mordaunt claiming Labour will take the nation back to the disaster of the 1980s. I know it is claimed she is lazy, but a quick Google would have enlightened her as to who was in government for that entire decade.
Perhaps Maggie is regarded as a consocialist these days.
Comments
This is not only a sensible response it is also a typical politicians cop out. Handy when by chance the sensible response also coincides with the politicians response. That coincidence doesn't happen often enough sadly.
As for the Channel Tunnel...
I don't think you've realised but you've just said the Tory party only has core votes left and is now desperately trying to keep even those.
While trashing our international reputation for vague Governing Competency.
And if there is a loon on the ballot, as you say, the loon wins.
If you can handwave “The conservative party saved £Xbillion by cutting HS2, Labour wants to put your taxes up to pay for it” then it could work. Mix in a little “that money could be spent on the NHS instead” (Cummings absolutely favourite line - he’s used it in every UK campaign he’s ever been anywhere near) and you could see how they might think this approach could work for them.
The trouble is, that all relies on said low information voter forgetting all the times the Conservative made these kind of promises in the recent past. Sunak is hoping to sell himself as a ““change candidate” in opposition to the last 13 years of Conservative government in order to square that particular circle.
I can’t see it working myself, but maybe? With the press behind him & a really effective social media campaign it could work? Personally I think it will crash and burn; the people are fed up with the Cons & just aren’t in the mood to listen in the first place, which is a problem if your entire strategy relies on getting your “change” message across to them.
Good little header.
That was a short break !
Of course, I know this won't happen. But it's a nice dream.
And before some wag comes in and quotes Brecht at me: yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It would
be simpler for the [party]
To dissolve the [membership]
And elect another
BBC News - Shiney Row: Man dies after attack by American bully XL
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67004053
Owning an XL Bully should be treated like owning a firearm without a license.
Railways are highly interconnected systems and the WCML is like a congested funnel. The main capacity constraint is coming out of London. So if you did this you'd either have an extremely expensive and overspecced high speed shuttle from Manchester to Birmingham, where those same trains would have to trickle onto the existing network, already at/near capacity, and run very slowly, or people would have to change trains to go further on the conventional network. The alternative would be to down spec it but then it wouldn't be big enough to take the frequency/size of trains desired once the southern route was complete and all the trains decanted onto the full high speed line across the whole route.
It's logical to build it in the sequence they have, even if politically it doesn't look ideal.
If you are a true Tory, like Andrew Boff, you should be arguing against this BNP- not so lite with your every breath, in order to reclaim your one nation party.
Otherwise - more roads further north to try and buy off the blue wall?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/xl-bully-attack-greenwich-boy-20-months-rushed-to-hospital/?fbclid=IwAR09PYEopOy2gxppC7h6bIysjl5B76WwQoHbQMyVCpW_Sn3jIKKDj7IbZLM
It'd be like me bigging up Kate Hoey.
Ban them now.
So the question is, with the shrunken HS2, which services will actually use it, and which will just stick with the existing routes? I'm assuming that this has been thought through, but with this shower of shite in charge, who knows?
Of course, in the post-Covid WFH, flexi-working world, do we still need this extra capacity?
Agree.
Our dog is as daft as they come. Over the top affectionate, very bright and knows lots of commands. A Sproodle, Springer/Poodle cross. However the other day he found a deer skull and spine and the commands went out of the window and he was difficult to call to heel as he didn't want to give up his prize.
At 14 kg and a dog who only wants to play he is of little threat to anyone and could easily be overpowered if for some bizarre reason anything did happen, but I still wouldn't leave him with a baby and we are very cautious around frail people in case he jumps up at them even in joy.
An XL is a threat to everyone, including the owner at anytime.
East Midlands 101
East of England 104
London 407
North East 96
North West 126
South East 127
South West 74
West Midlands 110
Yorkshire and The Humber 109
We need both. And we should deliver a 3rd runway for Heathrow too - urgently.
So far and the numbers could change but it’s currently 83% for more of the same , 12% think he represents change .
And thats with reduced services on many lines..
East Midlands 15,747
East of England 15,260
London 99,943
North East 26,945
North West 7,054
South East 9,288
South West 11,222
West Midlands 8,193
Yorkshire and The Humber 7,634
Kate Hoey never really fitted into any iteration of Labour, New or radical. In her more enlightened moments she would have been a better fit for the UUP, in her least, a radical DUPer.
That cost was original in CrossRail 2's budget but with that delayed / cancelled the cost is now in HS2's budget because it's still required.
Andy Street lobbied to save Birmingham–Manchester and failed.
"Levelling Up"?
“Jobs at risk as new train orders hit the buffers.
Britain’s four rolling stock companies are set to be left with little or no work by the end of next year because of the government’s failure to order any new main line trains for almost four years.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jobs-at-risk-as-new-train-orders-hit-the-buffers-vb6r0czpb
An entirely trivial but colourful little moment just now here.
On a morning of a big speech from the prime minister, and a briefing for senior ministers beforehand, a cabinet minister hurtles into the breakfast room of the Midland Hotel.
On her plate? An eclectic selection: A fried egg, two slices of pineapple and a hash brown.
Thirty seconds later, they're all gone - and so was the minister.
......
I wonder what Mr Eagles would make of that!
Preferably without traffic lights on the main carriageway as we had at one point during the summer (Went bridge repair).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvSmwMqtylA
@Richard_Tyndall - while I'm an enthusiastic backer of HS2, if you offered the Midlands and North £100 billion (I don't know if you picked that number out of thin air, but the cost envelope cited in the IRP for the North and Midlands is £96 billion, so well done if you did) ON TOP OF the other funding we would hope to receive (roads, buses, CRSTS etc), I would happily take it. Divvied up by population, that would work out at about £6bn for Greater Manchester.
I want HS2 not because it is absolutely the best use of £96 billion for the North and Midlands (though I think it comes reasonably high up the list) but because it's a shot at getting any substantial investment at all in the North and Midlands.
Investment > connectivity > growth. Would we get more growth if we spent the money on a Central Manchester underground (along with a Leeds tram, a new single underground station in Bradford, whatever Sheffield wants, etc)? Maybe. Maybe not. But either would be a far, far better option that a fart in a jar for buses and potholes.
A bit of wishcasting from me!
What is being missed from the entire HS2 debate is the just sheer enormous cost of the damn thing. If the costs were remotely sensible you could have a valid discussion about whether the business case stood up in terms of costs relative to the various claimed benefits, whether those claimed benefits are tangible and can be relied on in the longer term (eg. shift away from long distance travel to business meetings) and whether those benefits should in any case be top of the priorities pile for a constrained amount of government investment (eg. alternative transport investment, alternative public investment in say affordable housing.) But the costs are now simply mind boggling and should shut any debate down before it's even started.
Secondly, this 'running alongside an existing motorway' is not as cheap, or as good an idea, as it seems, for many reasons. Lots of motorways have developments around or near them, which means the corridor is unprotected. Road alignments are designed for a maximum of 70MPH, whilst anything travelling at speed needs more gentle curves. Then there are the road junctions, which can really complicate matters.
I believe this is planned but whether it will be finished is another question...
Though having a proper link between Newcastle and Edinburgh would seem sane. I do go that way sometimes when bored or when it is snowing (stopping off at Lindisfarne just because).
He made it clear in his interviews yesterday that he had not yet decided.
And the blame for this lies firmly on the DfT, whose dead hand (also partly aided by the treasury) has zero long-term planning.
The Treasury insisted on the contractors shouldering all the risk, a potentially unlimited liability no public company would ever want to carry on their books. So the bidding contractors bought insurance on the open market to cover them for the long term liability & loaded that cost onto the bids, driving up the cost significantly. It would have been much cheaper for the government to bear the longer term risks of having to rebuild any bits of the line that did fail.
They reversed this approach for the contracts for the Birmingham<->Manchester stretch, but by then it was too late - the first half was already ludicrously expensive.
Otherwise, I agree with most of your points.
"A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling
The A1 is one of the country's longest roads, connecting London and Edinburgh. The route currently consists of motorway and dual carriageways, with some sections of single carriageway between Morpeth and Ellingham.
Start date TBC
End date TBC
Cost TBC"
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/yorkshire-and-north-east/a1-morpeth-to-ellingham-dualling/
Helicopter booked for 12.30, back in Downing Street for a late lunch at 13.45.
This used to take me about 8 hours but these days it is nearer 10 because the A1 and A66 are so busy.
The alternative over the top via Jedburgh is abot the same time but more prone to lorry/tractor delays.
It would take half a decade, cost £100m, and produce nothing useful.
My wild outside bet is Clare Coutinho
It’s getting more and more dangerous.
..and Sunak is going to try it. 😂
For example if there is a huge swathe of countryside that’s been cleared of trees and houses in preparation for the new tracks is it possible, desirable or useful to put in a dual carriageway along that length to increase road capacity?
If there are areas where a road is of no use or desire ability could these spaces be used to put in sympathetic housing developments where suitable?
Obviously not all areas can be adapted but it would be interesting to hear from those who know or live near these spaces if there is something useful that can be done with them at less cost than continuing with HS2 but beneficial to the area.
I’m still not sure though whether those HS2 savings which were under capital spending can just be shifted to day to day spending .